LIVE
the life you want to live
Why the Senate Failed to advance the Disclose Act (and expose 'dark money')
Simply put: Politicians Democrats & Republicans don’t want us to know who they are really working for. One senator decried the bill as creating the risk that they could be ‘canceled’.
If someone is being funded by ANTIFA or ALT-Right interests isn’t right that we know? The problem with the “Dark Money Donors” is that they threaten our democracy by taking over the legislature. Extreme you say? But in practical terms all of us donate to causes we believe in, with the expectations that the ‘organization/individual’ will act in accordance with/representative of our interests.
In business the greatest shareholder has the greatest influence, which is why sometimes certain interests are blocked from acquiring a majority shares of a company. It is why the government and corporations do their best to block criminal or hostile entities from buying into key markets and industries. (Imagine if ISIL had controlling interests in American energy corporations.) The 2010 Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United v. FEC[1] gave corporations and billionaires the ability to advocate for or against candidates anonymously through PACs (Political Action Committees) giving them unrestricted influence in American politics.
As citizens if we are to continue believing that democracy is truly viable we need to have transparency, we need to know who is investing in who. I will not vote along party lines if I know that the representative of my party is not representative of my values (if neither party is I will try and choose the lesser of the two ‘evils’)[2]. Growing up I always heard ‘choose your friends carefully because one’s character is reflected in the company one keeps’. I want to know who the money friends of our elected officials are.
I believe that the January 6th incident was tragic for all Americans; money was poured into disseminating false news and instigating citizens to rebel against fellow citizens and their own government causing death and destruction. The fact that a candidate had the financial resources to refuse to concede defeat in the face of an obvious loss should be criminal: Al Gore asked for a recount in Florida and then conceded; Hilary Clinton even though she won the popular vote by 2 million (actual votes by American citizens) she conceded the victory to Mr. Trump because of the Electoral College count[3], but when it came time for Mr. Trump to act in a dignified, American way, he behaved like a self serving sewer rodent with no regard for the suffering caused by his behavior.
There is no perfect form of government but Democracy, if reformed, can get closer to be an actual representation of the will of the people. It is reasonable to say that people are given to being swayed by sales pitches, images and sound bites; if we do better providing a more robust education K-12 more Americans will be able to think for themselves and be less swayed by the sales pitches. I want to trust my fellow citizen to be able to exercise their vote, but it is difficult when we observe how their fears are exploited and manipulated. There should be election reforms but I don’t know whether we the people will ever be able to affect that. There should be term limits as there are for the Office of The President: obviously the incentive for PACs to get their Politicians re-elected is to keep their interests and agenda in play.
Whether Democrat or Republican when I hear them say “I have been fighting for 30 years on your behalf” I want them to hear me say “and what did you do for us, other than get yourself re-elected while increasing your own personal wealth?”
There have been very few long-term elected officials who were of service, unencumbered by self-interest alone. Only one politician in my lifetime who saw public office as a call to service has been Jimmy Carter who after leaving The White House went straight into founding Habitat for Humanity and he and his wife Roselyn remain involved to this day to public service.
[1] Spending in election cycles by corporations and the ultrawealthy through so-called dark money groups has skyrocketed since the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed incorporated entities and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote or attack candidates.
[2] Although I don’t ‘believe’ in abortion I would choose a Pro Choice candidate over a Pro Life candidate.
[3] https://www.thenationalvote.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsJHX3PGu-gIVISCtBh2fkgLsEAAYAiAAEgLg2fD_BwE
When Left is Right, Right is Left and When both are Wrong.
Historically and universally the personification of justice, is usually a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword. In the illustration we see the scales torn away from a disarmed Lady Justice, her throat tightly gripped in a strangle hold (in this depiction Uncle Sam remains unmovingly standing in the background).
