The real case for controlling peoples' lives

John Hawkins has a shockingly argued case for the drug war on Human Events that I think more plainly than anything I've read, lately, illustrates the arrogance of those who limit peoples' freedom in the name of looking after their lives.

In Defense of the Drug War

His closing argument really illustrates how morally repugnant his case is:

"That's why once, way back when William Bennett was the drug czar, he responded like so to a caller on the Larry King show who told him that he should 'behead the damn drug dealers.'

'I mean what the caller suggests is morally plausible,' he said. 'Legally, it's difficult. But somebody selling drugs to a kid? Morally, I don't have any problem with that at all.'

Bennett was right then, he's right now, and my guess is that most parents, upon finding out that someone was peddling drugs to their kid, would agree with him. Since that's the case, do we really want the federal government to take over the role of a pusher and get our kids hooked on drugs to make a profit? No, we don't."

It never surprises how the less people respect the freedom of others, the more they will rationalize anything in the name of their cause.

Bill Bennett and John Hawkins don't even find the most minute of moral qualms with the idea of beheading those who traffic in any of the various substances that they don't want people to use.

Because moral and political self-righteousness become the perpetual rationalization for every form of ugliness that their advocates favor.

The real case for controlling people's lives is because they can't do a fuckin' thing about it, whether they wanted to or not.

And that's really how John Hawkins and Bill Bennett and a whole load of conservatives and liberals think that life should be.

John Kennedy challenged us: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

His Democratic and Republican contemporaries tell us: "Whether you fuckin' like it or not, we're in charge."

Inspiring.

Love,
Ben

Too pussy to admit that we might be wrong

You know the worst part? Of all this rationalization of pressuring and bullying to impose our will and get our way?

Is that it is THE rationalization for terrorism.

You don't think Hamas and Hezbollah don't think that they're killing innocent Israelis to create a credible threat and pressure a better land deal for Palestinians?

You don't think that the Weathermen or Black September were created to enforce various left wing agendas?

You don't think that the KKK and many neo-nazis aren't concerned with terrorizing minority groups and putting the fear of God in them?

You really think that all that terrorism is really so different than the efforts to bully and pressure and otherwise impose our will on one another?

Yeah, terrorists do too. They think others are just too pussy and hypocritical to acknowledge that they do the same thing, just with a less credible threat.

And so it all goes on and on and on and on and on into perpetuity. Terrorist and other radical groups perpetually get cover from the self-righteous associations and impositions among moderate folks.

Maybe they're right. Maybe we are too pussy. Because there is definitely one place in life where everyone, apparently, is too pussy. Too pussy to admit when we might be wrong.

Love,
Ben

The need for thoughtful discourse

Joe Nye has a blog, it turns out, with the Huffington Post. And he writes another excellent article on the discourse about the Iraq war that I found myself nodding with.

Our Impoverished Discourse

Money shot, as Andrew Sullivan would say:

"If Republicans and Democrats continue to ignore soft power and our public discussion is limited to a competition about who can sound tougher, our truncated debate will remain like the sound of one hand clapping. America's current partisan atmosphere has ossified our foreign policy debate. What the nation needs is a discourse that recognizes the importance of both hard and soft power and debates a smart strategy to integrate them."

Joe's argument, that Democrats and Republicans need to be smarter with power rather than tougher and that our discourse should be about how to use soft and hard power to tackle the situation in Iraq and other policy objectives, is a welcome and important one.

Joe opposes a surge, which I think is a mistake, and seriously humbles any sense I have that anyone really knows what will improve the situation in Iraq (I still support a surge, at this point, because I think Frederick Kagan's arguments on the matter, that a pull-out will undermine the necessary security for Iraq to negotiate a political settlement, are the strongest I have encountered).

And as I watch the most brilliant policy minds in the world disagree about how to best approach this situation in Iraq, I think, "Why would we think, given the diversity of opinion on something as serious and as clearly a matter of goverance of any question that we face, that somehow we have divined the ability that has eluded every past generation to know exactly what matters upon which we should force, pressure, repress, and otherwise impose our will?"

We don't, is the answer. What we maintain is the hubris to believe that we do, and the shortsightedness to think that doing so will have no impact on the credibility, the soft power, of governance.

Politics and policy in Iraq

It is so refreshing to just read something and nod, every once in awhile.

Grand Delusion

Robert Kagan cuts through the political posturing pretty well in this piece.

It is very strange to watch liberals clamor for an intervention in Darfur, Sudan and simultaneously set up Iraq for a similar fate with an American withdrawal.

I'm pretty sure that they are doing so both because they're giving up on Iraq (which, as Kagan argues here, is a recipe for more headaches and more human slaughter to deal with later, and lots of people dying, unnecessarily in the meantime), and more nepharious, as Kagan argues in this piece, because they're positioning politically, because, truth be told, they don't really feel much responsibility for Iraq. Iraq is President Bush's problem, as far as many liberals are concerned, I am convinced. Failure in Iraq has an easy target for blame. So who really cares if we fail there, they reason at some level. It's not our problem anyway. Or, like Carl Levin, they have become convinced that the only thing that stands between them and a sustainable security situation in Iraq is pressure from America. In Levin's distorted worldview, it is people like him who have made the world safe and good. If it weren't for his pressure or the pressure of liberals, reason Levin and millions of liberal activists and politicians, this world would be in a right bloody mess, as Michael Palin says in Monty Python's Life of Brian. It nevered occurs to them that perhaps their ideas might be persuasive, and, more importantly, that sometimes, they may not.

It's so sad to me to find out how little people really care about the important priorities, so wrapped are they are in smaller priorities. Petty partisanship trumps a more thoughtful Iraq policy discussion, because so many people are more interested in proving that they have the right ideology and the President has the wrong ideology, and duking it out, politically, legally, and rhetorically.

And the tragedy of the whole thing is that noone has the right ideology, anymore than the foolish notion that Protestants were better than Catholics or vice versa in the civil wars in Great Britain.

Americans have given up on Iraq resolving its civil war, I imagine, because Americans have given up on finding any authentic resolution to their own civil war, their political civil war between liberals and conservatives, who look just as foolish as Sunnis and Shias who fight one another over who has the right ethnicity or religious affiliation.

It is definitely possible and likely that we will get over our foolish squabbling and engage in a policy discussion that is more thoughtful and engaged and address one another's concerns with a collaborative commitment to success in Iraq or wherever else we must work together.

But, right now, so many people seem more committed to exactly what Robert Kagan is writing about, here: singing to their choirs and hoping that the gods strike down their political opponents and solve this whole Iraq mess for them.

And the sad thing is that their choirs don't mean shit, pardon my French. Choirs for the political churches of liberalism and conservatism are just like choirs everywhere, singing for you what you want to hear and never challening your doctrine.

These days, I belong to both churches and no church, at all, simultaneously, forever frustrated with how every churchgoer puts on heirs and makes all kinds of effort to prove just how pious they are to their political gods.

And all the while, not giving two shits about whether they are actually doing good by one another and by the world enough to consider that, just perhaps, they might need to listen to one another and identify with one another like people who have more in common than they have different, and engage one another and debate one another and discuss with one another what we're going to do with this godforesaken mess like we're grown-ups who are all playing on the same team, in the big picture.

Too many people don't want to play on the same team, is the truth, so wrapped up are they in their own self-righteous sense of the world.

Our hope lies in either our capacity to transcend our narrower visions of the world, in our own lifetimes, or that one day we will die and our children will have an opportunity to do the same.

There is no genuine hope in a world where we are persistently undermining one another and ourselves in the name of ideological or any other kind of dominance.

The only sustainable hope is leaving it behind.

Iraqis are not the only people who have internal divisions that undermine their own interests. Americans and the people all over the world have a long way to go to transcend their small-mindedness.

Why is it so hard for us to transend the petty polarization?

