On December 17th we discussed freedom and the worldly constraints upon it. Everywhere we looked, there seemed to be some limiting factor on the things we'd rather be doing. Churches and parents lay down moral conditions, business and governmental co-institutions regulate our actions and, perhaps most significant, economic imperatives rule our lives.
Food, clothing, housing and the vast array of things we think we need require our money and time, and so our freedom. Although much of this is inevitable, our wasteful, overworked culture amplifies the effect. It was asserted that the American worker labors nine more weeks per year than his European counterpart.
One in the group said that democracy is an illusion unless it encompasses economic structures. This may be why many of us considered places such as New Zealand and the countries of Scandinavia to be more free than the U.S. Their open, secure and homogenous societies have freely adopted the welfare state.
Freedom seems to be in the mind of the possessor. Some differed as to the legitimacy of government surveillance and internet censorship in the face of terrorism. Freedom of choice is great but what if others controlled what choices were to be had? Soldiers may have the self-determination trained out of them. And they may willfully act in ways that no completely free person ever would.
So the effect of militarism on a people will be our next topic. We know that those attacked can suffer terribly but does an aggressor society not also lose something when war becomes the way? Blood, treasure, the limbs and souls of those who return, what is our final cost? Join us, 3 PM, January 7th at the City Café as we calculate the collateral damage of war.
December 17, 2006
December 3, 2006
Science and Religion
Having picked such contentious subjects, we should not be surprised that we had a contentious, but good natured discussion on December 3rd. We viewed science and religion, morality and knowledge in different ways, comparing and contrasting. There was a common regret that people often use religious intent to arrive at immoral outcomes. Dogma has been used to justify war and slavery, and principled opposition to the plan B contraceptive could well mean more abortions. But it is not always clear cut. Although end-time theology actually advocates environmental degradation, there is a growing green movement in many churches. One in attendance referred to Noah as the first conservationist.
We compared the philosophies of faith and objective inquiry. Some suggested that religious thought stifles critical investigation, to the detriment of progress. But it was also asserted that a belief system is essential to the art of being human. We imagined the food pills and cyborg-like wombs of a science dominated world, stripped of nonessentials. It seemed that most of us are happy to maintain a balanced spiritual, yet inquisitive humanity.
Of course being human means being flawed and we spent some time discussing the selfish vanities of our kind- all of our kind. We were provided with tales of malicious dealings within the halls of science and we debated the scope and motives behind charitable giving by religious and secular groups. And politically, some had first hand accounts of faith-based discrimination.
It seems no matter what position you take in this world there is somebody or bodies intent on exposing the error of your ways. Deep down, we are insecure about our beliefs and many find solace in the ridicule of competing ideas. When the zealous create alliances and dominate a society, independent thinkers become an endangered species. Next time, we'll explore personal liberties within the social constraint. The law says we are free but social pressures still enforce the "rules". Do you feel completely free? How important is it for a culture to have accepted mores? Is America the freest place and is it getting better or worse?
Come join us Sunday, December 17th 3 PM at the City Café as we speak freely about this and undoubtedly more.
We compared the philosophies of faith and objective inquiry. Some suggested that religious thought stifles critical investigation, to the detriment of progress. But it was also asserted that a belief system is essential to the art of being human. We imagined the food pills and cyborg-like wombs of a science dominated world, stripped of nonessentials. It seemed that most of us are happy to maintain a balanced spiritual, yet inquisitive humanity.
Of course being human means being flawed and we spent some time discussing the selfish vanities of our kind- all of our kind. We were provided with tales of malicious dealings within the halls of science and we debated the scope and motives behind charitable giving by religious and secular groups. And politically, some had first hand accounts of faith-based discrimination.
It seems no matter what position you take in this world there is somebody or bodies intent on exposing the error of your ways. Deep down, we are insecure about our beliefs and many find solace in the ridicule of competing ideas. When the zealous create alliances and dominate a society, independent thinkers become an endangered species. Next time, we'll explore personal liberties within the social constraint. The law says we are free but social pressures still enforce the "rules". Do you feel completely free? How important is it for a culture to have accepted mores? Is America the freest place and is it getting better or worse?
Come join us Sunday, December 17th 3 PM at the City Café as we speak freely about this and undoubtedly more.
November 19, 2006
2006 Elections
On November 19, seven of us met for an engaging discussion about the recent elections. All were generally pleased with the gains made both locally and nationally by the Democratic Party - even the one registered Independent and the two registered Republicans who were with us. Many felt that the outcome was the result of widespread frustration with the performance of the Bush administration and the Republican Party. Iraq, Katrina, the Abramoff scandal, and the Foley scandal were all cited as significant factors. One member felt that the election results represented a move toward moderation in politics, while another expressed satisfaction that (at least some) Democrats won on "liberal issues" ( i.e., raising the minimum wage, providing greater access to health care, getting out of Iraq...).
As for the implications the elections hold for the immediate and not-so-immediate future, there were competing strains of optimism and pessimism. On one hand, nobody seemed to feel very optimistic that the situation in Iraq will improve much in the near future, and some even expressed fears that the confrontation could broaden into a regional - or even global - conflict. While all generally agreed that the Republicans in Congress had done a poor job of investigating possible abuses of power, there was disagreement about to what extent the Democrats should engage in widespread, high-profile investigations; some felt this would be necessary to get the nation back on the right track, while others feared it would only prevent real work from getting done.
