"Ending Bullying an Inexact Science."
This is not from The Onion; it is a headline from the HuffingtonPost. It implies a body of work investigating bullying and thoughtful self-criticism that attends it. Moreover it implies the value of such inquiry, that bullying is both a reasonable subject of research and that successful management is mere time and effort away. The headline itself is a wonderful bit of modern nonsense: Ending bullying is a hope or desire, not a science. Indeed, science has no aspiration or wish. But it is doubtful that there is not a Bullying Institute somewhere. And if there is one, the employees are certain to wear white coats.
This calls to mind Shimon Peres' lovely observation (a la Niebuhr): "If a problem has no solution, it may not be a problem, but a fact - not to be solved, but to be coped with over time." This is an enlightening thought. How many of the difficulties facing us are problems and how many are facts of life? And how are we to distinguish between them? What screams for change and what for accommodation?
We are a restless and impatient people; we want to improve things. We want to clear the land, bridge the gap, raise the barn. Problems are challenges. But are they really?
Where in our cowboy restlessness and our charming Yankee penchant for tinkering does ambition--or simple foolishness--start to cloud our minds? Is everything to be overcome? Or do we work away at some targeted condition of life like Frankenstein, creating some monster imitation of a solution.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Our Enlightened Caste
Dean Roscoe Pound (Harvard Law Dean from 1916 to 1936): "(law should be) ....in the hands of a progressive and enlightened caste whose conceptions are in advance of the public."
It is hard to imagine what time in history a Harvard Law Dean could say this without some controversy, without some comment. It certainly doesn't sound like an American opinion on government or leadership. (John Adams' lapses excepted.) Especially the "caste" reference. One of the things that so shocked de Tocqueville was that no citizen in America called another "master." There was no such distinction among Americans. The Americans might revere someone or some group but they felt no one above them, recognized no superior "caste". The problem is that the "special caste" is usually self appointed, as others may recognize themselves as Napoleon, Jesus or the Queen of the Sun and Moon. And in a world of uneven distribution of wealth and talent, there is always the chance that those who have less will see it as deserved, just as a six foot three inch blond Plantagenet probably should be a war leader--then king.
But if a culture allows people to feel inferior, they will. Then they will start deferring their decisions, and eventually their lives, to those seemingly more competent. The genius of the American creation is its insistence that everyone is equal before the law, that there are no special citizens. Every man is given responsibility for his own life. It is the American starting point.
The average men who fought and died at Valley Forge did not think like Madison or Jefferson. The brilliance of the American creators is that Madison and Jefferson were capable of thinking like them, the average man, and with admiration not condescension. The Founders of the country felt these farmers, tradesmen, merchants and trappers were capable of any achievement. And why not? They had seen it. They had seen a small peripheral society take arms over points of law and defeat the most powerful nation on earth on the battlefield.
Perhaps that astonishing military victory still hangs on the memory of our "enlightened caste". An element of fear, even paranoia, has crept into modern commentary of late. The recurring theme is "inequality", inequality of income, wealth and position. As if the citizen's accomplishment was not the fulfilling of one's potential as a free man but rather in the collections of goods. The wealth of the nation is unsurpassed in the history of the world but inequality threatens the stability of the nation!
This is new. In the minds of the Founders, the threat to the country was never the grasping average man, it was always the grasping leader.
It is hard to imagine what time in history a Harvard Law Dean could say this without some controversy, without some comment. It certainly doesn't sound like an American opinion on government or leadership. (John Adams' lapses excepted.) Especially the "caste" reference. One of the things that so shocked de Tocqueville was that no citizen in America called another "master." There was no such distinction among Americans. The Americans might revere someone or some group but they felt no one above them, recognized no superior "caste". The problem is that the "special caste" is usually self appointed, as others may recognize themselves as Napoleon, Jesus or the Queen of the Sun and Moon. And in a world of uneven distribution of wealth and talent, there is always the chance that those who have less will see it as deserved, just as a six foot three inch blond Plantagenet probably should be a war leader--then king.
But if a culture allows people to feel inferior, they will. Then they will start deferring their decisions, and eventually their lives, to those seemingly more competent. The genius of the American creation is its insistence that everyone is equal before the law, that there are no special citizens. Every man is given responsibility for his own life. It is the American starting point.
The average men who fought and died at Valley Forge did not think like Madison or Jefferson. The brilliance of the American creators is that Madison and Jefferson were capable of thinking like them, the average man, and with admiration not condescension. The Founders of the country felt these farmers, tradesmen, merchants and trappers were capable of any achievement. And why not? They had seen it. They had seen a small peripheral society take arms over points of law and defeat the most powerful nation on earth on the battlefield.
Perhaps that astonishing military victory still hangs on the memory of our "enlightened caste". An element of fear, even paranoia, has crept into modern commentary of late. The recurring theme is "inequality", inequality of income, wealth and position. As if the citizen's accomplishment was not the fulfilling of one's potential as a free man but rather in the collections of goods. The wealth of the nation is unsurpassed in the history of the world but inequality threatens the stability of the nation!
