And Mark's reply

Yes, it is true. I find the NY Times to be a better source of accurate information than most other news sources. But the issue isn’t a question of bias. Every perspective is a bias. We used to think in my field [psychotherapy] that it was best to be neutral, that is, to not have a bias. Turns out that isn’t possible. Better to know one’s bias and to be careful to keep it out of the way of the work our clients are doing.

I like the links to Berkeley Earth. But the numbers don’t tell me as much as the fact that people who can interpret them are paying attention to them. This is important.

 So, what do I believe? Well, for one thing, I think a better way of saying “wealth redistribution” is “paying taxes.” They both mean the same thing but we know that paying taxes is older than the Bible whereas wealth redistribution is a plot by the liberals to steal my money. And yes, I am for a system of progressive taxation so that we work to narrow the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest. Large inequalities are socially destabilizing.

Do I believe in government regulation? Yes, I think speed limits are a good thing and I even like telling people they have to wear helmets and seatbelts. I get it that if someone doesn’t wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle they probably don’t have brains to protect, but I don’t want to have to pay for their care when they are reduced to vegetable status. But I especially believe that the role of government includes inhibiting the behavior of others when that behavior would harm me. But then I see government as the result of agreements I help to construct, not a force for evil that plots to restrict my rights.

I don’t know about environmental controls. How does one control the environment? I am certainly convinced that we are pumping a lot of carbon into the atmosphere and that carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse gas” and that its presence seems to be closely correlated with the temperature of Earth. There are other greenhouse gases that we might be able to influence. I understand that the methane in cow farts is a big problem we could reduce if we ate less meat. But that is only one reason to reduce our consumption of beef.

So, in general, what is called for is that we live healthier. Eat more plant based foods. Walk and bicycle more. Live in such a way that we are less isolated from our neighbors and we look out for them more… even having to encounter them in public transportation. This means shifting how we live and how we envision the future. We don’t like change especially if it makes us uncomfortable even if it makes us healthier.

If the Earth is warming, and if such warming has catastrophic consequences, and if we want to avoid those consequences, and if the cause is human activity, and if that activity can be changed, and if we have the will to change, and if those changes can actually avert or at least minimize the catastrophic effects; then we will actually live healthier lives. Seems like that is a better choice. I need all the help I can get to be healthy.

 But maybe there is something to be gained by not acknowledging that Earth is warming. Then I can ignore the warning of looming catastrophe. After all, I don’t even know any polar bears. Or if Earth is warming, maybe it is not about anything we humans are doing. And if it isn’t, then there isn’t anything we can do about. So then I can keep driving alone in a vehicle that gets 15 mpg.

 It just seems to me that, on balance, believing that the majority of the world’s climate scientists are telling the truth leads to healthier choices than believing those who are denying.

Bruce's Response

 Mark -

   I'm not really sure what it is that you want to believe or not to believe.  Are you asking whether or not to believe that the New York Times is an unbiased and reliable source of science news?  Or, are you asking whether to believe that Earth's surface temperature has risen over the last few years?  You might be asking whether changes in certain measures of climate might justify sweeping changes in taxation, environmental controls and wealth re-distribution.  

   If you want to believe that this article is definitive, you may want to re-read it.  It does make a broad statement completely devoid of any details and follows that up with anecdotal evidence.  Just how much did the Earth warm up and why did they not mention that?  Which of the three Earth surveys were they citing?  What was the statistical significance of the change? Was there any peer review of the work?  The debate remains lively, hardly settled at all.  

   Should you want more information, you might read this NY Times article:  2013 NY Times Op Ed.  There is a much finer source of information available at Berkeley Earth.  More Berkeley Earth Information

   

    

What am I to believe?

why shouldn't I believe this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?emc=edit_th_20150117&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=44914770&_r=0

The Latest on Global Climate Change - A Triumph of Politics over Science?

     Most likely you are excited to see the latest draft of AR5 from the IPCC, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is an agency of the United Nations.  This is the fifth in a series of such reports.  The most fascinating part it is how it panders to certain politicians in its summary while it raises great doubt with the underlying scientific data.  The recent draft states that science is now 95% certain that growing carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is causing, and will continue to cause, unprecedented global warming and alarming sea level rise.  Meanwhile, the data within the report confirms that global temperatures have failed to rise for the last fifteen years or so.  It also maintains, as the media has reported, that global carbon dioxide levels are now the highest since the Paleolithic Period.  Once again, we have a remarkable inconsistency.  We know that the Paleolithic was characterized by incredible global cooling, we even call this period the ice age.