Because, truth be told, we don't really give enough of a shit to try.

Love,
Ben

The heart of being a liberal

This is how the whole Scooter Libby affair should go down and why.

Scooter and Me

Forgiveness and an appreciation for people's humanity and the complexity of life is the heart of being a liberal.

And that is what should determine the outcome of this trial and of Scooter Libby's life.

Love,
Ben

Sovereignty and self-determination as a democratic principle

Robert Carlin and John Lewis, two North Korean experts, make the general argument that I made in my review of Joe Nye's article on North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

What North Korea Really Wants

What North Korea really wants, argue Carlin and Lewis, is respect for its national sovereignty and a more constructive diplomatic relationship with the United States, to stave off efforts by China, Russia, and Japan to control and influence it, argue Carlin and Lewis, as much as anything else.

I didn't make the argument that North Korea, as with Iran, I believe, want their national sovereignty respected because I have any specific North Korean expertise.

I made the argument because it only makes sense if you take the democratic principles of sovereignty and self-determination seriously and the argument that even unfree and undemocratic peoples and governments want those principles respected, when it comes to themselves, at least.

Which country want other countries dictating its defense policies? Aren't defense policies, by their nature, the most fundamental issues off national sovereignty and self-determination? Which country would the United States and China or Russia or Japan trust to defend them for them or to determine their defense policies?

The trick is that when liberal democracies are all rationalizing force as the most effective and inspired form of governance, they do exactly what Kim Jong Il does in his own hypocritical expectations of the those trying to dissuade his nuclear ambitions: they value their own freedom, without any expectation of respecting the self-determination of others.

Where Iran and North Korea really have a strong argument is that in our haste and stubborn resolve to bully our way through both of these situations, we ignore the very democratic principles of sovereignty and self-determination, constructive debate, discussion, and diplomacy that we otherwise say is the basis for our right to make these kinds of demands in the first place.

How much failure will finally dissuade us of the current policy, I wonder?

The why of liberal, secular, free and democratic values

I'm realizing over the last few days of reflection that the why of freedom and liberal democratic values is so that we can see ourselves, and the world, better, for who we really are and how the world really is.

The reasons for secular thinking about the world are obvious really, after many years of thinking and writing and sacrafice dedicated to the subject by secular and more liberal thinkers: to understand the world better for what it really is.

Galileo and Descartes study science and philosophy, respectively, to help us all see the world, better, as it really is, and not just according to our romantic ideas of how we believe it should be.

The reason for secular and liberal democratic thought in understanding ourselves and one another is exactly the same: to help us see ourselves, each other, and the world, better as we really are, and not just according to our romantic ideas of how we believe we should be. But it has always been in tension with more traditional and romantic moral and theological notions of what makes for a good life. More traditional and romantic moral and theological notions tell us that doing good involves committing ourselves to a particular theology - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. - doing good and not doing bad, and being subject to punishment, with varying degree of harshness in different historical periods and in different cultures - more in the past, progressively less in the present - when we do bad.

But secular and liberal democratic values take freedom and free will more seriously than does more traditional theology. Those values entail freedom to think about, question, challenge, and make choices around our values. And as Maslow wrote eloquently, it is in that freedom and in those choices that we learn about what values serve us and what values do not. Such a commitment does not, at all, assume a final stance on questions of value, by individuals or by a culture, except that they are always subject to questioning, challenging, debate, and discussion, even as it might acknowledge universal truthes. Universal truthes may exist, and it is the challenge of secular and liberal thought to uncover them, but they are uncovered and our ideas constructed, as is the term used in education circles, by individuals and cultures, and are always subject to challenge and questioning, never being taken for granted.

Ancient Greek writers and philosophers conceived of Gods as so in control of their lives because it reflected their own lack of freedom and the helplessness they felt - learned helplessness, as psychologists refer to it - in the face of the substantial control that existed over their lives in Ancient Greek, culture, I believe. They yearned for freedom that they needed to develop their thinking and their cultures, but which they lacked because of these very backward and backward-looking fears. The same kinds of fears that still dominate contemporary liberal democratic cultures.

The problem of contemporary liberal democratic cultures is that they embrace the benefits of liberal democratic life while being perpetually wary of the risks that come with such freedom.

And so they perpetually curb the freedom that make those benefits possible.

It is ever recurrently tragic and irrational, with those cultures perpetually looking back with regret at those curbs on freedom and the ways that it undermines their values, which were only made possible by that freedom.

We are liberal democratic peoples embracing secular thought and the freedom that makes them possible, but only when we are not perpetually afraid of the risks that come with that freedom, as well.

And it is that fear, of course, which has rationalized all curbs on freedom since the dawn of humanity.

Our rationalizations are only different from those of the Catholic church, various dictators, and more repressive cultures of yesterday and today in degrees and for what cause.

But the result is always the same.

Repression and control that undermines the very values that make our better quality lives possible.

It's a very tragic irony of history. That humanity has spent more than 2000 years trying to escape its inhumanity and propensity for control on the basis of fear. And yet, 200 years into the triumph of our liberal, secular, free and democratic values over our inhumanity and values of control and brutality, our fears still so dominate our own lives and have us dominating our neighbors.

For those who love liberal, secular, democratic values, societies, and their virtues, as I do, it is, perhaps, the most tragic irony of history.

Love,
Ben

Status

I've been thinking a lot, last night, about how status and status anxiety and insecurity is the source of so many of our problems of equity in the culture. The money doesn't do enough good after a certain amount to warrant obsession with it. The fame is as much a disadvantage as an advantage much of the time.

But the status is what drives too many of us. Including academics who both have one of the highest status positions in most cultures and which, in liberal democratic cultures, pride themselves, the most, of being more equitable and less status obsessed.

The truth is that status drives much of what happens in academics. And, hence, where many of the problems in our culture derive.

I have much more to say about this. I have an IEP to finish up:).

Ben

Trust and why confusion about it is the source for so many of our problems

I am seeking out Francis Fukuyama's book Trust and other similar books around matters of policy and trust, lately, because I am beginning to see what I think Fukuyama sees: trust as the cornerstone of relationships into which authority and power enters, for good and, too often, for bad.

The more I work with kids, and the more I reflect on my own childhood, and especially my young adulthood, the clearer I become that trust - its presence, its absence, and its consequences - is the basis for so many problems in our culture, and so much of the confusion that young people, in particular, and older people, as well, feel in their lives. Confusion about what trust is and what it isn't. Confusion about who to trust. And perhaps, most importantly, confusion about how to handle relationships when trust is broken.

It's pretty clear to me, at this point, that there is a paradox of trust that too often is reduced to far too simplistic equations of power rather than dealing with the trust broken and the need for trust restored.

There is a need by most people, I think, to both trust others and to be trusted. But paradoxically, one of the more fundamental trusts that kids, especially, seem to need and take for granted, and that I very much remember as an important part of a childhood and especially a young adulthood that I took for granted was the need to be forgiven and trusted even after trust was broken.

I didn't understand this issue the first time I really broke a serious trust in my life. And life turned out very different than I expected it to, as a consequence. I've lost some very important relationships in my life because of trusts broken, and I'm saddest to say that I've given some relationships long hiatuses because of trust broken (I'm sorry to say that because I very much believe that forgiveness is the cornerstone to a decent, happy, and secure life). But my experiences taught me a lot about trust, and the confusion surrounding it, that are more universal than just my experience, I think.

I'm beginning to understand, better, that the classical liberal maxims that people are self-interested and that everyone wants freedom for themselves and not for their neighbor runs deeper than that. It is a corollary to Jesus' teaching and aphorism that people pick at the splinters in other peoples' eyes before they pick out the beams from their own.

