Deductive, My Dear Watson
28/02/11 13:32 Filed in: Human Nature
Have you heard of the robot that beat the best Jeopardy player? You know, scientists are getting closer and closer to making thinking computers -- turning robots into humans. It’s all over the news, in the movies, in the science-fiction. Robots that can think, interact in the world, do everything we can do -- well, soon, anyway. In the next fifty years.
Yet, robots, no matter how advanced they get, will be unable really to do what human beings do. Stanley Fish summarizes some of the argument from the philosopher Hubert reyfus on this point:
What computers can’t do, we don’t have to do because the worlds we live in are already built; we don’t walk around putting discrete items together until they add up to a context; we walk around with a contextual sense — a sense of where we are and what’s at stake and what our resources are — already in place; we inhabit worldly spaces already organized by purposes, projects and expectations. The computer inhabits nothing and has no purposes and because it has no purposes it cannot alter its present (wholly predetermined) “behavior” when it fails to advance the purposes it doesn’t have. When as human beings we determine that “the data coming in make no sense” relative to what we want to do, we can, Dreyfus explains “try a new total hypothesis,” begin afresh. A computer, in contrast, “could at best be programmed to try out a series of hypotheses to see which best fit the fixed data.”
Human beings are born - thrust - into a world, but, more important, we come already experiencing the world. That experience is shaped by our drives, our interests, all the many things that go into shaping the kind of persons we are and the sort of motives that we have. We have context.
Context entails, as Dreyfus explains in his book What Computers Still Can’t Do, and what Fish gets at in his article, meaning and intention which are responsive to the changes in the context and in our understanding of the context. If I walk into my dark house and someone jumps out at me, my reaction depends on my context. Is it my birthday or am I a retired spy? Functioning without context leaves us seeking the context. Think of any movie you’ve watched with a plot-twist. The protagonist has one context in mind or mat be seeking the context for what happened -- The Bourne Identity is an example of the latter kind of film -- and then he finally settles on the right interpretation to make all the pieces fall into place.
Computers lack context partly because they lack drives, partly because they lack purpose, partly because they lack biology. All of these things are central to being human -- or being animal. What computers can show us is how important our animal nature is to our free will and the meaning of our lives.
Yet, robots, no matter how advanced they get, will be unable really to do what human beings do. Stanley Fish summarizes some of the argument from the philosopher Hubert reyfus on this point:
What computers can’t do, we don’t have to do because the worlds we live in are already built; we don’t walk around putting discrete items together until they add up to a context; we walk around with a contextual sense — a sense of where we are and what’s at stake and what our resources are — already in place; we inhabit worldly spaces already organized by purposes, projects and expectations. The computer inhabits nothing and has no purposes and because it has no purposes it cannot alter its present (wholly predetermined) “behavior” when it fails to advance the purposes it doesn’t have. When as human beings we determine that “the data coming in make no sense” relative to what we want to do, we can, Dreyfus explains “try a new total hypothesis,” begin afresh. A computer, in contrast, “could at best be programmed to try out a series of hypotheses to see which best fit the fixed data.”
Human beings are born - thrust - into a world, but, more important, we come already experiencing the world. That experience is shaped by our drives, our interests, all the many things that go into shaping the kind of persons we are and the sort of motives that we have. We have context.
Context entails, as Dreyfus explains in his book What Computers Still Can’t Do, and what Fish gets at in his article, meaning and intention which are responsive to the changes in the context and in our understanding of the context. If I walk into my dark house and someone jumps out at me, my reaction depends on my context. Is it my birthday or am I a retired spy? Functioning without context leaves us seeking the context. Think of any movie you’ve watched with a plot-twist. The protagonist has one context in mind or mat be seeking the context for what happened -- The Bourne Identity is an example of the latter kind of film -- and then he finally settles on the right interpretation to make all the pieces fall into place.
Computers lack context partly because they lack drives, partly because they lack purpose, partly because they lack biology. All of these things are central to being human -- or being animal. What computers can show us is how important our animal nature is to our free will and the meaning of our lives.
Comments
Catholics and Unions
25/02/11 10:03 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching
News reports today note that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops supports the people protesting for rights to unionization and collective bargaining in Wisconsin and throughout the United States. It is right for them to do so.
While Catholic Social Teaching is Catholicism’s Best Kept Secret, it remains part of canon law. Many might not know this, but the encyclicals of the popes comprise canon law and should be followed by honest and faithful Catholics.
This means, of course, that every Catholic in Wisconsin and throughout the United States who does not stand up with the protestors, who do not march against those who would violate these rights to unionization the same way they march to protect human life from birth to death, are violating Catholic teaching, are, in fact, sinning.
Please pray for and stand with those who fight for human rights to unionization.
While Catholic Social Teaching is Catholicism’s Best Kept Secret, it remains part of canon law. Many might not know this, but the encyclicals of the popes comprise canon law and should be followed by honest and faithful Catholics.
This means, of course, that every Catholic in Wisconsin and throughout the United States who does not stand up with the protestors, who do not march against those who would violate these rights to unionization the same way they march to protect human life from birth to death, are violating Catholic teaching, are, in fact, sinning.
Please pray for and stand with those who fight for human rights to unionization.
How government operates
25/02/11 09:52 Filed in: social justice
Protestors still stand firm in Wisconsin against a bill that would gut public employees of their ability to bargain collectively. Elsewhere across the United States, we see similar protests in similar circumstances. The fight over public employee unions continues. Meanwhile, President Obama meets to help figure out a way to grow business with business leaders. And people like the Koch brothers, among others, are reported to have the ear of Governor Walker and similar governors across the state.
The battle over public employee unions is important. It’s important as a measure to limit the power of corporations and state bureaucracies that back those corporations throughout the US. In the end, however, such battles are masks, covering over what the real discussion should be in this country.
How should politics be conducted? What is politics? What is the purpose of government?
The United States operates under the ideals of classical liberalism that bother Republicans and Democrats accept: people must be protected from the incursions of the government and free to do whatever they so desire. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is the manner of trying to protect people. Neither group, however, questions the individualism that underlies classical liberalism or the view of the state or the view of how government works.
Alasdair MacIntyre has identified the modern state as a utility company. We expect certain things from the government in return for paying a certain amount of taxes. The only good it serves is that of the public good -- providing the means necessary for us to go about our lives buying the products we consumer every day.
Such an approach to government masks the practices we engage in every day where we come together to ask, What is the good of this community? This good is something more than public utilities -- it is the good of the chess club at the local library, which is not about providing a service but about teaching a way of doing things and a way of thinking about things.
We must begin to embrace this alternative and fuller ways of thinking about things in order to combat the oppressive colonization of our lives by corporate and bureaucratic interests. We cannot do this by backing off the unions. But while we stand there side by side supporting the unions, it might behoove us to ask, Why are we really here and how should government really work?
The battle over public employee unions is important. It’s important as a measure to limit the power of corporations and state bureaucracies that back those corporations throughout the US. In the end, however, such battles are masks, covering over what the real discussion should be in this country.
How should politics be conducted? What is politics? What is the purpose of government?
The United States operates under the ideals of classical liberalism that bother Republicans and Democrats accept: people must be protected from the incursions of the government and free to do whatever they so desire. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is the manner of trying to protect people. Neither group, however, questions the individualism that underlies classical liberalism or the view of the state or the view of how government works.