     The draft struggles to explain the nearly complete halt in global warming given the soaring CO2 levels.  All the predictions we have seen insist that the rate of global warming will increase.  We do remember the now famous "hockey stick" graph. That graph is still in use by climate change believers despite its failure to materialize.  To those who say, "The debate is over," we respond by asking for peer-reviewed studies concluding that human activity is causing global warming.  To date, there have been none, ZERO.  To those who say "Climate scientists agree," I point out that the number who do agree has now fallen to 39%.

      Now the draft goes back to the individual countries for approval.  This is not exactly what "peer-reviewed" means.  The 119 scientists who drafted the study now step back to allow the politicians back home to further edit and finally approve the study.  The science is over, now the politics begin.  It will be very interesting to see how the report changes as this year passes.  Our politicians continue to argue that this process is all science.  If it is about science, why are the politicians spending a year editing it?

       The point, therefore, is that science has always needed funding to operate and that forces scientists to court politicians in order to work and even become politically involved.  I maintain that this is neither good nor bad, it just is.  Knowing this does require that we respect our own abilities and do enough of our own research to arrive at our own decisions.

Tilting at Windmills: Arguments for and Against Climate Change

Tilting at Windmills: Arguments for and Against Climate Change

Entitlement

Entitlement is a term used to describe a circumstance in which one has earned a right because of a way in which one has fulfilled a responsibility.  For example, I am entitled to drive a car because I have earned a license, purchased a car, maintained it, and have shown a record of driving it safely.  If I stop doing those things I will no longer be able to drive a car.

But the term entitlement has also come to mean a circumstance in which someone demands a right even though they have not fulfilled the necessary responsibilities.  This phenomenon is common in teenagers but is, from my perspective, more and more common in the general populace.

One place we see this is in those persons who are happy to complain about the quality of government services but aren’t willing to pay the taxes to support those services.  Some people are quick to complain about high taxes on gasoline and to complain about the poor quality of the roads on which they drive and fail to see the connection between those two.  We have mostly agreed that there are certain services the government will provide as for the common defense of the nation. We all benefit from those services so we are all required to pay for them through our taxes.

Another agreement we have (as created by law) is that all are entitled to healthcare.  If my youngest son and I are riding in the car together and suffer a major accident an observer will not be able to tell that I have health insurance and he does not based on the quality of care we each receive.  We have collectively chosen to be sure that we do not live in a society in which those needing care are denied it because they are unable to pay.

The provision of universal healthcare is simplified in those nations with a single payer system.  But problems like those in New Zealand have so alarmed Americans that healthcare debate in the last 20 years has almost excluded the single payer option.  Instead we are keeping insurance companies in the system but tweaking the system so that everyone has to pay for the services they receive.

But the sense of entitlement in the nation is so strong that we are facing the high likelihood at this point that the Supreme Court will rule that the “individual mandate” is unconstitutional.  The legislature cannot require that persons pay for services that it has mandated will be available to them unless it levies the cost as a tax, not as a fee paid to an insurance company.

If we are willing to deny health care to those who refuse to pay for it then we can keep the system from going bankrupt.  But we collectively show signs that we will continue to care for the flightless birds in our midst.  We will only have justice by maintaining a balance between rights and responsibilities.  If we want a world in which everyone gets care we will have to figure out a way to pay for it.

Unpublished photos

There was one photo I deleted from my gallery sent to the whole family. 

 

An exchange from email

Bruce wrote:
Mark -
    It is so perfect that I got your note when I did.  I had just heard that the gubmint wants to create an independent agency to watch the Securities and Exchange Commission to make sure they don't watch porn on their office computers.  Further, I was dealing with just one more example of official gubmint stupidity.  I was in a meeting trying to deal with a huge error in the  DOE mandates for water heater efficiencies in current round of Rural Development low income housing weatherizations.  I won't go into the details now, but the absolute arrogance of these government officials is truly astounding.  According to the manufacturer, the specified equipment cannot work where they are to be installed. The team I met with advised them of these facts and the manufacturer warned them.  Even so, the gubmint insists that contractors buy these water heaters because they have great efficiency "numbers."  Besides, they cost over $2,000 each and would be projected to save  $700 in their lifetime.  This kind of thinking is coming from a Federal agency that has lost its direction, costs us $29 billion per year, yet produces nothing but paperwork for other people.  The principle argument for the creation of the Department of Energy was to cut America's dependence on foreign oil.   I supported that goal when it was created and I support it today.  However, after spending hundreds of billions of dollars supporting the D.O.E. on this problem, the US now imports almost 4 times as much oil and produces 40% less oil than it did when the agency was created in 1977.  The D.O.E. was also charged with expanding nuclear power production.  The nuclear power generation capacity of the US has not improved at all in twenty-four years.  So, this agency continues to suck tax dollars while producing negative results. 

