Presumption

This morning I was thinking about presumption. Presumption causes many problems in relationships, whether they be between two individuals or nations. Presumptions holds one's own views as the "only view" and acts without thought or understanding. This is what offends many about Americans. Traditions are individually oriented by the individual families that make up our nation's "tradition of diversity".

Everyone has heard and seen pictures of the stereotypical "American in Paris". This is funny, but not so funny. People have pride in their cultural traditions and some do not seem to respect these in today's inter-related world.

Our inter-related world has brought about more understanding, but there are still certain courtesies that those not privy to the "inside of culture" might not be aware. Such is the nature of unexposure to another culture.

Many years ago, when we travelled with our children to Paris and were seated at a corner table, as group of American students came in and were seated within our hearing. As they looked over the menu, one loudly asked if the "water was pure enough to drink"! IN PARIS! I was embarassed for her/them/me/Americans. What would make this teen so insensitive? Paris is not a 'third world country"!

I think sometimes insensitivity can happen because of a lack of exposure, or a lack of openness to life itself. The lack of openness can hinder even the experiences we have by being transcribed into our way of understanding or thinking about life especially if the cultural value is not based on rational discourse. This is what causes presumptuous behavior.

This has led me to question the value of culture, and which cultural value is most important. Cultural values have meaning to those that still partake of them. My husband's family has an "unspoken rule" about tea and cookies. There is a "proper way" to make and partake of "tea time". Americans have a casual attitude about such matters, because of our inability to understand why people don't value differences of opinion about ways of doing things. Our differences have made us tolerant, except where it concerns intolerance.

Today's problems "turn" around the intolerant cultures, which demand a strict obedience to certain standardized behaviors. These cultures are dangerous because they cannot tolerate the vast differences in the world. And those that adhere to "a one way of being" in the world are prone to subvert another's liberty in the name of "right", "the sacred", or some other type of presumptuous thinking.

Today, it is probably more important to remember the reasons for certain cultural traditions. These help to bind together a culture/nation and give it an identity. But, it also intensifies one's ethnic identification. This can be damning in today's world, where the world is attempting to "bind" all together, at least in understanding. But, understanding has to be premised upon rationality. And sometimes there is no way to agree or come to a compromise, because the values of certain cultures are so different and so obstinant.

Identity in America is understood, not just within ethnicity, but one's individuality. What does one want to do and how does one want to be in the world. The "world is the limit", because we attempt to protect the minority's right to opportunity and not limit or inhibit "difference".

A VERT GRAVE MISTAKE !

In last post, I made a grave mistake. I stated that government was never meant to give power, but to limit power.

In one sense, this is true, as it limits what one can do to another, but I also believe that limited government is what the Founders intended for our free society. Limited government doesn't give power by enabling bad behavior that disregards another's life. But, it does give power in the sense of enabling the individual to choose and determine his own destiny. That is the "ideal".

But, experience underlines the facts. And the facts are that all are not equal in opportunity. Some believe it is the government's job to rectify that "injustice'. This is what our country does in minority rights. But, as I have expressed before, minority rights can bring about reverse discrimination, the unintended consequence.

The world is filled with 'injustice" and I don't think that injustice will ever be resolved completely, because there are always two sides to any issue, if not more. We must do what we can or will to prepare for injustice. And this is why laws are in place, in the first place.

Discrimination About Discrimination

Civil rights has a turbulant history in American culture. And we are still "fighting for civil rights". But, has civil rights outweighed the value of society's value of "the common good" because of its overemphasis?

Minority rights "won the day" when minoritiesad the right to be represented through "quotas". Quotas brings hand-wringing to some camps that discriminate by "nature". That is, they discriminate to define themselves apart from the larger context of society. Such is the case with a conservative school and homosexual teachers.

Minority rights has been accepted as a "standard" of fairness. And minority rights are protected by civil liberties. But, are civil liberties just as keen on protecting a "creationist educator"? I believe so. But, the cultural climate is not conducive, these days, for diversity, as just as in quotas, there is a conscious effort to value the "politically correct".

