I have made my prayers for the poor souls in Japan. I hope that many of you have done likewise. The pictures of Japan are heart-wrenching. How can anyone not have sympathy for those who have suffered and continue to suffer from this natural disaster.
Now on to unnatural disasters. Trouble-maker can not help but notice the discussion that has risen from this tragedy concerning nuclear power. Already there are opponents of nuclear power who are passionately arguing that Japan is evidence that we have to avoid using it. And there are proponents of nuclear power who argue that Japan teaches us no such thing.
I have one question for both groups. How do you know this? They have not even gotten the fires under control yet and people are telling me that they know what went wrong. This does not pass the smell test. I have a novel idea. How about we get the tragedy under control, then do an investigation and see what went wrong. Wow. Having information before drawing a conclusion. Who would have thought of that?
To often political pundits use their own paradigm to develop conclusion that support those paradigms regardless of what the evidence says. We would be better off if we look at these pundits with a great deal of skepticism. Instead we tend to automatically dismiss those we disagree with and unconditionally accept the rantings of those we agree with. Until we learn to escape this mentality and think for ourselves we will always be vulnerable to making big decisions without having collected all of our evidence. Just a little advice from a little trouble-maker.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Public Unionization
Okay let's be honest. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin signed into law rules that are not just there to balance the budget. They are there to break up the public unions. To say otherwise is to pretend that reality does not exists. It is not just the removing of the right to collectively bargain. It is also the removal of the requirement of employees to deduct union dues and the requirement for the unions to be recertified by vote every year. Maybe those are good measures for Wisconsin to have but those measures are not about saving the state money, but they are about breaking the power of unions.
If we are honest about the attempt to break up the unions then the next question is whether that is a good thing. Most Americans, this one included, believes that people should retain collective bargaining rights. On the other hand, collective bargaining means something different when we are looking at a public union as opposed to a union for a private company. When a union bargains with a private company you have a true adversarial relationship. If the company agrees to concessions with the union then that company has to pay the union out of its own pocket. But a public union is bargaining with someone who is not going to have to ante up for any concessions. In fact, because unions are so politically active, there is a real possibility that their "adversary" has more interest in keeping the union members happy than in saving money.
Some conservatives have argued that because government officials are less likely to bargain in a way to protect the interest of the taxpayers the way a company will protect the interest of the share holders that we should outlaw public unions. I acknowledge that, just as we had to be honest about Governor's Walkers intention to break the union, we have to be honest that this is a legitimate concern. But do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Can we not keep the public unions and neutralize this concern?
I think we can. My compromise is that we allow public unions to bargain for whatever they can get. However, they are not allowed to become involved in politics. They can not endorses or donate to campaigns, set up get out the vote drives, or help to do political organizing. This way they do not directly help to determine who they will bargain with. This will put public union more on the same footing as private unions.
Will we ever reach such a compromise. Not if we are just calling each other names. Not if we take advantage of a temporary political advantage, like what the Republicans are doing right now, to put for all that we want. Not if we run away from our obligations to debate and vote, like what the Democrats did, if we do not get our way. In short, we will not find solutions that solve the problems that Republicans and Democrats both point out as long as we do politics like we have always done. But what else is new?
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
If we are honest about the attempt to break up the unions then the next question is whether that is a good thing. Most Americans, this one included, believes that people should retain collective bargaining rights. On the other hand, collective bargaining means something different when we are looking at a public union as opposed to a union for a private company. When a union bargains with a private company you have a true adversarial relationship. If the company agrees to concessions with the union then that company has to pay the union out of its own pocket. But a public union is bargaining with someone who is not going to have to ante up for any concessions. In fact, because unions are so politically active, there is a real possibility that their "adversary" has more interest in keeping the union members happy than in saving money.
Some conservatives have argued that because government officials are less likely to bargain in a way to protect the interest of the taxpayers the way a company will protect the interest of the share holders that we should outlaw public unions. I acknowledge that, just as we had to be honest about Governor's Walkers intention to break the union, we have to be honest that this is a legitimate concern. But do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Can we not keep the public unions and neutralize this concern?
I think we can. My compromise is that we allow public unions to bargain for whatever they can get. However, they are not allowed to become involved in politics. They can not endorses or donate to campaigns, set up get out the vote drives, or help to do political organizing. This way they do not directly help to determine who they will bargain with. This will put public union more on the same footing as private unions.