I am forever appalled by the cruelty and immorality of men (in this instance not to be confused with humankind). Forever men impose their violence upon women and seek to ratify it by 'law' and 'God's will'. They blame women for their base and immoral thoughts, their lust, and for rape; they grasp at Adam and Eve as the one story vindicating their evil misdeeds. This vile and contemptible behavior is practiced to different degrees throughout Christendom, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism to name a few of the most familiar (and people often point to Islam as the main culprit, but it is not; in my studies as directed by faithful adherents to The Holy Prophet, He himself always displayed the greatest respect and regard, kindness and love toward women, particularly his daughters and those who bore them. I am disgusted by how the name of God, Jesus and the Holy Prophet His name is invoked to legitimize the brutal misogyny practiced against women).
In the next section of this writing I will present a reflection on a writing by Martin Buber, as an exercise in not merely adhering to a thought or ideology because of the safety and and sense of belonging it provides. Dogmatism though seductive is mal-adaptive because it demands conforming to that which is static and survival demands being adaptive to a world of reality which is dynamic. America as a nation has been challenged with 'adapting' to an ever changing self image, with embracing diversity because are survival depends on the multiplicity of innovations which come of differences not sameness; while preserving the rights to have our differences also be a refuge of comfortability, protected and upheld by the institutions of constitutional governance. Only a society disciplined in tolerance will prevail to advance, succeed and survive. Tolerance is not an indifference to that with which we disagree or to allow our selves to be destroyed by that we regard as threat; it requires a logical dialog to assess whether our fears are reasonable or merely the external projections of our individual or collective paranoiac delusions: tolerance is coming to terms with and not being opposed to the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference: a social architecture unwilling to tolerate dissent is doomed to collapse upon itself, whilst arguably anarchy historically is nihilistic and threatens planetary survival. Liberals and conservatives must be curious as to the nihilism within its ranks. In America the partisan politics of our times really threatens us with annihilation because it is suffocating dialog, there is no tolerance to discuss dissenting viewpoints (this is also a problem which can be seen as a global pandemic as well).
Most recently the issue of abortion: I have not yet met a woman who has thought that abortion is a preferred form of birth control. Men often act as if it’s the ‘oops’ option (failing to recognize their participation in pregnancy). While denying abortion rights there is no commitment to providing for the unborn child’s right to be wanted, to be born out of poverty not into it, to be born out of suffering not into it. Furthermore there is an inherent judgement and condemnation towards those children either by society or the birth parents: reference to by words like illegitimate, bastard, or mistake. There is a profound absence of kindness and charity. The ‘unwanted’ pregnancy has everything to do with the overall implications of being pregnant; whether the pregnancy is celebrated or shamed. So we must look at ourselves as a whole and not simplify it through our collective chauvinism. (We must recognize that procreation, men be the title bearers of a family etc. are inherently socio-political and the origins in human society is about the distribution of power and control and is not, as often cited, in conformity with nature.)
So, in an effort to provoke a deeper thinking and discourse (so earnestly encouraged by the contemporary thinker, and for some nemesis, Douglas Murray) I draw upon the mind and writings of Martin Buber (who when asked of what to do with the Arab/Israeli struggle he said they need to dialog with one another, the questioner protested that they have been talking back and forth for decades and it hasn’t worked, where upon he responded, yes, yes they have all been talking…but they have yet to listen to one another, dialog is mutual and reciprocal, it is not merely stating one’s opinions but listening…for he considered that if we listen deeply then we will here what we agree upon and find the way to reconcile our differences: which is what many progressive Jews and Muslims have managed to do without political intent but for the wellness and survival of the children and collective communities. Some hardliners on both sides say there is not talking reason with those people: indeed there is not because if dialog is absent then talk will amount to nothing.
In his collection of Martin Buber’s written works “Meetings” there is a story of Samuel and Agag King of the Amalekites: Martin is reflecting to an older Rabbi that he doesn’t believe that God would ask King Saul to slay Agag who had surrendered with his family.
“So?” he broke forth at last, “so? You do not believe it?”