I think that our society has really baffled others, as we have no culture that supports a generalized view of life, as we believe in individual liberties and cultural diversity. This is all welll and good, until the culture becomes so diverse that there is no consensus of any kind to appeal to rationality. This is what America faces in its "culture wars".

Is everyone going to get represented equally? Or will those who have 'politically incorrect" views going to be discriminated against, because the power of the government has the force to "keep them in line"? Is government "protecting us" from information "for our own good"?

Conservative churches are afriad that they will have to pledge allegience to the "cultural ideal" of diversity, at the expense of dissolving the values of the churches populace. Atheists are "drooling at the mouth" over such unfortunate situations, as they might want to make a case against religious freedom on the basis of "discrimination". Our Founders would be appalled!

Each religious group has just as much right to survive in the "cultural wars" as a minority. But, minoirity rights are politically correct because these vote in the next election. Conservative organizational structures do not vote and the individuals in such organizations probably wouldn't vote for a "plural view" of society in the first place. So, politically, the conservative organization is marginalized or useful only to promote agendas that "appear to be fair", while "hoodwinking those in its bow".

The only solution to the cultural wars is the libertarian position. Individuals taking responsibility for their own lives, without govenment interference. This way there are no 'priviledged positions" that give one a 'right over another", and there are no priviledged "people" because of a 'right" made to bring retribution. And government would have to listen to those whose liberties are bing plundered. Government would finally be held accountable to the people, and not the people to the government.

Our country has changed in regards to entitlement. No one deserves anything other than proper respect and dignity, as a human being and being treated equally under law as a citizen. But, nowadays, young people are able to take time out from school and dont' have to hold down a job while in school ,because parents are wealthy enough to "make it easy". Some of these young people grow up to expect the world to "stand at attention" for them and when it doesn't, "Mama can't do anything about it".

My grandfather and those in his generation grew up understanding that life was about working to make a living, being responsible to their government in serving their country and acting respectfully to authority. Today, this is not the case and society suffers because of it.

The 50's brought America prosperity that spoiled us, but allowed us the freedom to innovate, as we were also wealthy enough to not worry if we didn't make the money right away. There was enough to put "food on the table". Today, we are back to square one, working feverishly to "make a living".

I heard that some believe this economic crisis is good for families, as it demands that they spend more time eating together around the table and playing games at home. Though these "images" bring 'warmth to our hearts", these images are not of everyone's family. Financial concerns are the number one culprit of marital discord. And some who face financial crisis will have to get a second job, instead of eating around the table with their children, these will be more tired and more absent from their families, even when they are at home.

Prosperity is not the enemy, though Marxist ideologues would like to sell us that "bill of goods". Prosperity is a sign of hard work, innovation, wise decision making, investment, responsibility, and self-governance. The problem with today's prosperity is that too many Americans bought too much too soon and got in debt over their heads. And those in the financial fields got greedy of gaining on their investments at too high an interest rate. It is always easy to play with other people's money and livlihoods.

So discrimination is not just about race, but also about choice, value, and lifestyle. No one can make right decisons for you, as individuals must make that choice for themselves for it to have any moral value. Americans have not been used to moral dilemmas, or ethical evaluations for the most part.

And not remembering the mistakes of the past, ensures that we will experience the results of those mistakes again.

Which Way?

I have been fascinated by American Creation's blog site. They have been discussing many issues concerning our Founding as a nation.

Which way is best to understand our present reality? Realism , Critical Realsim, or Instrucmentalism?

Realism makes absolute and universal claims about what humans know, understand and value (or should value). Realism says that we perceive everything the same way. It is a correspondence view of Truth. History happened in the real world. Scientific facts are facts.

Instrumentalism understands "what works", is more pragmatic in its assessment, as it is focused on "outcome". Instrumentalism is a kind of "social contruction" about reality. The real is what leaders say is real. History is interpreted by these to assure outcomes.