Alasdair MacIntyre has identified the modern state as a utility company. We expect certain things from the government in return for paying a certain amount of taxes. The only good it serves is that of the public good -- providing the means necessary for us to go about our lives buying the products we consumer every day.
Such an approach to government masks the practices we engage in every day where we come together to ask, What is the good of this community? This good is something more than public utilities -- it is the good of the chess club at the local library, which is not about providing a service but about teaching a way of doing things and a way of thinking about things.
We must begin to embrace this alternative and fuller ways of thinking about things in order to combat the oppressive colonization of our lives by corporate and bureaucratic interests. We cannot do this by backing off the unions. But while we stand there side by side supporting the unions, it might behoove us to ask, Why are we really here and how should government really work?
5 Rules for Education: Maybe
In an article for Time online, Rotherman offers five changes for fixing education which have nothing to do with collective bargaining. These five changes are
While some of these changes might be useful, none of them address real issues of practice and “quality.” (Quality is a funny word that deserves its own post at some point.)
When I speak of practice, I refer, first off, to that notion I’ve already discussed in this blog: a goal-oriented activity with goods that can only be gained from practicing the activity and whose practice extends human potentiality. Whether teaching is a practice I’ll leave to the side for the moment. What is clearly a practice are those things that teachers are responsible for training the young in:
Each of these activities have their own goals, whether that might be to produce something beautiful, or to learn more about biological life, for instance. Further, the practice of these activities entails goods that we cannot get otherwise: learning how to blow a flute to produce an “F#” or communicating one’s thoughts clearly in one’s own voice. Finally, by engaging in these practices, we extend our own potentials as human beings: we learn how to listen to music more carefully or learn to recognize quality of art, etc.
Yet, we see that many students, once they’ve graduated from high school cannot read, cannot write, know little of biology, or can’t even balance a checkbook. This is often -- and I want to be careful to emphasize this point -- this is often NOT the fault of teachers in over-crowded schools with the lack of resources, nor is it the fault of labor unions, or, more generally, of collective bargaining. Many things can change about education in America.
The first thing, though, if we really want to educate our children to lead fulfilling lives -- and by this I do not mean the lives of acquisition which is mere slavishness -- then we have to address our whole approach to education in this society. Having discussions about this is a first step, one which local communities can have regardless of what happens at the level of the nation, the state, or the union.
I would encourage everyone to begin this discussion sooner rather than later.
- Fixing tenure
- More evaluations of teachers
- Removing last in, first out rules to also include quality of teachers
- Inflexible salary schedules
- Getting rid of forced transfers and bumpings.
While some of these changes might be useful, none of them address real issues of practice and “quality.” (Quality is a funny word that deserves its own post at some point.)
When I speak of practice, I refer, first off, to that notion I’ve already discussed in this blog: a goal-oriented activity with goods that can only be gained from practicing the activity and whose practice extends human potentiality. Whether teaching is a practice I’ll leave to the side for the moment. What is clearly a practice are those things that teachers are responsible for training the young in:
- music
- art
- mathematics
- reading
- writing
- science
- sports
Each of these activities have their own goals, whether that might be to produce something beautiful, or to learn more about biological life, for instance. Further, the practice of these activities entails goods that we cannot get otherwise: learning how to blow a flute to produce an “F#” or communicating one’s thoughts clearly in one’s own voice. Finally, by engaging in these practices, we extend our own potentials as human beings: we learn how to listen to music more carefully or learn to recognize quality of art, etc.
Yet, we see that many students, once they’ve graduated from high school cannot read, cannot write, know little of biology, or can’t even balance a checkbook. This is often -- and I want to be careful to emphasize this point -- this is often NOT the fault of teachers in over-crowded schools with the lack of resources, nor is it the fault of labor unions, or, more generally, of collective bargaining. Many things can change about education in America.
The first thing, though, if we really want to educate our children to lead fulfilling lives -- and by this I do not mean the lives of acquisition which is mere slavishness -- then we have to address our whole approach to education in this society. Having discussions about this is a first step, one which local communities can have regardless of what happens at the level of the nation, the state, or the union.
I would encourage everyone to begin this discussion sooner rather than later.
Why Collective Bargaining is Bad
23/02/11 13:10 Filed in: social justice
Yuval Levin argues that Governor Walker’s “approach” against collective bargaining in Wisconsin is NOT an attack on collective bargaining. In fact, Levin suggests that public employees must do without collective bargaining for several reasons. These reasons are
Notice first, that what Levin’s argument does is pit public sector employees against private sector employees. This move is one I’ve warned against and argued against several times through my blog. The only way forward is, how do we unite to represent our interests and determine the common good? Our primary objective must be resistance of all moves by politicians, corporate elites, socialist dogmatists, and unwitting media elites that divide people from each other.
Second, let’s look at the last point just briefly, however: bargaining behind closed doors. This symptom portends, not just to public employee unions, but more particularly to the way government in the United States works. If we want to attack this one issue, then we should attack it head on at all levels of governments. One need not remove collective bargaining to open up the doors and let some fresh light onto what government officials do. Let’s open up the secret hearings of various committees in Washington. Let’s open up the negotiations between the president and the leaders of the two parties. None of this, though, requires a challenge to or denial of collective bargaining. And, in fact, no one complains that the employers and employees at Walmart bargain behind closed doors… Oh, wait, maybe that’s because there is no collective bargaining for Walmart or most private sector employees.
Which returns me to the first four points.
If we look at these claims, however, they show that curtailing public unions proves, not beneficial for the public, but beneficial only for corporations and the state. Most of these point – protections for work, exercise of political power, choosing one’s boss, influence of elected officials because we can actually meet with them – are those necessary to protect the dignity of any worker. These are exactly the sorts of things that unions are supposed to provide for their members.
Public sector unions are the last stalwart of those protections that all employees – all workers – should enjoy. What we need to see in government is government paying more attention to its citizens rather than to “corporations.” What we need is to see every day citizens exercise political power equal to, if not greater than, that of corporations, corporations who are supporting, for instance, Governor Walker’s attack on public unions. What we need to see is real choice of American citizens of their bosses, rather than being presented with pre-packaged, corporate-cleansed “options” between party Dee and party Dum.
Thus, we must reject Levin’s claim that “The notion that this involves an assault on some inalienable right to collective bargaining with the public is preposterous. Such collective bargaining is a privilege public workers have obtained by exercising their political muscle, and state officials around the country are right to try to roll it back to the extent they can.”
Unionizing is not a privilege. It is a right. We must repeat this: unionizing, including collective bargaining, is a right that people have – every person. We must repeat this to everyone, from writing the president and congress, to the governor, to your mom. It does not matter how public employees came to exercise this right, just like it does not matter how you and I cam to exercise the right to free speech or the right to due process. Why? Because we aren’t talking about political rights. We are talking about human rights – what no government should violate. And one of those fundamental rights, up there with the right to life, is the right to collective bargaining.
Unless we join with those in Wisconsin and say it over and over, then the Walkers and Levins of the world will take them away and make us just like China.
NB: Yuval depends for his information on an article by Daniel Desalvo in National Affairs. I will respond to this article separately.
- That public employees have lots of power without collective bargaining because they “are guarded by generous civil-service protections” that private sector employees do not have.
- When they organize, even without collective bargaining, they can exercise significant political power
- Which allows them to choose their bosses which private sector employees cannot do.
