Our June 3rd discussion about the recent primary election and upcoming general election focused on the gubernatorial race before moving on to a couple of issues. Many present were gratified that Anne Northup lost the Republican primary to Ernie Fletcher. Even the one person present who expressed disappointment noted that she had voted against Northup because - though she's a Republican - she felt it was time for a Democrat to be governor. Most agreed with her that Fletcher would be an easier candidate to beat than Northup in the fall. Only one person predicted that Fletcher would win re-election, though no one denied that this was still a distant possibility.
There were mixed feelings about Beshear's plans for gambling in Kentucky - both about whether he would succeed in implementing gambling and about whether it was a good idea. It was noted that no one seems to be saying much about the costs this would bring the state, as compared with the potential benefits. There was some support for Gatewood Galbraith's idea of state-owned casinos, but it was felt that this would be even less likely to become a reality; if the "religious right" and others opposed gambling on moral grounds, then the opposition to state-run gambling would be even more intense.
Gatewood's name, of course - whether fairly or not - is associated with nothing more than with support for legalizing marijuana. We discussed the possibility of legalizing and/or decriminalizing industrial hemp, marijuana, and other drugs. No one spoke out against legalizing the growing of non-hallucinogenic hemp for the production of fuel and a multitude of consumer goods... but no one thought it was likely to happen anytime soon, either. The prospect of decriminalizing and/or legalizing marijuana and potentially other drugs seemed even less likely, and was also more controversial among the group. One member was adamant that legalizing marijuana would make the roads less safe, while others were less certain that this would be the case. It was noted that reforming our "automobile culture" would make this less of an issue. Ideas such as introducing a revocable license to purchase non-addictive drugs - including alcohol - and/or limiting legal drug use to supervised environments were brought up, to a measured and mixed response.
As we wrapped up, we felt it was time to revisit the topic of our educational system, join us Sunday the 17th for an engaging discussion on this topic.
June 3, 2007
April 1, 2007
Living Wage
A small group of us met on April 1st to discuss the issue of a living wage. All were essentially in agreement that one who works full-time ought to be able to support oneself and one's dependents. We also agreed that ensuring that this was the case was an appropriate role for government, and that instituting a living wage would likely be one effective tool to do this. However, some also expressed some nervousness and uncertainty about the economic impact of a living wage, and we wondered how best to institute a living wage while safeguarding against unintended consequences. It was felt that - particularly in the case of a world-wide living wage, but also in the case of a national one - the amount constituting a "living wage" would have to vary from place to place, depending on differences in local economies and the local cost of living. It was also felt by most that a living wage would have to be instituted incrementally in order to prevent a sudden, significant increase in unemployment.
Our support of government action in this area, while acknowledging potential pitfalls, led us to another example of government action intended to impact the economy - government subsidies. What kind of government subsidies are currently in place, and how do they impact both America and the rest of the world? Join us next time as we examine this topic in greater detail.
Our support of government action in this area, while acknowledging potential pitfalls, led us to another example of government action intended to impact the economy - government subsidies. What kind of government subsidies are currently in place, and how do they impact both America and the rest of the world? Join us next time as we examine this topic in greater detail.
March 4, 2007
What Is Progress?
On March 4th, we examined the question, "What is progress?" Members felt that there were at least two problems with the traditional emphasis on ever-increasing total aggregate wealth: 1) That this did not create incentives to protect the environment, and 2) Many people are being left behind. Concern was expressed regarding income equality within our local community, throughout the nation, and throughout the world. On the other hand, some members felt that merely bringing everyone up to the same (or a similar) standard of living would be disastrous to the environment. This led many to conclude that changes in the way we live would become necessary sooner or later.
It was noted, too, that material wealth does not equal happiness; since the end of World War II, while Americans have generally gotten richer, studies have shown that they have become less happy. Part of the blame for this was put on how we live and what we value. A "happiness index" - as officially employed in Bhutan, for instance - was mentioned as an alternative to more traditional economic measures. One member felt that we place too much value on being busy - that we need to learn to value "intelligent inaction" - and that schools and the rest of society should not stress competitive values so much. Much of the conversation centered around various forms and degrees of communal living arrangements, from the small-scale to the very large-scale. Many of us found much that was appealing about the idea, but there was also a sense of skepticism about how and whether people would be able to get along in such close living arrangements.
