Last post, I recognized that negotiation of differences, is an "ideal". Negotiation assumes mutual respect and trust. Mutual respect and trust does not exist among nations, nor does it exist in many personal relationships. Nations are self-interested, just as individual humans. Nation-states justify their actions to citizens depending on their ultimate values, just as indiviudals do. The "ideals" of the human heart are the material for "world politics".
America values individual liberty and its "ideal" is an informed citizenry. Without "freedom of the Press", there can be no liberty, because "the people" cannot have the knowledge that is necessary to hold government 'accountable'. An informed citizenry also, means that people take the time to investigate the issues, but many haven't the time to be interested, except when it concerns their present circumstances. The "ideals" are negotiated by those that are invested and interested in such matters. Propaganda is known to control the minds of the mindless, and those under dominating societies that do not value liberty and individuality. Educating the populace is the only hope for remaining a free society.
Negotiation is diplomacy, as it values cultural diversity, while upholding the value of 'world/global concerns that impose upon the nation-state. International politics underwrites much of what we read in the paper, but I wonder if all the power brokers and their negotiations are "upfront" in eye of the public? It makes one wonder when actions are taken that make one question the rationale, with little justification coming from Washington, what is really happening to the "hope of the human heart"? (the hope to be remain free).
There is little to support that we will ever find Utopian ideals realized, where all men are free, and equal. This is why we "order society" to find the "best fit" for negotiating the differences.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Monday, April 25, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
America Needs Good Leadership on All Levels of Society
American needs good leadership at all levels of society!
Society is built by social structures that define and maintain the stability of a nation.
The first and foremost need at the most basic level of society is the family. The family is the first formative foundation of citizens. And good parenting meets the basic needs of the child on the emotional level. Without such emotional needs being met, all sorts of social ills transpire that damage society's health!
The next need for good leadership is education, where children, and young adults grow into their full potential. The successful student grows to benefit himself by meeting society's needs. Young adults that have found their personal intersts and values that define thier own purposes and what role they will play in society.
Govenmental leadership is another need for society to flourish. Good government does not oppress by overbearing demands, but allows liberty to be of ultimate value. Liberty to define one's life. Liberty to seek after one's values. And Liberty to make a "Life". Good leaders in government do not lord it over others, by seeking their own interest, but seek to serve the interests of the nation and not just those that have elected them into office, but all citizens.
All these social structures are necessary elements to develop the nation's interests, and help to further the nation's health, but without the emotional needs of the child being met, the nation will suffer the ills that America find in its society. Such ills are limiting to the nation's educational institutons and the government's need for good citizens. We must find a way back to value the child and the family. Otherwise, all the "fine educational institutions and government politicies will be for aught, because the nation's children will not be ready to take the helm of leadership for the future.
Society is built by social structures that define and maintain the stability of a nation.
The first and foremost need at the most basic level of society is the family. The family is the first formative foundation of citizens. And good parenting meets the basic needs of the child on the emotional level. Without such emotional needs being met, all sorts of social ills transpire that damage society's health!
The next need for good leadership is education, where children, and young adults grow into their full potential. The successful student grows to benefit himself by meeting society's needs. Young adults that have found their personal intersts and values that define thier own purposes and what role they will play in society.
Govenmental leadership is another need for society to flourish. Good government does not oppress by overbearing demands, but allows liberty to be of ultimate value. Liberty to define one's life. Liberty to seek after one's values. And Liberty to make a "Life". Good leaders in government do not lord it over others, by seeking their own interest, but seek to serve the interests of the nation and not just those that have elected them into office, but all citizens.
All these social structures are necessary elements to develop the nation's interests, and help to further the nation's health, but without the emotional needs of the child being met, the nation will suffer the ills that America find in its society. Such ills are limiting to the nation's educational institutons and the government's need for good citizens. We must find a way back to value the child and the family. Otherwise, all the "fine educational institutions and government politicies will be for aught, because the nation's children will not be ready to take the helm of leadership for the future.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Prejuidice Confirmed
Just recently, I saw on FaceBook that two biblical/theological scholars were to be visiting an area where I knew a "friend". I was amazed that these internationally known scholars would be visiting this small town. I decided to inform my "friend", so she might see them. I thought that the information that she would be exposed to might break the "wall" that hindered her from considering "real life".
This friend is a fundamentalist and she teaches numerous bible studies and holds authority over many minds in this town. I thought that being educated by those who have made their life's commitment to her value of "text" would be interesting for her and her "hobby".
When I told her about the event. She said she didn't want to consider it. Why, I asked? She stated that another friend had attended events supported by this particular lay group and she viewed these scholars as "liberals, besides the fact that those in this lay movement were the elite in this town"! When I tried to defend them, and suggest that maybe it would be of interest for her to just listen and consider what these people were saying, she refused!!!
I am not surprised since she had already been biased by her other friend. And this both friends do not value "open minded" discussion, education, intellectual challenges. In fact, in the past, when I have off-handedly offered "information" that I had learned, she would just state that she wasn't called to teach the "educated", or those that needed such information. (i.e., everyone was comfortable in their "imaginations" and their understandings of "truth". Why bother them?). Just as well, it confirmed to me that some people think that learning something that might challenge their assumptions, which would undermine their "self" or "ego". Their very identificaton is in how they understand the text.
Yes, why bother people with information that might make them uncomfortable? Would it change their life commmitments or decisions? I think so, as many of them have based their lives on what they deemed as "truth". And it might have limited them in thier choices and their understanding of values. But, will such as these change? I don't think so, not unless they themselves see value in learning, understanding or education, itself. But, then, I probably won't change my commitment to learn think,, challenge and provoke.
This friend is a fundamentalist and she teaches numerous bible studies and holds authority over many minds in this town. I thought that being educated by those who have made their life's commitment to her value of "text" would be interesting for her and her "hobby".
When I told her about the event. She said she didn't want to consider it. Why, I asked? She stated that another friend had attended events supported by this particular lay group and she viewed these scholars as "liberals, besides the fact that those in this lay movement were the elite in this town"! When I tried to defend them, and suggest that maybe it would be of interest for her to just listen and consider what these people were saying, she refused!!!
I am not surprised since she had already been biased by her other friend. And this both friends do not value "open minded" discussion, education, intellectual challenges. In fact, in the past, when I have off-handedly offered "information" that I had learned, she would just state that she wasn't called to teach the "educated", or those that needed such information. (i.e., everyone was comfortable in their "imaginations" and their understandings of "truth". Why bother them?). Just as well, it confirmed to me that some people think that learning something that might challenge their assumptions, which would undermine their "self" or "ego". Their very identificaton is in how they understand the text.
Yes, why bother people with information that might make them uncomfortable? Would it change their life commmitments or decisions? I think so, as many of them have based their lives on what they deemed as "truth". And it might have limited them in thier choices and their understanding of values. But, will such as these change? I don't think so, not unless they themselves see value in learning, understanding or education, itself. But, then, I probably won't change my commitment to learn think,, challenge and provoke.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Context Is Important to Identity
Rules/laws define and bring clarity and this is important for any society. Today, though, these rules or the laws in our Constitution are being dismissed because of higher, more alturistic goals. But, such thinking leaves little room for identification factors or for justice. Justice, in this context, means respect for the society that is defined by such rules and protection for the members/citizens of such a context. Justice is defined by protecting and upholding the "rule of law'.
Today's scientists wonder if one's identity is defined by one's environment, or one's universal mind via categories. If one's identity is defined by one's environment, then it is suggested that people need to be exposed, so that their identity can be expanded to be "inclusive". "Humans", after all, are all similar.
On the other hand, if it is suspected that the human mind holds the universal categories, then education is the answer to such questions. Education would inform the mind of its moral obligations to the 'human race". But, what of diversity of interpretation of such exposure, or the creative element of the mind? or coginitive affirmation of one's "religious frame"? Even though the mind can be stimulated does that stimulation bring about the same response, behavior, or understanding? How does previous experience impact how one interprests such stimulation?
What if 'universal identity is a undefined identity? What if the mind needs a context to define itself? What if the mind uses difference to determine identity, and not uniformity? Understanding oneself in opposition to another doesn't necessarily mean oppostional behavior. It would only help to clarify and distinctify and bring more understanding to the "table" in negotiation.
I think we have found that the religious hold to identification factors apart from "constitutional forms of government" or "self-identity", as a chosen identity. Constitutional forms of government' allow for a more definitive identity via religion. But, this is a problem for the modern mind that identifies with a nation-state, and a religious tradition that undermines the "humane laws" that the nation-state holds. How is identity to be expanded or informed without undermining the nation-state? And should one consider such religious identity as a " human right"? Some don't believe that such identity can be changed. And this is why they call for America to take care of its own business.
So, which is it, environment or education that is to be the "enlightenment" of identity? And how does one know if the identity is internalized such that it would be highly improbable for the religious to re-identify? De-conversions happen all that time, but only within the context of a free and open society. So, what should we do? Should we be engaged with spreading democracy and constitutional government? Should we continue to trade with such environments? Or should we leave the religious alone hoping that they will leave us alone?
Today's scientists wonder if one's identity is defined by one's environment, or one's universal mind via categories. If one's identity is defined by one's environment, then it is suggested that people need to be exposed, so that their identity can be expanded to be "inclusive". "Humans", after all, are all similar.
On the other hand, if it is suspected that the human mind holds the universal categories, then education is the answer to such questions. Education would inform the mind of its moral obligations to the 'human race". But, what of diversity of interpretation of such exposure, or the creative element of the mind? or coginitive affirmation of one's "religious frame"? Even though the mind can be stimulated does that stimulation bring about the same response, behavior, or understanding? How does previous experience impact how one interprests such stimulation?