- And can improve their pay between elections by “influencing” elected officials because they have closer contact with them
- So that, public employees have collective bargaining they can make decisions behind closed-doors which should be made in public. This last is a problem for our democracy because it keeps something private that should be public.
Notice first, that what Levin’s argument does is pit public sector employees against private sector employees. This move is one I’ve warned against and argued against several times through my blog. The only way forward is, how do we unite to represent our interests and determine the common good? Our primary objective must be resistance of all moves by politicians, corporate elites, socialist dogmatists, and unwitting media elites that divide people from each other.
Second, let’s look at the last point just briefly, however: bargaining behind closed doors. This symptom portends, not just to public employee unions, but more particularly to the way government in the United States works. If we want to attack this one issue, then we should attack it head on at all levels of governments. One need not remove collective bargaining to open up the doors and let some fresh light onto what government officials do. Let’s open up the secret hearings of various committees in Washington. Let’s open up the negotiations between the president and the leaders of the two parties. None of this, though, requires a challenge to or denial of collective bargaining. And, in fact, no one complains that the employers and employees at Walmart bargain behind closed doors… Oh, wait, maybe that’s because there is no collective bargaining for Walmart or most private sector employees.
Which returns me to the first four points.
If we look at these claims, however, they show that curtailing public unions proves, not beneficial for the public, but beneficial only for corporations and the state. Most of these point – protections for work, exercise of political power, choosing one’s boss, influence of elected officials because we can actually meet with them – are those necessary to protect the dignity of any worker. These are exactly the sorts of things that unions are supposed to provide for their members.
Public sector unions are the last stalwart of those protections that all employees – all workers – should enjoy. What we need to see in government is government paying more attention to its citizens rather than to “corporations.” What we need is to see every day citizens exercise political power equal to, if not greater than, that of corporations, corporations who are supporting, for instance, Governor Walker’s attack on public unions. What we need to see is real choice of American citizens of their bosses, rather than being presented with pre-packaged, corporate-cleansed “options” between party Dee and party Dum.
Thus, we must reject Levin’s claim that “The notion that this involves an assault on some inalienable right to collective bargaining with the public is preposterous. Such collective bargaining is a privilege public workers have obtained by exercising their political muscle, and state officials around the country are right to try to roll it back to the extent they can.”
Unionizing is not a privilege. It is a right. We must repeat this: unionizing, including collective bargaining, is a right that people have – every person. We must repeat this to everyone, from writing the president and congress, to the governor, to your mom. It does not matter how public employees came to exercise this right, just like it does not matter how you and I cam to exercise the right to free speech or the right to due process. Why? Because we aren’t talking about political rights. We are talking about human rights – what no government should violate. And one of those fundamental rights, up there with the right to life, is the right to collective bargaining.
Unless we join with those in Wisconsin and say it over and over, then the Walkers and Levins of the world will take them away and make us just like China.
NB: Yuval depends for his information on an article by Daniel Desalvo in National Affairs. I will respond to this article separately.
Collective Bargaining is Only the Beginning
22/02/11 13:09 Filed in: social justice
Sadly, the right-wing policies of the Republican governor in Wisconsin are only slightly more anti-worker than the Democratic governors in California, New York, Washington, Oregon, and elsewhere, who are dumping state deficits onto the backs of state workers and those who benefit from their services.
This is one of many excellent points that Shamus Cooke makes in his article on Buzzflash. As I’ve been arguing, the discussion in Wisconsin is not simply about collective bargaining. In fact, it is part of a class warfare waged by the rich on the poor. Further, I’ve made clear that democracy entails local decisions by local people, not decisions by representatives willing to give away everything to bow to the corporation. Corporations and governments in the United States, as elsewhere, work hand in hand to limit education, to limit unionizing, to limit real decision-making by the people for the people in order to maintain their own positions within a system they either do not want to or cannot question. Corporations on the one hand and state bureaucracies on the other collaborate, often intentionally but sometimes not, on reducing the agency of individual human persons and reducing the possibility for self-realization.
Such eudaimonaic potential rests in our collective hands. Yet, as Cooke makes clear, insofar as workers are willing to take the economic cuts proposed by the governor and the republicans, they fall into the hands of the corporations and the state. They remain dependent, as it were, on the state for their “public goods,” which are usually neither good nor very public, and subservient to the corporations who might take jobs away.
One questions we can ask is, What good would come about if corporations leave the state?
We focus so often on the negative: we’ll lose jobs, we’ll lose the community, we’ll lose our livelihoods. Perhaps, more importantly, we’ll lose our comfort zone.
But the real question remains, What can we make of the situation with our left with if the corporations actually leave us alone? What possibilities for local markets emerge? What opportunities for local businesses arise? What real chance for democracy fruitions?
These questions are the sorts of questions that communities focused on pursuing the common good must ask if the individuals in that community are to reach their true potential. It’s up to us to ask them.
This is one of many excellent points that Shamus Cooke makes in his article on Buzzflash. As I’ve been arguing, the discussion in Wisconsin is not simply about collective bargaining. In fact, it is part of a class warfare waged by the rich on the poor. Further, I’ve made clear that democracy entails local decisions by local people, not decisions by representatives willing to give away everything to bow to the corporation. Corporations and governments in the United States, as elsewhere, work hand in hand to limit education, to limit unionizing, to limit real decision-making by the people for the people in order to maintain their own positions within a system they either do not want to or cannot question. Corporations on the one hand and state bureaucracies on the other collaborate, often intentionally but sometimes not, on reducing the agency of individual human persons and reducing the possibility for self-realization.
Such eudaimonaic potential rests in our collective hands. Yet, as Cooke makes clear, insofar as workers are willing to take the economic cuts proposed by the governor and the republicans, they fall into the hands of the corporations and the state. They remain dependent, as it were, on the state for their “public goods,” which are usually neither good nor very public, and subservient to the corporations who might take jobs away.
One questions we can ask is, What good would come about if corporations leave the state?
We focus so often on the negative: we’ll lose jobs, we’ll lose the community, we’ll lose our livelihoods. Perhaps, more importantly, we’ll lose our comfort zone.
But the real question remains, What can we make of the situation with our left with if the corporations actually leave us alone? What possibilities for local markets emerge? What opportunities for local businesses arise? What real chance for democracy fruitions?
These questions are the sorts of questions that communities focused on pursuing the common good must ask if the individuals in that community are to reach their true potential. It’s up to us to ask them.
Wisconsin and Public Unions
21/02/11 13:29 Filed in: social justice | Catholic Social Teaching
With support from Mother Jones, Forbes notes that the Kock brothers are behind the attacks on public unions in Wisconsin, while simultaneously laying off 158 people from their paper mill, not for lack of demand, but because of better machinery.
Note, of course, that laying off so many people is easy to do when you don’t have a union protecting jobs. Note further that the Koch brothers help fund the Tea Party movement -- people upset about unemployment and blaming it on the government. This is a form of what George Orwell called double think: believing in two contradictory theses at the same time. The longer we continue to believe that jobs can be protected by getting rid of unions, the longer we continue to fall into the hands of those self-seeking individuals out only for profit. Note, also, that the Koch brothers are billionaires who fight against employee rights, environmental protection, and universal health care, supporting Republican and Tea Party candidates wherever they can. Clearly, this is a form of class warfare.