On the other hand, some optimistically felt that our nation had "turned a corner" and was now moving away from a destructive political environment based on fear. One member found reason to hope that Democrats and Republicans would now learn to work together, and that this spirit of cooperation might even filter down to the rest of society.
It was at this point that our conversation turned toward the influence of religion and science on the political environment. Could these two realms of human endeavor - often seen as competing - actually compliment each other, thereby leading to common ground on certain political issues? Join us this Sunday as we explore this topic further. From stem cells to evolution to environmental conservation, what are the political imperatives of religion and science? Must they always be in conflict, or might they - at least in some cases - lead us in the same direction?
As for the implications the elections hold for the immediate and not-so-immediate future, there were competing strains of optimism and pessimism. On one hand, nobody seemed to feel very optimistic that the situation in Iraq will improve much in the near future, and some even expressed fears that the confrontation could broaden into a regional - or even global - conflict. While all generally agreed that the Republicans in Congress had done a poor job of investigating possible abuses of power, there was disagreement about to what extent the Democrats should engage in widespread, high-profile investigations; some felt this would be necessary to get the nation back on the right track, while others feared it would only prevent real work from getting done.
On the other hand, some optimistically felt that our nation had "turned a corner" and was now moving away from a destructive political environment based on fear. One member found reason to hope that Democrats and Republicans would now learn to work together, and that this spirit of cooperation might even filter down to the rest of society.
It was at this point that our conversation turned toward the influence of religion and science on the political environment. Could these two realms of human endeavor - often seen as competing - actually compliment each other, thereby leading to common ground on certain political issues? Join us this Sunday as we explore this topic further. From stem cells to evolution to environmental conservation, what are the political imperatives of religion and science? Must they always be in conflict, or might they - at least in some cases - lead us in the same direction?
November 5, 2006
Individuality
At our last meeting eight of us gathered together to discuss individuality. In our culture we admire those who resist the influence of others, take risks and overcome the fear of rejection. We like to think ourselves to be individualistic but it was asserted that people are 98% alike and our personal choices can only be made within a social confine. No one is wholly autonomous.
For most of us, no other institution has a greater affect than school, the most direct link between citizen and state. Critiquing our education system some felt that we now focus too much on basic, marketable skills to the neglect of the arts. Poorly trained teachers squeeze the individuality out of the "worker bees" to be. Our failure to prioritize multi-lingualism is a telling example of the American mindset.
As we surveyed the spectrum of societies and their schools we took note of the trade off between high education rates and conformity. Looking out over regions from Asia, Europe and comparing cities such as Philadelphia to Appalachian Kentucky it seemed that education must have a dampening affect on individuality. Some in our group emerged perhaps envious of the uncouth rustic, supremely free to be himself.
Many reminisced about the '70s and expressed the modern lament that individuality is on the wane. Some fear that the academic/military/corporate complex has successfully conspired to ensure a compliant and interchangeable human pool.
Next time we plan to change the topic. As we are a political discussion group it is impossible for us to ignore the recent election and its implications. A small and pivotal shift is redirecting history's course and we'll want to examine the possibilities. So join, Sunday, November 19th, 3 PM at the City Café as review the election of 2006.
For most of us, no other institution has a greater affect than school, the most direct link between citizen and state. Critiquing our education system some felt that we now focus too much on basic, marketable skills to the neglect of the arts. Poorly trained teachers squeeze the individuality out of the "worker bees" to be. Our failure to prioritize multi-lingualism is a telling example of the American mindset.
As we surveyed the spectrum of societies and their schools we took note of the trade off between high education rates and conformity. Looking out over regions from Asia, Europe and comparing cities such as Philadelphia to Appalachian Kentucky it seemed that education must have a dampening affect on individuality. Some in our group emerged perhaps envious of the uncouth rustic, supremely free to be himself.
Many reminisced about the '70s and expressed the modern lament that individuality is on the wane. Some fear that the academic/military/corporate complex has successfully conspired to ensure a compliant and interchangeable human pool.
Next time we plan to change the topic. As we are a political discussion group it is impossible for us to ignore the recent election and its implications. A small and pivotal shift is redirecting history's course and we'll want to examine the possibilities. So join, Sunday, November 19th, 3 PM at the City Café as review the election of 2006.
October 15, 2006
Miscellaneous
At our October 15 meeting, with five people in attendance, the discussion focused on many political - and a few non-political - ideas:
- The occupation of Iraq and what we could do about it,
- Nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran and what we could do about it,
- The sense of biological-economic-nuclear apocalypse and whether it's overblown,
- September 11th and its political uses,
- Immigration problems and if in fact there is an immigration problem,
- The ability to trascend age (living longer than ever) and the space-time continuum (time travel),
- The social restraints on applying and distributing these various technologies, and
- Other points of discussion to come out of the Idea Festival (a recent gathering of different visionaries and scientists to discuss the future of science).