This is new. In the minds of the Founders, the threat to the country was never the grasping average man, it was always the grasping leader.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Palin-tology and Prophesy
This seems to be a time of prophesy from Nostradamus to the Mayans. The Middle East has dueling prophesies with the Apocalypse from the old testament and the various writings loved by Achmedinijaad.
Here is Palin's prophesy from the OED:
palingenesis \pal-in-JEN-uh-sis\, noun:
1. Rebirth; regeneration.
2. In biology, embryonic development that reproduces the ancestral features of the species.
3. Baptism in the Christian faith.
4. The doctrine of transmigration of souls.
We're more interested in rebirth, regeneration--particularly economic rather than the transmigration of souls. Not to say we are opposed to the transmigration of souls......
Here is Palin's prophesy from the OED:
palingenesis \pal-in-JEN-uh-sis\, noun:
1. Rebirth; regeneration.
2. In biology, embryonic development that reproduces the ancestral features of the species.
3. Baptism in the Christian faith.
4. The doctrine of transmigration of souls.
We're more interested in rebirth, regeneration--particularly economic rather than the transmigration of souls. Not to say we are opposed to the transmigration of souls......
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Angels and Pinheads
Most conventions are seen in an economic framework anymore. So the question of legitimacy has been historically important for reasons of heredity: Only a legitimate child could inherit a parent's property. Even Henry VIII, desperate for a male heir, could not change this law--and he changed plenty--to favor FitzRoy. It was easier for him to kill his wives and create a religious schism than to advance a bastard.
Given the seriousness with which this question was viewed, one wonders what is afoot in contemporary society. Recent studies have shown the illegitimacy rate for children born in the United States is a bit over 40%; it is 33% in Ireland. Ireland! There are some generalities about childbearing that seem to be agreed upon--children should not have children, illegitimacy is bad for for the economic success of both the parents and the child, illegitimacy is a good predictor of high risk social and criminal behavior, single parent households are bad for child development--but despite the agreement on these subjects, there seems to be little effort to discourage the behavior. One could argue that an effort is underway to remove the "social stigma"--whatever residual persists--completely. Television shows now track the pregnancies of young girls--presumably to show the viewer that, while no one would dare impose a judgment, illegitimacy is not a good idea from a utilitarian view--yet these same girls end up on the covers of magazines and are known by their first names by everyone.
One could muse that legitimacy, more than a hereditary clarifying tool, was emphasized because it was learned by the societies over the years to be valuable. If that is the case, the culture is doing a huge, uncontrolled experiment. The effect might be liberating--but it might not be anything more than a revival of ancient and long-discarded errors. If that possibility exists, there is a lot at stake here and contemporary philosophical debates like the financial responsibilities of sperm donors are angels on pinheads.
Given the seriousness with which this question was viewed, one wonders what is afoot in contemporary society. Recent studies have shown the illegitimacy rate for children born in the United States is a bit over 40%; it is 33% in Ireland. Ireland! There are some generalities about childbearing that seem to be agreed upon--children should not have children, illegitimacy is bad for for the economic success of both the parents and the child, illegitimacy is a good predictor of high risk social and criminal behavior, single parent households are bad for child development--but despite the agreement on these subjects, there seems to be little effort to discourage the behavior. One could argue that an effort is underway to remove the "social stigma"--whatever residual persists--completely. Television shows now track the pregnancies of young girls--presumably to show the viewer that, while no one would dare impose a judgment, illegitimacy is not a good idea from a utilitarian view--yet these same girls end up on the covers of magazines and are known by their first names by everyone.
One could muse that legitimacy, more than a hereditary clarifying tool, was emphasized because it was learned by the societies over the years to be valuable. If that is the case, the culture is doing a huge, uncontrolled experiment. The effect might be liberating--but it might not be anything more than a revival of ancient and long-discarded errors. If that possibility exists, there is a lot at stake here and contemporary philosophical debates like the financial responsibilities of sperm donors are angels on pinheads.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Lame Duck
lame duck (Online Etymology Dictionary)
mid-18c., "any disabled person or thing;" especially Stock Exchange slang for "defaulter."
A lame duck is a man who cannot pay his differences, and is said to waddle off. [Thomas Love Peacock, "Gryll Grange," 1861]
Sometimes also in naval use for "an old, slow ship." Modern sense of "public official serving out term after an election" is recorded by 1878 in Amer.Eng., from an anecdote published in that year of President Lincoln, who is alleged to have said, "[A] senator or representative out of business is a sort of lame duck. He has to be provided for."
Lincoln did not know the half of it. He was speaking at a time when the government and the people governed were intimate; when the government was an extension of the people. But those days are long gone. The modern politician knows the world far better than we poor souls and the lame duck period allows him free range to inflict the nation with his vision of truth without having to worry about those pesky little problems like responsibility to the voters. It is no accident that this Congress passed so many controversial laws; this gaggle is much more comfortable when given free rein.
The political lame duck is one of democracy's great defiant and arrogant Bathoes; when he acts, it is the democracy that is disabled and "waddles off".
mid-18c., "any disabled person or thing;" especially Stock Exchange slang for "defaulter."