Will we ever reach such a compromise. Not if we are just calling each other names. Not if we take advantage of a temporary political advantage, like what the Republicans are doing right now, to put for all that we want. Not if we run away from our obligations to debate and vote, like what the Democrats did, if we do not get our way. In short, we will not find solutions that solve the problems that Republicans and Democrats both point out as long as we do politics like we have always done. But what else is new?
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Balance Part 4 - When Societies go bad
I have noticed something about oppressive societies. I have noticed that usually they are build around admirable values. For example, much of the oppression connected to the Dark Ages is based on the desire to create a moral Christian order. Morality is a desirable quality for a society. It is clearly better to have a moral society than one that is chaotic. But the imposed morality in the Dark Ages led to a great deal of bloodshed and oppression.
Or what about the terror visited upon us due to Stalinism and other communist societies. A lot of people died due to the laudable desire to create equality. These communist societies are built around the notion of promoting economic equality. Nothing wrong with that. Except that these efforts to promote equality led to millions send to gulags, or being executed.
A desire to be patriotic to one's country is a good thing. But such loyalty allowed Hitler to create his own version of Hell. Islam has some commendable qualities in it. But forcing everyone to accept those qualities has created many of the Islamic tyrannies we see today. As you can see trying to impose some good quality to the rest of society is a big reason why we see the development of oppressive and cruel societies.
This is tied to my discussion of balance. Balance forces us to recognize that any good quality can be used to justify horrible actions. If we remember the importance of balance then we will not be persuaded by the next would-be dictator who asks us to sacrifice it all for a sacred principle. We can agree the principle is good without throwing away our rights and freedoms.
I love my country. I believe we have a right to protect ourselves against terrorists. But my love for my country does not lead me to do anything to protect it. There must be a balance where we do have rules that protect us against a very real threat but we also balance those rules with efforts to maintain our freedom. I neither completely agree with the ACLU nor with conservative talk show host as it concerns the measures to protect ourselves. Rather I will look for a balanced approach that allows us to protect ourselves with a maximum protection of our freedom. I find that on most issues such a need for a balanced approach is best.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Balance Part 3 - Societal Effects
In my last blog, I looked at the importance of balance in a person's life. But balance is not just important to us as individuals. It is also important to society in general.
Let me illustrate this with a not so obvious example. We know that unemployment is too high today. All of us would like for it to be lower. But do we want a society with absolutely no unemployment. If you imagine such a society it would be one in which employees would have a difficult time finding someone to hire. They likely would have to higher people who are not qualified and the work done in society would suffer. Obviously, we do not want unemployment that is too high but having it too low can produce its own problems.
Or what about society change. We want society to progress and to become better. But do we want everything to change at once? There is a healthy rate of change for our societies that is not too fast or too slow. It is all about a balanced approach to societal change.
The qualities we think are good in a society are only that way if they are not too much. Societal pacifism can reduce incidents of war but also produce appeasement of evil nations. Technological development can improve the lives of people in society but also can create cultural changes that people are not ready for and may de-humanize them. Societal morality can turn help produce discipline among its members but also create a sterile legalism. Furthermore qualities that we think as negative in society can also produce positive effects in the right amount. Societal deviance can often lead to new social innovations. A social "warrior" mentality can provide a deterrence to invasion from other countries. It is all about balance. It is hard to think of a beneficial societal quality that there can not be too much of or even a negative social quality that can not be useful in certain situations.
The lesson of balance is that we can not become too attached to any certain social quality as an absolute good. In fact some of the worst atrocities occur in societies that "worship" some beneficial societal aspect. In my next blog I will outline what I mean by this and further illustrate the need for balance in our societies and lives.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Let me illustrate this with a not so obvious example. We know that unemployment is too high today. All of us would like for it to be lower. But do we want a society with absolutely no unemployment. If you imagine such a society it would be one in which employees would have a difficult time finding someone to hire. They likely would have to higher people who are not qualified and the work done in society would suffer. Obviously, we do not want unemployment that is too high but having it too low can produce its own problems.
Or what about society change. We want society to progress and to become better. But do we want everything to change at once? There is a healthy rate of change for our societies that is not too fast or too slow. It is all about a balanced approach to societal change.
The qualities we think are good in a society are only that way if they are not too much. Societal pacifism can reduce incidents of war but also produce appeasement of evil nations. Technological development can improve the lives of people in society but also can create cultural changes that people are not ready for and may de-humanize them. Societal morality can turn help produce discipline among its members but also create a sterile legalism. Furthermore qualities that we think as negative in society can also produce positive effects in the right amount. Societal deviance can often lead to new social innovations. A social "warrior" mentality can provide a deterrence to invasion from other countries. It is all about balance. It is hard to think of a beneficial societal quality that there can not be too much of or even a negative social quality that can not be useful in certain situations.