What if 'universal identity is a undefined identity? What if the mind needs a context to define itself? What if the mind uses difference to determine identity, and not uniformity? Understanding oneself in opposition to another doesn't necessarily mean oppostional behavior. It would only help to clarify and distinctify and bring more understanding to the "table" in negotiation.
I think we have found that the religious hold to identification factors apart from "constitutional forms of government" or "self-identity", as a chosen identity. Constitutional forms of government' allow for a more definitive identity via religion. But, this is a problem for the modern mind that identifies with a nation-state, and a religious tradition that undermines the "humane laws" that the nation-state holds. How is identity to be expanded or informed without undermining the nation-state? And should one consider such religious identity as a " human right"? Some don't believe that such identity can be changed. And this is why they call for America to take care of its own business.
So, which is it, environment or education that is to be the "enlightenment" of identity? And how does one know if the identity is internalized such that it would be highly improbable for the religious to re-identify? De-conversions happen all that time, but only within the context of a free and open society. So, what should we do? Should we be engaged with spreading democracy and constitutional government? Should we continue to trade with such environments? Or should we leave the religious alone hoping that they will leave us alone?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Education for Vocational Purposes Only?
The education conferene this past Friday continues to "brew" in my mind. What is education really for? Is education only for preparing for a vocation? Is an education also for developing the person, or the "self"? Aren't parents the main influence on a child's life in educational edndeavors and how education is percieved? America has come to not value education for the most part, because of America's entertainment mind-set. And, I think this is a downfall to our culture as a whole. But, if education is to be a value, the question is how is education to be paid for and what would be the "end" of education, then?
Patronage was useful since the beginnings of the university. Patronage was first given under the auspices of the Church, while today, we have "public education". And recently, there has been more talk of business as the patron of education. If the Church was to create the "moral model" in education, and the government tends toward the "mass production" model, then what would be the result of business interests getting their hands into education?
The main purpose of a business adventure into education would be for profit. Businesses are mainly interested in profit and there certainly is nothing wrong with profits. The question comes from how business 'investments' in education are handled, as ethics should alway hold sway over business profit margins, as ethics remembers that there are more important aspects to education than profit itself.
Education is in a crisis today and the President has been interested in addressing such problems, knowing that without an education, people will not have a way out of the present economice crisis and the trasition from a manufactoring/industrialized nation, to a communication/information one.
The question that interests me is; Is education for vocational purposes alone? No, because vocation is only the way a person makes money, while an educated population is needed to remain free. Why is this so?
Propaganda is useful to control populations in totaltalitarian regimes. An uneducated population is necessary to further propaganda's purposes, that is, to "control the minds" of the public, so that social order will remain peaceful. The ruling elite will "do as they please", while the population is listening to the "public radio" that tells them how to think and what to believe. This is a danger to America.
But on the other hand, "public" is not a necessarily for Propaganda, if public means solidarity, or fous, as a nation. What should unify our nation, that is a question to be pondered.
So, which model will be best for education? Will the Church's educational model for human development, public interests model or business interests model?
The Church as an institution is to maintain the virtue in a society. And virtue is what is needed for all citizens, not just the "peasant". Leaders are to have the character necessary to inform their conscience, so that they will govern with discretion and discernment. This is necessary for America's future. Otherwise, we will live by the "tribe", or "fittest" mentality. Equal is what America holds dear and makes it a free nation. Equal is about justice.
America's profit margins have become obsessions and have driven men to unethical behavior. This is why our country is having its culture crisis. We cannot trust our elected officials to see themselves as servants of their people. They have become rulers, and dictators, in certain areas. And this is unbecoming to American values, liberties and "ideals".
Education must change if there is to be "hope for America".
Patronage was useful since the beginnings of the university. Patronage was first given under the auspices of the Church, while today, we have "public education". And recently, there has been more talk of business as the patron of education. If the Church was to create the "moral model" in education, and the government tends toward the "mass production" model, then what would be the result of business interests getting their hands into education?
The main purpose of a business adventure into education would be for profit. Businesses are mainly interested in profit and there certainly is nothing wrong with profits. The question comes from how business 'investments' in education are handled, as ethics should alway hold sway over business profit margins, as ethics remembers that there are more important aspects to education than profit itself.
Education is in a crisis today and the President has been interested in addressing such problems, knowing that without an education, people will not have a way out of the present economice crisis and the trasition from a manufactoring/industrialized nation, to a communication/information one.
The question that interests me is; Is education for vocational purposes alone? No, because vocation is only the way a person makes money, while an educated population is needed to remain free. Why is this so?
Propaganda is useful to control populations in totaltalitarian regimes. An uneducated population is necessary to further propaganda's purposes, that is, to "control the minds" of the public, so that social order will remain peaceful. The ruling elite will "do as they please", while the population is listening to the "public radio" that tells them how to think and what to believe. This is a danger to America.
But on the other hand, "public" is not a necessarily for Propaganda, if public means solidarity, or fous, as a nation. What should unify our nation, that is a question to be pondered.
So, which model will be best for education? Will the Church's educational model for human development, public interests model or business interests model?
The Church as an institution is to maintain the virtue in a society. And virtue is what is needed for all citizens, not just the "peasant". Leaders are to have the character necessary to inform their conscience, so that they will govern with discretion and discernment. This is necessary for America's future. Otherwise, we will live by the "tribe", or "fittest" mentality. Equal is what America holds dear and makes it a free nation. Equal is about justice.
America's profit margins have become obsessions and have driven men to unethical behavior. This is why our country is having its culture crisis. We cannot trust our elected officials to see themselves as servants of their people. They have become rulers, and dictators, in certain areas. And this is unbecoming to American values, liberties and "ideals".
Education must change if there is to be "hope for America".
Saturday, October 23, 2010
A Conference on Education
The Founding Fathers warned that a "free people" would not remain free without information, or education. Did the Founders mean formal education or information forthcoming from the government (or leadership)? And what is eduation after all? It seems that today, we have had those that have "set a new vision" for change, that is to globalize the "nation-state". And globalization has been done in the name of the environment, poverty, and education.
This conference was led by elite educators, a community college President, a representative from a minority group, an innovative thinker, authors, and administrators concerned in general for our country and citizens's future well-being.
The discussion covered aspects of the changing needs of our society, and the world and the change of the student population. Questions concerning tuition costs, and state budget strains were driving the innovative ideas, as well, as the ethical questions of business taking over such aspects of our culture.
The concern for the students of today, costs of education, the needs of society, and the preparation of the future work-force are all of grave concern. There were no solid solutions, except for the possibility of university "patronage".
University "patronage" is not a different concept, as the university was a "patron" of the Church in the Middle Ages. But, I just wonder how liberal an education might be under the auspices of the Church. We do have historical accounts as to how "open" the Church was to modernity/Enlightenment thinking. And how free are certain forms of learning, such as theology, law and medicine, when they are done under Kant's "form" or structuring of the university?
On the other hand, education under the auspises of government oversight is a centralization, beauracrazation and nothing unlike China's. The Church is a "patron" to the nation-state, as is education, itself in this "model".
Kant believed that the academics in other disciplines, the philosophers, made judgment over these three "higher forms" of education. The practical aspects of 'life', theology, medicine and law were to benefit society's "good", while the leisured philosopher was to "take his time" to understand the "finer things" of life.
Reason or the intellectual aspects of man are what make man different from the animal kingdom, and is to be cultivated, if we believe that civilization is of value. Otherwise, humans are prone to be a pawn of their lower passions. And so it is today, for the most part. The disciplined mind is not valued in our society anymore.
The generation that is facing the university today has been over-stimulated by many media "forms" and information outlets that have impacted how the brain recieves information. The previous way of teaching and learning, via 'content" dissemination is "dull" and "out of date" for most of today's students.
Europe is already establishing "standards" across borders, where information./ education can be shared. This is an 'ideal" concept, but what of the security of the West? How are we to protect against certain information that might be dangerous in certain segments of the world? Or do educators believe that education can be "co-erced" and recieved by these segments, so that change to the students might happen? And what of the governance of education, itself, if it is to be globalized? We see how "mass production" has affected education in our own country, so how do we "do" education in such a "global" context"?
I believe that research has proven that without stimulating the student where he volutarily desires an education, the information is "lost". The information will not be internalized, but disregarded out-right, or defensive strategies of rationalization will occur that support an irrational "worldview". This is what religions do all the time to support their "life".
The recent release of classified information has put many in danger of their lives, because to betray a 'faith" is a betrayal of 'god" which is blasphemous. And such behavior demands accountability and judgment! One will not overcome terror through a naive view of education. Terror is a 'worldview', and an experience of life. Cult de-programmers are needed to overcome such a mind-set.
Perhaps, the view that medicine, law, and theology, as a practical disciplines, should be "useful" under government auspices, since it is to benefit society, instead of individual physicians, lawyers, and individual theologians. Does this mean that those in these disciplines are "pawns of the State" and the philosophers? '
I believe that setting up such a "caste system" does disservice to philosophy itself, as well as underming certain segments of society, because it makes the "elite" more pompous about their certain discipline. And wasn't it the scenario that Nazi Germany set up to do their research? or the Roman Empire? Medicine, law, and theology supported such national ambition. Today, the problem is not with nationalism, but globalism. Whenever a universalization is sought there is a discrimination against another group. This is why the "individual" is important to America's understanding of liberty in individual conscience. A globalized world will be a world run by an identified elite, which will be "out in the open" oppression, because it will be considered "legal"!