    The "Audit the Fed" movement precedes the "Tea Party Movement" by many years.  Texas Congressman, Ron Paul, is the force behind this and is a Libertarian not a Tea Partier.  I originally did not support this audit because I thought as you did, this was a stupid exercise.  Then one day I watched Michelle Smith, the Communications Director of the Federal Reserve, blithely state that she did not know what happened to the $12 Trillion the Fed just transferred out to foreign countries.  Then I got it.  These people don't even care that this is our money.  A reporter spotted the transfer in a widely distributed Federal Reserve publication.

    The whole idea of a Federal Reserve Bank audit is going to be very interesting.  If the Fed is indeed a part of the government as they insist, they cannot impede an audit if Congress orders it.  If they are not "government" as some conspiracy theories suggest, then they would have to admit it to avoid the audit.  Either way, the audit idea has some good followers.

     All this "Tea Party" stuff is apparently beginning to annoy certain liberals.  The AFL-CIO announced on their website that they will be infiltrating "Tea Party" functions with people charged with creating embarrassing "TV moments" for the evening news.  This should make for some interesting  television.  We've seen plenty of footage of SEIU members roughing up spectators at other events.  I even saw our President ridiculing the movement.  For me, I'd like serious facts and debate.  During the summer of 2008, debate was everywhere.  Now I'm seeing more put-downs and attacks than facts.


And Mark responded:
Bruce -
   The disagreement between us is not about the problem. We agree that government officials can be arbitrary and petty and irresponsible. What we disagree about is the solution. We have different ideas about what it will take to effectively address and resolve the conflict. [You will notice that I frame this question in terms of the field I feel most competent in. For more on the theory I refer you to Just Conflict.]

   You seem to see this as a conflict between us and them. They are the government and they take our money and throw it away if we are lucky and use it against us if we are not. I see this as a conflict between us and us. We are the government (of the people, for the people, by the people) and we have failed to construct the government we need.

   You seem to say that the government we have is too expensive so we must cut back what we give it. I am saying that the government we have is too inefficient so we must make it more accountable.

   You seem to say that the government is not efficient because it doesn’t have to respond to market principles as for profit corporations do. The market would fix it but the government is a monopoly. I see the market as being an appropriate force for shaping the structure and function of institutions but I don’t see it as a sufficient rein on power. The market is amoral. It will not construct social justice. [Glenn Beck recoils in horror at my choice of words.]

   Yes, I want to live in a just society and I see government as the only institution with sufficient clout to create a just society. I certainly don’t want a theocracy and institutional religion is dying a slow and painful death. The arena in which social policy is created is electoral politics. It is messy, but I don’t see an alternative. With the election of Barak Obama I have greater hope that the American electorate cares about broad social justice, not just narrow self-interest.

   We have genuine disagreements about what are the “best” strategies for restructuring our common life. What we don’t have is an agreement about what tools we use to evaluate good, better, best. We don’t have an agreement about the qualities we are trying to create.

   I have asked you before if you want to live in a society in which everyone has access to health-care. I didn’t hear your answer and maybe that wound is too fresh so let me ask this. Do you want to live in a society in which everyone has access to education?

   I am not asking whether we should fund vouchers or how you feel about charter schools. Those are strategies. I am asking if the goal is universal education. This is something we fought about in this country and we decided that having an educated populace was essential for a stable democracy.

   When we live together in a society which is knit together by    concern for the common welfare, the quality of life for all improves. The question is not whether we are knit together in a web of shared consequences but what we do to make that web strong and mutually accountable.

   In that regard am a deeply worried about the direction your thinking and your rhetoric is taking. You are a smart man but you are saying ill-considered things. When you say that, “the gubmint wants to create an independent agency to watch the Securities and Exchange Commission to make sure they don't watch porn on their office computers,” that is not a way of framing the issue that has any hope of leading to resolution. This formulation will not lead to greater accountability. That is a way of picking a fight.