We must be careful, here, of course, because some of our own most sacred beliefs underlie what the Koch brothers are doing through Governor Walker in Wisconsin. Primarily these are beliefs in individualism and capitalism. Both of these are ideologies, by which I mean they are beliefs that essentially prevent human flourishing by exaggerating one aspect of human life at the expense of others. Yes, human beings are individual persons -- but we are individuals in society and cannot exist without society, as I’ve discussed. Yes, human beings have claims to property, but at the service of individual and community progress, not without limit. We must break from these ideologies if we are ever to move to a truly integrated society, like that called for by various popes in their social encyclicals, like that promoted by Alasdair MacIntyre, like that idealized by Aristotle.
Standing for unions is a step in the right directions. These unions must be focused on the development and protection of jobs in the local communities that support strong local markets -- what MacIntyre calls truly free markets.
Note, of course, that laying off so many people is easy to do when you don’t have a union protecting jobs. Note further that the Koch brothers help fund the Tea Party movement -- people upset about unemployment and blaming it on the government. This is a form of what George Orwell called double think: believing in two contradictory theses at the same time. The longer we continue to believe that jobs can be protected by getting rid of unions, the longer we continue to fall into the hands of those self-seeking individuals out only for profit. Note, also, that the Koch brothers are billionaires who fight against employee rights, environmental protection, and universal health care, supporting Republican and Tea Party candidates wherever they can. Clearly, this is a form of class warfare.
We must be careful, here, of course, because some of our own most sacred beliefs underlie what the Koch brothers are doing through Governor Walker in Wisconsin. Primarily these are beliefs in individualism and capitalism. Both of these are ideologies, by which I mean they are beliefs that essentially prevent human flourishing by exaggerating one aspect of human life at the expense of others. Yes, human beings are individual persons -- but we are individuals in society and cannot exist without society, as I’ve discussed. Yes, human beings have claims to property, but at the service of individual and community progress, not without limit. We must break from these ideologies if we are ever to move to a truly integrated society, like that called for by various popes in their social encyclicals, like that promoted by Alasdair MacIntyre, like that idealized by Aristotle.
Standing for unions is a step in the right directions. These unions must be focused on the development and protection of jobs in the local communities that support strong local markets -- what MacIntyre calls truly free markets.
March for Schools
21/02/11 13:22 Filed in: Education | social justice
Follow the link below to get information for marching to support schools.
http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/
http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/
Ain't That America: Wisconsin's Union Busting
17/02/11 13:08 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching | social justice
I’ve already reported on union busting in Ohio. Now, Fox News reports on a bill in Wisconsin that will, among other things, remove collective bargaining for state employees, including teachers. One can almost accept what one republican senator states:
Republican state Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald. "What this is is about the budget. We're $3.6 billion in the hole. We're not going to raise taxes to solve it. We all ran, you know, this last election cycle on saying that we are going to cut government spending. ... Everybody is going to have to do their part."
Except, closing a budget gap has nothing to do with removing collective bargaining rights. Removing collective bargaining rights, rights that both the United Nations, the United States, and Catholic Social Teaching demand, can only be seen as an attack on employees -- an attack on human beings as human beings.
In fact, TPM reports
Furthermore, this broadside comes less than a month after the state's fiscal bureau -- the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office -- concluded that Wisconsin isn't even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.
Here we have clear examples of how lawmakers (in this case, Republicans) are actively attacking workers in order to provide cuts for businesses. Moreover, Governor Walker has threatened the use of the national guard in case people protest the legislation. Once more, we see that America is no longer the dream of people who believed in democracy and hoped for a better future. It has fallen to fear-mongering and capitalistic interests.
The question becomes, will people in Wisconsin and in Ohio and throughout the United States march for their rights and for government that represents the people and not the corporation? Will we take inspiration from Tunisia and Egypt, from Yemen and Bahrain, or will we continue to let government and business walk all over us because capitalism is the best and because democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest?
True democracy means we all participate for the common good. What Wisconsin and Ohio lawmakers are doing serves, not the common good, but the corporate good.
Republican state Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald. "What this is is about the budget. We're $3.6 billion in the hole. We're not going to raise taxes to solve it. We all ran, you know, this last election cycle on saying that we are going to cut government spending. ... Everybody is going to have to do their part."
Except, closing a budget gap has nothing to do with removing collective bargaining rights. Removing collective bargaining rights, rights that both the United Nations, the United States, and Catholic Social Teaching demand, can only be seen as an attack on employees -- an attack on human beings as human beings.
In fact, TPM reports
Furthermore, this broadside comes less than a month after the state's fiscal bureau -- the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office -- concluded that Wisconsin isn't even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.
Here we have clear examples of how lawmakers (in this case, Republicans) are actively attacking workers in order to provide cuts for businesses. Moreover, Governor Walker has threatened the use of the national guard in case people protest the legislation. Once more, we see that America is no longer the dream of people who believed in democracy and hoped for a better future. It has fallen to fear-mongering and capitalistic interests.
The question becomes, will people in Wisconsin and in Ohio and throughout the United States march for their rights and for government that represents the people and not the corporation? Will we take inspiration from Tunisia and Egypt, from Yemen and Bahrain, or will we continue to let government and business walk all over us because capitalism is the best and because democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest?
True democracy means we all participate for the common good. What Wisconsin and Ohio lawmakers are doing serves, not the common good, but the corporate good.
Obama, Spending, and Defense
16/02/11 14:06 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching | social justice
Amy Goodman reports that Obama’s released budget includes cuts to spending that helps the old pay for heating while increasing defense spending. The cuts that are tagged for defense are not, in fact, cuts at all. It’s like when you go shopping and find a sale: in fact, the sale price often reflects the “normal” price because it is “reduced” from a proposed increase in the price. In other words, it’s a marketing scheme to get people to buy something. But just who is Obama and the Pentagon marketing to?
To us? But we aren’t buying, right. Because we really have no say in what the government allocates our tax money to pay for. Or do we?
We do, if we decide to become involved in politics, if we decide to vote outside the box and elect neither democrat or republican, or the pseudo-republicans in disguise known as the Tea Party. We have a voice if we decide to use it.
We have to resist arguments like that of Robert Gates who says greater cuts will jeopardize American security. As I’ve reported before, our spending far exceeds that of the rest of the world. In fact, we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense.
The question, then, is whether we will continue to allow Gates and Obama, democrats and republicans, to confuse the issue and choose to serve the military-industrial complex, or whether we will demand, as people all throughout the Middle East and North Africa are, that government serve us.
For in the end, we are the government, whether we realize it or not.
To us? But we aren’t buying, right. Because we really have no say in what the government allocates our tax money to pay for. Or do we?
We do, if we decide to become involved in politics, if we decide to vote outside the box and elect neither democrat or republican, or the pseudo-republicans in disguise known as the Tea Party. We have a voice if we decide to use it.
We have to resist arguments like that of Robert Gates who says greater cuts will jeopardize American security. As I’ve reported before, our spending far exceeds that of the rest of the world. In fact, we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense.
The question, then, is whether we will continue to allow Gates and Obama, democrats and republicans, to confuse the issue and choose to serve the military-industrial complex, or whether we will demand, as people all throughout the Middle East and North Africa are, that government serve us.
For in the end, we are the government, whether we realize it or not.
Ohio and Education: SB 5, 2011
11/02/11 10:25 Filed in: Education | Catholic Social Teaching
The Examiner reports that Ohio Senate Bill 5 will end collective bargaining for public employees. Republican Governor Kasich said it’s necessary to allow transparency to the public so they can see where they’re taxes are going. Of course, that’s hog’s wash. It’s an excuse that he would deny in many other cases where transparency is necessary. What SB5 does is remove autonomy from public employees.