I am afraid we are playing into the hands of those that want to destroy America's exceptionalism, as it concerns individual liberties and it will be done in the name of society, or "morality". One will be a communistic leaning, the other will be a theocracy under Shairia.
This conference was led by elite educators, a community college President, a representative from a minority group, an innovative thinker, authors, and administrators concerned in general for our country and citizens's future well-being.
The discussion covered aspects of the changing needs of our society, and the world and the change of the student population. Questions concerning tuition costs, and state budget strains were driving the innovative ideas, as well, as the ethical questions of business taking over such aspects of our culture.
The concern for the students of today, costs of education, the needs of society, and the preparation of the future work-force are all of grave concern. There were no solid solutions, except for the possibility of university "patronage".
University "patronage" is not a different concept, as the university was a "patron" of the Church in the Middle Ages. But, I just wonder how liberal an education might be under the auspices of the Church. We do have historical accounts as to how "open" the Church was to modernity/Enlightenment thinking. And how free are certain forms of learning, such as theology, law and medicine, when they are done under Kant's "form" or structuring of the university?
On the other hand, education under the auspises of government oversight is a centralization, beauracrazation and nothing unlike China's. The Church is a "patron" to the nation-state, as is education, itself in this "model".
Kant believed that the academics in other disciplines, the philosophers, made judgment over these three "higher forms" of education. The practical aspects of 'life', theology, medicine and law were to benefit society's "good", while the leisured philosopher was to "take his time" to understand the "finer things" of life.
Reason or the intellectual aspects of man are what make man different from the animal kingdom, and is to be cultivated, if we believe that civilization is of value. Otherwise, humans are prone to be a pawn of their lower passions. And so it is today, for the most part. The disciplined mind is not valued in our society anymore.
The generation that is facing the university today has been over-stimulated by many media "forms" and information outlets that have impacted how the brain recieves information. The previous way of teaching and learning, via 'content" dissemination is "dull" and "out of date" for most of today's students.
Europe is already establishing "standards" across borders, where information./ education can be shared. This is an 'ideal" concept, but what of the security of the West? How are we to protect against certain information that might be dangerous in certain segments of the world? Or do educators believe that education can be "co-erced" and recieved by these segments, so that change to the students might happen? And what of the governance of education, itself, if it is to be globalized? We see how "mass production" has affected education in our own country, so how do we "do" education in such a "global" context"?
I believe that research has proven that without stimulating the student where he volutarily desires an education, the information is "lost". The information will not be internalized, but disregarded out-right, or defensive strategies of rationalization will occur that support an irrational "worldview". This is what religions do all the time to support their "life".
The recent release of classified information has put many in danger of their lives, because to betray a 'faith" is a betrayal of 'god" which is blasphemous. And such behavior demands accountability and judgment! One will not overcome terror through a naive view of education. Terror is a 'worldview', and an experience of life. Cult de-programmers are needed to overcome such a mind-set.
Perhaps, the view that medicine, law, and theology, as a practical disciplines, should be "useful" under government auspices, since it is to benefit society, instead of individual physicians, lawyers, and individual theologians. Does this mean that those in these disciplines are "pawns of the State" and the philosophers? '
I believe that setting up such a "caste system" does disservice to philosophy itself, as well as underming certain segments of society, because it makes the "elite" more pompous about their certain discipline. And wasn't it the scenario that Nazi Germany set up to do their research? or the Roman Empire? Medicine, law, and theology supported such national ambition. Today, the problem is not with nationalism, but globalism. Whenever a universalization is sought there is a discrimination against another group. This is why the "individual" is important to America's understanding of liberty in individual conscience. A globalized world will be a world run by an identified elite, which will be "out in the open" oppression, because it will be considered "legal"!
I am afraid we are playing into the hands of those that want to destroy America's exceptionalism, as it concerns individual liberties and it will be done in the name of society, or "morality". One will be a communistic leaning, the other will be a theocracy under Shairia.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
An "Enlightenment" to One's Own Bias
Today, I realized that whenever one has an agenda, there is biased opinion. Things that are read, or heard are "heard" with that "frame" in mind. This "frame", in turn, predisposes one to connect and make associations, that are not in what is read or heard. This the the major problem of reporting objectively. We all have bias, don't we?
Why would I assume that everyone has bias? Would it be that humans are context bound and are dependent beings on what they know, and what effect that has had on them? The totality of an experience, in sense and formal education, is the important thing to recognize. One person's highlight, is another's bland boredom. Why would this be? Expectations and information.
Our expectations do predispose us and bias us toward how we experience and understand. Whenever we expect "ideals" to be realized, most usually, we are disappointed, at least, if we expect these disconnected with the "real world" of less than ideal contexts and people.
Our expectations may disappoint, but not as sorely as when we have knowledge. Knowledge equips us for the real world, and not an ideal one. The pragmatist knows and understands the limitations of life and is prepared to embrace what comes into one's experience.
Today, while attempting to interact on a blog, I was told that I had run away with "the store", so to speak. By the time I had ended my "interaction", there was little connection to what had been shared. Why was this so? I had an agenda.
Because of recent politics, I have grave concern over our nation and its future. Therefore, I sought to understand America's origins, its Founders, and understand how politicians and the populace were understanding the issues and contexts they were in. This set me on a course for over the last couple of years, that has fascinated me. My worldview was challenged and changed. I will never be the same. But, in the mean-time, until I "settle", then I will probably "read" into the things I am reading, gleaning what I "need" to fill in the gaps of my understanding....This presupposition limits my critical ability to engage the issues before me. But, then, again, I want independence of thought. I do not desire to be spoon-fed. But, I do desire to be educated, by the educated.
In conclusion, we must undestand whenever we have agendas or things that are being reconciled in our lives and thinking. For if we are not careful, we will misunderstand and miscommunicate. And others will be baffled over how we have come to our conclusions. So, be aware of where you are, before you speak and think before you write. Otherwise, people will not be any better off, than before you opened your mouth or picked up your pen.
Why would I assume that everyone has bias? Would it be that humans are context bound and are dependent beings on what they know, and what effect that has had on them? The totality of an experience, in sense and formal education, is the important thing to recognize. One person's highlight, is another's bland boredom. Why would this be? Expectations and information.
Our expectations do predispose us and bias us toward how we experience and understand. Whenever we expect "ideals" to be realized, most usually, we are disappointed, at least, if we expect these disconnected with the "real world" of less than ideal contexts and people.
Our expectations may disappoint, but not as sorely as when we have knowledge. Knowledge equips us for the real world, and not an ideal one. The pragmatist knows and understands the limitations of life and is prepared to embrace what comes into one's experience.
Today, while attempting to interact on a blog, I was told that I had run away with "the store", so to speak. By the time I had ended my "interaction", there was little connection to what had been shared. Why was this so? I had an agenda.
Because of recent politics, I have grave concern over our nation and its future. Therefore, I sought to understand America's origins, its Founders, and understand how politicians and the populace were understanding the issues and contexts they were in. This set me on a course for over the last couple of years, that has fascinated me. My worldview was challenged and changed. I will never be the same. But, in the mean-time, until I "settle", then I will probably "read" into the things I am reading, gleaning what I "need" to fill in the gaps of my understanding....This presupposition limits my critical ability to engage the issues before me. But, then, again, I want independence of thought. I do not desire to be spoon-fed. But, I do desire to be educated, by the educated.
In conclusion, we must undestand whenever we have agendas or things that are being reconciled in our lives and thinking. For if we are not careful, we will misunderstand and miscommunicate. And others will be baffled over how we have come to our conclusions. So, be aware of where you are, before you speak and think before you write. Otherwise, people will not be any better off, than before you opened your mouth or picked up your pen.
LIBERTY OR EQUALITY
There has been some discussion in some of my readings about whether liberty or equality is of utmost importance. There seems to be a move in progressive circles to affirm equality over liberty. As equality is about the underpriviledged, the minority or the "outsider". The move toward equality is a global move to universalize resources and opportunities.
While equality is important if one is looking at discrepencies, is equality to be measure by outcome orl in opprotunity? One views equality in absolute terms, while the other affirms individual choice and value of self-responsiblity.
Redistribution of wealth is one such concern for the progressive. This is not about opportunity, but stealing another's goods and limiting free enterprise. Opportunity, on the other hand, is about making sure that another has a right to make a living, or get an education. But, opportunity, again, does not mean prescriptive measures of ensuring ends that may co-opt choices about the type of education or how that education or living is to "be". Again, the progressive wants to assure 'ends" or outcomes.
Liberty is valued by the conservative, as this ensures the right of the individual to take responsibility for self-governance. Self governance is the basis of civil society because laws cannot maintain liberty, as they limit or prescribe behavior. Liberty is about the ability to make life choices, without co-ercion.
Liberty is a value of liberal democracy because it means open, and engaging. And civil society must allow that opennes, otherwise we limit diverse viewpoints, and this hinders the democratic process itself.
While equality is important if one is looking at discrepencies, is equality to be measure by outcome orl in opprotunity? One views equality in absolute terms, while the other affirms individual choice and value of self-responsiblity.
Redistribution of wealth is one such concern for the progressive. This is not about opportunity, but stealing another's goods and limiting free enterprise. Opportunity, on the other hand, is about making sure that another has a right to make a living, or get an education. But, opportunity, again, does not mean prescriptive measures of ensuring ends that may co-opt choices about the type of education or how that education or living is to "be". Again, the progressive wants to assure 'ends" or outcomes.
Liberty is valued by the conservative, as this ensures the right of the individual to take responsibility for self-governance. Self governance is the basis of civil society because laws cannot maintain liberty, as they limit or prescribe behavior. Liberty is about the ability to make life choices, without co-ercion.