No, I answered, “I do not believe it? “So? so?” he repeated almost threateningly. “You
do not believe it? And I once again:- “No.”
“what, what . . . ,” …he thrust the words before him one after the other…“What do you believe then?”
“I believe,” I replied without reflecting “that Samuel has misunderstood God.”
And he, again Slowly, but more softly than before: “So? You believe that?”
And I: “Yes?"
Then we were both Silent. But now something happened the like of which I have rarely seen before or since in this my long life. The angry countenance opposite me became transformed, as if a hand had passed over it soothing it. It lightened, cleared, was now turned toward me bright and clear. “Well,” said the man with a positively gentle tender clarity, “I think so too.” And again we became silent, for a good while.
There is in the end nothing astonishing in the fact that an observant Jew of this nature, when he has to choose between God and the Bible, chooses God: the God in whom he believes, Him in whom he can believe. And yet, it seemed to me at that time significant and still seems so to me today….
For me, however, in all the time since that early conversation the question has again and again arisen whether at that time I expressed in the right manner what I meant. And again and again I answered the question in the same way: Yes and No. Yes in so far as it concerns what had been spoken of in that conversation; for there it was right to answer my partner in his language and within the limits of his language in order that the dialogue might not come to naught and that the common insight into one truth at times afforded to two men might fulfill itself, in no matter how limited a way. In so far as it concerns that, Yes. But No when it concerns both recognizing oneself and making known that man and the human race are inclined to misunderstand God. Man is so Created that he can understand, but does not have to understand what God says to him.
God does not abandon the created man to his needs and anxieties; He provides him with the assistance of His word; He speaks to him, He comforts him with His word.
But man does not listen with faithful ears to what is spoken to him; already in hearing he blends together command of heaven and statute of earth, revelation to the existing being and the orientations that he arranges himself. Even the holy scriptures of man are not excluded, not even the Bible.
What is involved here is not ultimately the fact that this or that form of biblical historical narrative has misunderstood God; what is involved is the fact that in the work of throats and pens out of which the text of the Old Testament has arisen, misunderstanding has again and again attached itself to understanding, the manufactured has been mixed with the received. We have no objective criterion for the distinction; we have only faith—when we have it.
Nothing can make me believe in a God who punishes Saul because he has not murdered his enemy.” [from Meetings, Martin Buber. OpenCourt Publishing Company, Las Salle, Illinois, 1973. (Pp.53-54) Boldened text, italics and underlines added by myself.]
Martin concludes that to translate or to interpret a biblical text, one must do so understanding, embracing the inescapable tension between the word of God and the words and statutes of man; our intentions often self serving.
#misogyny,#humanrights,#diversity,#tolerance,#liberal,#conservative,#humanity,#DouglasMurray.
United in Killing: Creating cohesion by making enemies
I fail to remember whom, but during my undergraduate studies in Political Science I took a course with a Dr. Ina Schlesinger, entitled The Literature of Political Violence in Europe. In one of the readings an author posited that war could only be enacted if one had an enemy and enemies were created by states using adjectives[1] to carefully objectified the opponent, systematically dehumanizing them until they became the thing one could feel self-righteously confident in annihilating. Modern warfare for the most part provides physical distance from killing making it easier to commit the act of killing another. Terrorism is the tactic used when political entities lack armies, wealth, statehood and conventional means of fighting: it is the tactic of seeding the fear of being unsafe in one’s opponent’s psyche (like cutting off heads on live stream). When the enemy is allusive then we often throw a wide net, a blanket label in the hope to protect ourselves. It happened with 9/11 that many Americans were caught in that net, and many in foreign countries also; we became frenzied in our need to identify the enemy and eliminate the threat.
Regrettably American politics being what it is, those aspiring to seize public office capitalize on the narrative of the enemy and exploit it: without term limits they spend years refining the impact of their rhetoric, a practice exercised on both sides of the aisle. A sad reality of our democracy is that since the time of President Kennedy our electorate have been manipulated by Madison Avenue type campaign strategists, targeting the people’s heart and purse strings, to sway them in the direction of self-serving politicians who pander to the lobbyists and in general sell out We the People.