Critical realism says that although reality is "out there", we cannot know it absolutely. We only know "in part", as we are within certain contexts of history, societial, and personal. This being the case, the critical realists must evaluate what he chooses to value as "ultimate". These are the "ideals" that our Founding Fathers viewed as "most important".

The Quadralateral affirms different ways of "being in the world". Some understand through reason and make their evaluations about life based on reason's assessment. But, reason is still interpreted within contexts of one's experience or expertise. We cannot get away from various contexts.

Though tradition and scripture are the interpretive lens of understanding culture, these are not absolute, either. So, those in leadership must strategize, using their reason, about what outcome is to be valued and work to formulate how policy helps to form that outcome.

The outcome today is multicultural, and global. The multiculturalists values reason within contexts, while the critical realists understands that everyone's culture, cannot be the one and only outcome, as we must choose what is of ultimate importance.

We need critical realists that will defend Western civilization from its demise.

This morning it was reported that Germany is at odds with America over a NATO attack that killed Afghan citizens. Globalism creates division where it concerns the West's interest, because the West has bought into the multicultural "worldview where the West is dismissed on the basis of "imperialism", or "colonialism". The multiculturalists tries to rectify injustice through minority rights. And the unintended consequences is reverse discrimination.

Last night, on TV it was reported how the multiculturalists are re-writing our history, and labelling the heroes of our past with derogatory names, undermining thier work in building our culture of freedom and justice.

I think that we are headed for rough waters unless reason holds sway above multiculturalism. Multiculturalism will lead us toward communism, which undermines individual liberties. And individual liberties are only won under accountable and responsible leadership, who inform the public of the outcome, instead of "winning" through sleight of hand.

"Racialized" America

America is known to be diverse in her cultural roots. This is what has made America great, because we have understood tolerance, for the most part. I know our history has contained a "dark" period where slaves were bought and sold, but we have overcome that time, or have we?

We know that America has its "passionate" differences, as otherwise, we would not believe in "free speech". The Klu Klux Klan and the Black Panthers have all "had some voice" in our public square.

This is what has baffled me in regards to the recent "racialization" incidence in Cambridge MA.

I had turned the news on to hear the woman who made the call to the police apologize for any "community upset" that might have occurred due to her call. What? All she did was call the police about a possible burgulary of a neighbor's property! And she was apologizing!!! I thought that we were to "be about community service", and yet, hers was not "approved".

The President responded by demonizing the police officier and the next day apologizing and announcing a meeting with the police officier and the professor involved. Why was the neighbor not called to the meeting? Was she, then considered the culprit? Was she the one being blamed, because she was "white" and her suspect was black?

I know when one has been victimized over a long period that it is hard to build trust. And when the experiences are continually affirmed and conditioned as justification for entitlement, then one wonders where the victim will become the victor. I am weary of this discussion. And it has led many, I believe, to not care.

Minority rights have reverse discrimination as far as I am concerned. The world we live in discriminates. That is how we make judgments and decisions, which are not always because of racial profiling, but because of necessity. The atmosphere has become so violatile that one is "gun shy" for fear of mis-stepping. Who will be offended, and what will be the "costs"?

Although I am glad that we are diverse in our culture, there is a price to pay and the one we have just seen played out before our eyes happens many times everyday around the country. I hope that in trying to rectify the wrongs of the past, we do not oversteer our "balance' and become intolerant to the Caucasions among us..

In Thinking About Aristocracy

History was never a subject that I delighted in during my schooling. Unfortunately, without an understanding of history, one is doomed to "repeat the mistakes of the past". History teaches us wisdom, as it helps us understand the "human element" that does not change. Government is to provide a framework to protect men from each other. It was never meant to be an oppressive force over individual liberties.

Since evolutionary theory is the "consensus" of most, and scientific investigation "works" upon the basis of the "pragmatic", we accept evolution as truth in science.

Evolution does not give us "human history", as we have developed from lower life forms. These life forms do not hold the "essence" of the human, but are the basic physical components of the "human". We really do not understand the human in these days of scientific understanding. But we are seeking for more information and understanding.