September 17, 2006
International Banking Institutions
The predetermined point of discussion from the previous meeting was international banking institutions, which this discussion included, but went past. The discussion centered on various interrelated, though seemingly unrelated, issues from the international order, international economic institutions, international trade, and representative government.
Consensus formed around the existence of problems in international institutions, and generally, though not specifically, the source of those problems. Some located the problem for international economic institutions, like the International Monetary Fund, rested with who controls it, bankers from large, conglomerated banks who use the bank toward their motives. Some saw the IMF as a tool of the US government. Some saw it all as an attempt at world government, an equalization of everyone, and diminishment for human incentives; the problem rested with the control of these institutions by the "big kahunas" who run and control everything for their own personal benefit. Some discussed the bad debts these institutions created -- that developing countries took way too much in loans that they could not repay and now suffered under the weight of the debts -- but questioned the problem of control of these institutions, that if countries possessed elected government officials and those officials made decisions about these international institutions, then people are represented by these institutions. Some responded, suggesting that the mass public knew little of what went on in these institutions and the idea that people controlled the government was comical. Some responded, saying that major countries like the US could intercede to absolve debt and that micro-loaning, the act of loaning small amounts to small-scale businesses, works well.
Perhaps the question for representation and international institutions laid at a more fundamental point, representative government itself, some thought; perhaps we need to consider direct democracy as a solution. Besides, is there anything wrong with the intent of the people in control of the international banking system? Various answers were given: some thought it was an issue of developed and developing countries, and others that it was a matter of destroying the economy and increasing government oppression. Many felt that government oppression was coming, and various examples could be cited, such as black helicopters and repression of speech.
Consensus formed around the existence of problems in international institutions, and generally, though not specifically, the source of those problems. Some located the problem for international economic institutions, like the International Monetary Fund, rested with who controls it, bankers from large, conglomerated banks who use the bank toward their motives. Some saw the IMF as a tool of the US government. Some saw it all as an attempt at world government, an equalization of everyone, and diminishment for human incentives; the problem rested with the control of these institutions by the "big kahunas" who run and control everything for their own personal benefit. Some discussed the bad debts these institutions created -- that developing countries took way too much in loans that they could not repay and now suffered under the weight of the debts -- but questioned the problem of control of these institutions, that if countries possessed elected government officials and those officials made decisions about these international institutions, then people are represented by these institutions. Some responded, suggesting that the mass public knew little of what went on in these institutions and the idea that people controlled the government was comical. Some responded, saying that major countries like the US could intercede to absolve debt and that micro-loaning, the act of loaning small amounts to small-scale businesses, works well.
Perhaps the question for representation and international institutions laid at a more fundamental point, representative government itself, some thought; perhaps we need to consider direct democracy as a solution. Besides, is there anything wrong with the intent of the people in control of the international banking system? Various answers were given: some thought it was an issue of developed and developing countries, and others that it was a matter of destroying the economy and increasing government oppression. Many felt that government oppression was coming, and various examples could be cited, such as black helicopters and repression of speech.
July 30, 2006
Organizational Meeting
In keeping with our new schedule, this Sunday’s meeting on the 30th will not be a regular discussion. As it will be the fifth Sunday in the month we’ve decided to make it an organizational meeting instead.
Cofound began about 20 months ago and has maintained a consistent following ever since. We’ve gone through many transformations but have settled into a comfortable routine of stimulating talk and companionship.
But what lies ahead? Cofound was established in reaction to the powerful social and political trends of our day. The issues are as pressing as ever and we can mark little “progress” in changing anything. But was that ever our goal? Or was it primarily to arrive at ideas and possibilities? And that we have done.
Join us this Sunday, 3 PM at the City Café for casual talk along with the imagining and planning of our next efforts. And stay tuned for our next update about the August 6th discussion.
Cofound began about 20 months ago and has maintained a consistent following ever since. We’ve gone through many transformations but have settled into a comfortable routine of stimulating talk and companionship.
But what lies ahead? Cofound was established in reaction to the powerful social and political trends of our day. The issues are as pressing as ever and we can mark little “progress” in changing anything. But was that ever our goal? Or was it primarily to arrive at ideas and possibilities? And that we have done.
Join us this Sunday, 3 PM at the City Café for casual talk along with the imagining and planning of our next efforts. And stay tuned for our next update about the August 6th discussion.
July 16, 2006
Lazy Meeting
Our July 16th gathering was a well-attended outing to Clint Cummins' house. It turned into a pleasant conversation and cookout with friends but not much of a discussion. Consequently, we have little to report about our talk.
So on August 6th we'll mostly just pick up were we left off. We'll scrutinize the authority claimed by majorities to impose their will on the minority. Also to be considered is the eagerness of governments to cite the "will of the majority" in their quest for power. Issues like the war on drugs and the functioning of our prison system stand out as points for discussion.
And as many at the July 16th event were concerned with the current tumult in the middle east, we are likely to address much of that. And if that weren't enough, we think it's time to look at the coming mid-term elections and could touch on them as well.
So there will be no lack for conversation at our next meeting, Sunday, August 6th, 3 PM at the City Café in the Mid City Mall. Join us, won't you?