The majority of modern States use propaganda to coral the collective minds of the people to create cohesion, singularity of purpose, and instill the populace with righteous confidence so that they can be mobilized to do The State’s bidding. Religion has often been used to affect these outcomes which is unfortunate because the prophets of old have been the one’s to call into question, their own and our own beliefs and conducts, to guide us to amend our ways, reform our behavior and to become more adaptive to sharing our planet and its resources with nature and one another. (If one is a deist then as Martin Buber suggests one must be curious about one’s certainty, one’s opinion about God’s will.[2])
(Opinion: [noun] a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter. approval, esteem.) Plato posited, an opinion is not the place of arrival but departure: it is where discourse begins not ends. My opinion indicates the intellectual coordinates for where I am in my thinking at any given moment in time; it is dangerous for me to become recalcitrant about my opinions because it robs me of the ability to compromise[3] when I am in error.
Of late I am grateful that my opinions have been informed by encountering Lex Fridman’s Podcasts[4], and being exposed to the thoughts and minds of Noam Chomsky, Douglas Murray, Rana el Kaliouby, Gabor Maté, Yeonmi Park and others.
Part of being in my profession is that often times I am struck by the question, why? Or How is this useful/what’s the pay-off (even when the ‘pay-off’ is in the negative)? I also posit the same question to my ‘other’ mind; the one influenced by my undergraduate studies in poli-sci.
[A Tangential break: The ‘problem’ with the prior occupant of The White House, Mr. Trump was that he brought his street level ‘shell game’, short-con into the long game of Global Politics which is a cumulative series of moves, with transgenerational geo-political nuances, where the participants are all trying to maintain moment to their own best advantage without making moves which cause any party to divest from participation resulting in socio-economic destabilization for the entire Global Community; a situation invariably leading to every party seeing what they can grab before all the takings are gone. (Prophetic voices have always warned that for stability in the global economy the rich must never have so much as to cause the poor to have so little that they lose hope, rebel and have no incentive to preserve the collective homeostasis. Every society which has collapsed has done so because the ‘haves’ underestimated the insufferable conditions of the ‘have-nots’.)
Mr. Trump in his short-con exploited the sentiments of a vast swath of the American society who felt displaced, excluded and disenfranchised. At one point on the 2016 campaign trail he said I love my undereducated followers.]
Noam Chomsky lays the blame for our current Global Crisis as originating from, and having been orchestrated by Bill Clinton’s administration which enacted a short-con, nullifying hitherto agreements made between the world superpowers (including The United States) which would protect every party’s rights and opportunity to thrive and succeed in accordance with their own beliefs and cultures: part of that which was not to expand NATO membership.
In divesting from and diverting from the prior pact of agreements America’s actions could only been seen as a successive series of aggressive acts of hegemony seeking to encircle the globe bringing all others into submission to itself.
The tragedy of the current European crisis is that the Ukraine is the victim: of course they must protect themselves and assert their autonomy and independence, which can be best secured by not capitulating to anyone’s ruse, including that of Russia and/or The West. America did not make Russia invade the Ukraine, but we did betray a trust and contribute significantly to making them feel uncomfortable and uncertain about their of safety and sovereignty. (There is much about Russia that I don't hold in high regard, particularly their autocratic style of governance, but they do not need to be our enemy; there are worse despots in the world with whom we have mutual and reciprocal agreements with.)
[1] Adjectives describe or modify—that is, they limit or restrict the meaning of—nouns and pronouns.
[2] Meetings, Martin Buber. Open Court Publishing Company, LaSalle, Illinois.
[3] Oxford Dictionaries: an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions: an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both.
[4] https://www.youtube.com/c/lexfridman
#russiaukrainewar,#usa,#peace,#betrayal