The conversation eventually turned to what sorts of changes we might see in the future. One member saw only increasing corporate control to the detriment of many. Another felt that a crisis would be reached that would lead to significant - and, ultimately, positive - changes. One relatively small-scale change that was discussed was the possibility of implementing a "living wage" locally. Some wondered how and whether this would work, and what the effects would be. Join us next time as we examine these questions in-depth.
It was noted, too, that material wealth does not equal happiness; since the end of World War II, while Americans have generally gotten richer, studies have shown that they have become less happy. Part of the blame for this was put on how we live and what we value. A "happiness index" - as officially employed in Bhutan, for instance - was mentioned as an alternative to more traditional economic measures. One member felt that we place too much value on being busy - that we need to learn to value "intelligent inaction" - and that schools and the rest of society should not stress competitive values so much. Much of the conversation centered around various forms and degrees of communal living arrangements, from the small-scale to the very large-scale. Many of us found much that was appealing about the idea, but there was also a sense of skepticism about how and whether people would be able to get along in such close living arrangements.
The conversation eventually turned to what sorts of changes we might see in the future. One member saw only increasing corporate control to the detriment of many. Another felt that a crisis would be reached that would lead to significant - and, ultimately, positive - changes. One relatively small-scale change that was discussed was the possibility of implementing a "living wage" locally. Some wondered how and whether this would work, and what the effects would be. Join us next time as we examine these questions in-depth.
February 27, 2007
Global Climate Change
On February 18th, we discussed global climate change. All in attendance seemed to agree that global climate change was real, that it would have negative consequences (at least in some parts of the world), and that human activity was a major contributor to this problem. Most felt that relying on individuals to spontaneously make changes in their daily lives would not be adequate to address the problem, and that collective action would be necessary. One member expressed fears that this would mean giving up some of our freedoms, but others argued that laws addressing global climate change would be no different from laws preventing us from, say, murdering or defrauding one another, and that such laws can even grant greater freedom, in that they allow us to pursue our lives with a necessary degree of security.
Potential methods of addressing the problem varied. Some felt that we would have to simplify our lives and learn to consume less energy, but one member felt that technological advances might make this unnecessary. Methods of transit were central to the discussion - potential options mentioned included buses, light rail, making cities bicycle-friendly, and even a system of moving sidewalks. One present expressed great hope for the potential of nuclear fusion as a means of providing energy, but others had not yet been convinced that any method of harnessing nuclear energy could ever be truly safe, effective, and efficient.
As we discussed the promise (or lack of promise) of various technologies; where previous technological developments seemed to have gotten us; and whether massive, cultural change was necessary or possible, some began to wonder whether our traditional notion of "progress" was distorted. Join us next time as we delve further into this topic and attempt to answer the questions: What is progress? Are there alternatives to the traditional formulation, progress = growth?
Potential methods of addressing the problem varied. Some felt that we would have to simplify our lives and learn to consume less energy, but one member felt that technological advances might make this unnecessary. Methods of transit were central to the discussion - potential options mentioned included buses, light rail, making cities bicycle-friendly, and even a system of moving sidewalks. One present expressed great hope for the potential of nuclear fusion as a means of providing energy, but others had not yet been convinced that any method of harnessing nuclear energy could ever be truly safe, effective, and efficient.
As we discussed the promise (or lack of promise) of various technologies; where previous technological developments seemed to have gotten us; and whether massive, cultural change was necessary or possible, some began to wonder whether our traditional notion of "progress" was distorted. Join us next time as we delve further into this topic and attempt to answer the questions: What is progress? Are there alternatives to the traditional formulation, progress = growth?
February 13, 2007
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The February 4th meeting involved seven people at our new meeting place, the Karma Café, where we discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some noted the local activism within Louisville and their work to undermine US aid to Israel and the perpetuation of injustice towards Palestinians by the Israeli government. Others pointed towards the role of Arab countries in making Palestinians second class citizens throughout the Middle East and fostering tremendous amounts of anti-semitism. Some brought up the work of Jimmy Carter and his recent book that focuses on the impetus and impediments to peace; conflicts over territories that Israel occupied and attained through war that were not greatly important to most of the Israeli population; and the brutal conditions within Gaza and the West Bank, which remain under military lock down, not allowing the movement of people for jobs, the import or movement of goods, or the proper diet (thus creating malnutrition).