I’ve reported already on how state governments are trying to undermine public unions. Private unions now only account for 7% of the workforce. The only real unions in the United States are public unions, and these are coming under attack in state after state. Public employees covered under the union in Ohio include firefighters and teachers. By undermining these necessary public employees, government officials are undermining any remnants of the common good that remain in America. That is, they are destroying the social fabric that allows communities to flourish which are necessary for individuals to flourish.
If Kasich were truly concerned about transparency, then he would allow all the people who have a concern in this matter have an effective -- by which I mean, deciding -- voice in the decision as to whether it goes forward. But that would be a step toward real democracy which would undermine the system of bureaucracy and capitalism that got him elected.
Moreover, by undermines teacher’s unions, it undermines real education. Education is necessary for true democracy, which involves participation in discussions about the common good. So, Governor Kasich gets two birds with one stone: undermining unions and education, eliminating any true mark of democratic reform. As Catholic Social Teaching has held for over 100 years, unions are necessary parts of extending democratic voice to workers who otherwise lose autonomy in the current bureaucratic state and capitalistic markets.
Moreover, Kasich is pushing to remove the pension funds of public employees. These pensions funds were paid into by the employees in exchange for not paying into social security. By denying this earned income, Kasich both steals from what workers have morally earned and robs them of any retirement monies because they cannot draw social security. It’s an abuse of the person to reshuffle money from the workers who earned it to the big businesses who want it. For where do you think the money will go: into state coffers to entice “businesses” to come to Ohio to supply (minimum wage) jobs.
Stand with me to support public unions in Ohio and across the nation.
I’ve reported already on how state governments are trying to undermine public unions. Private unions now only account for 7% of the workforce. The only real unions in the United States are public unions, and these are coming under attack in state after state. Public employees covered under the union in Ohio include firefighters and teachers. By undermining these necessary public employees, government officials are undermining any remnants of the common good that remain in America. That is, they are destroying the social fabric that allows communities to flourish which are necessary for individuals to flourish.
If Kasich were truly concerned about transparency, then he would allow all the people who have a concern in this matter have an effective -- by which I mean, deciding -- voice in the decision as to whether it goes forward. But that would be a step toward real democracy which would undermine the system of bureaucracy and capitalism that got him elected.
Moreover, by undermines teacher’s unions, it undermines real education. Education is necessary for true democracy, which involves participation in discussions about the common good. So, Governor Kasich gets two birds with one stone: undermining unions and education, eliminating any true mark of democratic reform. As Catholic Social Teaching has held for over 100 years, unions are necessary parts of extending democratic voice to workers who otherwise lose autonomy in the current bureaucratic state and capitalistic markets.
Moreover, Kasich is pushing to remove the pension funds of public employees. These pensions funds were paid into by the employees in exchange for not paying into social security. By denying this earned income, Kasich both steals from what workers have morally earned and robs them of any retirement monies because they cannot draw social security. It’s an abuse of the person to reshuffle money from the workers who earned it to the big businesses who want it. For where do you think the money will go: into state coffers to entice “businesses” to come to Ohio to supply (minimum wage) jobs.
Stand with me to support public unions in Ohio and across the nation.
Mubarak's Resignation: No Real Change ... Yet
11/02/11 10:13 Filed in: social justice
It’s all over the news, from BBC to al-Jazeera: Mubarak has stepped down, relinquishing command and turning it over to the military. Every democratic leader from Germany to the United States has stepped in to congratulate the Egyptians for the success of their peaceful demonstrations and for Mubarak’s honor in resolving the situation by stepping down.
Excuse me?
Since when is handing power over to the military a step towards democracy? It is not, and the leaders of western “democracy” need to call a spade a spade. But this is only what I’ve been saying for two weeks now, and warned about the other day.
Perhaps the last lines of the story from al-Jazeera say all that needs to be said, in this case:
In a statement read out on state television at midday on Friday, the military announced that it would lift a 30-year-old emergency law but only "as soon as the current circumstances end".
The military said it would also guarantee changes to the constitution as well as a free and fair election, and it called for normal business activity to resume.
Al Jazeera's correspondent in Tahrir Square said people there were hugely disappointed with that army statement, and had vowed to take the protests to "a last and final stage".
Excuse me?
Since when is handing power over to the military a step towards democracy? It is not, and the leaders of western “democracy” need to call a spade a spade. But this is only what I’ve been saying for two weeks now, and warned about the other day.
Perhaps the last lines of the story from al-Jazeera say all that needs to be said, in this case:
In a statement read out on state television at midday on Friday, the military announced that it would lift a 30-year-old emergency law but only "as soon as the current circumstances end".
The military said it would also guarantee changes to the constitution as well as a free and fair election, and it called for normal business activity to resume.
Al Jazeera's correspondent in Tahrir Square said people there were hugely disappointed with that army statement, and had vowed to take the protests to "a last and final stage".
Egyptian Possibilities: Hopes and Worries
10/02/11 13:03 Filed in: social justice
Much can be said about recent events in Egypt.
1. Mubarak looks close to resigning
2. The army has been seen to kidnap people and threaten them if the opposition does not stop
3. Vice President Omar Suleiman, who will likely take over government if Mubarak steps down, has threatened a coup. Given his membership in the military, we could see a military dictatorship take over
4. Yet, opposition has strengthened with the release of Wael Ghonim with
5. Increasing numbers of protestors in Cairo and elsewhere,
6. And strikes throughout Egypt including along the Suez Canal.
The questions that I’ve been asking for weeks remain:
Can Egypt pull off a truly democratic revolution? Will they find a common good that they can define, or will they fall in line with other revolutions of the recent era, embracing capitalism as a way of life, not realizing the dangers there? And, still, what is the role of the army in the uprising? What are they doing as they continue to say that they stand with the people? The fact that citizens in Tahrir Square still chant that the army stands with the people proves troubling.
Here is where we stand, though: IF Mubarak resigns and Sulieman steps in, it gives the United States and other Western nations the excuse to say that the revolution has succeeded and to demand that protestors return home so that a “peaceful process” can move the revolution forward.
While I do not call for violence, I ask us to recognize that any peaceful process set up by Sulieman cannot be in the interests of the people of Egypt. Which means it cannot be in our interests.
What is needed is more strikes and continuing strikes. What is needed is an interruption in the status quo that gives the people power to push their demands forward in a peaceful way. Sure, many will most likely die in the face of such a movement, as the army will solidify behind a new government face that is one of its own.
Which is why Obama and other national leaders should be calling for more leadership from the people. Instead, we’ve been told repeatedly for the last few days that Obama has quit smoking. This news is just more smoke and mirrors, however, in the face of a possible world-changing historical event.
1. Mubarak looks close to resigning
2. The army has been seen to kidnap people and threaten them if the opposition does not stop
3. Vice President Omar Suleiman, who will likely take over government if Mubarak steps down, has threatened a coup. Given his membership in the military, we could see a military dictatorship take over
4. Yet, opposition has strengthened with the release of Wael Ghonim with
5. Increasing numbers of protestors in Cairo and elsewhere,
6. And strikes throughout Egypt including along the Suez Canal.
The questions that I’ve been asking for weeks remain:
Can Egypt pull off a truly democratic revolution? Will they find a common good that they can define, or will they fall in line with other revolutions of the recent era, embracing capitalism as a way of life, not realizing the dangers there? And, still, what is the role of the army in the uprising? What are they doing as they continue to say that they stand with the people? The fact that citizens in Tahrir Square still chant that the army stands with the people proves troubling.