Liberty is a value of liberal democracy because it means open, and engaging. And civil society must allow that opennes, otherwise we limit diverse viewpoints, and this hinders the democratic process itself.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
"What Children Don't Know"
"What children don't know, won't hurt them", is a common phrase here, in America. But, what adults don't know does hurt them.
When government is not forthcoming with information to the American people, either through power over the press, or elitist attitudes about policy making, then our "common interests" no longer exist, and we are not duty bound to continue in "the social contract" or we are called to reform the contract. Voting is just the beginning to changing what needs change.
A social contract was to be defined by "equality under law". The law is to protect the liberty of opinion, while limiting governmental oversight. Now, things seem reversed. We seem to be given pablum, because "what the children don't know, won't hurt them". And all the while, we are commended to protect the interest of the public's good. Peace at all costs looses much of what has been paid for in blood.
Our country was founded by those that believed that all were created equal and protected and provided for civil liberties.
Virtue is a relative term, when one faces evil. What is one to do? Submit? Resist? Fight? Surrender? Run? What is one's "duty"?
Kant says to do what you would want to become universal. But, universiality is still dependent on one's values, isn't it? And one's values are individually embraced. That is, unless there is a 'universalized agenda" that would undermine liberty of choosing one's values, or changing one's commitments as life requires.
My grand-daughter's "wisdom" is child-like. She believes that everyone wants the same thing that she does, so she will understand things in a childlike way. But, this is not true to reality. People want different things from life, and that should be allowed in free societies.
So, put away childish things and understand that all are not alike.
When government is not forthcoming with information to the American people, either through power over the press, or elitist attitudes about policy making, then our "common interests" no longer exist, and we are not duty bound to continue in "the social contract" or we are called to reform the contract. Voting is just the beginning to changing what needs change.
A social contract was to be defined by "equality under law". The law is to protect the liberty of opinion, while limiting governmental oversight. Now, things seem reversed. We seem to be given pablum, because "what the children don't know, won't hurt them". And all the while, we are commended to protect the interest of the public's good. Peace at all costs looses much of what has been paid for in blood.
Our country was founded by those that believed that all were created equal and protected and provided for civil liberties.
Virtue is a relative term, when one faces evil. What is one to do? Submit? Resist? Fight? Surrender? Run? What is one's "duty"?
Kant says to do what you would want to become universal. But, universiality is still dependent on one's values, isn't it? And one's values are individually embraced. That is, unless there is a 'universalized agenda" that would undermine liberty of choosing one's values, or changing one's commitments as life requires.
My grand-daughter's "wisdom" is child-like. She believes that everyone wants the same thing that she does, so she will understand things in a childlike way. But, this is not true to reality. People want different things from life, and that should be allowed in free societies.
So, put away childish things and understand that all are not alike.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
I Like "Positive Liberty"
I like the term positive liberty. I got the term "positive liberty" from another blog site I follow, American Creation. One of American Creation's contributors has a blog called "Positive Liberty", which I have visited on occasion. His name is Jonathan Rowe, and he is a lawyer.
As I have thought about the concept, "positive liberty", I have come to "see" an important, if not a prime value of mine, as well, as our country. "Positive liberty" means that the law and the country seeks to protect liberty. I am not saying that this is the stance of the blog by that name, nor of its contributors, Jonathan Rowe being only one. But, liberty is the highest value in American society. Some think this is a good thing, others do not. Where do we draw our lines and on what basis? (I am thinking on this myself.)
Our American society is guided by principles that allow freedom to individuals as "equal under law". But, social conservatives have always understood society as a narrowed liberty to the social norms as defined by one's social group, mostly by parochial standards. But, our society has changed over these two hundred plus years, where many of the social ills of the past were taboo, today, we do not see many, if any social taboos. And with our enlightened understanding of science, we are even more open to re-define what makes for a flourishing society. But, if science is what defines our society today, are there to be any limits upon scientific investigation? And on what rationale is science to be limited?
Crime will always be considered taboo, but even crime has become defined or specified by science. A criminal is dealt with according to an enlightened view of the person, and their motivations and not just the crime or social norm, itself. We are, after all, a "humane society".
But, what happens when society's leaders have no moral inhibition to such things that were forbidden in the past and even, go to the extent of stretching the law's intent to the benefit of the "legalist"? This is why we have such ethical problems today in our leaders, whether governmental, or corporate. And recently, these same indiscretions lay at the doorstep of the Church, as well. This is where we are today. And our country is not "greater for it, either".
Although I understand the pro-life stance, I cannot take that stance legally, because of the "humane" aspects or the personability of our country's values. Prohibition used to be America's stance toward alcohol, as society feared alcohol's consequencs on the individual and society. And those that chose to seek out the "moonshiners" did so, sometimes at their own expense. We have done away with these laws and some still think that our country has "done wrong" in defending the use of alcohol.
The issue of abortion, with today's view of evolution, where there is "no speical creation, or "special creator" also, has to be evaluated on a rational basis. This is a scientific question and not just a moral one. An un-wed mother, though accepted more in our society than in the past, is in a crisis. And although there are many "crisis" pregnancy centers that seek to counsel those that are in "dire straights", (which is a good thing), what is to be the behavior toward those who still choose to have an abortion in a civilized society? And should society allow what some consider a medical procedure, because they do not adhere to "scripture" as interpreted by the social conservative? Nor do they acknowledge special creation? Should a civilized society allow a pregnant woman to get an abortion, as they used to in the "back alley", where death might be the liklihood? What is MOST humane and reasonable to society and the woman?
And if the woman has the baby, and chooses to keep the baby, what is society's responsibility for the child, and should society be responsible for such children and why? Where do personal and societal responsibility intersect? And at what costs to society, and the child?
A similar concern for society is sexual education. How is society to meet the needs that the family used to provide? What is society's responsibility? Is there any, and if so, what are the educators supposed to do with sex education, when there are many moral issues that all members of society do not agree upon? Should taxes go to support what I, personally do not value? If not, and it is legal, how do I resist such abuses to my conscience?
Homosexuals are also "up in arms" over their right to marry in our society. Should they have a right? Should we divide marriage, as many European countries do in civil and church unions? What is to be valued most in our society, liberty of conscience, or moral definitions, and then what church is to define the moral definition for our country, when our country does not allow a "state church'? Are our Protestant churches supposed to "submit' their consciences to the Roman Catholic Church? Or the Greek Orthodox? Or the Russian Orthodox? Who is to be the arbitrator of such societal situations?
An atheist that seeks public office should be allowed to serve our country, shouldn't they? This is a question now being considered in Asheville, N.C. where an atheist is being challenged. Is this appropriate, when our country allows liberty of conscience concerning religious values ? Just because a person doesn't define God according to my definition, should that ban them from public service? What about a Buddhist, Unitarian Universalist, or Muslim serving our country in public office?
Today's challenge is to be humane in a society that is not perfectly accomodating to our own personal social "ideals". We still need to be civil and inclusive in our discussions of the issues that concern us, when another challenges our personal convictions and beliefs. Otherwise, our society will dissolve into tribal mentalities and tribal survival instincts. And we will not represent the ideals of our Founders in upholding the values of liberty and justice for all....
As I have thought about the concept, "positive liberty", I have come to "see" an important, if not a prime value of mine, as well, as our country. "Positive liberty" means that the law and the country seeks to protect liberty. I am not saying that this is the stance of the blog by that name, nor of its contributors, Jonathan Rowe being only one. But, liberty is the highest value in American society. Some think this is a good thing, others do not. Where do we draw our lines and on what basis? (I am thinking on this myself.)
Our American society is guided by principles that allow freedom to individuals as "equal under law". But, social conservatives have always understood society as a narrowed liberty to the social norms as defined by one's social group, mostly by parochial standards. But, our society has changed over these two hundred plus years, where many of the social ills of the past were taboo, today, we do not see many, if any social taboos. And with our enlightened understanding of science, we are even more open to re-define what makes for a flourishing society. But, if science is what defines our society today, are there to be any limits upon scientific investigation? And on what rationale is science to be limited?
Crime will always be considered taboo, but even crime has become defined or specified by science. A criminal is dealt with according to an enlightened view of the person, and their motivations and not just the crime or social norm, itself. We are, after all, a "humane society".
But, what happens when society's leaders have no moral inhibition to such things that were forbidden in the past and even, go to the extent of stretching the law's intent to the benefit of the "legalist"? This is why we have such ethical problems today in our leaders, whether governmental, or corporate. And recently, these same indiscretions lay at the doorstep of the Church, as well. This is where we are today. And our country is not "greater for it, either".
Although I understand the pro-life stance, I cannot take that stance legally, because of the "humane" aspects or the personability of our country's values. Prohibition used to be America's stance toward alcohol, as society feared alcohol's consequencs on the individual and society. And those that chose to seek out the "moonshiners" did so, sometimes at their own expense. We have done away with these laws and some still think that our country has "done wrong" in defending the use of alcohol.
The issue of abortion, with today's view of evolution, where there is "no speical creation, or "special creator" also, has to be evaluated on a rational basis. This is a scientific question and not just a moral one. An un-wed mother, though accepted more in our society than in the past, is in a crisis. And although there are many "crisis" pregnancy centers that seek to counsel those that are in "dire straights", (which is a good thing), what is to be the behavior toward those who still choose to have an abortion in a civilized society? And should society allow what some consider a medical procedure, because they do not adhere to "scripture" as interpreted by the social conservative? Nor do they acknowledge special creation? Should a civilized society allow a pregnant woman to get an abortion, as they used to in the "back alley", where death might be the liklihood? What is MOST humane and reasonable to society and the woman?