Evolution applied to human society defines civilization as human "engineering". Leaders plan, dominate and control what "is to be". These are the aristocracy in our societies. Aristocracy is a 'natural" occurrance in the world, as without leadership, nothing else will have focus, or vision. But, while aristocracy is the "natural" understanding of organizational structuring, free societies do not priviledge the aristocracy to be "above the law". Free societies depend on "law" to maintain order and structure in society, and not just leaders' visions, viewpoint, desires and opinions. Societies that function on the basis of a leader's "persona" are despotic.

Leaders in oppressive societies limit equality under law, subvert the law, or define the law arbitrarily. These societies seem to bring about a human resistance in reform or revolution, as humans are meant to live as individuals, defining themselves by their most important values. This is why America applauds "civil liberties". And no one is to be "above the law".

The natural order is structured by competition. Many think that this is wrong and attempt to "give life and choice" to those who have less of an edge on competition. These think that governing through "compassion" is the most important attribute to develop. Others think that competition, being the natural state of things should determine how we "use" the natrual order for the benefit of society. These believe that the market is the most productive way to "use" the natural order.

I believe our country affirms both values, as we believe in protecting the rights of the disabled, the minority, and the unfortunate. But, we disagree to what extint this should go in our society.

Competition is based on "self responsiblity" and "self governance" that protects the individual from their tendency to "not bear their weight". Compassion, on the other hand, lends help to those who cannot govern themselves, either through lack of training, or lack of ability. Our political parties are divided as to how these values are to be implemented and maintained. This is what our culture wars are about.

Is the aristocracy to be in government's hands, corporate hands, or individual hands? That is a big question of how we see the world, understand life and evaluate priorites.

History, Power and Minorities

There has been much discussion in some segments of society about history and who is "right" about history. What really happened and what was the ideology that drove the transcribers of history. On one of the blogs I follow American Creation, there has been discussion on our Founding Fathers and the issue of whether they were Christians, and whether America is a Christian nation. On other sites there is discussion about Christian tradition and how we do not have all the information needed to make assertions about the development of Christianity.

Much has to do with those in power, the power structures, and the interests of those who "told the story". Our perceptions do influence how we understand and come to our conclusions. And our perceptions are influenced by our personal and cultural histories.

Christianity was a theologizing of history, so that the minority voice would be heard. In our democratic and free society, we have the right to speak and the right to be heard, as this was the Founding Fathers concern. Minority voices and minority rights have become a backhanded prejuidice against the majority, as these rights are legislated by government in "Affirmative Action" and are enforced by quotas. These stipulations, while attempting to 'correct' a wrong, does wrong, which is what happens whenever there is moralizing, universalizing, or expanding government influence "making amends" for wrongs. It becomes a monster to those it should be kind toward, because it discrimnates inadvertedly and makes demands of time to regulate "itself" in paperwork. Beauracracies are expensive and cumbersome, as well as hard to hold accountable. This is one of the primary reasons our Founding Fathers wanted a limited government.

Just the other day, I was talking to a young couple that were overwhelmed by the government's discrimination! They have made too much money to get help, as they have health issues, and a job loss. Yet, those who have never worked, had children they don't want and live parasitely off of government coffers are given "food stamps", WIC to help with their children and untold other programs of support, while these that are more than deserving don't get anything and yet, have paid taxes and supported the government's interest in being good citizens. What is the answer to these public questions, which affect all of us?

Limited government is a government that does not overspend, gives the individual room and right to pursue their own interests without too much government interference, and allows the market to drive profits. Free societies allow freedom in many dimensions, which brings opportunities, as well as limitations.

I find whenever there is a socialistic "concern", there is moral disintergration, as people need incentive to do and to be for themselves and their families. Others should also be held accountable for taking care of their families. And when the family has disintergrated, then the Church should take the lead in "adopting" those that have no support or help in obtaining opportunity.