So on August 6th we'll mostly just pick up were we left off. We'll scrutinize the authority claimed by majorities to impose their will on the minority. Also to be considered is the eagerness of governments to cite the "will of the majority" in their quest for power. Issues like the war on drugs and the functioning of our prison system stand out as points for discussion.
And as many at the July 16th event were concerned with the current tumult in the middle east, we are likely to address much of that. And if that weren't enough, we think it's time to look at the coming mid-term elections and could touch on them as well.
So there will be no lack for conversation at our next meeting, Sunday, August 6th, 3 PM at the City Café in the Mid City Mall. Join us, won't you?
July 2, 2006
Religion, Take 2
Last time we continued our discussion about religion, moving from the personal to broader social and political perspectives. It was observed early on in our discussion that religion is one of many things that can give people an identity - an "in group" to be a part of. This can be an attractive thing, in and of itself, because, as one person put it, "most people want to follow, not lead." While there was some disagreement as to whether this was human nature or learned behavior taught by a patriarchal society, most seemed to agree the observation was basically true.
Some members felt that the American political right wing takes advantage of this tendency of people to be followers, and that right wing leaders use religion as a tool to manipulate people in order to maintain their power. Others saw little difference between the left and the right in today's politics, at least in terms of their desire to control people. Indeed, more than one member had read that many of the currently influential group of people known as "neoconservatives" had at one time hailed from the far left wing of the political spectrum.
One member wondered aloud whether there was anything fundamentally wrong with deeply religious groups and individuals attempting to propagate their values through the democratic process. This lead to a discussion of the difficulty of balancing individual rights with the concept of majority rule. One person felt that democracy amounted to "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for supper." Another person expressed the opinion that the US Constitution did not prohibit individual states from establishing a state religion, suggesting that greater autonomy for the states in this and other matters would allow for experimentation that might lead to a better understanding of what works and what doesn't.
Our discussion moved beyond religion, too, touching on other institutions viewed as either contributing to or arising from Americans' susceptibility to manipulation. Our educational system, for instance, was felt to be failing, and to either passively or actively limit people's ability to question. Some felt that the state of our criminal justice system and the war on drugs were indicators that we are becoming an authoritarian society....
All these issues and more touch on the basic conflict between the interests of the majority and the rights of the minority (or the individual). Join us this Sunday as we examine this basic conflict, perhaps as it applies to the war on drugs, the overcrowding of our prisons, the failures of our educational system, and more....
On July 16th we'll change our routine with a potluck cook-out at Clint's house in the woods. It's only about 30 minutes away, a little north of Corydon, Indiana. Clint will provide hotdogs and burgers plus all the go-a-longs. Please bring snacks or a dish and whatever special drink you might like. You can meet with others at the City Café at 2:30 to carpool out or come on your own with the directions below. We'll start around three and maybe make an evening of it. And we'll fit a discussion in as well.
Some members felt that the American political right wing takes advantage of this tendency of people to be followers, and that right wing leaders use religion as a tool to manipulate people in order to maintain their power. Others saw little difference between the left and the right in today's politics, at least in terms of their desire to control people. Indeed, more than one member had read that many of the currently influential group of people known as "neoconservatives" had at one time hailed from the far left wing of the political spectrum.
One member wondered aloud whether there was anything fundamentally wrong with deeply religious groups and individuals attempting to propagate their values through the democratic process. This lead to a discussion of the difficulty of balancing individual rights with the concept of majority rule. One person felt that democracy amounted to "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for supper." Another person expressed the opinion that the US Constitution did not prohibit individual states from establishing a state religion, suggesting that greater autonomy for the states in this and other matters would allow for experimentation that might lead to a better understanding of what works and what doesn't.
Our discussion moved beyond religion, too, touching on other institutions viewed as either contributing to or arising from Americans' susceptibility to manipulation. Our educational system, for instance, was felt to be failing, and to either passively or actively limit people's ability to question. Some felt that the state of our criminal justice system and the war on drugs were indicators that we are becoming an authoritarian society....
All these issues and more touch on the basic conflict between the interests of the majority and the rights of the minority (or the individual). Join us this Sunday as we examine this basic conflict, perhaps as it applies to the war on drugs, the overcrowding of our prisons, the failures of our educational system, and more....
On July 16th we'll change our routine with a potluck cook-out at Clint's house in the woods. It's only about 30 minutes away, a little north of Corydon, Indiana. Clint will provide hotdogs and burgers plus all the go-a-longs. Please bring snacks or a dish and whatever special drink you might like. You can meet with others at the City Café at 2:30 to carpool out or come on your own with the directions below. We'll start around three and maybe make an evening of it. And we'll fit a discussion in as well.
June 18, 2006
Religion
First, a small business item: Due to some past confusion in determing the dates of our meetings, we have decided to regularize our schedule for the rest of this year. From now through December, Cofound will be meeting on the first and third Sundays of the month, every month... with the possible exception of Labor Day weekend. On months with a fifth Sunday, we will either skip a week or plan something special. Please pass this information along to those who may be interested in our discussions who do not have e-mail.