And if the woman has the baby, and chooses to keep the baby, what is society's responsibility for the child, and should society be responsible for such children and why? Where do personal and societal responsibility intersect? And at what costs to society, and the child?
A similar concern for society is sexual education. How is society to meet the needs that the family used to provide? What is society's responsibility? Is there any, and if so, what are the educators supposed to do with sex education, when there are many moral issues that all members of society do not agree upon? Should taxes go to support what I, personally do not value? If not, and it is legal, how do I resist such abuses to my conscience?
Homosexuals are also "up in arms" over their right to marry in our society. Should they have a right? Should we divide marriage, as many European countries do in civil and church unions? What is to be valued most in our society, liberty of conscience, or moral definitions, and then what church is to define the moral definition for our country, when our country does not allow a "state church'? Are our Protestant churches supposed to "submit' their consciences to the Roman Catholic Church? Or the Greek Orthodox? Or the Russian Orthodox? Who is to be the arbitrator of such societal situations?
An atheist that seeks public office should be allowed to serve our country, shouldn't they? This is a question now being considered in Asheville, N.C. where an atheist is being challenged. Is this appropriate, when our country allows liberty of conscience concerning religious values ? Just because a person doesn't define God according to my definition, should that ban them from public service? What about a Buddhist, Unitarian Universalist, or Muslim serving our country in public office?
Today's challenge is to be humane in a society that is not perfectly accomodating to our own personal social "ideals". We still need to be civil and inclusive in our discussions of the issues that concern us, when another challenges our personal convictions and beliefs. Otherwise, our society will dissolve into tribal mentalities and tribal survival instincts. And we will not represent the ideals of our Founders in upholding the values of liberty and justice for all....
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Divorce
Humans are social animals, but they are also rational animals. If the social context leaves no room for reasonable "personhood", where compromise, negotiation and solutions are met, then inevitably, relationships are dissolved through divorce.
Although divorce is a personal relational term, the issue plays across other types of relationships, whether they be business contracts, treaties, or community rules. Sometimes "peace and goodwill" dissolves before personal desires and necessities.
I think the Christian community and liberalism, in general, is living in denial, when it comes to many of these situations. Divorce happens and the long-term implications are many. Those who have never experienced divorce in their families are clueless as to how this affects the whole family system. But, they may be attempting to "protect society" from the inevitability of divorce, or other social ills.
The Christian community has a "pie in the sky" attutitude where the stereotypical "1950's" family is the standard, while the social liberal has their "ideal" as "peace and goodwill" in a globalist context. How can people continue to believe in a "ideal reality"? This is absurd!
Conflict is inevitable in this world and reconcilliation is not possible in some cases, either because of the situations involved, or the parties' lack of desire for reconcilliation. People all have their reasons for divorce. A childish hope for the "ideal" will not bring solutions to the real world.
Dr. Chris Smith, the sociologist from Notre Dame alluded to the Church being a solution to these kinds of problems, when he suggested a kind of "family intervention". I wonder how he imagines this being a solution, when the Church is full of those who are ill-equipped to deal with the realities in life, either through their "idealistic mentality" or their lack of education in the psychological or sociological fields.
Social ills are the real world of social problems and they will not be resolved through spirituality. "Spirituality" separates the ideal from the real and life is lived in the real realities of social contexts, personal problems and irreconciable differences.
No Church or liberal agenda is going to eradicate the issue of divorce, but they might continue to stigmitize the issue and distance themselves from divorced people. And this would be the worst of all possible "sins".
Although divorce is a personal relational term, the issue plays across other types of relationships, whether they be business contracts, treaties, or community rules. Sometimes "peace and goodwill" dissolves before personal desires and necessities.
I think the Christian community and liberalism, in general, is living in denial, when it comes to many of these situations. Divorce happens and the long-term implications are many. Those who have never experienced divorce in their families are clueless as to how this affects the whole family system. But, they may be attempting to "protect society" from the inevitability of divorce, or other social ills.
The Christian community has a "pie in the sky" attutitude where the stereotypical "1950's" family is the standard, while the social liberal has their "ideal" as "peace and goodwill" in a globalist context. How can people continue to believe in a "ideal reality"? This is absurd!
Conflict is inevitable in this world and reconcilliation is not possible in some cases, either because of the situations involved, or the parties' lack of desire for reconcilliation. People all have their reasons for divorce. A childish hope for the "ideal" will not bring solutions to the real world.
Dr. Chris Smith, the sociologist from Notre Dame alluded to the Church being a solution to these kinds of problems, when he suggested a kind of "family intervention". I wonder how he imagines this being a solution, when the Church is full of those who are ill-equipped to deal with the realities in life, either through their "idealistic mentality" or their lack of education in the psychological or sociological fields.
Social ills are the real world of social problems and they will not be resolved through spirituality. "Spirituality" separates the ideal from the real and life is lived in the real realities of social contexts, personal problems and irreconciable differences.
No Church or liberal agenda is going to eradicate the issue of divorce, but they might continue to stigmitize the issue and distance themselves from divorced people. And this would be the worst of all possible "sins".
Friday, November 6, 2009
Moral Authorities and Economics
Moral authorities like to demand conformity without understanding personal conviction or conscience concerning complex issues. These want to demand or co-erce others to transform society into their understanding or viewpoint, hindering liberty. (They assume that to transform society, then those who view things differently must be educated into their way of thinking, limiting diversity of views and limiting the freedom of the Press).
Much has been written about disgust and purity issues. I have such disgust over those who want to demand a "one size fits all" way of thinking and being in the world.
It is to the advantage of the materially minded to suggest that others provide virtuous attitudes in their bodies, while they take control of life and limb, all the way to the bank. Such was the case with the sell of indulgences during Martin Luther's reform. The real problem of the Church was their abuse of power. Power has to be balanced in any relationship. Otherwise, there is coercion, and bondage.
Economics must be based on rational choice of the individual under contract, not some redistribution of wealth or corporate profit that disregards the 'worker'. Whenever one does not concur with a goal of an organization or the value of a company, negotiation must transpire. And there is always the choice of leaving a company because of a disregard for proper negotiating.
Moral authorities who are "idealistically" inclined mandate for the poor and needy in society without understanding that it is the free enterprise system that has made for a flourishing economy in the West. And it is the West who have given most to the poor, because of that prosperity.
Prosperity is not the 'great evil" in the world. But, it has been disparaged by the "superior" because of altruistic goals, not understanding the means of that "outcome". The means are always human beings, as human beings have to have the right to choose their own goals, and if that falls in line with another's goals of altruism and/or profit, then so be it. But, if not, that is the right of an individual in a free society to not co-operate.
Let us be done with a monistic view of life and liberty. Otherwise, we are headed for a "new aristocracy".
Much has been written about disgust and purity issues. I have such disgust over those who want to demand a "one size fits all" way of thinking and being in the world.
It is to the advantage of the materially minded to suggest that others provide virtuous attitudes in their bodies, while they take control of life and limb, all the way to the bank. Such was the case with the sell of indulgences during Martin Luther's reform. The real problem of the Church was their abuse of power. Power has to be balanced in any relationship. Otherwise, there is coercion, and bondage.
Economics must be based on rational choice of the individual under contract, not some redistribution of wealth or corporate profit that disregards the 'worker'. Whenever one does not concur with a goal of an organization or the value of a company, negotiation must transpire. And there is always the choice of leaving a company because of a disregard for proper negotiating.
Moral authorities who are "idealistically" inclined mandate for the poor and needy in society without understanding that it is the free enterprise system that has made for a flourishing economy in the West. And it is the West who have given most to the poor, because of that prosperity.
Prosperity is not the 'great evil" in the world. But, it has been disparaged by the "superior" because of altruistic goals, not understanding the means of that "outcome". The means are always human beings, as human beings have to have the right to choose their own goals, and if that falls in line with another's goals of altruism and/or profit, then so be it. But, if not, that is the right of an individual in a free society to not co-operate.
Let us be done with a monistic view of life and liberty. Otherwise, we are headed for a "new aristocracy".
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Names, Meaning and Value
"Dem dat's fighten words" is a common colloqualism. Words have meanings. And meanings define values. These are the things that life is "made of". And this is why there is so much diversity in the world. I couldn't live without diversity. Life would be dull and colorless. I just "react" to those who think their meanings are ultimate and absolute, because they de-value the diversity that makes life valuable.
Last night my grand-daughter was here. She is almost 3. She is confident and very "dramatic". I love to engage her. But, last night I was not cognizant of "where she was" and she ended up crying.why and how did this happen?
I began to point to others of her family members and give them different "names". I pointed to myself and said 'Mommy". She started out with "correcting me", but started to look befuddled and then began to cry. I recognized this as an indication that I was "confusing her world". She had names that defined people and they were defined by the roles that they signified. I was asking for her to think beyond her capabilities. So, of course, we brought comfort to her.
The challenge to educators is to expand, enlarge and encourage growth in the intellectual realm. Educators exist in many areas of our world, not just in the academic. Educators seek to bring understanding and and expansion of knowledge, so that others can grow beyond their narrow definitions and narrow and limiting worldviews.
When someone asks "what is of ultimate value", the answer will depend upon how the person has been educated. Those indoctrinated into Christian faith will have different responses depending on their understanding of faith and how broad their exposure to Christian experience is. I find that religion, for the most part, does define one's life in narrow ways.