Others saw how checkpoints lead to violence, especially when a Palestinian children's theater group came to Louisville and acted out their everyday existence theatrically. Some acknowledged the holocaust and its role in creating Jewish refugees that wanted desperately to have a homeland. Some pointed out that the older they got, the more pro-Israeli they became, as Israel is a highly literate population, fifth in medical researchers in the world, and that the Palestinians have some of the highest birth rates in the world, which was causing problems within Israel and fueling terrorist fires (while others pointed out that the birth rate is actually on the decline for Palestinians). Others pointed out how the 85 billion in US aid to Israel thus far has increased nuclear proliferation in the Middle East by allowing Israel to develop nuclear and other weapon systems on the cheap, forcing other countries to catch up. Some acknowledged how this aid served as welfare for defense contractors, that Israelis basically gave the money back to the US through private US corporations that sold the Israelis the weapons. Others wondered about the role of prominent Palestinians and their contribution to culture; others saw Palestinians as a diaspora people, spreading their influence wherever they went.
Everyone contemplated solutions, one of the most well known being the Geneva Accords that would create two states - one Jewish, one Palestinian - with a shared Jerusalem capital, which a majority of Israeli and Palestinians support. Another solution was a single state where Jewish, Muslim, and Christian people enjoyed equal rights, though ethnic tensions make this solution difficult.
Others saw how checkpoints lead to violence, especially when a Palestinian children's theater group came to Louisville and acted out their everyday existence theatrically. Some acknowledged the holocaust and its role in creating Jewish refugees that wanted desperately to have a homeland. Some pointed out that the older they got, the more pro-Israeli they became, as Israel is a highly literate population, fifth in medical researchers in the world, and that the Palestinians have some of the highest birth rates in the world, which was causing problems within Israel and fueling terrorist fires (while others pointed out that the birth rate is actually on the decline for Palestinians). Others pointed out how the 85 billion in US aid to Israel thus far has increased nuclear proliferation in the Middle East by allowing Israel to develop nuclear and other weapon systems on the cheap, forcing other countries to catch up. Some acknowledged how this aid served as welfare for defense contractors, that Israelis basically gave the money back to the US through private US corporations that sold the Israelis the weapons. Others wondered about the role of prominent Palestinians and their contribution to culture; others saw Palestinians as a diaspora people, spreading their influence wherever they went.
Everyone contemplated solutions, one of the most well known being the Geneva Accords that would create two states - one Jewish, one Palestinian - with a shared Jerusalem capital, which a majority of Israeli and Palestinians support. Another solution was a single state where Jewish, Muslim, and Christian people enjoyed equal rights, though ethnic tensions make this solution difficult.
January 7, 2007
War and Militarism
On January 7th, we took a look at militarism and its impact on a society. Participants gave a veritable laundry list of war and militarism's past, present, and potential future effects on our nation - many of them illustrated with reference to the current conflict in Iraq... and all of them negative. At the top of the list was the horrible cost of war in both blood and treasure. One member asserted that "we haven't even begun to pay the price yet" for the war in Iraq, or indeed for what he viewed as several decades of militarism. It was felt that non-military uses of our resources - from ensuring safe drinking water to building Louisville's bridges - had and would continue to suffer as a result of our government's dedication to building (and exercising) military might. And yet, one of the effects of war is a severely weakened military. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to wear down both people and equipment, rebuilding our military strength - while meeting all of our other needs - might require both significantly raised taxes and a draft at some point in the future.
In the meantime, lives are lost, loved ones grieve, and some of those who make it home from a war zone continue to suffer from physical and psychological injuries. Nor is the damage limited to those who've served - problems such as post traumatic stress disorder, delayed stress syndrome, homelessness, substance abuse, suicide, spousal abuse, etc., can both negatively impact loved ones and neighbors, and impose a high cost on society at large. For a few, the knowledge of what they themselves have done is the greatest burden; one of our number reported that some of those who have deserted have done so because they came to no longer "know themselves" after committing horrific acts of violence. Another observed how easy it is to become de-sensitized to violence. When he wondered whether this could happen to entire societies, many felt that it could, and none said that it could not.