Now, here's the update:
It was a small group that came out on Fathers' Day to discuss religion and its role in our private and public lives. Those in attendance spoke casually about our own current and past involvement in religious activities, which, as it turns out, amounted to little, at least in comparison to many Americans. We also compared notes on the role religion played in our upbringings, and to what extent our perspectives on religion varied (or didn't) with those of previous generations in our families.
While we found much to disagree with in the attitudes of some of those who are religious, we also expressed respect and appreciation for the role that religion can play in motivating people to help others. One member shared a colorful anecdote about a passionately religious man's recent attempt to convert her, and how the effort - though unsuccessful - had led to a suprising level of understanding and discovery of common ground between them. And we all agreed that religion clearly moves a number of good people to do good work in the world.
Left largely unexamined, however, was the extent to which religion had shaped - and continues to shape - the history of our nation and of the world. In a broad, historical sense, has religion been primarily a force for good or a force for evil in our world? Have religion and politics become too intertwined, or not intertwined enough? Join us as we examine these and other issues, this Sunday, July 2, at the City Cafe in Mid-City Mall.
Special Note: For our July 16th meeting Clint is inviting everyone to his country bungalow for a cookout. For more details come to the July 2nd meeting or just look for our next update.
Now, here's the update:
It was a small group that came out on Fathers' Day to discuss religion and its role in our private and public lives. Those in attendance spoke casually about our own current and past involvement in religious activities, which, as it turns out, amounted to little, at least in comparison to many Americans. We also compared notes on the role religion played in our upbringings, and to what extent our perspectives on religion varied (or didn't) with those of previous generations in our families.
While we found much to disagree with in the attitudes of some of those who are religious, we also expressed respect and appreciation for the role that religion can play in motivating people to help others. One member shared a colorful anecdote about a passionately religious man's recent attempt to convert her, and how the effort - though unsuccessful - had led to a suprising level of understanding and discovery of common ground between them. And we all agreed that religion clearly moves a number of good people to do good work in the world.
Left largely unexamined, however, was the extent to which religion had shaped - and continues to shape - the history of our nation and of the world. In a broad, historical sense, has religion been primarily a force for good or a force for evil in our world? Have religion and politics become too intertwined, or not intertwined enough? Join us as we examine these and other issues, this Sunday, July 2, at the City Cafe in Mid-City Mall.
Special Note: For our July 16th meeting Clint is inviting everyone to his country bungalow for a cookout. For more details come to the July 2nd meeting or just look for our next update.
June 4, 2006
Human Limitations
At our June 4th meeting we continued to delve into the human condition and the fallible ways we manage our societies. One speaker presented positive anecdotes about government response and helpfulness. Without disputing the phenomena, others questioned the underlying motives and thought that little more than lip service is given to all but the most powerful. Like us, public officials just follow human nature.
But the flaw is not simply that we're human. It's that humans are animals and as such have a limited capacity for the acquisition and processing of information. And our attention focuses narrowly on our immediate needs. The world may have become too complex and our personal lives too busy for us to give much thought to the bigger picture.
As they are boons to information dispersal, we considered television and the internet and their amazing effect on our culture. Notable exceptions aside, they usually overload us with a blur of images and crude content aimed squarely at people's carnal frivolities and desires… so we're told.
And useful information that does get in is filtered through perception and prejudices designed to serve biological needs. We discussed how facial symmetry and other cues mold our perceptions of others and alter the interactions to come. One lamented the tendency of inattentive voters to focus on candidates and single issues, prioritizing "personality over policy". Given the mortal limitations of the electorate, it's no wonder our system falls short of the ideal.
Our group looked at the Peter Principle, the idea that individuals are promoted up to a position in which they are incompetent. Can much the same be said of governments and societies? By inertia or design, dominant institutions become removed from the everyday, and their leadership, insulated and weak, undermines those who would threaten the status quo. Rome, the Chinese monarchy and the United States of late were given as examples of greatness and decline.
So is this the fate of nations? Are all peoples destined to repeat the history that seems to be their nature to create? If not, what force can alter that history? Toward the end of our discussion, the word "religion" was uttered....
Spirituality seems like a primal need for our kind. And it has certainly shaped civilization. But is it being radicalized today? Politicized? Should church and state be allowed to marry? Can the world's philosophies ever find common ground? Join us June 18th, 3 PM at the City Café as we consider faith, salvation or damnation.
But the flaw is not simply that we're human. It's that humans are animals and as such have a limited capacity for the acquisition and processing of information. And our attention focuses narrowly on our immediate needs. The world may have become too complex and our personal lives too busy for us to give much thought to the bigger picture.
As they are boons to information dispersal, we considered television and the internet and their amazing effect on our culture. Notable exceptions aside, they usually overload us with a blur of images and crude content aimed squarely at people's carnal frivolities and desires… so we're told.
And useful information that does get in is filtered through perception and prejudices designed to serve biological needs. We discussed how facial symmetry and other cues mold our perceptions of others and alter the interactions to come. One lamented the tendency of inattentive voters to focus on candidates and single issues, prioritizing "personality over policy". Given the mortal limitations of the electorate, it's no wonder our system falls short of the ideal.
Our group looked at the Peter Principle, the idea that individuals are promoted up to a position in which they are incompetent. Can much the same be said of governments and societies? By inertia or design, dominant institutions become removed from the everyday, and their leadership, insulated and weak, undermines those who would threaten the status quo. Rome, the Chinese monarchy and the United States of late were given as examples of greatness and decline.