The lesson of balance is that we can not become too attached to any certain social quality as an absolute good. In fact some of the worst atrocities occur in societies that "worship" some beneficial societal aspect. In my next blog I will outline what I mean by this and further illustrate the need for balance in our societies and lives.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Balance Part 2 - Our Greatest Strength/Weakness
I believe that our strengths and our weaknesses are related. Often what is a person's greatest strength is also his/her greatest weakness. How can this be?
Imagine someone who is very compassionate and really cares about other people. This person has a strength in that compassion. Caring about others is something we want in a person. But such compassion may blind that person. For example, such a person may meet a prisoner and feel compassion for him. The person may fight for the release of this prisoner who had a tough time early in his life. But it can turn out that the prisoner is still dangerous to society. Compassion for the difficult childhood of the prisoner may lead to a continued criminal campaign of violence.
This may seem extreme. But have we not all met someone who has a great deal of compassion that leads to tragic consequences. Perhaps someone who stays in an abusive relationship out of compassion for the abuser. Or a parent who fails to discipline a child due to compassion. Or a professor who passes a student with a hard luck story even though the student does not have the work ethic to achieve a degree. This is not to say that there is something wrong with compassion. It is a fine quality to have. But in an excess the strength of compassion can become a weakness.
This is the same for all such strengths. The strength of love can become the weakness of co-dependency. The strength of assertiveness can become the weakness of aggressiveness. The strength of ethnic pride can become the weakness of ethnic ethnocentrism. The strength of being autonomous can become the weakness of being a "lone wolf." The strength of passion can become the weakness of fanaticism. The list goes on.
It is within the seeds of our strengths where we often find our weaknesses. This has practical implications in that it can help us find our weakness and to appreciate the strengths connected to them. But is also shows how balance is such an important part of our reality. No characteristic is good in the extreme. And many bad characteristics are connected to other qualities that are good. We have to look for balance in our approaches and our personal actions.
But balance is not just important in our personal lives. It matters in the characteristics of our society. Looking at that reality will require more space than I want to use in this blog entry. Thus this series on balance will continue.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Imagine someone who is very compassionate and really cares about other people. This person has a strength in that compassion. Caring about others is something we want in a person. But such compassion may blind that person. For example, such a person may meet a prisoner and feel compassion for him. The person may fight for the release of this prisoner who had a tough time early in his life. But it can turn out that the prisoner is still dangerous to society. Compassion for the difficult childhood of the prisoner may lead to a continued criminal campaign of violence.
This may seem extreme. But have we not all met someone who has a great deal of compassion that leads to tragic consequences. Perhaps someone who stays in an abusive relationship out of compassion for the abuser. Or a parent who fails to discipline a child due to compassion. Or a professor who passes a student with a hard luck story even though the student does not have the work ethic to achieve a degree. This is not to say that there is something wrong with compassion. It is a fine quality to have. But in an excess the strength of compassion can become a weakness.
This is the same for all such strengths. The strength of love can become the weakness of co-dependency. The strength of assertiveness can become the weakness of aggressiveness. The strength of ethnic pride can become the weakness of ethnic ethnocentrism. The strength of being autonomous can become the weakness of being a "lone wolf." The strength of passion can become the weakness of fanaticism. The list goes on.
It is within the seeds of our strengths where we often find our weaknesses. This has practical implications in that it can help us find our weakness and to appreciate the strengths connected to them. But is also shows how balance is such an important part of our reality. No characteristic is good in the extreme. And many bad characteristics are connected to other qualities that are good. We have to look for balance in our approaches and our personal actions.
But balance is not just important in our personal lives. It matters in the characteristics of our society. Looking at that reality will require more space than I want to use in this blog entry. Thus this series on balance will continue.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Monday, February 14, 2011
Balance Part 1 - Egypt Revolution
Well we will have a new government in Egypt. By all accounts that is a great thing. The old government was repressive to its people.
And what did the U.S. government do to facilitate this occurrence? It seems that we have done very little. By and large the U.S. was largely powerless to do much but watch what happened. We are not use to be so powerless. But looking at this outcome, it may be that doing nothing, or very little, was the best tactic to take.