Conventional morality is about what 'tradition' says is "correct". But, is tradition right, necessarily? Or is tradition only an aspect to a cultural ideal or norm? What is of greatest value? God, humanity, life on this planet, the environment, healthcare, growth in knowledge? The answer will depend on one's highest values in life. Religious tradition defines the highest value on an understanding of faith, while education values knowledge, and scientific endeavor values medicine and other research opportunities.
Our country does not define another's life for them, as we believe that though the individual is a social animal, he is also an independent moral agent, that must decide for himself. The individual is given opportunities by the social contexts he exposes himself to and then is free to decide what is of ultimate value and importance. There is no "right and wrong" answer, as values are about clarity of purpose and vision for one's life.
This is why the value of our country in protecting freedom is of ultimate value to and for me. I value freedom because it means that the individual does not have to confine himself to another's definition of what constitutes "greatest value". Freedom means that the individual is guarunteed justice, because the individual is a reponsible moral agent that can determine his own course.
Usually "war" transpires when others are protecting their own values. Fear of another's intrusion upon the values most held dear become self-protective walls. But, how do we engage those whose worlds are so confining and defined, that they will not engage. Diversity is not a cultural value. In fact, diversity is the very name to be destroyed.
In our world climate, Obama seems to be making attempts to change the world through diplomatic efforts. This is a noble cause, but I question how diversity can be maintained when the "absolutist laws of Sharia" will not allow such diversity. Whenever one labels another's difference with "Satan", then one cannot be rationally engaged. Religion does not allow for rational engagement because it is based on emotional connection to cultural identification in behavoiral terms, as well as a specified view of "God". This is not change that will come to the radical through diplomatic engagement. And this is why it is necessary that leaders of countries are rationally engaged with affirming difference. We have done this in the past, but with devastating consequences. And in our world climate, where the enemy is not readily identified, how do we protect the values of freedom and diversity? Do we engage countries that are dictatorial? Can we trust these?
I personally "fear" what Obama is doing, as I do not trust those who hold absolute power. And leaders who identify with those who hold absolute power are also, IMO, also untrustworthy, because those who do not hold the value of freedom and justice for all, which is a holding to the "balance of power", do not hold to the values of a liberal democracy....or a Repreentative Republic. These are those that use position to bring change, but at a costs to those under them. And this is why there has been much discussion about the "czars" that are independently appointed by this administration.
Obama has African roots and he maintains that equality is a global issue, not just a national one. This is disturbing to me because national interests (The Constitution) is the pledge of the President to uphold the values determined by our Founders. Can a globalist do this and remain true and trustworthy to "his people".
This is my concern, as words have meaning, but we must question what meaning is made when we hear those that hold values that are in opposition to ours. Then, we can be more educated about how to engage the public for the public good.
Last night my grand-daughter was here. She is almost 3. She is confident and very "dramatic". I love to engage her. But, last night I was not cognizant of "where she was" and she ended up crying.why and how did this happen?
I began to point to others of her family members and give them different "names". I pointed to myself and said 'Mommy". She started out with "correcting me", but started to look befuddled and then began to cry. I recognized this as an indication that I was "confusing her world". She had names that defined people and they were defined by the roles that they signified. I was asking for her to think beyond her capabilities. So, of course, we brought comfort to her.
The challenge to educators is to expand, enlarge and encourage growth in the intellectual realm. Educators exist in many areas of our world, not just in the academic. Educators seek to bring understanding and and expansion of knowledge, so that others can grow beyond their narrow definitions and narrow and limiting worldviews.
When someone asks "what is of ultimate value", the answer will depend upon how the person has been educated. Those indoctrinated into Christian faith will have different responses depending on their understanding of faith and how broad their exposure to Christian experience is. I find that religion, for the most part, does define one's life in narrow ways.
Conventional morality is about what 'tradition' says is "correct". But, is tradition right, necessarily? Or is tradition only an aspect to a cultural ideal or norm? What is of greatest value? God, humanity, life on this planet, the environment, healthcare, growth in knowledge? The answer will depend on one's highest values in life. Religious tradition defines the highest value on an understanding of faith, while education values knowledge, and scientific endeavor values medicine and other research opportunities.
Our country does not define another's life for them, as we believe that though the individual is a social animal, he is also an independent moral agent, that must decide for himself. The individual is given opportunities by the social contexts he exposes himself to and then is free to decide what is of ultimate value and importance. There is no "right and wrong" answer, as values are about clarity of purpose and vision for one's life.
This is why the value of our country in protecting freedom is of ultimate value to and for me. I value freedom because it means that the individual does not have to confine himself to another's definition of what constitutes "greatest value". Freedom means that the individual is guarunteed justice, because the individual is a reponsible moral agent that can determine his own course.
Usually "war" transpires when others are protecting their own values. Fear of another's intrusion upon the values most held dear become self-protective walls. But, how do we engage those whose worlds are so confining and defined, that they will not engage. Diversity is not a cultural value. In fact, diversity is the very name to be destroyed.
In our world climate, Obama seems to be making attempts to change the world through diplomatic efforts. This is a noble cause, but I question how diversity can be maintained when the "absolutist laws of Sharia" will not allow such diversity. Whenever one labels another's difference with "Satan", then one cannot be rationally engaged. Religion does not allow for rational engagement because it is based on emotional connection to cultural identification in behavoiral terms, as well as a specified view of "God". This is not change that will come to the radical through diplomatic engagement. And this is why it is necessary that leaders of countries are rationally engaged with affirming difference. We have done this in the past, but with devastating consequences. And in our world climate, where the enemy is not readily identified, how do we protect the values of freedom and diversity? Do we engage countries that are dictatorial? Can we trust these?
I personally "fear" what Obama is doing, as I do not trust those who hold absolute power. And leaders who identify with those who hold absolute power are also, IMO, also untrustworthy, because those who do not hold the value of freedom and justice for all, which is a holding to the "balance of power", do not hold to the values of a liberal democracy....or a Repreentative Republic. These are those that use position to bring change, but at a costs to those under them. And this is why there has been much discussion about the "czars" that are independently appointed by this administration.
Obama has African roots and he maintains that equality is a global issue, not just a national one. This is disturbing to me because national interests (The Constitution) is the pledge of the President to uphold the values determined by our Founders. Can a globalist do this and remain true and trustworthy to "his people".
This is my concern, as words have meaning, but we must question what meaning is made when we hear those that hold values that are in opposition to ours. Then, we can be more educated about how to engage the public for the public good.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Do Values Determine One's Paradigmic Understanding?
I have been thinking a lot about our American Government and the values it upholds. This is probably timely, as July 4th is just aroung the corner. We, Americans, "hold these truth to be evident, that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights".This implies that each person's understanding and values are to be commended, as a "right". But, what determines their "understanding"? Education and culture.
Culture is a frame of reference, which determines the most important values of a person. In our free society, the individual is "free" to determine his own life. It is called "self-government". Our Constitution limits our government from overt determination or covert suppression, in a number of areas; privacy, religion, freedom of expression (speech, press, assembly). Individuality marks the American experiment.
But, Americans determine their own values in various ways. Some Americans adhere to an exclusive religious claim and gain and maintain their identity through the group's approved norms. Others Americans gain their values from their specified "cultural location". These values all influence the individual's own values and determine how he views the world and life, in general.
Education in our American society has been public, private, and religiously based. Each has its own constituencies. And each has its emphasis. While private and religiously based education has been privately funded, public education has not. We believe in the right of everyone to have an education. There is no "elite class" or "tracking system" as in European countries. A lack of "tracking or limiting" education to those who are "fit" for it has its downsides, as well as its opportunities. But, Americans believe in equality of each individual to choose his place of education.
Education has been valued for its ability to prepare others for a vocation/job, as Americans are pragmatists. Pragmatism has had its impact on American opportunity, irregardless of 'fit". In Europe, education is deemed to be a service to society. Those who have higher IQ's are deemed "fit" to fulfill a certain role or function in society. These are the ones who are tracked to attend the "gymnasium" high school and later to attend the publically funded universities.
Professors are considered highly in European society, whereas, educators are not valued, on the whole in American society. Americans like their entertainment, after working their jobs to earn their living. They don't seem to care to think about "values" or if "values" are important to address as to change. Americans are open, generous, and self-focused, for the most part, because they are naive'.
Perhaps, because America is so large and many do not travel extensively and even when we do, we don't go out of our country to understand the 'wider world". Cultural differences don't exist because we are a diverse country and "anything goes", while Europeans can be in another country and hear another language and experience another culture in a matter of a few hours drive. Most Europeans are exposed to differences, in a different way, than Americans are.
So, when Americans talk of values, then we are a people who define ourselves, by the multiplicity of opportunities, and "cultures" we can be a part of. American identity is as diverse as the American population. And the individual's values are developed within a diverse, open and free society that should value critical thinking more than it does.
Culture is a frame of reference, which determines the most important values of a person. In our free society, the individual is "free" to determine his own life. It is called "self-government". Our Constitution limits our government from overt determination or covert suppression, in a number of areas; privacy, religion, freedom of expression (speech, press, assembly). Individuality marks the American experiment.
But, Americans determine their own values in various ways. Some Americans adhere to an exclusive religious claim and gain and maintain their identity through the group's approved norms. Others Americans gain their values from their specified "cultural location". These values all influence the individual's own values and determine how he views the world and life, in general.
Education in our American society has been public, private, and religiously based. Each has its own constituencies. And each has its emphasis. While private and religiously based education has been privately funded, public education has not. We believe in the right of everyone to have an education. There is no "elite class" or "tracking system" as in European countries. A lack of "tracking or limiting" education to those who are "fit" for it has its downsides, as well as its opportunities. But, Americans believe in equality of each individual to choose his place of education.