So is this the fate of nations? Are all peoples destined to repeat the history that seems to be their nature to create? If not, what force can alter that history? Toward the end of our discussion, the word "religion" was uttered....
Spirituality seems like a primal need for our kind. And it has certainly shaped civilization. But is it being radicalized today? Politicized? Should church and state be allowed to marry? Can the world's philosophies ever find common ground? Join us June 18th, 3 PM at the City Café as we consider faith, salvation or damnation.
May 14, 2006
Systems of Government
Last time, we began talking about the evolution of government and ended up discussing the transformation of humanity. Most assigned little faith to current western systems and had even less for the American version. Corruption and money influence, the banes of benign rule resurface time and again to undermine the best designs. With selfishness and misplaced priorities our citizens have always bought into the system and have reinforced what basically is an oligarchy. Economics is intertwined with the power structures and it is likewise guided by selfishness of men.
We looked at governance on the local level and discussed the best practices of community development. The examples set by Canada, the Cubans and even Tito were cited as what can be good, or at least necessary compacts among individuals, society and the powers that be. But whether by racial/ethnic strife or some other trouble, the cultural cloth usually frays, disorder ensues and altruistic ideals give way to dominator realities.
So we pondered how a "government by the people" can function when the people are so human? One thought that any system could work if corruption were neutralized, another suggested that anarchy - a society wherein all of us make the decisions - could happen if people would make a leap of personal development and "get off their butts!".
The term techno-peasant was put forward to describe the citizen who is educated and proficient in the ways of modern culture yet remains socially and politically inept. We went back and forth with a chicken and egg debate about the reasons. Do our schools create "worker bees" when they should be cultivating free-thinkers... or should they be abolished altogether? Does the welfare state lead to lazy dependence? Do our leaders and their institutions guide us or, in the end, do we truly get the government we deserve? Join us June 4th, 3 PM at the City Café as we consider the human origins of our common culture and the circular continuum of society, people and the person.
We looked at governance on the local level and discussed the best practices of community development. The examples set by Canada, the Cubans and even Tito were cited as what can be good, or at least necessary compacts among individuals, society and the powers that be. But whether by racial/ethnic strife or some other trouble, the cultural cloth usually frays, disorder ensues and altruistic ideals give way to dominator realities.
So we pondered how a "government by the people" can function when the people are so human? One thought that any system could work if corruption were neutralized, another suggested that anarchy - a society wherein all of us make the decisions - could happen if people would make a leap of personal development and "get off their butts!".
The term techno-peasant was put forward to describe the citizen who is educated and proficient in the ways of modern culture yet remains socially and politically inept. We went back and forth with a chicken and egg debate about the reasons. Do our schools create "worker bees" when they should be cultivating free-thinkers... or should they be abolished altogether? Does the welfare state lead to lazy dependence? Do our leaders and their institutions guide us or, in the end, do we truly get the government we deserve? Join us June 4th, 3 PM at the City Café as we consider the human origins of our common culture and the circular continuum of society, people and the person.
April 30, 2006
The "Best Form of Government"
Because of some miscalculation and miscommunications, we have experienced some confusion about our meetings on Easter Sunday and April 30th. We apologize to anyone who may have missed us.
Our next conversation falls on May 14th, which is Mother's Day, but we will hold it regardless. The following one would fall on Memorial Day weekend if we stick to our bi-weekly schedule; we will discuss whether to reschedule and keep you posted. Please watch for our updates to keep current on our semi-regular schedule. Thank you.
Last time, we continued examining our government and comparing it to others. We assessed the balance of powers among our three branches and explored the history and legitimacy of the Supreme Court's right of judicial review. The ruling Gore v. Bush was criticized along the way.
The talk then centered around identifying the "best form of government". A debate ensued as to the criteria that we would use to determine such a thing. One suggested that the longevity of a particular government woult indicate its success. Another thought that the degree to which it executes the "will of the people" is most important. A third believed the happiness of a government's citizens might be the best criterion by which to judge.
As a 200+ year old, civil war survivor, the US system is a contender that even put "pursuit of happiness" into a founding document. Canada was given high praise. Castro was awarded credit by some, and derided by others, as a "benevolent dictator." And speculation was put forward about how well the French revolution and the Nazis enacted the public will.
It was generally perceived that the complexities of society necessitate a common-held government to counterbalance the other powers that will naturally arise. The "best system" is the one that evolves organically, and peacefully, from the culture it is destined to rule.
So, has our system finished its evolution? Is representative democracy, with perhaps a little tweaking, as good as it gets? Has America achieved the pinnacle of rational governance or is this just one stage of an ongoing process? What does the future have in store? Come help create it as we debate our place in history May 14th, 3 PM at the City Café.
Our next conversation falls on May 14th, which is Mother's Day, but we will hold it regardless. The following one would fall on Memorial Day weekend if we stick to our bi-weekly schedule; we will discuss whether to reschedule and keep you posted. Please watch for our updates to keep current on our semi-regular schedule. Thank you.