Here is where we stand, though: IF Mubarak resigns and Sulieman steps in, it gives the United States and other Western nations the excuse to say that the revolution has succeeded and to demand that protestors return home so that a “peaceful process” can move the revolution forward.
While I do not call for violence, I ask us to recognize that any peaceful process set up by Sulieman cannot be in the interests of the people of Egypt. Which means it cannot be in our interests.
What is needed is more strikes and continuing strikes. What is needed is an interruption in the status quo that gives the people power to push their demands forward in a peaceful way. Sure, many will most likely die in the face of such a movement, as the army will solidify behind a new government face that is one of its own.
Which is why Obama and other national leaders should be calling for more leadership from the people. Instead, we’ve been told repeatedly for the last few days that Obama has quit smoking. This news is just more smoke and mirrors, however, in the face of a possible world-changing historical event.
Individual or Society: The Chicken and Egg Question
08/02/11 11:31 Filed in: Human Nature
Much of what I’ve been reading lately has focused on the common good and on the nature of society. Essential to these discussions is the question of the priority of the individual or the state. That is, is the individual anterior to -- logically at least -- society or the state so that the state must be limited in what it can demand or impose upon citizens; or is the state anterior to -- logically speaking -- the individual so that there are no limits on what it can demand of citizens.
The answer is both/and or neither/nor.
If we look at ourselves through the lens of evolution, we come to understand that human beings -- homo sapiens -- evolved as members of cohesive groups. We see the same pattern in all the great apes, except for the orangutans who forage for food in solitude and are much less aggressive than homo sapiens or other apes. If we want to understand our own nature, then, we have to put our species-specific nature in discussion with this evolutionary past. I do not mean this to follow the pattern of evolutionary psychology which tries to discover deep-seated genetic imperatives in our biology that we gained and haven’t lost since the emergence of homo sapiens on the African plains. Rather, I mean that we have to understand our biology -- which includes our evolution -- if we want to understand the kinds of creatures we are -- individuals with free choice.
If we speak of individuality, then, we must understand how individuality arises among a social creature like the great apes. It cannot be something divorced from that sociality, for it is the sociality that makes for individuals to develop identities. We cannot, of course, deny that these social groups are constituted by individuals.
Which brings us to the chicken and the egg. We cannot ask what came first, the individual or the society without leading us into the circular question of the chicken and the egg. Neither can be understood without the other; which means neither can exist without the other.
Individuals and societies are mutually constitutive elements.
Which means, at the political level, that societies can demand much of the individuals that belong to them and that individuals can place limits on what societies can demand. This position is the most realistic and the most liberating philosophies for it recognizes that we human beings determine our social existence through our free choices, and that we accept that society shapes the choices available to us.
When we speak of the common good, then, we can say both that the common good can be characterized independently and antecedently to individual interests and yet that the common good includes the full development of each and every member of society.
The answer is both/and or neither/nor.
If we look at ourselves through the lens of evolution, we come to understand that human beings -- homo sapiens -- evolved as members of cohesive groups. We see the same pattern in all the great apes, except for the orangutans who forage for food in solitude and are much less aggressive than homo sapiens or other apes. If we want to understand our own nature, then, we have to put our species-specific nature in discussion with this evolutionary past. I do not mean this to follow the pattern of evolutionary psychology which tries to discover deep-seated genetic imperatives in our biology that we gained and haven’t lost since the emergence of homo sapiens on the African plains. Rather, I mean that we have to understand our biology -- which includes our evolution -- if we want to understand the kinds of creatures we are -- individuals with free choice.
If we speak of individuality, then, we must understand how individuality arises among a social creature like the great apes. It cannot be something divorced from that sociality, for it is the sociality that makes for individuals to develop identities. We cannot, of course, deny that these social groups are constituted by individuals.
Which brings us to the chicken and the egg. We cannot ask what came first, the individual or the society without leading us into the circular question of the chicken and the egg. Neither can be understood without the other; which means neither can exist without the other.
Individuals and societies are mutually constitutive elements.
Which means, at the political level, that societies can demand much of the individuals that belong to them and that individuals can place limits on what societies can demand. This position is the most realistic and the most liberating philosophies for it recognizes that we human beings determine our social existence through our free choices, and that we accept that society shapes the choices available to us.
When we speak of the common good, then, we can say both that the common good can be characterized independently and antecedently to individual interests and yet that the common good includes the full development of each and every member of society.
7 February Update on Egypt
07/02/11 12:50 Filed in: social justice
Talk of the Nation included a wonderful discussion about Egypt and the elements of a successful revolution. Unfortunately, it sounds as if all the elements are not present in Egypt. In particular, the historians on the show discussed the need for ground-level leadership of the revolution and strategic engagement at key spots against the government. One sign the revolution may not actually be happening in Egypt lies in the fact that the banks opened for operations today. This means that the protestors are not hitting the system enough to make it stop. They stopped it for a few days, but now it is beginning to return to normal.
I think that the guests pretty much understand what is going on in Egypt and are correct in their analysis. While some “leaders” have met with the Mubarak government, they are not from the people, which means, of course, they are not for the people or with the people. The question will be whether the protestors have the resolve to maintain the fight and whether they can educate themselves on bringing the system to a stop.
All of this, of course, goes back to my earlier discussion of democracy and a common good. The opposition protestors must come together democratically and determine the good their society aims at and implement leadership to engage the current regime where it is.
I think that the guests pretty much understand what is going on in Egypt and are correct in their analysis. While some “leaders” have met with the Mubarak government, they are not from the people, which means, of course, they are not for the people or with the people. The question will be whether the protestors have the resolve to maintain the fight and whether they can educate themselves on bringing the system to a stop.
All of this, of course, goes back to my earlier discussion of democracy and a common good. The opposition protestors must come together democratically and determine the good their society aims at and implement leadership to engage the current regime where it is.
Egypt and the Common Good
07/02/11 10:04 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching
Egypt looks like it may be moving forward. The opposition has met with a representative of the current government to discuss transitioning to a future government. Still, Mubarak has not resigned as of today (7 February 2011) and protestors still stand in Tahrir Square demanding his immediate abdication -- rightly so.
Yet, the coming months -- years even -- will be as mentally and spiritually trying as the last 10 days have been physically and emotionally. What the Egyptian people must do not is come to some understanding of what they want in their government and for their lives in the foreseeable future. This task means grappling with some central issues: what is a government? What is the purpose of government? Why are we coming together as Egyptians to make a government? Is there something here more than my own individual interest?
This last question clearly marks the true task of any group of citizens. In the modern West, we have answered the question ambiguously at best by saying that maybe there is something other than my own self-interest, but we’ve been unable to define it. This inability to define a common good undergirds the inability to provide adequate housing, employment, education, and health care for Americans. We see government as antagonistic to human happiness. We define government the way that Adam Smith did: a structural means of insuring protection of the free market. The historical question now is whether the Egyptians will define government negatively as we have.
They have reason to do so. Mubarak’s government has oppressed and terrorized the citizens of Egypt for three decades, all with the support of the United States and our allies.
