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.
Showing posts with label Governing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governing. Show all posts
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
August 18, 2005
Link to KentuckyVotes
... I've taken on a new project: KentuckyVotes.org.
Poke through it. Subscribe to legislative updates. And feel free to comment. I thrive on it.
Thanks.
Poke through it. Subscribe to legislative updates. And feel free to comment. I thrive on it.
Thanks.
June 26, 2005
Terri Schiavo
The five of us who gathered on Sunday the 26th debated a wide range of subjects. We talked about the Terri Schiavo tragedy and the political reverberations it has spawned. As we focused on Congress and other institutions of governance it evolved into to a discussion about events in Iraq, crime and punishment and other topics too numerous to mention. It was a spirited dialogue.
On Sunday, July 10th, we'll serve up a conversation about hunger and nutrition in the metro area. A representative from a group called Community Farm Alliance will fill us in on the basics about providing the "basics" to everyone. Community Farm Alliance is a statewide grassroots that supports family-scale farmin as a means of protecting the environment and strengthening rural community life.
So come to the City Cafe 3 PM, July 10th and partake of good company and conversation at the next meeting of Cofound.
Here is a link to an article in .pdf that goes a little deeper into our topic: http://www.foodsecurity.org/PerspectivesOnCFS.pdf
On Sunday, July 10th, we'll serve up a conversation about hunger and nutrition in the metro area. A representative from a group called Community Farm Alliance will fill us in on the basics about providing the "basics" to everyone. Community Farm Alliance is a statewide grassroots that supports family-scale farmin as a means of protecting the environment and strengthening rural community life.
So come to the City Cafe 3 PM, July 10th and partake of good company and conversation at the next meeting of Cofound.
Here is a link to an article in .pdf that goes a little deeper into our topic: http://www.foodsecurity.org/PerspectivesOnCFS.pdf
May 5, 2005
Links on Gun Control
I am unsure what to say about crime victim's rights and hand guns -- I think I took on too much, too wide of a scope in the topic -- so I want to narrow this a bit and talk about gun control. This will depersonalize it a bit (as I was recently the victim of a crime), but I think it will still relate to my personal experience. Here are some suggested readings. Read as many as you like. They give different viewpoints and scopes on the issue of gun control in general. Some of them require Adobe Reader, which can be downloaded here.
May 1, 2005
Transportation
On Sunday, May first, fifteen of us traveled to the City Cafe and discussed transportation. David Coyte from CART, was there to take questions and speak about the local, regional and national outlooks. We critiqued TARC and other systems and considered new technologies such as magnetic levitation.
Inevitably, the conversation touched on the conflict between the American love of personal mobility and the virtues of mass transit. Some lamented our sprawling urban structures and car-centered culture and wondered what it will take to prod us to change. It was widely acknowledged that current federal policy will not do the trick.
Sunday, May Fifteenth, we will talk about crime, victim's rights and gun control. Florida has recently passed a law granting crime victims the option of using lethal force. Will this policy thwart criminals or lead to needless injuries and death. Just where do we draw the line between defense and offense? Come armed with your best arguments as we explore the issues of crime, victim's rights and gun control. Matt Evans has material about the subject that he will post on our website, cofound.blogspot.com.
Inevitably, the conversation touched on the conflict between the American love of personal mobility and the virtues of mass transit. Some lamented our sprawling urban structures and car-centered culture and wondered what it will take to prod us to change. It was widely acknowledged that current federal policy will not do the trick.
Sunday, May Fifteenth, we will talk about crime, victim's rights and gun control. Florida has recently passed a law granting crime victims the option of using lethal force. Will this policy thwart criminals or lead to needless injuries and death. Just where do we draw the line between defense and offense? Come armed with your best arguments as we explore the issues of crime, victim's rights and gun control. Matt Evans has material about the subject that he will post on our website, cofound.blogspot.com.
April 17, 2005
Social Security
On Sunday, the 17th, eleven intrepid souls braved perfect weather to discuss Social Security. Our talk touched on the financial squeeze facing retirees and the disabled and the social responsibility many feel they have for these groups. Several among us expressed a general disgust at politicians for mismanagement, if not outright theft, of the trust fund. This prompted a call for us to personally contact our Congressmen and to hold them accountable.
As the discussion progressed, a positive outlook came to the fore and a consensus developed that a rough patch may lie ahead but our resilient society can innovate its way to better days.
On May 1st we meet again with the topic: Transportation for the Long Haul
Transportation issues come up often during our discussions and certainly it is a subject that affects us all. When it comes to traffic jams and pollution, we are all a part of the problem. But we can also play a role in it's solution. Join us as we talk about bridges, light rail and the future of the automobile. On Sunday, May the 1st we'll take a look at the local and long distance issues, for today and for down the road. Hope we see you then.
As the discussion progressed, a positive outlook came to the fore and a consensus developed that a rough patch may lie ahead but our resilient society can innovate its way to better days.
On May 1st we meet again with the topic: Transportation for the Long Haul
Transportation issues come up often during our discussions and certainly it is a subject that affects us all. When it comes to traffic jams and pollution, we are all a part of the problem. But we can also play a role in it's solution. Join us as we talk about bridges, light rail and the future of the automobile. On Sunday, May the 1st we'll take a look at the local and long distance issues, for today and for down the road. Hope we see you then.
April 4, 2005
Interesting Links
If you actually want to know what is going on this world, I don't think you can really watch TV and know anything, but there are some glaring exceptions, CSPAN being one of them.
Two interesting things everyone should check out:
1. Since social security serves as our next topic, check out some of the testimony and videos CSPAN posts from different perspectives at http://www.cspan.org (sorry you will need to do a a search on this site as long html addresses, which is what I had for the exact address of these files, break the blog).
2. Since we mentioned consumerism, an interesting conversation was had about Coke by a recent author on the subject, check it out at http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1772 (no special programs needed as this is a transcript).
Two interesting things everyone should check out:
1. Since social security serves as our next topic, check out some of the testimony and videos CSPAN posts from different perspectives at http://www.cspan.org (sorry you will need to do a a search on this site as long html addresses, which is what I had for the exact address of these files, break the blog).
2. Since we mentioned consumerism, an interesting conversation was had about Coke by a recent author on the subject, check it out at http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1772 (no special programs needed as this is a transcript).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)