What I'm learning is that everyone comes at trust in a million different ways. Many people try to find trust through control, when it is over others. Most people prefer not to be controlled, when it is over themselves. And most people are relunctant to forgive, I'm learning; certainly far more reluctant than I am, despite what I agree is the need to face the honest breaches in trust that take place when they take place. But one thing that everyone has in common is that they both want, expect, and need forgiveness for all their screw-ups. We literally would not be able to function hardly at all without forgiveness, which is the source of the decency and humanity that allow liberal democratic cultures to function so much more effectively than less liberal, less trusting, less decent and humane cultures, I'm convinced.

And yet, despite the fact that so many of us are often so relunctant to forgive, feeling hurt and afraid of being hurt more - a completely understandable reaction in the face of a serious breach of trust - all of us want, expect, and need forgiveness when we breach trust, because we - individually and interdependently - would not be able to function without it. We cannot function well at all without forgiving ourselves and seeking forgiveness. And we cannot function very well without forgiving others, as well, as it turns out.

And yet it is that forgiveness and perpetually bigger-heartedness that allows us to function better within the world, as individuals and as cultures of people.

I want to explore this theme in depth in the near future. I have an IEP I need to work on right now, that is a part of a relationship between a mom, a student, and me that I need to give my attention.

But I'm fairly convinced after my experiences with this issue in my early adulthood that this issue of trust is the one that really functions at the core of our relatioships with one another and which is the source for so much confusion, misunderstanding, and unnecessary misery, and, at the other end, is the source of the most profound happiness and genuine security that we can experience in our lives.

Love,
Ben

The right way to begin this discussion

Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton both open the health care discussion on refreshingly open-ended notes:

"Obama's call was an echo of a speech he made last April when he said Democrats 'need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values.'"

And Hillary Clinton remarks:

"'One of the goals that I will be presenting ... is health insurance for every child and universal health care for every American," she said at a community health clinic in New York Sunday, the day after entering the 2008 Democratic field. 'That's a very major part of my campaign and I want to hear people's ideas about how we can achieve that goal.'"

This is exactly how that discussion should be opened. A firm commitment to universal health insurance with an open-ended discussion of ideas about how to get there.

Including the very decent idea, with all its flaws, introduced by President Bush.

I'm not enamoured with the President's efforts to penalize generous health insurance. If people want to pay for better health insurance or if they get it as a deal with their employer, so be it, I say.

But the general idea of encouraging univeral health insurance and access while maintaining consumer freedom within an exceptionally high quality health system is exactly the right direction for this discussion, I think.

And what I like about Obama's and Clinton's opening up the discussion is that it allows us to explore all of the our best ideas to provide for universal health insurance, ideally, in my view, without overburdening all of us with a massive government bureaucracy.

There are plenty of really great alternatives to a national health service and all of the pitfalls that come with that system that we can explore in a more open-ended conversation.

I was just talking with my friend and roommate, Devang, about how public education in the United States did not begin, at all, as a Federal program. Federal legislation was not passed around public education, thankfully, until the beginning of the 20th century. The common education movement of the mid-19th century was a movement of Protestant social reformers led by the likes of Horace Mann to bring schooling to all children below the college grade. It was not as glamourous as a national public education system initiated by the Federal government. But it built upon a very important value in American democracy - citizen participation and voluntary association and commitment to values like universal education, or universal health care.

It is the fact of American democracy that Alexis DeToqueville features in his observations of the new American democracy in Democracy in America. And it is a much taken for granted feature of American democracy that is quite possibly the most important check on perpetual acquistions of power by the Federal and state government. Sadly, it is also one of the things that facilitates that acquisition of power, sadly, as groups lobby for state and Federal governments to take on more resoponsibilities and, consequently, more power and control over how important issues like education and health care operate in our lives, for better and often for worse.

The major problem with Federal and state power and responsibility over so many various responsibilities for Americans and communities - as long-standing and perpetually unresolved debates over how to fix problems in social security and medicare illustrate - is that Federal and State programs are often quick fixes that often avoid long-term problems that come with investing so many responsibilities and so much power in so few people. They are programs that are perpetually short for money because taxes and government revenue is not as sustainable a means of funding important values and priorities as for-profit or non-profit fundraising models, which are freer, more flexible, run by people closer to the day-to-day responsibilities and professionals who can specialize in a field, can diversify to offer a whole host of different kinds of services, products, options, etc., more dynamic in terms of people being able to identify and avoid programs that lack real credibility in dealing with serious problems and supporting and developing newer and more credible organizations and programs to deal with new or old problems.

Government is just a really terrible place to try to innovate and engage in efforts that add real value to a commitment like education or health care. Long-standing dissatisfaction with public schools reflects much of this problem and the difficulty in seriously correcting the situation. And the failures of the No Child Left Behind Act (and I would add the Individuals with Disabilities Education act, as much as I'm sure this would not be popular in a special education field that loves to tout their association with and development of this legislation) illustrate the problem with Federal fixes. They are one-size-fits-all, run by bureaucrats and politicians thousands of miles away from the problems faced day-to-day, and it, consequently, lacks any of the opportunity to flexibly and innovatively deal with new and even old problems.

There is much effort that has been dedicated by non-profit folks committed to univeral health insurance in the United States and internationally, and it is these efforts that need our support and expansion, I think, rather than introducing public bureaucracy and rigid legally-bound solutions to problems that need flexibility and diverse service options to sustainably deal with new and old problems.

So opening up the discussion of health care with a commitment to universal access but with an open-ended discussion is a good way to open this discussion since it allows these kinds of problems to be discussed.

Americans should be cautioned as much as encouraged by the efforts of Canadians and Europeans to nationalize health insurance. National health insurance has not made the problems of health care in these countries go away. To the contrary, it has many many resolutions much more difficult without substantial private for-profit and non-profit sector capacity built and invested in to deal with issues like medical technology, perscription drugs, medical rationing, and wrangling betwen various levels of government over how public health commitments get funded (like in American, the Federal government in Canada is fond of taking the cheap way out and passing mandates for provincial government to fulfill and to find funding for without providing adequate funding, very much like special education in the United States).

Government commitments are a quick fix that are favored by far too many liberals, I believe, that ignore the very serious problems that come with government and bypassing the very important opportunities in the for-profit and non-profit health sector.

And legislation like Massachusetts' most recent entry into the health care foray and Governor Schwarenegger's similar effort in California create a whole new level of impostion on people with limited income, similar to car insurance - as someone who was briefly jailed because I drove without car insurance for a job that I was in no position to turn down, I am particularly sensitive to the problems with mandated car insurance for low income folks - and which seems to ignore people's right to not carry health insurance if they choose not to.

And Barak Obama's and Hillary Clinton's opening to this discussion is a refreshing one. It is one that should include the proposals of the President and everyone who is interested in the idea of universal health insurance with an open-ended discussion of the problems and opportunities and the implications for peoples' health and freedom that come with various proposals.

Universal health insurance is not lacking the political will to pass legislation that will, rightly, prompt a backlash without broad support.

Universal health insurance is in need of a sustainable commitment and model for providing it that accounts for the various concerns about health care and with as much respect for peoples' health care freedom as possible.

If Obama and Clinton intend the former, this will be one more chapter in a long history of failures to comprehensively address the very complicated issues associated with universal health care.

If Obama and Clinton, intend the latter, perhaps we will embarking on a path that might finally deliver access to high-quality universal health care that we, our children, our grandchildren, and our and their great-granchildren can all be happy with for the long run.

Rarely does such patience, engagement, and vision feature in this debate. Without it, we will be having this debate until the issues that require that kind of patience, engagement, and vision get resolved.

Love,
Ben

Learning the lessons of war policy

Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations and international diplomacy professor at Columbia University writes an excellent piece on lessons to be learned from the Korean and Vietnam conflicts for the current war.

The Right Strategy Isn't Enough

Sestanovich is right that abandoning the South Vietnamese, if a winnable strategy to beat back the Communists who slaughtered and politically imprisoned their own people following American withdrawal, seems shocking to anyone genuinely concerned with the aspirations for some alternative to Communist imposition of those who were left deserted in that withdrawal.