   You end your piece with a lament that the left is now also devolving into put-downs and attacks. I share your concern. We are seeing more and more fighting in the public arena. We are becoming less and less civil. This lack of civility was once a hallmark of the fringes of society (the Wild West) and now is moving into the halls of Congress. I don’t think this is anything but backlash and I think we will move through and out of this period, but it is troubling nonetheless.

   Whenever a conflict arises we have a broad choice of strategies for how we will address it. We can, for example, choose to ignore it. One category of strategies are what we call fights. These are strategies in which we address the conflict by trying to make those we see as our opponents lose. We create an adversary and then we relate to them in a way designed to limit their power.

   We do this in sports all the time. We pick teams and then we try to score more points than they do. This is entertaining but at the end of the day we haven’t actually created anything.

   Electoral politics has devolved into petty partisan bickering. We are more focused on making them lose than we are on creating the qualities everyone needs. This is a sad and damaging situation. You are a player in this dangerous game. You are not creating a solution when you label the government the gubmint and you characterize a proposed check on the SEC as an attempt to limit porn. You are doing a Glenn Beck or a Rush Limbaugh. Some find them entertaining. But when people see them as informative they become dangerous.

   We will not construct greater social cohesion, stronger accountability, and fuller justice by fighting. We will do it by discovering our common needs and collaborating to meet them.

The Great Social Experiment Part 5

The path toward socialized medicine by New Zealand is quite different from the one the United States is taking. This is due in a great part to the very different traditions in the founding of the two nations. New Zealand is a part of the British Commonwealth and the long tradition of power, rights and benefits flowing from the government to the people is fundamental to that system. So, it was entirely natural for New Zealand to establish socialized systems for institutions such as health care, transportation and utilities.

The concept of rights and privileges flowing down from the government to the people is natural to someone who comes from a monarchy. Kiwis expect government to provide for them. Americans come from a very different idealogical foundation. It was the Americans who gathered the states together to create their own central government. It was the Americans who stated so eloquently in their founding documents that rights were inherent in humanity and government got power and authority from the people, not the other way around.

Nonetheless, the United States is embarking on the same path New Zealand has taken. It behooves us to examine the record of countries that have a long experience in government-backed health care. There are numerous arguments for lower costs and better health by centralizing health delivery systems. The question is, "Does it really work that way?" Given the Kiwis 37 year history, we can see how their system works after almost two generations.

From the standpoint of the locals I interviewed, the standard of care available to citizens is world class. The largest teaching hospital in the Southern Hemisphere is in Dunedin, NZ. As promised, people pay little for care. From a statistical standpoint the care New Zealanders get is nearly identical to what US citizens get. The number of doctors, nurses, hospital beds and so on per capita is very similar.

The real difference is in procedures performed. Knee replacements and heart surgeries are performed at a small fraction of the rate in the US. Indeed, from a world standpoint, the US is far ahead of the rest of the planet in the delivery of these services while spending in the US per capita is much the same. Generally, these procedures are more likely to be performed on aging people. From my interviews I learned that joint replacements are very difficult to get for aging Kiwis and just impossible for the elderly. In New Zealand, the wealthy can purchase private coverage and get the procedures they need. 22% of the population has private coverage. For the rest, these procedures just are not going to happen. We met a 55 year old bus driver whose mother has been waiting for knee replacement since she was 70; she is now 85 and no longer expects she will have the surgery.

The people of New Zealand approached their health care design with a lot of thought and planning. They distributed the administration to 21 district agencies since they do not have anything like our states or county governments. Local policy is made at the local level. Doctors and other providers are self-employed and compete for business within the districts. Nonetheless, costs have risen beyond the level of reason and services are rationed. The promise of universal health care has not been fulfilled. The people are now discouraged and believe their problems cannot be solved.

In our next post we will speculate on why this happened.

The Great Social Experiment - Part 4

The social and economic contract between New Zealanders and their government has given the populace just about everything they could want from a generous and large government. They have a first-rate universal health care at virtually no direct cost to the consumer. But the elderly cannot get expensive treatment in a timely matter. The highway system is paved and carefully maintained but clogged so badly at rush hour they cannot meet their traffic needs. Ports are clean and well-staffed, but larger ships cannot dock in severe weather because of inadequate planning. Airports are able to handle huge volumes of tourists with little fuss and confusion unless they use the larger planes essential to cross the Pacific Ocean. Larger cities have suburban rail, but light rail service has been discontinued. All but the smallest towns have bus service and all are subsidized. Ridership on public transportation is very low at 2.5% despite high taxation on motor fuels and vehicles.