Last time, we continued examining our government and comparing it to others. We assessed the balance of powers among our three branches and explored the history and legitimacy of the Supreme Court's right of judicial review. The ruling Gore v. Bush was criticized along the way.
The talk then centered around identifying the "best form of government". A debate ensued as to the criteria that we would use to determine such a thing. One suggested that the longevity of a particular government woult indicate its success. Another thought that the degree to which it executes the "will of the people" is most important. A third believed the happiness of a government's citizens might be the best criterion by which to judge.
As a 200+ year old, civil war survivor, the US system is a contender that even put "pursuit of happiness" into a founding document. Canada was given high praise. Castro was awarded credit by some, and derided by others, as a "benevolent dictator." And speculation was put forward about how well the French revolution and the Nazis enacted the public will.
It was generally perceived that the complexities of society necessitate a common-held government to counterbalance the other powers that will naturally arise. The "best system" is the one that evolves organically, and peacefully, from the culture it is destined to rule.
So, has our system finished its evolution? Is representative democracy, with perhaps a little tweaking, as good as it gets? Has America achieved the pinnacle of rational governance or is this just one stage of an ongoing process? What does the future have in store? Come help create it as we debate our place in history May 14th, 3 PM at the City Café.
April 3, 2006
Links on Parliaments and Voting
The following sites seem interesting considering our previous and future discussions on parliaments and presidents.
See:
For voting
http://www.cfer.org/learn/gloss.html
For parliament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_democracy
For presidentialism and parliament
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/researchstarters/presidents/
See:
For voting
http://www.cfer.org/learn/gloss.html
For parliament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_democracy
For presidentialism and parliament
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/researchstarters/presidents/
April 2, 2006
The American System
At the April 2nd discussion we compared our understandings of how democracies work and speculated as to if ours even does. We spent some time fleshing out the mechanics of parliamentary systems and measured them against the three-branch approach of the United States. Several viewed elements such as coalition building and ministerial accountability as positives of the old world structures. Concepts like Prime Minister's questions and votes of no confidence seem especially appealing these days. The American way was deemed not without merit however. For instance our federal system helps to disperse power and promote political balance.
Although our Constitution was praised not all of us were pleased by its implementation. Government debt, the influence of money, the parceling out of our nation to the highest bidder were all causing the founders "to be turning in there graves". We looked at the contradiction of their behavior and the ideals they espoused. Those ideals were alternately seen as promises to be kept by future generations. We also debated the evolution of the two party system and the viability of independents and third parties. And we even considered alternative voting systems.
All in all it was lively discussion that barely scratched the surface. We ended the talk itching to keep scratching. So we'll continue this exploration at our next event. Are the three branches still in balance? Are federal and state powers divided appropriately? Has gerrymandering solidified a political divide? What aspects of governance would you like to debate? Debate we shall, Sunday the 16th, 3 PM at the City Café.
Although our Constitution was praised not all of us were pleased by its implementation. Government debt, the influence of money, the parceling out of our nation to the highest bidder were all causing the founders "to be turning in there graves". We looked at the contradiction of their behavior and the ideals they espoused. Those ideals were alternately seen as promises to be kept by future generations. We also debated the evolution of the two party system and the viability of independents and third parties. And we even considered alternative voting systems.
All in all it was lively discussion that barely scratched the surface. We ended the talk itching to keep scratching. So we'll continue this exploration at our next event. Are the three branches still in balance? Are federal and state powers divided appropriately? Has gerrymandering solidified a political divide? What aspects of governance would you like to debate? Debate we shall, Sunday the 16th, 3 PM at the City Café.
March 22, 2006
Links on Abramoff
Wow! I'm actually going to blog something substantive other than meeting notes - it feels good to blog, I guess. Anyway, I thought it would be of interest for everyone to see Abramoff's galaxy the Washington Post put out (also check out the Abramoff orchesta as I call it), and check out the Columbia Journalism Review's Who Owns What of media corporations. Both seem particularly relevant in light of our last discussion.
March 19, 2006
Big Business and Government
No clear villain or obvious solution emerged from our March 19th discussion about the influence of big business on government . Although it may not be democratic that captains of industry use disproportionate power to further selfish interests, many of us thought that the involvement of corporations in the legislative process can be benign and even essential. Because of the sheer size and complexity of our society, our representatives need the input of special interests in order to write policy. And business sponsored initiatives can often benefit the community and even gain the support of labor. Education reform was cited as an area where public and corporate interests coincide. But it was also demonstrated how capitalists are not above imposing conditions and curricula that suit their own ends. There seemed to be a consensus that the formulation of policy by business and other interests is acceptable so long as the process is equitable and transparent.
But how often does that happen? Greed and corruption are rife and although our group didn't single out any industry or political party, many voiced concern that the movers and shakers too often act to the detriment of the greater good. The mix of power and money is like a toxic concoction to the body politic. But as one pointed out, selfishness is the natural result of a system designed to protect property rights. A discussion ensued about the Constitution and the culture it begot. Several concluded that human nature destines our political systems to focus on short-term approaches and cater to big-money imperatives.