Education has been valued for its ability to prepare others for a vocation/job, as Americans are pragmatists. Pragmatism has had its impact on American opportunity, irregardless of 'fit". In Europe, education is deemed to be a service to society. Those who have higher IQ's are deemed "fit" to fulfill a certain role or function in society. These are the ones who are tracked to attend the "gymnasium" high school and later to attend the publically funded universities.
Professors are considered highly in European society, whereas, educators are not valued, on the whole in American society. Americans like their entertainment, after working their jobs to earn their living. They don't seem to care to think about "values" or if "values" are important to address as to change. Americans are open, generous, and self-focused, for the most part, because they are naive'.
Perhaps, because America is so large and many do not travel extensively and even when we do, we don't go out of our country to understand the 'wider world". Cultural differences don't exist because we are a diverse country and "anything goes", while Europeans can be in another country and hear another language and experience another culture in a matter of a few hours drive. Most Europeans are exposed to differences, in a different way, than Americans are.
So, when Americans talk of values, then we are a people who define ourselves, by the multiplicity of opportunities, and "cultures" we can be a part of. American identity is as diverse as the American population. And the individual's values are developed within a diverse, open and free society that should value critical thinking more than it does.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Conforming Tradition
Those who subscribe to social construction must understand how tradition "works", so that a successful re-definition can be accomplished. Re-defining tradition is important to bring about transformation. The question today is what is tradition's role, when science is understanding human development in such a way that undermines the prominent role of tradition in past centuries.
Tradition, in the past, when there were hierarchal understandings of government, brings about "hope" to oppressed people, by giving a future judgment to the injustices suffered today. The "constructors" of tradition (theologians/philosophers) also use "moral modelling" to give a "vision of life", so that moral example can be followed. These images, whether real historical figures, or mythical ones are literary devices that "conform" the individual to group norms and values. Because these cultures are hierarhcal in governing, the "role model" is one of personal sacrifice. The personal sacrifice of one class for another is the moral model for an aristocratic class, which is what "inspired" Luther to bring about the Reformation in questioning the Church authorities. Tradition is not based on democratic ideals. The book of Hebrews in the Christian scripture and "The Chronicles of Narnia" are two examples of these types of Christiaan literature.
The social sciences are revealing that men develop through the use of education, where critical thinking is valued and helps the individual to come to terms with his own values, apart from traditional conformity. This is not to say that tradition will not become a dominant value to one such educated, as the indiviudal must determine for himself what is of ultimate concern. But, it does mean that the individual could leave tradition's role and re-define himself according to his own personal interests and values.
Traditional cultures depend on religion to maintain their identification and define values. These values are interpreted by religious authorities that rule and dominate another's conscience and choice. These cultures do not value freedom in any form, as freedom of information through academia, the media, and life choice would undermine tradition's role of dominance and determination, which would limit and undermine the aristocrat in their purpose of maintaining "social order", whether the "aristocrat" is a political or religious leader.
Tradition, in the past, when there were hierarchal understandings of government, brings about "hope" to oppressed people, by giving a future judgment to the injustices suffered today. The "constructors" of tradition (theologians/philosophers) also use "moral modelling" to give a "vision of life", so that moral example can be followed. These images, whether real historical figures, or mythical ones are literary devices that "conform" the individual to group norms and values. Because these cultures are hierarhcal in governing, the "role model" is one of personal sacrifice. The personal sacrifice of one class for another is the moral model for an aristocratic class, which is what "inspired" Luther to bring about the Reformation in questioning the Church authorities. Tradition is not based on democratic ideals. The book of Hebrews in the Christian scripture and "The Chronicles of Narnia" are two examples of these types of Christiaan literature.
The social sciences are revealing that men develop through the use of education, where critical thinking is valued and helps the individual to come to terms with his own values, apart from traditional conformity. This is not to say that tradition will not become a dominant value to one such educated, as the indiviudal must determine for himself what is of ultimate concern. But, it does mean that the individual could leave tradition's role and re-define himself according to his own personal interests and values.
Traditional cultures depend on religion to maintain their identification and define values. These values are interpreted by religious authorities that rule and dominate another's conscience and choice. These cultures do not value freedom in any form, as freedom of information through academia, the media, and life choice would undermine tradition's role of dominance and determination, which would limit and undermine the aristocrat in their purpose of maintaining "social order", whether the "aristocrat" is a political or religious leader.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Human Rights, Individual Freedom and Social Order
Globalism is not an option in today's world. The question facing the world is where are the boundaries to lie? Do nation states have a right to exist as separate entities? Does every human deserve respect and be given dignity, irregardless of behavior or culture? These are the questions of internationalism, internationalizing Nation States, and the "rule of law". I know I do not have the answers, and probably don't understand all the questions, but it is one that interests me and that I think is of utmost importance for all concerned to address. I am learning.
People are concerned today about relgious freedom, in a world that is wondering about radicalizers of faith traditions. Do humans, no matter their faith practice, deserve "equal protection under the law"? Or does their undermining of the "social order" deny them such protections? Civilized society believes that criminals are to be given a right to trial, but are not given freedom without investigation. The question becomes national security versus international law and human rights. Which is of utmost importance? And how do we know what is of utmost importance?
People are also concerned about how the "rule of law" applies in international relations where it concerns economics. Where do business interests usurp culture? Or does business "do business" within a cultural paradigm? How does business "do business" with those who do not adhere to the same cultural standards when it comes to the "rules", 'traditions", and the formal laws of different nation states? What are the responsibilities of citiziens to protect national security and national interests, at the costs of business interests? And do all nations deserve equal opportunity in regards to information that would possibly be used in a dangerous way? Are citizens granted more protection than anyone else?
These are questions that educated persons (and even, those that are in the learning curve) will disagree on, so it becomes a matter of conviction and commitment to the "most important and imperative" need to address. Needs of people will always conflict with different interests and goals. One must assess where they find the most fulfillment, in a world that is "imperfect" and will not become a Utopian "ideal".
People are concerned today about relgious freedom, in a world that is wondering about radicalizers of faith traditions. Do humans, no matter their faith practice, deserve "equal protection under the law"? Or does their undermining of the "social order" deny them such protections? Civilized society believes that criminals are to be given a right to trial, but are not given freedom without investigation. The question becomes national security versus international law and human rights. Which is of utmost importance? And how do we know what is of utmost importance?
People are also concerned about how the "rule of law" applies in international relations where it concerns economics. Where do business interests usurp culture? Or does business "do business" within a cultural paradigm? How does business "do business" with those who do not adhere to the same cultural standards when it comes to the "rules", 'traditions", and the formal laws of different nation states? What are the responsibilities of citiziens to protect national security and national interests, at the costs of business interests? And do all nations deserve equal opportunity in regards to information that would possibly be used in a dangerous way? Are citizens granted more protection than anyone else?
These are questions that educated persons (and even, those that are in the learning curve) will disagree on, so it becomes a matter of conviction and commitment to the "most important and imperative" need to address. Needs of people will always conflict with different interests and goals. One must assess where they find the most fulfillment, in a world that is "imperfect" and will not become a Utopian "ideal".
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Monsters, Aliens, and Other "Stangeness"
Some in the blogosphere have been "talking" about monsters and aliens. What is a monster or an alien, but those who are outside our frames of reference. Or those who appear to have some form of deformity (spiritual, mental, emotional, intellectual, social, etc.) according to our "standards". These people challenge our comfort zones, because they create a tension in how we understand ourselves. We love people that are "just like us", because they affirm us, instead of challenging us.
While these people create tensions to our identity, they need to be understood, to be cared for, etc. At the same time, it is all right to maintain our boundaries, which define our differences, as well. This is, again, what makes our country great, as we do not establish/sanction a religion or specific culture.
Just recently, when we were in D.C. I noticed that the Kennedy Center was having a cultural exchange, of sorts, in the arts of the "Middle East" and the Shakespeare Theatre was offering a "translated" interpretation of Shakespeare's "Richard" into Islamic terms. Unfortunately, we were already "committed", so we did not attend. I thought this was a fascinating concept, though, as I have attended such "adventures" in the past. One does not have to live in another country to "understand" or have exposure to 'others" and their "world". And this type of exchange helps us to appreciate their forms of art.
When we appreciate a culture that is different from ours, through the arts we have learned and grown in awareness of "difference" and that is an education, itself.
While these people create tensions to our identity, they need to be understood, to be cared for, etc. At the same time, it is all right to maintain our boundaries, which define our differences, as well. This is, again, what makes our country great, as we do not establish/sanction a religion or specific culture.
Just recently, when we were in D.C. I noticed that the Kennedy Center was having a cultural exchange, of sorts, in the arts of the "Middle East" and the Shakespeare Theatre was offering a "translated" interpretation of Shakespeare's "Richard" into Islamic terms. Unfortunately, we were already "committed", so we did not attend. I thought this was a fascinating concept, though, as I have attended such "adventures" in the past. One does not have to live in another country to "understand" or have exposure to 'others" and their "world". And this type of exchange helps us to appreciate their forms of art.
When we appreciate a culture that is different from ours, through the arts we have learned and grown in awareness of "difference" and that is an education, itself.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Psycho/Spiritual/Physical State of the Human
This "hot" topic in theological, psychological and religious studies is the question of mind/body and how our physicality impacts our "selves". Is the brain the same as the "mind"? Is our environment the determining factor in life? Or is there an innate nature within the individual that is distinct from others, like fingerprints?