The government provides free broadcast television. There are four channels, two of which have part time high definition broadcasts at 720p only. Radio stations are commercially run. High speed internet is not common and most ISPs hold customers to a very small monthly 10GB limit.

So, is this beautiful country the paradise it appears to be? With high taxes, high prices and low private sector wages, they are exporting their highly motivated and highly educated workforce overseas. In our next segment we will study just where their economy got derailed.

The Great Social Experiment - Part 3

New Zealanders are eager to proclaim that they were the first in the world to create a social welfare state. They are proud of their healthcare, their environment and their record in creating social justice. Their two principle islands are clean, free from pollution and have virtually no crime. There is virtually no political dissent and town counsel meetings are likely more about what color to paint the bicycle lanes than dealing with roving gangs. Sailboats are moored everywhere, patiently waiting for their owners to take them out once again for a quick offshore barbecue after work.

It would be so easy to fly back to the US and proclaim that all we have to do here is to extend healthcare to everyone, repay native peoples for the land we stole from them, close polluting businesses and paint our bike lanes green and we too could have a perfect life like our Kiwi friends. But, if you stay a bit longer, ask a few questions and visit a supermarket or two the view changes. Yes, it is still a paradise, but there is trouble.

New Zealand has been exporting its workforce at an alarming rate, approaching 50,000 per year. If the US had that rate, we would be losing over 4 Million workers a year. Further, many more Kiwis commute to Australia for much higher wages and lower taxes. Even though the minimum wage gives the lowest paid workers a minimum of $8.75 (US equivalent), the skilled trades earn just under $20 US. Factor in $8.00 gasoline, $7 toothpaste and Diet Cola for $4 and you have an economic boat that just won't float for many workers.

So, what happened? All their social programs have driven up taxes and created new bureaucracies chock full of high-paying jobs. The average government worker earns 50% more than a private sector employee. Income tax rates are similar to the US, but they have the dreaded European style GST. This adds taxes to products each time a product works its way through the economy; we call it a Value Added Tax. Manufactured products like cars, cosmetics and processed foods are taxed beyond all reason. Meat and produce remain somewhat affordable, but everything else is just scary high.

In our next post we will look at what the economy provides for citizens.

The Great Social Experiment Part 2

Today will be remembered for a long time as a turning point for our country. It will be up to the historians to determine whether it will be compared to September 11, or Apollo 11. Today our US Congress voted to fundamentally change the relationship between government and people, doctors and patients, employers and employees. Some did this because they believe that access to healthcare is a right. Some say the economy requires us to do this to save us from collapsing under our own waste and debt. Some, I fear, voted for this plan to further their Progressive / Utopian dream for America. That it passed at all means that the legislation had enough "stuff" in it to appeal to a lot of diverse people for a lot of diverse reasons.

This may sound like the legislation had broad support; it did not. It passed by the slimmest margin and without any Republican support. It required some parliamentary chicanery to get the bill past the narrow majority. By all accounts it required some severe "arm-twisting," back room deals and sleazy promises. Nebraska and other states got Federal dollars, California got water; Colorado and Kansas had some of their money shut off. Democrats were promised by a majority of voters that they will be voted out of office in November if they supported the bill. Despite this, 219 Democrats did vote for the plan. Given the certainty of their political "suicide" and the already fallen election losers piling up, why would anyone vote for this? The C.B.O. estimates already have it as a trillion dollar looser. Moody's threatened to downgrade the US Treasury's bond rating if it passed. China dumped $38 Billion in US T-bills in advance of the vote. So, then, what is the political and social capital that is so valued that so many would risk everything for this vote?

Clearly, the motives of the supporters are many, Obama and Pelosi may have entirely different underlying goals in their respective quests for universal healthcare. President Obama has very clearly stated what he wants for the nation's healthcare system. He insists on the government as a single payer as in the Canadian and Massachusetts systems. He also says he knows it will not happen overnight, that the process will take at least four years to fundamentally transform the system. So, then, what is this system going to look like when our promised transformation is done. This is what we will explore in the next post.