We even began to build a case that militarism could threaten two of the basic principles of our nation - freedom and democracy. It was observed that militarism "has a tendency to empower federal authorities," restricting some of our freedoms and granting government a greater role in what was once considered personal. We also spoke for a while about President Eisenhower's farewell address, in which he warned about the threats our democratic society could face from the rising power of the "military-industrial complex."
As might be expected, much of the conversation centered around our uncertainties and anxieties about the situation in Iraq. One member expressed ambivalence about whether we should have invaded, and many expressed ambivalence about what should be done now. Once again, the prospect of a regional conflict was raised, this time spurred in part by reported warnings from Saudi Arabia. Such a conflict could disrupt oil flows to the rest of the world, which, in turn, could cause a downturn in the world's economies.
On the other hand, some hope (if not optimism) was expressed that crisis (or crises) might lead to new levels of cooperation in regard to settling international differences and developing sustainable methods of meeting the world's energy needs. Indeed, it was asserted that the world might be ready for a "great turning" toward cooperation and away from the conflict that has plagued the human race since the agricultural revolution. Wikis and Cofound itself were put forth as examples of institutions that create community in modern life - community that might lay the foundation for greater change to come. One member, however, felt that creating community was not enough, and that a Marxist critique and concomitant determined effort to remove the elements that create alienation within our new communities was in order.
As we spoke about our hopes and fears for the future, one subject seemed to lay at the heart of both: the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The membership of the nuclear club is no longer as exclusive as it once was, and there are more nations trying to get in - some not so friendly to the United States or their allies. Are we doomed to nuclear holocaust, or can new levels of international trust and cooperation eventually bring nuclear proliferation under control? Join us, 3 PM, January 21st at the City Café as we examine this question.
In the meantime, lives are lost, loved ones grieve, and some of those who make it home from a war zone continue to suffer from physical and psychological injuries. Nor is the damage limited to those who've served - problems such as post traumatic stress disorder, delayed stress syndrome, homelessness, substance abuse, suicide, spousal abuse, etc., can both negatively impact loved ones and neighbors, and impose a high cost on society at large. For a few, the knowledge of what they themselves have done is the greatest burden; one of our number reported that some of those who have deserted have done so because they came to no longer "know themselves" after committing horrific acts of violence. Another observed how easy it is to become de-sensitized to violence. When he wondered whether this could happen to entire societies, many felt that it could, and none said that it could not.
We even began to build a case that militarism could threaten two of the basic principles of our nation - freedom and democracy. It was observed that militarism "has a tendency to empower federal authorities," restricting some of our freedoms and granting government a greater role in what was once considered personal. We also spoke for a while about President Eisenhower's farewell address, in which he warned about the threats our democratic society could face from the rising power of the "military-industrial complex."
As might be expected, much of the conversation centered around our uncertainties and anxieties about the situation in Iraq. One member expressed ambivalence about whether we should have invaded, and many expressed ambivalence about what should be done now. Once again, the prospect of a regional conflict was raised, this time spurred in part by reported warnings from Saudi Arabia. Such a conflict could disrupt oil flows to the rest of the world, which, in turn, could cause a downturn in the world's economies.
On the other hand, some hope (if not optimism) was expressed that crisis (or crises) might lead to new levels of cooperation in regard to settling international differences and developing sustainable methods of meeting the world's energy needs. Indeed, it was asserted that the world might be ready for a "great turning" toward cooperation and away from the conflict that has plagued the human race since the agricultural revolution. Wikis and Cofound itself were put forth as examples of institutions that create community in modern life - community that might lay the foundation for greater change to come. One member, however, felt that creating community was not enough, and that a Marxist critique and concomitant determined effort to remove the elements that create alienation within our new communities was in order.
As we spoke about our hopes and fears for the future, one subject seemed to lay at the heart of both: the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The membership of the nuclear club is no longer as exclusive as it once was, and there are more nations trying to get in - some not so friendly to the United States or their allies. Are we doomed to nuclear holocaust, or can new levels of international trust and cooperation eventually bring nuclear proliferation under control? Join us, 3 PM, January 21st at the City Café as we examine this question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)