I do think that there is major "news" to discover in these arenas, but my concern is with a presupposition of the scientists (if there is one) of determination of environmental issues. Of course, this would support the Church's role in helping the family and school in the development/education of the child. The development and education of children is now in question, as many "ethical" children can be raised apart from religious teaching. And the Church's doctrine of the atonement, Jesus' life, and because of these issues, the social structure itself is in crisis. The struggle for the Church to survive these "onslaughts" of "modernity" is what is on the forefront of "news headlines" in theological circles. I personally do not find that reflecting on "theology" apart from reality is beneficial. Hope should be based on real issues of this world, instead of 'pie in the sky" hope for the next.
The Church is looking for a way out of gnostic tendencies in separating the "real world" from the "spiritual one". Many distorted doctrines have hindered man's flourishing, because man if viewed as "so fallen", that there is no redeeming quality within man. Everything that a "natural man' does is questioned, as lower than a 'spiritual man". The wall of separating the sacred and secular has hindered the Church's connection to the world and has hindered how everything 'in the world" has been viewed from "art", human virtue, to higher education. These "worldly" avenues are labelled as leading the "elect" astray and hindering the 'spirit".
I think that there is "hope" for the future of religion in discussing these issues, and I hope that I can be a part of the discussion. I know I will, if not directly, I will keep informed....
I do think that there is major "news" to discover in these arenas, but my concern is with a presupposition of the scientists (if there is one) of determination of environmental issues. Of course, this would support the Church's role in helping the family and school in the development/education of the child. The development and education of children is now in question, as many "ethical" children can be raised apart from religious teaching. And the Church's doctrine of the atonement, Jesus' life, and because of these issues, the social structure itself is in crisis. The struggle for the Church to survive these "onslaughts" of "modernity" is what is on the forefront of "news headlines" in theological circles. I personally do not find that reflecting on "theology" apart from reality is beneficial. Hope should be based on real issues of this world, instead of 'pie in the sky" hope for the next.
The Church is looking for a way out of gnostic tendencies in separating the "real world" from the "spiritual one". Many distorted doctrines have hindered man's flourishing, because man if viewed as "so fallen", that there is no redeeming quality within man. Everything that a "natural man' does is questioned, as lower than a 'spiritual man". The wall of separating the sacred and secular has hindered the Church's connection to the world and has hindered how everything 'in the world" has been viewed from "art", human virtue, to higher education. These "worldly" avenues are labelled as leading the "elect" astray and hindering the 'spirit".
I think that there is "hope" for the future of religion in discussing these issues, and I hope that I can be a part of the discussion. I know I will, if not directly, I will keep informed....
Sunday, February 15, 2009
A Play for the 'Greater Good'.
Last night's play had another aspect of meaning for me, as well as religious freedom. It also had the significance of academic and political freedom!
I commend the President, the Provost, and any others involved in allowing "the show to go on", because, I know that the culture of the university is a conservative one. The reason I think that this was a step in the right direction, is because our very nation's values are being threatened by religious zealots, that find tolerance abominable. I think that the Provost's introduction of the play and his emphasis of the university's distinctives were commendable. I also thought that the program giving reasoned reasons for certain aspects of the play that might prove offensive was gracious.
Our Bill of Rights does protect freedom of expression, whether it be in journalism, or religious conviction. Without freedom to express "another opinion" our political culture is endangered, because it becomes propagandized for a particular view or opinion. Education cannot happen in cultures that dominate, control or prohibit these freedoms of expression, because critical thinking skills are not needed where there is no "difference".
Christians should be people that believe that God is bigger than any type of expression. That does not mean that Christians condone any type of expression. The political realm can only be open and free when there is religious tolerance. And religious tolerance says that Congress shall make no legislation concerning religion or its free expression.
Grace means that we grant others the right to differ in opinion, values and commitments, because we understand that some things are just not "black and white" issues. Paul commended in the Scriptures that each man should be fully assured in his own mind. And Jesus said that we should not judge another's man's servant, because to his own master his stands or falls.
All of life is gifted and given. The play itself, as well as the university's tolerance of it was affirming of the grace that is prevenient. And I think is what Wesley would have approved.
I commend the President, the Provost, and any others involved in allowing "the show to go on", because, I know that the culture of the university is a conservative one. The reason I think that this was a step in the right direction, is because our very nation's values are being threatened by religious zealots, that find tolerance abominable. I think that the Provost's introduction of the play and his emphasis of the university's distinctives were commendable. I also thought that the program giving reasoned reasons for certain aspects of the play that might prove offensive was gracious.
Our Bill of Rights does protect freedom of expression, whether it be in journalism, or religious conviction. Without freedom to express "another opinion" our political culture is endangered, because it becomes propagandized for a particular view or opinion. Education cannot happen in cultures that dominate, control or prohibit these freedoms of expression, because critical thinking skills are not needed where there is no "difference".
Christians should be people that believe that God is bigger than any type of expression. That does not mean that Christians condone any type of expression. The political realm can only be open and free when there is religious tolerance. And religious tolerance says that Congress shall make no legislation concerning religion or its free expression.
Grace means that we grant others the right to differ in opinion, values and commitments, because we understand that some things are just not "black and white" issues. Paul commended in the Scriptures that each man should be fully assured in his own mind. And Jesus said that we should not judge another's man's servant, because to his own master his stands or falls.
All of life is gifted and given. The play itself, as well as the university's tolerance of it was affirming of the grace that is prevenient. And I think is what Wesley would have approved.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Media, Bias, and Education
On the radio today, a discussion over the place of the media in educating the public was made. In the program, it was suggested that Rush Limbaugh was the "talking head" of the Republican Party. Just before this program there was discussion on Reganomics. I find this interesting that these discussions were held back to back.
The media is responsible for reporting the facts, informing the public about what is happening. Most of our national news is just that, national, as it concerns national interests. But, with globalization, we cannot hide our heads in the sand without limiting our free society. The media assures a free society, when there is an affirmation of our Bill of Rights, which assures that our press remains free, in speech (what is said), opinion (religion or political party), and access (information in all areas of our public discourse).
These discussions, I thought were biased attempts at expressing a liberal agenda. Many have attempted these days to lay the crisis in our economy at the foot of Reagan, because of deregulation, capitalistic interests, and military support. Rush Limbaugh would probably represent the epitome of these opinions concerning the free market, and the political scene. But, this is his right to do so, in a free society.
The majority's rule in Congress is leading to an abuse of our bail-out, in my opinion. What criteria is there for deserving a bail-out? And those that are bailed out by the taxpayer are to be responsible and conservative in their future plans for business. Just today, I read where a company had scheduled an extravagant conference (holiday?) in Las Vegas, only to be reprimanded and cancel their plans. More companies need to take this type of responsibility themselves, instead of having a police state watch every footstep. The executive limiting their salaries to $500,000. is a good start, especially since those who make so much less are paying for their position, as well as the company's solvency.
Our society has gotten out of bounds concerning the free market, and what type of vocation deserves the highest pay. Of course, in free societies it depends on what the market will pay a particular person for their expertise. This is a question of "free market economics" and "the greater good", which is both Republican and Democratic values. If one or the other dismisses it's balancing "other side", then, we are headed down the road we have been on. And that only leads to greed, self-indulgence, and a lack of social responsibility. I believe that the two sides to the Golden Rule is a necessary balance to abuse. Whichever position one is commited to, is what basis one should make decisions about others...doing unto others. This allows freedom of conviction and commitment, while balancing each side.
The question of balnacing bias in journalism is a well-known fact in some circles, even though reporting is to be done in an unbiased way. Anyone who has taken two newspapers and read the same story covered by these different commitments (conservatism/liberalism) will see the differences in how the story is written. It is quite interesting and an education itself.
The media is responsible for reporting the facts, informing the public about what is happening. Most of our national news is just that, national, as it concerns national interests. But, with globalization, we cannot hide our heads in the sand without limiting our free society. The media assures a free society, when there is an affirmation of our Bill of Rights, which assures that our press remains free, in speech (what is said), opinion (religion or political party), and access (information in all areas of our public discourse).
These discussions, I thought were biased attempts at expressing a liberal agenda. Many have attempted these days to lay the crisis in our economy at the foot of Reagan, because of deregulation, capitalistic interests, and military support. Rush Limbaugh would probably represent the epitome of these opinions concerning the free market, and the political scene. But, this is his right to do so, in a free society.
The majority's rule in Congress is leading to an abuse of our bail-out, in my opinion. What criteria is there for deserving a bail-out? And those that are bailed out by the taxpayer are to be responsible and conservative in their future plans for business. Just today, I read where a company had scheduled an extravagant conference (holiday?) in Las Vegas, only to be reprimanded and cancel their plans. More companies need to take this type of responsibility themselves, instead of having a police state watch every footstep. The executive limiting their salaries to $500,000. is a good start, especially since those who make so much less are paying for their position, as well as the company's solvency.
Our society has gotten out of bounds concerning the free market, and what type of vocation deserves the highest pay. Of course, in free societies it depends on what the market will pay a particular person for their expertise. This is a question of "free market economics" and "the greater good", which is both Republican and Democratic values. If one or the other dismisses it's balancing "other side", then, we are headed down the road we have been on. And that only leads to greed, self-indulgence, and a lack of social responsibility. I believe that the two sides to the Golden Rule is a necessary balance to abuse. Whichever position one is commited to, is what basis one should make decisions about others...doing unto others. This allows freedom of conviction and commitment, while balancing each side.
The question of balnacing bias in journalism is a well-known fact in some circles, even though reporting is to be done in an unbiased way. Anyone who has taken two newspapers and read the same story covered by these different commitments (conservatism/liberalism) will see the differences in how the story is written. It is quite interesting and an education itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