As Aristotle would say, however, that marks a bad government, not government per se. Government should promote the well-being of all of its citizens. That government is best, Aristotle writes, in which each and every citizens can achieve fulfillment. This understanding of government underlies MacIntyre’s revolutionary Aristotelianism and the Catholic Church’s social teaching on integral development.
Such an understanding of government, however, entails that the citizens embrace a corporatist conception of the common good. The common good consists, not in the aggregate of our individual interests, but in the good of the society which is a constitutive element of who we are and of our well-being. Education is a common good -- it is something that goes beyond my individual interest in that it provides an adequate education for all which betters society in general, not just my individual life. A society that can produce Shakespeares and Nobokovs is a much better society than one that cannot. The individualism that mars Western society can never understand that point.
It is up to the Egyptian people, then, whether they want to be go down our well-trodden path or whether they want to embark on a new form of democracy that can be the truly best form of government. Doing so, though, means radical and tough discussions about the common good.
Yet, the coming months -- years even -- will be as mentally and spiritually trying as the last 10 days have been physically and emotionally. What the Egyptian people must do not is come to some understanding of what they want in their government and for their lives in the foreseeable future. This task means grappling with some central issues: what is a government? What is the purpose of government? Why are we coming together as Egyptians to make a government? Is there something here more than my own individual interest?
This last question clearly marks the true task of any group of citizens. In the modern West, we have answered the question ambiguously at best by saying that maybe there is something other than my own self-interest, but we’ve been unable to define it. This inability to define a common good undergirds the inability to provide adequate housing, employment, education, and health care for Americans. We see government as antagonistic to human happiness. We define government the way that Adam Smith did: a structural means of insuring protection of the free market. The historical question now is whether the Egyptians will define government negatively as we have.
They have reason to do so. Mubarak’s government has oppressed and terrorized the citizens of Egypt for three decades, all with the support of the United States and our allies.
As Aristotle would say, however, that marks a bad government, not government per se. Government should promote the well-being of all of its citizens. That government is best, Aristotle writes, in which each and every citizens can achieve fulfillment. This understanding of government underlies MacIntyre’s revolutionary Aristotelianism and the Catholic Church’s social teaching on integral development.
Such an understanding of government, however, entails that the citizens embrace a corporatist conception of the common good. The common good consists, not in the aggregate of our individual interests, but in the good of the society which is a constitutive element of who we are and of our well-being. Education is a common good -- it is something that goes beyond my individual interest in that it provides an adequate education for all which betters society in general, not just my individual life. A society that can produce Shakespeares and Nobokovs is a much better society than one that cannot. The individualism that mars Western society can never understand that point.
It is up to the Egyptian people, then, whether they want to be go down our well-trodden path or whether they want to embark on a new form of democracy that can be the truly best form of government. Doing so, though, means radical and tough discussions about the common good.
Egypt, Climate, and Collapse
04/02/11 10:39 Filed in: social justice
If you are familiar with history, then the story reported in Truthout today won’t come as any surprise. That story is familiar: repression combined with an inability to satisfy human needs joined with ecological crises leads to revolt and often the collapse of civilization. We’ve seen this scenario at least twice in the west: in the period of calamities around 1000 B.C.E. and in the fall of the Roman Empire and the “Dark Ages” from 600 A.D. - 1000 A.D. We are facing one now, though I am not as hopeful as many others have been about the revolts in the Middle East and North Africa.
Food supplies are falling and they have been for some time. We’ve near exhausted the technological innovations that yield more food per land. Couple this with the fact of dwindling fresh water supplies and you have a scenario ready for collapse. In addition, our concentration on fossil fuels only worsens the soup: we use these fossil fuels to find more, and we develop highly wasteful bio-fuels, thus depleting our fuel supply, to support our fossil fuels as they dwindle.
Let there be no doubt: it is lack of food and employment that has led people to revolt in the Middle East and North Africa. The result remains unclear. Generally, people tend to embrace more conservative and parochial ideologies in fear of crumbling life styles. That certainly characterizes the United States, as the Tea Party rages against measures that could ease the burden of the every day family.
Our task now, as MacIntyre has urged for decades, is to develop and support local communities that can withstand the coming dark ages. We do this through education, through sustaining local markets and economies, which may include raising our own food, and through conservation of truly human life in the face of ever increasing bureaucratic strangling of our lives.
I hope the Egyptians can find a way forward to do this. I hope we all can.
Food supplies are falling and they have been for some time. We’ve near exhausted the technological innovations that yield more food per land. Couple this with the fact of dwindling fresh water supplies and you have a scenario ready for collapse. In addition, our concentration on fossil fuels only worsens the soup: we use these fossil fuels to find more, and we develop highly wasteful bio-fuels, thus depleting our fuel supply, to support our fossil fuels as they dwindle.
Let there be no doubt: it is lack of food and employment that has led people to revolt in the Middle East and North Africa. The result remains unclear. Generally, people tend to embrace more conservative and parochial ideologies in fear of crumbling life styles. That certainly characterizes the United States, as the Tea Party rages against measures that could ease the burden of the every day family.
Our task now, as MacIntyre has urged for decades, is to develop and support local communities that can withstand the coming dark ages. We do this through education, through sustaining local markets and economies, which may include raising our own food, and through conservation of truly human life in the face of ever increasing bureaucratic strangling of our lives.
I hope the Egyptians can find a way forward to do this. I hope we all can.
Education's Value
03/02/11 13:33 Filed in: Education | social justice
Stanley Fish’s recent post echoes concerns that I’ve voiced on this blog about education, especially in the United States under Obama. As a matter of fact, many people have been commenting about education in the US and its goals. Many of these questions center around the goal of education: is it to just get a job or is it for something more?
We must realize, I think, that the idea that education’s end goal was employment comprises a very recent understanding of education. Understanding this recent turn proves important, for what it heralds is the role of the capitalistic economy’s influence on our everyday lives. Schools today are, as Alasdair MacIntyre has been saying for a long time, producers: they produce workers for the system, dividing them into those who will be managers, those who will work in the service industry, and those who will remain unemployed and, thus, always on the margins of society. They train people to be cogs in a machine.
This evolution of our schools need not be inevitable. We can change it. Of course, when unemployment remains around 10% (while really being closer to 20%) and when we see jobs shipped over seas, and we see the US falling behind in many areas, our greatest fear is about the economy and getting a job. This fear serves the power interests and the system well, but it also comes out of our shared human nature. On Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, providing material support for our lives underlies the other needs we have -- including needs for self-realization and democratic participation.
The problem today, however, is that if we do not grasp our democracy and insist on participatory democracy, we will never be able to satisfy our real needs of jobs. We can do this at the local level, of course, by insisting that local school districts give the rights education to our children. We can do this in our own families by insisting to our children that education is not about getting a job but about living a fulfilling life and being a citizen. We can emphasize the point by showing that getting a job is not about what you know but who you know, and that most of what we need to know to perform a job we learn on the job.
But to do any of this, we have to begin to have these conversations in our local communities and with our friends and family. We have to resist the race to the top unless that race involves an education that addresses the whole person.
We must realize, I think, that the idea that education’s end goal was employment comprises a very recent understanding of education. Understanding this recent turn proves important, for what it heralds is the role of the capitalistic economy’s influence on our everyday lives. Schools today are, as Alasdair MacIntyre has been saying for a long time, producers: they produce workers for the system, dividing them into those who will be managers, those who will work in the service industry, and those who will remain unemployed and, thus, always on the margins of society. They train people to be cogs in a machine.
This evolution of our schools need not be inevitable. We can change it. Of course, when unemployment remains around 10% (while really being closer to 20%) and when we see jobs shipped over seas, and we see the US falling behind in many areas, our greatest fear is about the economy and getting a job. This fear serves the power interests and the system well, but it also comes out of our shared human nature. On Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, providing material support for our lives underlies the other needs we have -- including needs for self-realization and democratic participation.
The problem today, however, is that if we do not grasp our democracy and insist on participatory democracy, we will never be able to satisfy our real needs of jobs. We can do this at the local level, of course, by insisting that local school districts give the rights education to our children. We can do this in our own families by insisting to our children that education is not about getting a job but about living a fulfilling life and being a citizen. We can emphasize the point by showing that getting a job is not about what you know but who you know, and that most of what we need to know to perform a job we learn on the job.
But to do any of this, we have to begin to have these conversations in our local communities and with our friends and family. We have to resist the race to the top unless that race involves an education that addresses the whole person.
Education and Egyptian Protests
02/02/11 10:53 Filed in: Education | social justice
Think out Loud interviewed two Egyptians today about the protests going on there. They shed much light on what’s going on in Egypt.
For instance:
1. The army is really in control. The Egyptian army is its own society, with its own malls and resorts, etc. While the Egyptian army has stated that it will not interfere with protestors, it has allowed government thugs into the protest area, which led to violence. It’s clear, then, that the army is playing a waiting game, trying to decide where they want to throw their support.
2. The Egyptian people still have a say. They can wrest some control from the army by standing firm.
3. Violence erupted only after government thugs were allowed amongst the protestors. This confirmed by CNN who interviewed some of the pro-Mubarek “demonstrators” who reported that they were paid to support Mubarek. Why? We must ask this since Mubarek said he would step down. More is going on then we see, obviously.
What I think proves hopeful, though, is something else the guests on Think Out Loud shared. They talked about how good the education system in Egypt is. Here we have the true source of the ability of the people to come together and make demands: education. Education, as MacIntyre points out, has the function of training people to ask questions, questions about the system. So any form of education -- even one like that in the United States that focuses on preparing some for careers in business and others for careers in service -- always has an underlying potential -- the potential for freedom. This cannot be an education from above -- which is important. Revolutionary education comes from learning about one’s tradition -- cultural, religious, scientific. Then people must use that education to ask questions about themselves, happiness, and their own society.
If we have hope for the future, it lies in education.
For instance:
1. The army is really in control. The Egyptian army is its own society, with its own malls and resorts, etc. While the Egyptian army has stated that it will not interfere with protestors, it has allowed government thugs into the protest area, which led to violence. It’s clear, then, that the army is playing a waiting game, trying to decide where they want to throw their support.
2. The Egyptian people still have a say. They can wrest some control from the army by standing firm.
3. Violence erupted only after government thugs were allowed amongst the protestors. This confirmed by CNN who interviewed some of the pro-Mubarek “demonstrators” who reported that they were paid to support Mubarek. Why? We must ask this since Mubarek said he would step down. More is going on then we see, obviously.
What I think proves hopeful, though, is something else the guests on Think Out Loud shared. They talked about how good the education system in Egypt is. Here we have the true source of the ability of the people to come together and make demands: education. Education, as MacIntyre points out, has the function of training people to ask questions, questions about the system. So any form of education -- even one like that in the United States that focuses on preparing some for careers in business and others for careers in service -- always has an underlying potential -- the potential for freedom. This cannot be an education from above -- which is important. Revolutionary education comes from learning about one’s tradition -- cultural, religious, scientific. Then people must use that education to ask questions about themselves, happiness, and their own society.
If we have hope for the future, it lies in education.
Egyptian Revolution March
01/02/11 10:12 Filed in: social justice
Today, hundreds of thousands of people marched in Cairo demanding the abdication of Mubarek. In the midst of the crisis we are told about the triviality of US Mideast policy and Zizek claims that the West should embrace the revolutionary spirit asking similar questions to the ones I asked yesterday.
We are witnessing something truly historical here, but the question remains whether the people will continue to drive the history forward and what that future momentum leads to. I think it’s right to ask about the triviality of US Mideast policy. We’ve been in a holding position for decades now; our armed forces have trained for a long time for battle in the Mideast, a battle which we’ve engaged in for 9+ years now.
“Having long since opted in favour of political stability over the risks and uncertainties of democracy, having told ourselves that the people of the region are not ready to shoulder the burdens of freedom, having stressed that the necessary underpinnings of self-government go well beyond mere elections, suddenly the US has nothing it can credibly say as people take to the streets to try to seize control of their collective destiny.”
US policy has been one of double-think -- believing that we can support dictatorships to protect democracy. But all we’ve protected is OUR democracy, one that works poorly and is subject to the military-industrial complex. And we have to ask in all of this, Why is it that the people of Africa are revolting and yet we sit in our homes watching it on television, or more likely waiting for the next American Idol episode? We have near 10% official unemployment while real unemployment looms above that. We also have 11% of our homes vacant. Why do we not march? Because we’ve bought into the lie so easily and we’ve held on to the doublethink so long, that we do not recognize the opportunity of freedom when is calls out to us from the shanties of rural Africa and the streets of Tunis, Cairo, Alexandria and elsewhere.
Thus, I can only agree with Zizek’s statement:
The hypocrisy of western liberals is breathtaking: they publicly supported democracy, and now, when the people revolt against the tyrants on behalf of secular freedom and justice, not on behalf of religion, they are all deeply concerned. Why concern, why not joy that freedom is given a chance? Today, more than ever, Mao Zedong's old motto is pertinent: "There is great chaos under heaven – the situation is excellent."
This chaos holds promise and peril. It is up to us to decide which.
We are witnessing something truly historical here, but the question remains whether the people will continue to drive the history forward and what that future momentum leads to. I think it’s right to ask about the triviality of US Mideast policy. We’ve been in a holding position for decades now; our armed forces have trained for a long time for battle in the Mideast, a battle which we’ve engaged in for 9+ years now.
“Having long since opted in favour of political stability over the risks and uncertainties of democracy, having told ourselves that the people of the region are not ready to shoulder the burdens of freedom, having stressed that the necessary underpinnings of self-government go well beyond mere elections, suddenly the US has nothing it can credibly say as people take to the streets to try to seize control of their collective destiny.”
US policy has been one of double-think -- believing that we can support dictatorships to protect democracy. But all we’ve protected is OUR democracy, one that works poorly and is subject to the military-industrial complex. And we have to ask in all of this, Why is it that the people of Africa are revolting and yet we sit in our homes watching it on television, or more likely waiting for the next American Idol episode? We have near 10% official unemployment while real unemployment looms above that. We also have 11% of our homes vacant. Why do we not march? Because we’ve bought into the lie so easily and we’ve held on to the doublethink so long, that we do not recognize the opportunity of freedom when is calls out to us from the shanties of rural Africa and the streets of Tunis, Cairo, Alexandria and elsewhere.
Thus, I can only agree with Zizek’s statement:
The hypocrisy of western liberals is breathtaking: they publicly supported democracy, and now, when the people revolt against the tyrants on behalf of secular freedom and justice, not on behalf of religion, they are all deeply concerned. Why concern, why not joy that freedom is given a chance? Today, more than ever, Mao Zedong's old motto is pertinent: "There is great chaos under heaven – the situation is excellent."
This chaos holds promise and peril. It is up to us to decide which.