But Sestanovich is right that if abandoning the role of providing nominal security to Iraqis is to be avoided, then the President will have to make the case in terms of the larger policy discussion and engaged Democrats rather than stubbornly following his own path.

As Sestanovich writes:

"Henry Kissinger has long insisted that Watergate kept the United States from helping South Vietnam, but President Bush should know the more dispiriting truth. Americans simply wanted nothing further to do with the place. The struggle between the president and Congress had become so bitter, so corrosive -- such a grudge match -- that the two sides ceased to agree on even the most basic goals. Today it seems shocking that people preferred to let South Vietnam go down rather than help it. But Congress was not solely responsible for this result. The president had done much to undermine his own policy.

Bush may be right that Americans will not long support policies that don't involve trying to succeed. But if he wants to do better than Truman, he'll have to do better than Nixon, too. His debate with Congress on Iraq will unfold much as the Vietnam debate did, and that means it's not enough to have a military plan that could work. Richard Nixon's plan "worked," too, but in four years of implementing it, he lost the political support he needed to keep South Vietnam afloat once our troops were gone.

If this is how Bush succeeds, if he focuses entirely on what's needed to improve things in Iraq in the short term without making his policy more sustainable in America in the long term, we'll have to call it a failure. There's no point learning from the one war unless you learn from the other as well."

The more sustainable path that Sestanovich is speaking of would involve engaging the debate and discussion about how to proceed in Iraq with more intellectual honesty and openness, listening to Democratic concerns and accounting for them, better, in a a policy discussion that works to do right by the Iraqi people while giving assurances to Americans that soldiers' lives will not be sacraficed in vain.

That is a discussion that is not taking place, right now, as Democrats and the Administration and its supporters speak past one another, each vying for political control of the situation rather than engaging with more genuine intellectual honestly and openness about the difficult choices to be made in Iraq.

That is the problem with substituting power for engagement, debate, discussion, and thought. It avoids substantive problems with assertions of authority that miss the point, which is that better policy needs more discussion and thought, not more assertions of authority. Assertions of authority don't account for people's concerns. In fact, they shut down the conversation, as has clearly happened between the President and Congress at this point.

At some point, you would think that one of these smart people would learn this lesson already.

One thing is for sure, though. If this thing goes down as a pissing war rather than as an engaged policy discussion, everyone loses. Everyone fails. It's not just the President's failure, at this point. Democrats control Congress. Failure or success are on their watches, at this point. Things go sour in Iraq, the fingers of blame do not just get pointed at the President. Plenty of fingers to go around the Democratic table as well.

And the most tragic thing is that for 3 years the blame-shifting, finger-pointing, pressure-tactics and other efforts to force this issue have failed, on both sides, so clearly, while many, many Iraqi and American lives have been lost in the effort.

Power is not a substitute for thought. And thought is not advanced by control of any branch of government. Thought is advanced by engaged discussion and debate about how to do right by Iraqis and American soldiers and to clean up the mess that we are now all responsible for, whether we like it or not.

Perhaps Sestanovich's warning will be headed and a more sustainable policy based on genuine and bipartisan efforts to listen and engage one another will be taken seriously. Perhaps some good can be snatched from already so much tragedy in Iraq.

Either the political environment will take a cue from Gerald Ford and take on a more forgiving, open-minded and open-hearted tone and a better policy will be developed out of that discussion and the disagreements that make up that discussion or we will all go down with this ship and forgiveness and open-mindedness and open-heartedness will be necessary to get us through the bitterness and division that will undoubtedly follow that mess.

Why is it so hard to listen to one another and learn from one another independent of political stripes, I wonder?

Because of the need to develop the one thing that political leaders struggle with most, generally:

Humility. The propensity to assume that you might be wrong rather than always assume that you know or that your ideological colors are some kind of substitute for better policy.

Humility is not in strong supply in Washington, D.C. as a general rule, it's true.

But it's what's needed, right now. And perhaps Americans, including our elected officials can dig deep to find some of it. For the sake of Iraqis, Americans, and everyone who has Iraq on their hearts, right now.

This political moment is too sober a season to be lost in the lightning storm of ungrounded polarized politics. There are too many peoples' lives at stake to act like anyone has figured anything out completely. Only a more engaged, humble, open-minded and open-hearted discussion will point us in a better direction.

So many people with liberal educations. You'd think that one of them would have figured out, by now, that all that discussion and debate and reflection they engaged in college was not some form of mental masturbation. That is means something. That this is the reason why intelligent people engage debates and discussions and dialogue. Because they always have much more to learn.

Washington needs a lot more people genuinely talking with each other, right now, and a lot fewer people talking and strong-arming at one another right now.

This is why I have a "Would I want to drink a beer with this political leader?" test. Because better policy is formed when people with some humility and with some sense of their own and others' humanity, good and bad, sit down with one another and hash things out like grown-ups. Rather than forcing themselves upon one another like less evolved primates.

Force is the way of the jungle. Might makes right, and all that.

Civilized people talk with one another. And the most civilized people do it over beers or hot chocolate and in the context of people who have families and loved ones they care about that they are trying to look out for.

That's what Washington needs right now. Stephen Sestanovich is totally right. It needs more sustainable policy, which is found out of engaging one another like friends and human beings and fellow travelers in the great discussions of life, including "What the hell are we going to do about that mess in Iraq?"

That is the humble conversation that most Americans are engaged in, I hope.

And that is the conversation that Congress and the President need to join.

Love,
Ben

Who would have guessed that disillusionment would come in the form of a Democratic majority?

I've been growing old.

I've been settling down quite a bit, lately. Not that my life was really ever all that exciting. But I've been getting more grounded, lately. Many ways nice.

One way not so nice.

I'm learning to live by the rules. All of them.

And I am growing old, quickly.

This is not a favorable way to grow old. It's just something over which you have very little control as a mature adult. You learn to compromise with all the petty ways that others seek to control you, whether they have an business controlling you or not.

This is why people talk so badly about growing old. It may be the reason why so many peoples' music sounds so uninspired in their old age or why they often get meaner and more defeated as they get older.

Because there is nothing inspired or inspiring about this kind of growing old.

The sad thing for me is that now I get to join the millions of other old people who harken back to their freer days of youth and wait for young people to inject inspiration in their lives because they've had all the winds taken out of their sails, ironically, by the very rules and controls that they so passionately advocate and self-righteously believe to signify their still passionate commitment to...something.

Most adults are kind of petty and small-minded, is the truth. But knowing that about others and less about themselves, they advocate all kinds of stupid shit in their lives that creates cynicism for all of them.

I say them because I barely feel like an adult, in this sense. I've definitely made peace with the idea that mature adulthood involves learning to compromise with the power-hunger of my fellow and far wiser grown-ups.

But I have no interest in wanting to control others in the way that my wiser brethren advocate. I think it's because I'm naive about people. I just don't recognize just how much wiser my fellow countrymen are than me and how much better position they are to know what is good for me and everyone, really, than I am myself. I'm trying to learn to do the bidding of others better. I'm just not a very grateful servant, I suppose.

And the irony is, really, that the time when my disillusionment and cynicism would be most pronounced in my life is when I became a servant for the party that presumably wants to lift everyone from servant status.

The Democratic Party.

(Except when you stop to consider that it was the Democratic party that defended slavery and segregation in the Old South. They were much wiser than those servants too. Some things never change, I suppose).

It's terribly ironic, really, except when you consider that Democrats have always wanted to liberate every servant but their own. Something tells me that Teddy Kennedy does not do his own laundry. But thank goodness I have him and President Bush to look after me and other ordinary Janes and Joes like myself who just wouldn't know what to do in this big bad world without them. That's why those guys deserve the big bucks and the big power. Because house slaves like me just wouldn't be able to survive outside of the plantation without their generosity.