This may be a lesson for us all. At times it is important to take action to get the desired result. But then I notice that people who have such a philosophy think that we always have to take action. They do not seem to understand that being proactive is beneficial in some situations but can be detrimental in other situations.
This illustrates an important concept we have to consider and that is the concept of balance. Being proactive is a valuable quality to have. But an unbalanced approach where all you are is proactive will eventually get you into trouble. The answer is not to become submissive. While there are times that staying out of the way, like the U.S. largely did with Egypt, is appropriate it is not always the right path.
There is no approach that is always right and none that is always wrong. The key is to find balance in our approaches so that we can find the wisest path. Balance is such an important aspect that I think I want to spend a few blogs on it.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
And what did the U.S. government do to facilitate this occurrence? It seems that we have done very little. By and large the U.S. was largely powerless to do much but watch what happened. We are not use to be so powerless. But looking at this outcome, it may be that doing nothing, or very little, was the best tactic to take.
This may be a lesson for us all. At times it is important to take action to get the desired result. But then I notice that people who have such a philosophy think that we always have to take action. They do not seem to understand that being proactive is beneficial in some situations but can be detrimental in other situations.
This illustrates an important concept we have to consider and that is the concept of balance. Being proactive is a valuable quality to have. But an unbalanced approach where all you are is proactive will eventually get you into trouble. The answer is not to become submissive. While there are times that staying out of the way, like the U.S. largely did with Egypt, is appropriate it is not always the right path.
There is no approach that is always right and none that is always wrong. The key is to find balance in our approaches so that we can find the wisest path. Balance is such an important aspect that I think I want to spend a few blogs on it.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Thursday, February 10, 2011
You want to honor who?
Just when I think I can get away from talking about racial issues they pull me back in. How can I avoid commenting on the following story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_confederate_license_plates
Maybe it is because this is fresh in my mind because I just say a documentary on the origin of the Klan but I know that Forrest was a major player in making that vile organization violent. He is also responsible for executing black soldiers who had surrendered. This was not a nice man.
Now he may have renounced all of that later in life. And I am a believer in forgiveness. But he is not known for his good works. What he is known for is helping to create the violence that is the Klan. This is not a George Washington situation who was a slave owner but that is not why he is famous. People who honor Washington are not automatically honoring his slave owning. But Forrest is most famous for his hatred and violence, so how do you honor him without also honoring that hatred and violence.
I try to put myself in the mindset of those that I disagree with. A lot of times it helps me to understand why they thing the way they do. I may not always agree with them but trying to understand why they think the way they do helps me to humanize them and not fall into the trap of demonizing others. But it is hard for me to understand why people fight to honor someone like Forrest. People like that really challenge my ability to look at the perspective of others.
Do I try to understand the perspective of those who want to honor Forrest or admit that it is a bridge too far? Do I try to avoid demonizing them or believe that they deserve to be demonized if they push such ideas? To be honest I still do not know how much effort I should go into trying to understand them. A big part of me would love to write them off but I also worry about picking up habits of demonizing those I do not agree with. For me personally these are tough questions but they are questions that we should all ask. Who do we try to understand and who do we write off?
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_confederate_license_plates
Maybe it is because this is fresh in my mind because I just say a documentary on the origin of the Klan but I know that Forrest was a major player in making that vile organization violent. He is also responsible for executing black soldiers who had surrendered. This was not a nice man.
Now he may have renounced all of that later in life. And I am a believer in forgiveness. But he is not known for his good works. What he is known for is helping to create the violence that is the Klan. This is not a George Washington situation who was a slave owner but that is not why he is famous. People who honor Washington are not automatically honoring his slave owning. But Forrest is most famous for his hatred and violence, so how do you honor him without also honoring that hatred and violence.
I try to put myself in the mindset of those that I disagree with. A lot of times it helps me to understand why they thing the way they do. I may not always agree with them but trying to understand why they think the way they do helps me to humanize them and not fall into the trap of demonizing others. But it is hard for me to understand why people fight to honor someone like Forrest. People like that really challenge my ability to look at the perspective of others.
Do I try to understand the perspective of those who want to honor Forrest or admit that it is a bridge too far? Do I try to avoid demonizing them or believe that they deserve to be demonized if they push such ideas? To be honest I still do not know how much effort I should go into trying to understand them. A big part of me would love to write them off but I also worry about picking up habits of demonizing those I do not agree with. For me personally these are tough questions but they are questions that we should all ask. Who do we try to understand and who do we write off?
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)