Human nature also compels us to seek solutions and alternatives. Campaign finance reform, increasing government's scope, decreasing its power or maybe capping personal wealth, our talk was peppered with proposals for reform. And that seems like a good way to continue next time as we take a broad and critical view of our "Democracy". Does it work well? Well enough? Is it what the founders intended and would it matter if it were not? Join us this Sunday, April 2nd, 3 PM at the City Café as we talk politics, as usual.
But how often does that happen? Greed and corruption are rife and although our group didn't single out any industry or political party, many voiced concern that the movers and shakers too often act to the detriment of the greater good. The mix of power and money is like a toxic concoction to the body politic. But as one pointed out, selfishness is the natural result of a system designed to protect property rights. A discussion ensued about the Constitution and the culture it begot. Several concluded that human nature destines our political systems to focus on short-term approaches and cater to big-money imperatives.
Human nature also compels us to seek solutions and alternatives. Campaign finance reform, increasing government's scope, decreasing its power or maybe capping personal wealth, our talk was peppered with proposals for reform. And that seems like a good way to continue next time as we take a broad and critical view of our "Democracy". Does it work well? Well enough? Is it what the founders intended and would it matter if it were not? Join us this Sunday, April 2nd, 3 PM at the City Café as we talk politics, as usual.
March 5, 2006
Corporations
We had a sizable gathering on March fifth and discussed corporations and their influence on the larger world. Many spoke positively about working for large companies like Ford while practically everyone complained about their dealings with the "Phone Company". We pondered the process by which a small responsible entity mutates into a large profit-driven monster. As corporations grow and bump up with global competition their policies increasingly undermine the interests of common people the world over. Foreign acquisitions, massive outsourcing and other practices make our economy vulnerable to extra-national influences. As we grasped for solutions our government was perceived as a likely agent of change. After all, what other institution has the power to rein in the industrial-military-corporate complex. This begs the question…
…can government regulate business if business is busy regulating the Government? We'd like to think that public policy flows from well-considered deliberations that take all interests into fair account. We know that has never been the case. From NAFTA to CAFTA, ownership of our ports to the regulation of our mines, corporate sway has usually carried the day. Does big business have too much political power? Is it a legitimate component of the national interest? Is there anything we can do about it anyway? Mind America's business and join us March 19th, 3 PM at the city Café as we discuss Corporations, the government and the people.
…can government regulate business if business is busy regulating the Government? We'd like to think that public policy flows from well-considered deliberations that take all interests into fair account. We know that has never been the case. From NAFTA to CAFTA, ownership of our ports to the regulation of our mines, corporate sway has usually carried the day. Does big business have too much political power? Is it a legitimate component of the national interest? Is there anything we can do about it anyway? Mind America's business and join us March 19th, 3 PM at the city Café as we discuss Corporations, the government and the people.
February 19, 2006
Mass Media, Take 2
As we did not get an update out last week we will continue on March 5th with the discussion we had planned for February 19th . Those who showed up Sunday had a spirited talk about a variety of things including the media, and of course, Dick Cheney's marksmanship.
On February 5th we focused on the power of the media to influence us. Many acknowledged a bias in the mainstream press but we differed when ascribing the reasons for it. The power to manipulate has been taken to a high art by advertisers as they aggressively compete for our attention. They will shamelessly use sex and crudity or go negative if it pays off. They'll tug at our emotions by associating their products with every dream and aspiration we have, no matter how far-fetched that association is. And media will use these tools without regard to standards or consequences. Although they'll stoop low when appealing to any and all audiences, they readily censor themselves so as not to offend, as when they refuse to criticize America or publish cartoons of Mohammed. While considering remedies for media irresponsibility we launched into a debate about free speech, ownership of the airwaves and the need to be informed.
As we dissected the media we examined not only their power but their interconnections as well. With mergers and acquisitions the balance between a free press and corporate interests has become uncertain. Big business, multinationals, mega conglomerates, these terms allude to a frightening scene whereby money equals political power. Has the game become rigged? Are the captains of industry steering the ship of state? Do the concerns of corporate boards and shareholders now trump the public good? Come help us to understand, this Sunday, March 5th, 3 PM at the City Café.
On February 5th we focused on the power of the media to influence us. Many acknowledged a bias in the mainstream press but we differed when ascribing the reasons for it. The power to manipulate has been taken to a high art by advertisers as they aggressively compete for our attention. They will shamelessly use sex and crudity or go negative if it pays off. They'll tug at our emotions by associating their products with every dream and aspiration we have, no matter how far-fetched that association is. And media will use these tools without regard to standards or consequences. Although they'll stoop low when appealing to any and all audiences, they readily censor themselves so as not to offend, as when they refuse to criticize America or publish cartoons of Mohammed. While considering remedies for media irresponsibility we launched into a debate about free speech, ownership of the airwaves and the need to be informed.
As we dissected the media we examined not only their power but their interconnections as well. With mergers and acquisitions the balance between a free press and corporate interests has become uncertain. Big business, multinationals, mega conglomerates, these terms allude to a frightening scene whereby money equals political power. Has the game become rigged? Are the captains of industry steering the ship of state? Do the concerns of corporate boards and shareholders now trump the public good? Come help us to understand, this Sunday, March 5th, 3 PM at the City Café.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)