A lame duck is a man who cannot pay his differences, and is said to waddle off. [Thomas Love Peacock, "Gryll Grange," 1861]
Sometimes also in naval use for "an old, slow ship." Modern sense of "public official serving out term after an election" is recorded by 1878 in Amer.Eng., from an anecdote published in that year of President Lincoln, who is alleged to have said, "[A] senator or representative out of business is a sort of lame duck. He has to be provided for."
Lincoln did not know the half of it. He was speaking at a time when the government and the people governed were intimate; when the government was an extension of the people. But those days are long gone. The modern politician knows the world far better than we poor souls and the lame duck period allows him free range to inflict the nation with his vision of truth without having to worry about those pesky little problems like responsibility to the voters. It is no accident that this Congress passed so many controversial laws; this gaggle is much more comfortable when given free rein.
The political lame duck is one of democracy's great defiant and arrogant Bathoes; when he acts, it is the democracy that is disabled and "waddles off".
Friday, December 10, 2010
Mr. Assange and the Overburdened State
What to do with Mr. Assange...Some cry "Treason!"--but he's not a U.S. citizen. Some say "Spy!"--but he only publicized what was already exposed by the American Manning. (Who is a traitor.) The libertarians are thrilled with his exposing insincerity and duplicity of government--as if this were some news.
Truth is not the question. What was published were copies. True copies. But does truth always have to be said? Is it important to the moral balance of the universe that the lady in the stupid hat--who spent all day working with it and wears it proudly and confidently into the world--knows that everyone around her thinks it's stupid? Or is that truthful insight gratuitously cruel and self important?
But Assange is more than arrogant and gauche; he is destructive. He has a plan of chaos and disorder and the victims of that plan are us. Read what he said to Time magazine: "It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society."..... (If leaks cause U.S. officials to) ...."lock down internally and to balkanize," ...(they will)... "cease to be as efficient as they were." What he wants is to make the system inefficient. He wants the system not to work.
For some reason those with confidence in state power often attack it by asking more of it than it can do.
Well, which part of the system should fail. The electrical grid that runs the respirators? The economic grid that controls contracts and exchange? The military grid and its fail safe mechanisms?
The world is getting more dangerous. Imagine a malicious soul in a commodity exchange computer. Or a bank computer. Or a military one.
The well-poisoner does not want to kill anyone; he wants to destroy the village.
Truth is not the question. What was published were copies. True copies. But does truth always have to be said? Is it important to the moral balance of the universe that the lady in the stupid hat--who spent all day working with it and wears it proudly and confidently into the world--knows that everyone around her thinks it's stupid? Or is that truthful insight gratuitously cruel and self important?
But Assange is more than arrogant and gauche; he is destructive. He has a plan of chaos and disorder and the victims of that plan are us. Read what he said to Time magazine: "It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society."..... (If leaks cause U.S. officials to) ...."lock down internally and to balkanize," ...(they will)... "cease to be as efficient as they were." What he wants is to make the system inefficient. He wants the system not to work.
For some reason those with confidence in state power often attack it by asking more of it than it can do.
Well, which part of the system should fail. The electrical grid that runs the respirators? The economic grid that controls contracts and exchange? The military grid and its fail safe mechanisms?
The world is getting more dangerous. Imagine a malicious soul in a commodity exchange computer. Or a bank computer. Or a military one.
The well-poisoner does not want to kill anyone; he wants to destroy the village.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
MI-6 Times One Hundred and Fifty Thousand
There is a thesis abroad that says democracies inherently discourage the successful, competent and ambitious from running for public office because of the debasement that politics demands of a candidate. While this may protect the democracy from the dangers of powerful and potentially dangerous leaders, it does inflict the nation with the less able, the silly--the Bathoes--who become leaders by default. With that in mind, look at the following from The Washington Post:
* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counter terrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.
* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.
We have come a long way from the days when we worried over the Clinton staffers who could not pass security clearance to chair their own meetings. How can anyone take a security system with almost one million top-security clearances seriously? Imagine a one hundred mile pipe with one million joints. The Wikileaks fiasco is not just understandable, it is inevitable.
One wonders if we are applying old concepts to new and impossible circumstances. We don't consider nuclear warning shots as reasonable; the two are incompatible. (At least I hope we don't.) It is an oxymoron. How could anybody create a top security intelligence system that employs 800,000 people, 1900 private companies and 1200 government organizations? Security aside, how would they exchange information? Secure skywriting?
Who are these people?
* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counter terrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.
* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.
We have come a long way from the days when we worried over the Clinton staffers who could not pass security clearance to chair their own meetings. How can anyone take a security system with almost one million top-security clearances seriously? Imagine a one hundred mile pipe with one million joints. The Wikileaks fiasco is not just understandable, it is inevitable.
One wonders if we are applying old concepts to new and impossible circumstances. We don't consider nuclear warning shots as reasonable; the two are incompatible. (At least I hope we don't.) It is an oxymoron. How could anybody create a top security intelligence system that employs 800,000 people, 1900 private companies and 1200 government organizations? Security aside, how would they exchange information? Secure skywriting?
Who are these people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)