The great social experiment - Part 1

I have the extreme pleasure to visit one of my favorite places, Australia and New Zealand. Alas, this is not a travelogue but social commentary. New Zealand took the steps in 1973 we are contemplating now when they implemented universal health care. So far, I've interviewed nearly a dozen Kiwis and Aussies about how this is working for them. Proponents of a single payer system have told us that there would be no increase in costs, that rationing will not occur and the quality of care would increase.
I this series, we will look at how the last 37 years have worked for the two countries. We will see what promises have been kept and which have been broken; we will not venture into whether the system is good or bad. We will offer some ideas about the value to the societies as a whole.

A "Contrarian" View

I have just read an editorial by John Rennie in Scientific American be-bunking seven myths about global warming. These seven concepts are offered by those who do not believe the current political solutions offered by government are appropriate answers to the problem. Few would disagree that Earth's climate is changing; we can see glaciers retreating in some areas and sea levels are rising causing problems in low-lying areas throughout the world. The arguments then are what impact human activity has upon climate change and whether the offered "political" solutions will have any useful impact on climate.
The now famous "climate-gate" e-mails from the summer of 2009 point out how politics have entered into what we hoped would be a scientific discovery process. Unfortunately, science has to be funded and the funding process requires scientists to compete for government and private money. If a field of study has interest for the political community, the temptation for researchers is going to be to "bend" the science to fit the politics involved. We have about 10,000 e-mails clearly showing how that temptation plays out. Grant money clearly follows favorable science. This is not going to work.
We are now left with some real doubts about what the truth is really going on. Surely, glaciers in North America are retreating while those in Russia and Asia are not. Some ice packs in Antarctica are growing in depth while others have broken off. Snow levels in Africa are nearly gone. As an individual, I now do not know how to form an opinion with so much conflicting evidence.
Traditionally, I would then turn to the government for the truth. I cannot believe some in government right now. We have now managed to collect a "Perfect Storm" of

1. Progressives who want to adjust the Constitution to fit their agendas
2. Former and current lobbyists who want some "green" obamamoney
3. Liberals who want to redistribute wealth
4. Low lifes who want that money (Venezuela's Chavez)

So, my vote on giving more money and more power to anyone to "solve" climate change has to be no. When I see science that makes sense or politicians that make sense I just might change my vote.

The Obama Doctrine

Alas, I wasn’t able to make it to Oslo for the ceremonies surrounding Barak Obama’s award of the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday. So I printed out a copy of the speech and took it with me when I went to give blood. I had a chance to read it through several times while I was hooked up to the pheresis machine and then later I watched parts of the resulting commentary by the talking heads online.

As a result I was pretty well versed in what he had to say when I chose to share segments of it with Joan Thursday evening. I was surprised, nevertheless, when I became overwhelmed with emotion reading it to her. All of which is to say that I find it to be a powerful and important statement, not just of American foreign policy under this President, but of how we as humans might learn to address and resolve conflicts.

I have been working on an essay about principles of nonviolence that King used in his efforts on behalf of civil rights in America so I was already primed for those themes. To have a President, especially one who is increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan, cite King (and Gandhi) as models to follow and to do so in a way that is coherent and carefully considered illuminates the reasons Obama got the award. That he received it saying so many things that so many of his liberal supporters find disagreeable makes it only more remarkable.

I myself didn’t agree with everything he had to say. But my disagreement has mostly to do with his use of the term nonviolence in ways that, while consistent with popular usage, limits the meaning to a set of tactics appropriate to actions taken by oppressed persons addressing grievances against an authority which is morally sensitive. If we limit the term in that way then he is right, it wouldn’t have worked against the Nazis and it won’t work with al Qaeda.

But if we are looking not so much at the tactics as at the philosophy that undergirds it, and think more creatively about how conflicts can be resolved, then we discover some important principles that unite Nonviolence and the Obama Doctrine. Among them:

· We are all connected in a great web of care and concern. What affects one of us affects all of us.

· Passivity or patience in the face of oppression is not only an abandonment of our moral responsibility but is also an invitation to greater violence.

· The road to peace is through a process of relationship building with those with whom we disagree.

· Justice is not simply about the rule of law but is also about the equitable distribution of rights and resources, but such equity is not possible without the rule of law.

· We cannot allow the fact that others abandon righteous behavior to allow us to depart from the values we hold.

These are all examples of the kinds of principles which I hope to celebrate and promote through the promulgation of Creative Conflict Resolution and through Just Conflict.