And just like when I was a kid and the only thing I could do to maintain any kind of sanity with adults who were barely literate and who barely hid their hypocrisy always telling me what to do and what was good and right in the world, the only way I can maintain my sanity as an grown man is to comment on the bizarre and yet curiously similar state of affairs of adults who are barely literate and who barely hide their hypocrisy always telling me what to do and what is good and right in the world.

Who knew that disillusionment would come in the form of a Democratic majority, the party that I have identified with for, by far, the largest proportion of my life (I voted Republican in my first election, out of identification with my conservative friends and coach, at the time. Otherwise, my life has been as liberal as a John Lennon's male hairdresser smoking crack; except for this next election, so it looks.)

Hope springs eternal in a democracy, I suppose. That's what makes it the best worst form of government. Even as you sit through Robert Byrd's Democratic bloviations or Jesse Helms' Republican bullheadedness, there is always hope that blowhards and bullies don't run the show.

Until being a blowhard and a bully becomes the central governing philosophy for the majority party, that is.

Here's to one of the most important qualities of a democracy: the capacity to throw the bums out.

Democrats. I'm already sick of them.

Love,
Ben

Back to school

I am getting enrolled at Washburn for the fall semester to finish up my Master's in Special Education and to make a new start at my university education.

I made a lot of mistakes in my last graduate experience. A lot of mistakes. I made some mistakes in my last semester at Washburn (summer of 2006), still taking incompletes in two classes because of my 11 year propensity during my entire university career to always try to extend deadlines to get papers "just right," never completely understanding that the real limitations of time exist, and are facilitated in the form of deadlines, whether I was aware of those limitations or not. This was an enormous source of many of the mistakes I made at KU, also, withdrawing from too many classes as well.

My first full year of teaching at Eisenhower and my experience with summer school at Washburn have taught me much needed lessons about limitations - time limits, personal limits, professional limits, real-time people limits, etc. This last year has been one long lesson on limits. And it has been a welcome lesson.

And I have to say that I am so excited to be enrolled in school again, even as I bump down the academic prestige ladder, because I am so much more mature going into a university experience, this time. I'm more aware of my own limits, the limitations of the world, the limitations of university politics, and the limitations of people, generally, no matter who they are, and the limitations of my professors and university staff and administrators, no matter how brilliant they may be. This lesson would apply whether I was studying with Joe Nye at Harvard or Francis Fukuyama at Johns Hopkins or finishing my Master's in Special Education with Gloria Dye and Michael Rettig at Washburn University.

I am learning, a lot, these days, as a teacher as much as a student, how important individual students and teachers and people are in an school and in an education. As a teacher, I see it every single day, because individual students and teachers make an enormous difference. And as a student, I am much more aware of the power that I have as a student to make an educational experience a really outstanding one or a really sour one. I regret the ways that I made my educational experience a sour one in too many ways when I was in grad school last. I have no intentions of repeating those mistakes. And I feel more confident that I have learned the lessons I need to learn, in life and in school, to make this educational experience a really quality one.

It's both humbling and really exciting to go back to where I started, in a third-tier school with teachers I love and respect, and an education that is all mine to make or to break. I hope I can make a substantial enough showing in this Master's program and publish my work in formal journals and magazines to be a strong candidate for a Ph.D. program of my choice. Studying with Joe Nye or Francis Fukuyama would be a really awesome opportunity, should it be available, although prestige, wealth, connections, etc. are not, at all, my pursuit. If I had to take them or leave them, I would almost prefer to leave them if studying with minds like these weren't such an honor. I would just fine with a Ph.D. from a home state institution or a university like Illinois State where I coached this summer. But it would be nice to be mature and responsible enough to take on a more challenging education, should that be something that might be available and that I might be interested in.

The bottom-line right now, though, is that I'm just really excited to get back to school. I am so excited to be studying again, to be in a university library again, and to be taking advantage of an education that I took for granted at the end of my last tenure that I have no intentions of repeating. Proof is in the pudding. But I trust myself more around this - and the maturity and responsibility that make it possible - than I have ever trusted myself before. Perhaps my personal best will not/does not translate into excellence in a more competitive sense. I will do my best. And if I was ever going to be competitive, this is the best time of my life to do it.

But most of all, I'm just excited to be in a place that takes learning seriously, with 4 years under my belt working and living in a world that does not take learning and studying nearly serious enough. It's my most serious frustration as a teacher, though I think my students are getting used to the rigor and some of them even might appreciate it, when the notion occurs to them and their not busy fighting me to take school seriously. And they're not busy sleeping or passing notes or arguing in class.

In a university I can really appreciate how hard teaching in a middle school, and teaching special education in an urban middle school, especially, really is. It makes me proud of the work. Because the one thing you can always take more for granted in a university or a suburban school or a private school or even a charter school with students from similar backgrounds as the students I teach is that students, generally, want, more, to be there. That is not always true in my classroom, though I do think that is becoming more true the more I work with kids. I can only hope. My strongest student in the 7th grade wants out of my class, right now. She needs to be in a collaborative class (general education class with support from a special education teacher or paraprofessional) with stronger students in a general education class. But I hope she doesn't want out of my class for good reasons that I am just not accounting for well enough, yet, in my teaching. I have so many weaknesses as a teacher I am so clear about now much more than my first year. I hope she gets the strongest education she can get and I can deliver in both my class and her new collaborative class. I want her to be prepared for the college education that she set her sights on the first year we met.

I better head home and get some dinner. I need to get officially enrolled on-line so I can start checking out books from the Washburn library. The library is the one of my favorite places on campus and one of the best reasons for me to be back in school.

Have a great week, everyone.

Love,
Ben

Understanding ourselves to understand the world

99% of our experience of the world is based on how we relate with the world, I'm convinced at this point in my life. It's Heisenberg's principle with Martin Luther King's message.

The world is as we make it. And we too often make it lousy because we relate with it poorly.

The bottom line for humanity is that we fight too much. And we are far more convinced that we know what we're doing than we ever deserve.

Aggression is our natural reaction to fear. It is a reaction that too often betrays us. Thought and free will and compassion and the least possible necessary aggression in life are what offer us our best chance to end the self-fulfilling prophecy of a world made too violent, too combative, too hateful, and far too tragic and absurd by our propensity to turn to fear, aggression, power, and control to relate to our problems and to one another around them rather than through more throughtfulness, compassion, and respect for free will.

The world is not any particular way except for the way that we make it. And even in the most dangerous and violent affairs that humanity faces, thoughtfulness and understanding are more important than force, which is used most wisely when it is used with greater understanding of all people, especially of the people to whom it is directed.

Understanding people, especially ourselves, as King and Ghandi and Tutu and others have taught, is the single most important thing that humanity can do to improve its lot.

If we want to know how the world is, how it has been, and how it can be, the most important thing we can do is to understand ourselves, in a context of good faith, forgiveness, a serious sense of humor, and a respect for our own free will, good and bad.

As we better relate to ourselves, we better relate to the world around us. And that is where the world changes most intimately and profoundly for the better.

And if you don't buy all that, check out Natalie Portman lampooning the violent alternatives. And check out Dick In a Box when you get a chance.

Love,
Ben

No need to consider you might not know when everyone else is dead wrong

Ariana Huffington has a pretty funny post on her blogpage today I thought worth sharing.

The Mainstream Media's Take on Iraq: Right, Left...And Dead Wrong

Huffington's concern is with mainstream, objective, thoughtful analysis, as she makes clear in her post:

Divorced from the reality of what's going on in Iraq. Wedded to a deluded perception of the war. Unwilling to acknowledge widespread and irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Sound like anyone you know? No, I'm not talking about President Bush -- though it's certainly true of him as well. I'm talking about the mainstream media, and their relentless depiction of the Iraq war as a left/right issue, even as the facts give lie to this hoary framing.

According to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, 60 percent of Americans oppose Bush's escalation of the war, and 65 percent want to "withdraw right away" or "withdraw within a year." Other polls reach the same conclusion: Iraq is simply not a right vs. left issue.
But you'd never know it from watching the pundits on television.

Here's Howard Fineman on Countdown with Keith Olbermann: "...that's the tension that people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden are caught in as they try to move to the left on the war without taking themselves out of the mainstream of the country."

Of course, what Fineman means by "left on the war" is being in favor of ending the war, and against Bush's handling of it. No Democrats need worry that taking those positions will take them out of the mainstream.

But don't tell that to Candy Crowley. Here was her cobweb-covered analysis of Ted Kennedy's anti-escalation measure: "What Senator Kennedy is going to do is lay down the liberal view of things, which is to say, he will say, look, no additional troops and no additional money for additional troops, unless Congress approves."

The "liberal view of things"? More like the view of things of almost two-thirds of the nation."

The same 2/3 of the nation that supported the invasion going into Iraq - as well as the same 2/3 plus of Democrats in office who supported that invasion - and have backed away from the decision now that things have gone terribly wrong, Ariana argues, are being ignored now that their collective conventional wisdom has finally got the right answer on this whole war in Iraq thing.

As Ariana argues:

"When the macro framing of the war is so warped, it makes productive discussion of how to deal with Iraq even harder. The encouraging thing is that while so many in the mainstream media continue to believe that being in favor of ending the war means you're a "left-winger" and "out of the mainstream," a growing number of politicians don't.

How long will it take for the media to recognize reality and drop their outdated, obsolete, and thunderingly inaccurate framing of the war debate?

Iraq is not about right and left. It's about right and wrong -- and the vast majority of the public clearly knows this. It's time for the media to catch up."

The problem with the war in Iraq is not that we don't know exactly what to do or that a fuller and more good-faith policy discussion might both create more humility about the situation and more ideas about how to facilitate better political and security solutions for the situation there.

The problem is that the media is not listening to the wisdom of the American people. And that they, like the corrupt conservatives and Republicans that they toadie for, have seen the choice between right and wrong and they have chosen to do wrong.

Ariana goes on to outline all of the reasons for why she thinks a withdrawal will most effectively facilitate a more democratic and peaceful Iraq:

...in another post, I'm pretty sure.

I mean, Ariana's a smart gal. She's not going to claim that she understands the basic rights and wrongs of Iraq and the world without making her case. Ariana's only concern is with the strongest, most thoughtful, most decent and humane policy - the right decision - in how to handle the mess in Iraq, right now.

The truth is that I like Ariana Huffington. I think her and Nancy Pelosi and Democrats are being really self-righteous, right now, about what they are sure are the right answers to handle the situation in Iraq, but I like Ariana and Nancy Pelosi both. The truth is that, like everyone else, they really don't have much a clue exactly what will make the situation better. Everyone knows what they would like to see (although, for many, many people, Democrats and Republicans, this means a situation that is better for America, first and foremost, and better for Iraq as an afterthought).

But getting to a more democratic, more peaceful, more free, and less bloody Iraq is a more difficult question that everyone wants to play Emperor with and yet noone is really wearing much clothing, these days.

Here's my thinking about Iraq.

I don't know exactly what will make the situation in Iraq better. The current moment has made it so much clearer to me how little anyone does, including a lot of the more thoughtful policy people I've read and respected. The people who have really earned my respect in the last few months have been people like George Will and David Patreus, the new commander of operations in Iraq, who have said as much about the situation, and yet maintained some commitment and hope that a workable and more democratic solution can be found.

I tend to agree with military historian Frederick Kagan and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol - All We Are Saying Is Give Petraeus A Chance - that the best hope in Iraq is to better secure Iraq with necessary additional troops to create sufficient security to facilitate constructive dialogue to find a political solution and the necessary compromises on the outlook for a democratic Iraqi government between competing parties. Following through on even the threat to withdraw troops - which would be necessary to make that threat credible - would leave parties in a civil war engaging in ethnic bloodshed with no credible third party, in an underprepared Iraqi national army, to put an end to that bloodshed and facilitate a political solution.

The truth is that I don't know what exactly will resolve the security and political problems of Iraq, right now. I'm just convinced that the only hope for a political resolution is found in the context of an improved security situation, which I (and the Iraqi government) am not confident at all, at this point, would be facilitated by the withdrawal of American troops. If the Iraqi government or the Iraqi people were asking for an American withdrawal, I would feel different about what we should do, not because I would all of a sudden have more confidence in the Iraqi army and law enforcement to handle the situation, but because I would respect the self-determination of the Iraqi people, right or wrong. As is, I have very little confidence in the Iraqi government and people to handle the explosive and very complicated security situation in their own country and respect their government's request for assistance until they are ready to be responsible for the situation without the presence or with limited presence of American troops.

I could be wrong about that. The presence of American troops could be the cause of much of the insurgency and sectarian bloodshed may calm down if Americans are out of the picture, or the threat or actual withdrawal of American troops might be what is needed to motivate the Maliki government to find a political compromise, to effectively challenge and undermine the sectarian commitments of Al Sadr's Shia militias as well as the sectarian efforts by Sunnis and Kurds, or as Charles Krauthammer has posited, this might be a situation that only Iraqis can resolve and that an escalated American presence is unlikely to improve.

I'm not sure exactly what will undermine and halt the violence and create the space for a political solution that only Iraqis can arrive at. I just happen to think that the arguments and plans laid out by people like Frederick Kagan are the best I've seen thusfar.

It makes sense to me that an precipitous American pull-out would only create a power vacuum in the competition for a monopoly on the use of force that Shias and Sunni militias would only feel emboldened by and too afraid not to engage for fear of being killed, mass murdered, and oppressed should their competitors will out in such a conflict, and that such open conflict without credible third-party security, aligned with the sovereign Iraqi government, will make political solutions and political compromise both less likely and for such political compromise to become a pawn in a military conflict meant to up the ante on the use of force to leverage for political power in the emerging Iraqi governing compromise solution.

I have to say that it is really, really refreshing when I read people saying that they're not quite sure about what to do in Iraq. It's more honest, first of all. And it shows more genuine humility in the face of this most serious issue that America and the world faces, nevertheless in the myriad of other issues that America and the democratic and non-democratic world face.

It is always interesting to me that the people least likely to say that they don't know how to find sustainable resolution on various issues are, generally, the same people who are completely sure of their need, right, and wisdom in bullying me or others in doing what they hold such absolute wisdom over.

The less likely people are to question their own wisdom, the more they think they should be able to impose that wisdom on others is the one rule of life that you can count on more than any other, in my experience.

And there is no other issue in America where that truism plays itself out with more tragic absurdity than the war in Iraq, right now, sadly.

I've never followed an issue where such absurdity was so clear to me and tragic as a consequence in my all too brief lifetime. So many people so goddamned sure of their respective solutions, so sure that they feel the compulsion to impose it on the Iraqi government, the President, the American people, and anyone else who gets in their way, and yet so few people in agreement that any particular solution is likely to yield success.

The whole exercise bears out the reason to be skeptical that people in government or who aspire to steer the ship of state, as journalists, activists, scholars, minor and major politicians, and even everyday citizens, are somehow wiser or better in their understanding of the world. We must participate in a democratic society and government to contribute and be responsible for efforts as serious as war and peace, especially, and yet we all engage that discuss so self-righteously, with so little thought and genuine efforts to listen and consider and respect different perspectives, ideas, and arguments, and with so much too-certain certainty about what will resolve our shared and especially our independent problems.

Even around an issue like the war in Iraq which burden is clearly shared by the American people and which clearly needs a government response, the certain answers for how to resolve our most serious problems are still so elusive (except to those who most certainly do not deserve our trust that they really have arrived at certain answers).

And the war in Iraq is our best case scenario for a political question that most certainly needs a collective, government (and therefore imposed) response.

Hubris, the Greeks whisper to us. Hubris.

Love,
Ben

King's greatest legacy

My friend, Carson, at ContentDoneBetter inspired my Martin Luther King post, today, with his post. I would check out his post on the subject when you get a chance. This was my comment.

"We spent Friday at school talking about King. It was really nice. Ms. Smith, the teacher I collaborate with and this really wonderful black woman I work with and respect, had a really nice discussion in her class with the kids about King.

This is my second MLK holiday celebration as a teacher, and it always surprises me how little seriously most kids take King's legacy, sadly. I work in a majority black school in a poor neighborhood - the exact kinds of kids and people that King spent his life dedicated to helping - and very few of the kids take his legacy seriously, out loud, at least. I've got to hope that it sinks in with some years. But the most vocal thing I ever heard from a kid about King was from one of my really obnoxious black students: "Fuck Martin Luther King."

It's very sad to me that so few kids people openly take King's legacy seriously or appreciate what he and others dedicated to civil rights went through to help create a more color-blind, multiracial, loving, compassionate world. I have all kinds of disagreements with Martin Luther King as I have with most people. But his courage made civil rights finally possible in a country that had denied them for over a hundred years after abolishing slavery of African Americans.

I never told you this, Carson, but when I left grad school, I was a member of a poverty lobbying group called RESULTS. I had been inspired by the calls by Muhammad Yunus for an international poverty movement at our annual RESULT International conferences that I attended in Washington D.C. and had been talking about the possibilities of an international poverty movement for a year or two, at that point. When I left grad school, I wrote emails to many people about my intentions of starting an international poverty movement. Most people thought I was kind of crazy. A couple friends were encouraging.

But the more I got to know the real world, the less convinced I became that a social movement could eliminate poverty. The more I got to see poverty up close, the more I became convinced that poverty was too complicated to be solved by protests. It wasn't the same thing as a legal battle over voting rights. It needed genuine and sustained commitment and generosity rather than a single or even a series of political victories which I became convinced created resentment and resistance from those not quite on board and those with legitimate concerns, especially small businesses, who were often in a different position in terms of money available and profit margin, to do all the things that I still think need to happen around wealth equity issues consistent with a market economy which makes so much of the abundance that we all take for granted possible.

I worked for almost a year on the Kaw Valley Living Wage Campaign. It became clear to me that the business community and the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce would work with us if they didn't feel bullied into it. And they resisted us when they did feel bullied, for reasons I find completely understandable at this point.That wasn't enough for my Living Wage companions, who were convinced that either they had to bully the business community or nothing would come of their efforts.

As it turned out, the best thing that came of their efforts, I think, was the raising of the issue and the commitment by many businesses to the relatively reliable living wages that Lawrence had to offer when I was looking for work, by businesses who were not compelled by the living wage in Lawrence which only applies to businesses that locate in Lawrence and receive tax abatements.

In the meantime, my liberal friends bullied the shit out of me, too, as I looked for a compromise with business leaders and city council representatives who would approve of a "wage floor" or other comparable voluntary measures but who weren't interested in a legally imposed living wage.

I pointed out to them that their proposal would only touch a small fraction of businesses and employees in Lawrence, since tax abatements didn't impact the vast majority of folks with businesses and employed in Lawrence. And that securing genuine voluntary commitment to living wages would impact the vast majority of people in Lawrence that the law they were fighting for wouldn't touch.

It was classic MLK versus Malcolm X. Change hearts and minds or bully and pressure the unconvinced.

I think Lawrence has made some small progress on this issue because of a town of people who think about these issues more and maybe even facilitated by a campaign that raised the issue. Though, as the Lawrence Journal World pointed out in an article from that time, wealth inequities are still serious in Lawrence as they are any place else, even in the Lawrence school systems and the University of Kansas, the most liberal of institutions in Lawrence and the most presumably committed to alleviating wealth inequities.

Hypocrisy abounds on this issue, amongst liberals and conservatives, rich, middle class, and poor. Just as with race 40 years ago.

Racism gave way, largely, for the reasons MLK argued. Hearts and minds have changed in 40 years. I can only hope that hearts and minds will change on wealth equity issues in 40 more years.

One can totally understand MLK's urgency in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, and his impatience with Bobby Kennedy, Jack Kennedy, and black and white religious leaders in Birmingham who told him he was pushing for too much, too fast.

But the reality was and is that important changes in the culture take an enormous amount of time.

I share King's impatience. On race, on poverty, and around the issues, like expanding liberal democratic values, that I care about. But I also bring to the table a realism about the issue, and it's complexity and the lack of easy answers, that we needed and need on race as much as we needed and need on poverty.

Martin Luther King's and Mohatma Ghandi's legacies are two of the finest in the 20th century, I think, as much as anything because they demonstrate the power of ideas of those who do not have formal power but who move hearts and minds. By the ends of both of their lives, they moved more people and were more powerful, in real terms and in terms of a legacy, than any of the politicians of their day. And in the end, it was their courage and ideas and words that captured our hearts.

Today is more complicated because very few of the challenges we face today are by necessity legal in nature as was voting rights.

And the blunt use of force to achieve whatever it is that we say that we want is hardly as inspiring as MLK's "I Have a Dream" or Jack Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". It's much more reminiscent of radical demands of the 60's, backed by terrorist action and violent factions, and Soviet demands of their people, backed by a totalitarian regime.

There are no Martin Luther King's in today's world, save for perhaps Mohammed Yunus or Desmond Tutu, because everyone in the current political period has latched onto the most base of messages from King's legacy: the need to pressure and bully for reform. And just as black radicals used the least of Martin's legacy to rationalize their own ugliness, so too do contemporary liberals and conservatives use the least of Martin's legacy and the legacy of the civil rights movement, in the case of contemporary wealth equity activists, or the abolitionist movement, in the case of pro-life activists, to rationalize their own bullying and worst behavior.

And there's just not much to inspire people in that message. Because it's not inspiring.

Yunus' (and John Hatch of FINCA and other similar groups) strongest legacy is in his creating a workable model for sustainable wealth and anti-poverty business development for the poorest of the poor. And Desmond Tutu's strongest legacy is his commitment to truth and reconciliation in South Africa and a commitment to truth and reconcilitation as an alternative to more recriminatory approaches to resolve longstanding injustices and unfairness between peoples, like the International Criminal Court, which seems to undermine efforts to end genocidal conflicts as an excellent editorial argued is occuring in Sudan in the Washington Post recently.

And what King would be whispering in our ear, today, I would hope, would be, "Why are so few liberals or conservatives genuinely committed to wealth equity? Why do we persistently make excuses for our greed? Why do so many Democrats and Republicans grandstand on the issue in Congress while failing to practice serious wealth equity in their lives? Why are so few liberals and conservatives committed to ending serious wealth inequities in the world, satisfying themselves with a largely symbolic minimum wage increase and avoiding a larger discussion about wealth inequity and greed and their consequences on our democratic life?"

If King had the same kind of cynicism about the capacity for Americans to get over their racism as so many people have about their capacity to get over their greed and our lack of commitment to genuinely overcoming wealth inequities, as a matter of heart and mind much more than as a matter of law or politics, it would have been much more difficult for people to overcome the racism that so substantially characterized northern and southern America in his day.

But liberals and conservatives too often, in my experience, chase the money and take very little real responsibility for the consequences of wealth inequities in America and the world, largely because the issue is so much more complicated than just learning to judge someone for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Bill Gates gives away half his wealth. Warren Buffet gives away a substantial amount of the same and leaves no money to his children to tackle the issue of inherited wealth. Americans are the most generous people in the world in terms of voluntary giving, and generate wealth unprecedented in history because of their vast free and dynamic economies.

But noone, from any country, wants to give up the power that comes with greater wealth, and the wealth that comes with greater power.

Because that power, we arrogantly believe, is what makes things in the world go right. Without it, the world would go to pot, we tell ourselves. With it, we make the world as inspiring a place as it is, ignoring all the ways that it undermines higher ideals.

It's bullshit, of course. But we'll rationalize it, liberals and conservatives, as long as we believe that we can get what we want with all that wealth and power.

I have a dream. I have a dream that one day people will stop playing that bullshit game with one another, as much as possible. And start treating each other like they really give a shit about one another. I have a dream that people will stop making excuses for what dicks they are to one another, all the time, and treat each other like they might like to be treated, the golden rule and all that. I have a dream that people of all backgrounds, all classes, and all ideological stripes will stop engaging in self-righteous grandstanding on every issue that strikes them and to take seriously intelligent and rigorous and respectful and self-reflective engagement and debate and discussion and respect for their neighbors when they disagree without demonizing them because they belong to a different political church, religious, ethnic, gender, racial, class or other group. I have a dream that we will care for one another as fellow human beings because it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether it makes profit or serves our bottom-lines or wins the next election for us.

We could have that dream. But, right now, most people settle for the bullshit that passes for decency and humanity, these days.

King's legacy was, fundamentally, about the golden rule. About treating one another like we would want to be treated.I'm not sure who his heirs are, today. Yunus and Tutu, to be sure. All of us, in some respect since we are people who are, by and large, more favorable to King today than people were to King in the 50's and 60's. And very much like the 50's and 60's, all of us fall short of King's legacy or our best selves beyond King or any of our heroes.

King will forgive us that, I'm sure, just as he forgave Malcolm X and Stockley Carmichael for making his job harder and all of us for the racism that permeated his society up till his death.

And hopefully, as King I'm sure would have wished were true rather than the riots that followed his death, we will jaw-jaw much more than we will war-war over this issue and every serious issue that we face. Because as radicals and terrorists of King's time and our time demonstrate, forcing ourselves upon others rather than changing hearts and minds is an ugly and unsustainable means of changing the world for the better, no matter how self-righteously terrorists or any of us might believe otherwise.

The real King legacy is not in any one of the anti-discrimination or affirmative action laws adopted after his death.The real King legacy is found in young and old black people and white people who treat each other like fellow human beings rather than asserting superiority over one another or the self-righteous claim to bully one another or harboring hate or bias or ugly or destructive feelings toward one another.

That is the most sustainable way to change, and King was its most brilliant proponent. That the real standard for progress is the hearts and minds of a people, not what is imposed upon them.

That's the legacy we should be celebrating today. Because that's the legacy that made the most real difference in the world.

I hope my kids realize how much they take that legacy for granted, someday. Because it's the one that is so easily taken for granted, today. Because the kids (and most adults, thankfully) live within that spirit so much better than they did in King's day."

Thank you, Martin.

Love,
Ben

I think I might quit teaching

What we need in the world, today, especially as teachers, is people who kick ass and take names.

I'm not that person. I don't like to hurt people or force their hands to get my way.

I want to do something where I can just do my thing and avoid people altogether, as much as possible, I think.

Teaching and education just don't mean anything to me as long as they end up with someone forcing someone else's hands when reason fails.

I need to find a profession where I can live a quiet life and avoid all this ugliness that passes for reason, these days.

Happy Martin Luther King Day.

Love,
Ben

Pressure

Melissa and I saw the most horrific thing last night. It was a beheading of an American by Iraqi insurgents.

Warning: Extremely graphic and disturbing
Beheading of Eugene Armstrong

Terrorists and those from autocratic countries reason that liberal democratic countries just really don't have the balls to use pressure and blunt force like they do.

People from liberal democratic countries who aren't quite convinced of their liberal democratic values get scared that the terrorists are right.

And the truth is that far too many citizens from liberal democratic countries act as if the terrorists are right, so enamoured are they with the use of force or pressure - bullying is the common term for that strategy - to accomplish their ends.

I don't understand why free people can never quite embrace their freedom, and the learning that comes with it, from good choices and from bad choices.

And bad choices by average people in liberal and autocratic countries always rationalize bad choices by a government and by other average people to force themselves on one another.

That beheading video is what real pressure looks like. I wonder if liberal democratic citizens will either have the balls to apply real pressure like that beheading, or give up the practice, altogether, as much as possible, since it undermines development and exercise of conscience.

All I know is that while I may be forced to live with the awful choice that liberal democratic citizens have chosen for this political period, I will never recognize it as the right choice or the best choice. Because it clearly isn't, no matter how much pressure people apply.

Love,
Ben

It's the other way around

An excellent Orwellian-like quotation from a new movie about the folly and tragedy of both tyranny and revolution, "Land of the Blind," with Ralph Feinnes and Donald Sutherland, that Melissa and I just saw the trailer for:

"Under the old government, man exploited man. But since the revolution, it's the other way around"



What a great summary of the current political period.

Love,
Ben

Lazy Sunday

(NBC made youtube take Lazy Sunday off of their video selection, so you can access the video and a million other hilarious SNL digital shorts and skits at Lazy Sunday at SNL on NBC)

Listening to: What a Wonderful World - Louis Armstrong

After one of the most cynical weeks and nights of my life, last week and last night, I had a really outstanding day today.

I'm just so content with my life, at this point, no matter what happens. I could lose my job, I could be diagnosed with cancer, I could encounter any number of terrible tragedies.

And I will always come out of it more and more content with life, I realize, today.

After a week and a night of more real cynicism than I've felt in my young life, I realized, today, that my ideals in life, both as a matter of my own life and as a matter of the world independent of me, are more real, today, than they have ever been in my lifetime, including my undergraduate and graduate years and my years with Brandi, which I've always regarded as my most idealistic period.

So many things I realized, today. How much ego is behind so much cynicism and false pride and false tragedy that is responsible for so much of the more ignoble pursuits in the world, for power, for influence, for money, for sex, for fame, for notoriety. How much very worthy pursuits are passed up by good people because of their fears of all of these things that they will miss out on, when, in reality, none of what we know of the more ignoble pursuits in the world are really where happiness lie. A truth that we know deep down, even as we ignore that bit of wisdom. And a truth I learned most squarely when the friendship I cared about most in my life I lost, in part out of an insanely stressful pursuit of influence and status and less noble pursuits, as well as a high-purpose, world class education, while I was in grad school.

My life has seriously settled down, for all the right reasons. And it's not dependent on money or status or any of the really less important priorities in life.

It's because the priority that really matters most - living a life you're proud of - is just so solid for me, right now, completely independent of what I do and do not achieve in my life, at this point, though I anticipate achieving and creating quite a bit.

It's a good feeling. It's far better than achieving without as much genuine confidence in myself, independent of my achievements, a life that I have had and never felt as secure with because I lacked exactly the things that I have found and created in my life, today.

Today, I listened to February and thought about Brandi's and my friendship and relationship and realized that our falling apart, as lovers and then as friends, really is just unnecessary tragedy that I seem to be making peace with, these days. I made peace with so much today, out of my grappling with cynicism as a serious alternative for the first time in my life, this last week, and finding that I couldn't sustain it if I wanted to. I am forgiving and generally happy and realistic and accepting of the shortcomings of life, by nature and by habit, now, I think. And just as a matter of being honest with myself.

You see, Ben, you really have a wonderful life. Don't you see what a mistake it would be to throw it all away:).

In honor of lazy Sundays that I miss with my friend, Brandi (as well as with her family) and one of my best friends', Carson's, awesome taste in SNL digital shorts, and in honor of all those people - Melissa, Devang, Angela, Bond, Jenny, Scotty-Joe, Andy, Gwethalyn, Honey, Shawn, Dean, Todd, Kevin, Rachel and Jeff, and all the folks at EMU, Rachel, