Although there’s a British Tea Party movement, I’m thinking of the American Tea Party. Frankly, as a name, I preferred the Mugwumps, or the Know-Nothings, or several other awesome parties. But, I didn’t create the Tea Party. Or, if you need something more, go for the Coffee Party.
I haven’t seen any advertisements marketing the Tea Party as young and glorious. Either I read too much news, and see mostly raging grannies (but the pessimistic ones, not the ones with a sense of humor), or I don’t read enough news, and haven’t stumbled upon any young Tea Party-ists. Anyhow, I see the Tea Party as a political coalition of old people. I don’t mind that at all, except that they seem to be trying to sell themselves as young and modern.
Benjamin Barber seems to think that the Tea Party won’t last because people die. The people least likely to die first, despite all the poisons in the air and the food, and despite the rotting of the stem of wheat that could affect more then ten percent of the world population, are the members of the millennial generation. I’ve read that the age of that generation is 13-29, but that can’t be right; it would make me a member of the millennials, and I’m pretty sure I belong to the The Greatest Generation, or Gen Y, or something that is not the millennial generation. Be that as it may, Barber thinks us young people might outlive the average Tea Partier, based on age and whatnot.
Let me diverge for a moment from the Tea Party, because I don’t understand them. They say that it is
“common-sense solutions we’re asking for: fiscal responsibility, free markets, limited government and lower taxes.”
Their methods leave something to be desired.
The Pew study that Barber mentions, but doesn’t site, lists a whole bunch of things millennials are good at, according to Barber. They “celebrate [diversity].” That shouldn’t be surprising. I’ve always thought it’s really weird that there are people who don’t. I grew up with my parents, who are definitely older than me, and they had a respect for diverse people. There’s also something about a young generation’s lack of religiosity: “far less religious than their elders — the least religiously observant generation Pew ever surveyed.” And the most important part, and here’s where I get back to the Caffeine Party.
Most significantly from the point of view of the Tea Party attack on Washington, the Millennials are more comfortable with institutions generally and with government in particular, than their democracy-distrusting elders, and are far more progressive than any previous generation. They went 66% to 32% for Obama in last year’s election, while 53% actually say government should do more to deal with our problems rather than less, as if government might actually belong to us (it’s called democracy)!
Right. So please, please, don’t take your government hand off my medicare. I’ll be wanting that someday.
Last night, standing around at Northlight, in a light rain, waiting for things that never happened, I was able to make an argument about the merits and follies of education in a way I have never before so well elucidated.
If you think of education, generally the thought is K-12, and perhaps public university as well. … So then, we were standing around bemoaning I-remember-which-not-fact, but assuredly agreeing (as would nearly everyone) that public education leaves something to be desired, through very little fault of the teachers. Rather, the problem is that the point, the ability, of education, is never correctly explained in a classroom. For, if you figured out the conclusion I reached, what need of there is a classroom, and why would a classroom or teacher ever expound its insignificance?
As I say, I remember not the course subject. It doesn’t matter, for the point is valid for all subjects. Here is what education does not teach you. Learning/education/putting information in the mind, is not primarily a classroom activity. The classroom, with all the under-paid teachers, only exists so that we (all of us) can learn to educate ourselves (and, as in previous thoughts, I cannot vouch for the excellence of education, merely that it seems to be what we ‘require’. That may make my entire thought moot, and if it does, well…every argument has two sides). The point of fourth grade isn’t to read The Hobbit aloud to students; the point is to teach them, and only if they so desire to learn (how often we forget that), how to read The Hobbit well, and to visualize, if we want, the world of Tolkien.
…As with all other education. However, I have heard from perhaps only one teacher in nigh-on twenty years of education that the point is to put things into our own heads, not to have facts expounded to us. Of course, only a very bad (I make that judgment) teacher tries to tell us, the members of the classroom to be automatons. Most teachers, professors, educators, never explain what to take away from the classroom.
So the point, and I explained it much better last night, is that education/knowledge (again, for better or for worse, we stick lots of information into our heads) in a classroom setting forgets to explain that the receiver of that knowledge is an independent person who can – should – be able to expand their own knowledge, in whatever way is most fitting to them.
War is supposed to be the last resort; after all diplomacy and negotiations have failed future course of action is decided by war. And symbols come with war. Ah, what sybols! – how great they are! To the victor go the spoils. And what use are the symbols? Why, they stand for all eternity. Glorious, but passing in a single moment; though they may last forever. How much use is there of that shiny diamond now that you possess it? Is it more beautiful to look at now that it is yours?
Once, men did trample great and mighty fields by the tens of thousands, in search of glory, everlasting fame, and symbols of war. They would mount their steeds and charge in great fury, anxious for a piece of land, for a name ever-writ in stone. And what force would win? The one that gained – that gained land, that gained a city. Hoist your flag o’er the conquer-ed territory and it is yours. What grandness!
How simple these wars were. No less terrible for their own time than war is now terrible for us. But look – see the Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years War, the War of the Roses, The Napoleonic Wars – yea, see them all through Europe and all Asia, and that is war. Your city is mine; now I profit from it.