Integral Politics II

And here is the second post in the series.  View the other one first as it explains concepts used in this presentation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Presentation:      Barack and McCain-Looking Through the Talking Points
Presenter:          Clint Fuhs - Operations Manager
URL Link:
http://integrallife.com/files/articulate/Barack and McCain-Seeing Through the Talking Points/player.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Powered by Articulate - http://www.articulate.com

Integral Politics

Hey Bro,

I just stumbled across this slide show. I think it has relevance for our blog.  I don’t know if the links will translate but I am going to give it a try.

This is a presentation of an integral perspective on politics and comes informed by the philosophy of Ken Wilber.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Presentation:      A Tale of Four Americas
Presenter:          Clint Fuhs - Operations Manager
URL Link:
http://integrallife.com/files/articulate/A Tale of Four Americas/player.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Powered by Articulate - http://www.articulate.com

Obama and Liberals

If we lived in a world where people are exactly pigeon-holed as liberal or conservative, we might be able to characterize an Obama voter as a liberal, etc. But, as you correctly note, people fit on a spectrum not into a hole. So, a given person might be "liberal" on abortion, yet conservative on gay marriage. So, when it comes to a choice in the voting booth, a person might just vote on feelings rather than their traditional political alignment. In the last governor's race, I voted for a candidate I strongly respected rather than one I agreed with.
In the last Presidential election, I characterized Obama as a liberal rather than a progressive and came very close to voting for him. He made noises like a liberal, didn't he? I suggest further that many voters rejected the McCain / Palin ticket because they wanted change and Obama promised change.
I submit that the members of your church fit the modern mold of conservatives even though they voted for a the somewhat more liberal candidate. Their contribution is more characteristic of the Christian right. Can you just imagine Nancy Pelosi or Al Gore working in a soup kitchen? These folks in the church voted their conscience rather than their label.
The folks that insist on indoctrination as the price of food are not even on the liberal-conservative spectrum, they are just kooks.

Differentiating Liberals and Conservatives

The whole notion of how one might distinguish a conservative from a liberal has long fascinated me.  Nevertheless, I can’t say I am making much progress in deepening that ability.  I agree that Haidt’s model doesn’t ring true for me in many respects and that the moral foundation of people throughout the political spectrum (if, indeed, it is really a spectrum) is rather a constant.  Points of emphasis may be different, but we all care about being seen as good and we all want the wellbeing of all.  Loyalty, integrity, prudence, thrift are all values we all hold to, although some hold tighter than others and some are more able to be who they aspire to be better than others.

I disagree about your characterization of liberals.  All of the volunteers at the Pilgrim Community Soup Kitchen were strongly for Obama except for one African-American man who recently retired from a career working for the city (and St. Louis has always been Democrat).  They are liberals who volunteer at a local charity.  The conservative groups who give away prepared food require that the recipient hear a message designed to reform and redeem the benighted souls.

As for the role and size of government: I don’t know anyone who wants big government.  My liberal friends want smaller everything (Small is Beautiful) and that would include government if we could find a better way to provide the services we think should be universally available.  There are some things which just aren’t going to happen if government doesn't do them.  (The guy whose efforts ultimately resulted in the birth of the Internet—no, not Al Gore—worked for the Defense Department but took the idea to IBM and someone else and got turned down before he got government to pony up the development money.)

We both seem to be unclear about the differences between liberals and conservative, left and right, red and blue.  We can discern Republican and Democrat but that is because folks make their own choices.  What is the conservative position on climate change?  That seems to depend on which conservative you ask.  Certainly a conservative is not the same as a conservationist.

Liberals and Conservatives

The conservatives I hang out with do not fit the model. Actually, I find the moral foundation of liberals and conservatives to be much the same. The difference then becomes the methods of turning these values into action. The liberals I know volunteer for fund raising events for local charities while the conservatives volunteer at the local charities. Liberals believe that money and government action are the solutions to social issues while conservatives favor personal involvement.
Liberals then have a more visible footprint where social programs are concerned. They may well think conservatives are opposed to social causes because conservatives oppose large government programs supporting those causes. Conservatives channel resources directly to the causes they support while liberals channel resources through the government.
We could say, "What difference does it make whether funding comes directly from the community or through the government?" The distinction is that organizations dependent upon government for resources must design and continually redesign themselves to appeal to agencies. They generate monstrous piles of paperwork. Not only is there significant waste involved but the agency designs itself to work with more with government than with people. The closer I work with local agencies the more I see how the growth of government negatively impacts the ability of local agencies to provide services.