Now observe these wars two. We call it Revolutionary. Indeed, it was. It changed the modus operandi of war – now, the army that can take cities, that has land – they do not win. And the Civil War, the war of a great misnomer. How did that war begin? With a fight for symbols – capitols, land, they mattered very much. How did that war end? Grant, Sherman, Sheridan; they ended it with fights a-twixt fights, battles that led to battles, with no interest in immediate holding of land. Oh, how that has changed war.
And now? We have war now, too. And still, we fight for symbols. Now the symbols may be captured soldiers; now they may be men ten thousand miles yonder. We fight for symbols.
And what great permanent gain shall come of this?
It is unfortunate that Americans so roundly denounce Communism (with a capital ‘C’). We are so hesitant to shift from our 1950’s not-accurate-even-then mindset that Communism, as an idea, would destroy us all. I write this knowing – knowing full well – that should I ever run for elected office my lack-of-hatred of Communism could be used against me. But what I write is an opinion, and we all must wield opinions. What is Communism based on? The Marxist dialectic. Which says,
History is nothing but the succession of the separate generations, each of which exploits the materials, the capital funds, the productive forces handed down to it by all preceding generations, and thus, on the one hand, continues the traditional activity in completely changed circumstances, and, on the other, modifies the old circumstances with a completely changed activity. This can be speculatively distorted so that later history is made the goal of earlier history, e.g., the goal ascribed to the discovery of America is to further the eruption of the French Revolution. Thereby history receives its own special aim and becomes “a person ranking with other persons” (to wit: “Self-Consciousness, Criticism, the Unique,” etc.), while what is designated with the words “destiny,” goal,” “germ,” or “ideal” of earlier history is nothing more than an abstraction formed from later history, from the active influence which earlier history exercises on later history.
That’s it. That’s the Marxist Communist dialectic in a single paragraph. Nothing more than “earlier history (cause) produces later history (effect).” I’m not quite sure why it’s so difficult for the independent (or Independent, in a political sense), Capitalist, track-and-project market pattern histories American to grasp that Communism is a workable conception of the market.
Biden Bites Cheney!
Just kidding, but the coverage of the aired-at-the-same-time, filmed-at-different-times Sunday news shows (Biden on NBC, Cheney on ABC) will make it sound that way. But really, I just want to look a quote from Cheney:
Now, President Obama has taken [options for ‘enhanced interrogation’] off the table. He announced when he came in last year that they would never use anything other than the U.S. Army Manual which doesn’t include those techniques. I think that’s a mistake,” Cheney said in an exclusive interview on “This Week.
I’m just wondering; does anyone actually live in this alternate universe? Have you ever met anyone that runs around proclaiming the efficacy of torture? I never have. …And yes, I just called ‘enhanced interrogation,’ ‘torture.’ It is.
Does this world actually exist? Where the most secure feeling is one where you frequently resort to torture? Where are these people? It’s a mistake to not torture people? Ummm… ARE YOU SURE YOU WERE THE VICE PRESIDENT OF A DEMOCRACY? I wonder if he-who-must-not-be-Cheneyed really thinks it’s a mistake.
If the protests today in Iran, on the 31st anniversary of the overthrow of the Shah, interest you, find good coverage by Andrew Sullivan, the Huffington Post, Real Clear World, The Times (UK), and others.
Best quote:
One of the pitfalls in analyzing the ebb and flow of a reform movement by crowd size and exuberance is that you end up with rather bipolar measurements for success and failure…Whatever happens today will not change the fact that Iran is changing.
Here there is the beginning of the working of a doctrine. Let us address, as many have done before, the purpose and right of government. What do I mean by government? Speaking mainly of our own federalist system, I mean a system in which localities are subject to the laws of states (states being the fifty states), and states are subject to laws of the nation. In an ideal world, the nation, too, is subject to international laws. What do I mean by the purpose of government? The purpose of the government is to act within its rights granted by the constitution. What do I mean by the right of government? Precisely as I just said; the government must act in accordance with the constitution. What it means to be in discord is subject to what law has been broken, and what, if any, prescribed remedy exists.
The government, through its very existence, wields political power. The godfather of American political theory – John Locke – defines political power as,
POLITICAL POWER, then, I take to be a RIGHT of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good.
There is a timeless debate over what these aspects of political power allow, if these are to be allowed at all. A right of making laws with penalties of death? We allow that, just as we allow “all less penalties.” We leave it to the government to regulate and preserve property; when the government does not regulate property there is a housing bubble crisis that upends even the international economy. The government (in all its entities) have the right – claim the right – to affect all these laws. It is, or was until very recently, that defense of the nation fell solely to the hands of the government.
All of the above actions the government takes, or has a right to take, – should take – for national well-being. Others will tell you, and this is not yet out-of-date, that the role of the government is to provide citizens with all things that they cannot provide themselves. Defense. Right to property. The right to healthy living and health care. In some years from now this debate will seem quite antiquated, just as the right of suffrage has been settled, and the right to an education has been settled, and many other things besides that are provisions of the government. But as of yet, the debate – over the issue of health care – is not settled.
There is a fear, there is always a fear, that the government shall tax too much. But at what point is too much? For what should the government tax? If the purpose of government, constrained by the rights set down in the constitution, is preservation of property and assurance of well-being of citizens, it should be clear that the government should levy taxes only for this; if there is a further purpose of the government, that too may require a tax. By levying taxes the government, especially the federal government, acquires a share of the Gross Domestic Product. That share may be ten percent, or fifteen percent, or twenty-five percent. That will depend on the economy.
Is health care necessary? Currently, there is a system of health care in our country. People with jobs – and there are many without jobs – can buy insurance that allows them health care, unless the insurance company decides not to cover the cost of a claim. The company is entitled to do this. The citizen is entitled to pay insurance to ameliorate the cost of health care, when cost occur. Who is in the right? … That is the mainstay of the system. The government too – and rightly so, according to the purposes of the government laid out above – intervenes in providing citizens with health care. For the poor, making under standard living wages; for the old, who have contributed to the country; to those in need of temporary assistance — to these the government provides aid, including health care. Now the government suggests it improve its role in this function.
Let us assume our system is in accordance with Locke. Would the government be acting in the public good? Yes. Would the government be regulating and protecting property? Yes. Is it a danger that the government will raise taxes to a level that will negate its attempts to improve the provision of health care? That seems counter-productive. Providing the one-sixth of the population who do not currently have any guaranteed form of health care coverage with some form of coverage seems, rather, to allow these fifty million people to become increasingly productive. Is the other fiscal option to pay for the costs of providing health care – lowering spending – an option? Certainly. There are many areas from which spending could, and should, be cut (see, for instance, military operations). Like raising taxes, the result of cutting spending would be a net-positive. A cut in spending on not-necessary projects (necessary projects would include transportation, communication, aiding a recovering housing market) would increase money for health care, which, like raising taxes, would allow citizens to spend money on products besides health care.
The question at hand is, what should the role of the government be in providing and guaranteeing health care? The likely methods of paying for such care – a necessary action – has been described. What would be the role of a state (as opposed to the country)? It is to the states that police powers – health, welfare, and morals – are given. Health is foremost among the police powers. Then, it has to be wondered, why are the states not in charge of comprehensive health care? The can be, could be, and will not be restricted in providing health care if the federal government chooses to develop a national plan. Massachusetts can, and has, passed a state-wide health care coverage plan. Like voting and minimum wage before it, the federal government has a right (indeed, perhaps a duty) to intervene in interstate commerce such as health care.
These thoughts there are on health care. The federal government has a right to guarantee health care. The federal government has various options to pay for health care. The idea is neither novel nor, thus far, successful. The correct method, or whether the idea is correct at all, has not been resolved in debate or in legislation. To reject the notion of health care, while proclaiming to be in favor of a Lockean government, however, is thus far foolish.
The story that everyone wants to tell is that the Democratic Party is disheartened and disintegrating. Teabagger Republicans are juiced up and on top. Or so the media says, over and over again.
But no one has reported that the House candidate who raised the most money, from the most people, is a proud Democratic populist. No one.
… except for this report.
The last line is a good one.
What’s the most important element in society that needs commenting on? Should there be commentary on everything? I’m going to write about what I find most intriguing. That’s a sad, but almost definitely, almost always, true fact. Someone else, somewhere else, will write about things that are most interesting to them; I may miss those stories entirely. I apologize. It is the problem of those who write that they cannot write about everything?
But what is most important? I call this social commentary. Should I be commenting most on sociology? On mathematics and science; NASA? On natural evolution, geology, Earth history? Should I be commenting on politics – international politics, national politics, local politics, the policies of a single group or person? Healthcare? War? Torture? Environmental policy? Economics? Just political economics, or the larger aspects of economics (they are related)?
At various times, all of those topics sound interesting to comment on. I can only comment on what I have some knowledge of, or write a flaming opinion-piece about something in which I have no knowledge. And I can only write about something that sparks my attention.
I realize that when I write ‘social commentary’ and leave out everything on popular entertainment that a lot is missing. There’s not much I can do about that, unless you want some opinion pieces, and even those won’t be very accurate. So I know that’s a part of ‘social commentary,’ and I choose to leave that for the more interested and more informed.
There’s a lot about CA Prop 8 that’s not worth laughing about. But every once in a while, a laugh comes along. See two examples.
Want to ban gay marriage, or gay marriage by any other name? Why not ban divorce, too? As only Californians could do, that is exactly the – fake – plan. However, John Marcotte seems serious enough about it to have an actual petition circulating to make this a proposition. Just for laughs. Thanks, California, for all the laughs.
The recent example is that, as you may know, the Supreme Court banned cameras that filmed the twelve days of argument, just ended. The laugh is that it’s actually been recorded after all. As you may know, there were transcripts in several dozen places, including here. Which means it’s not all that hard to reenact. According to SF Gate, Hollywood actors are going to be filming the case from the transcripts, and it will be on youtube.
The Dole Blog 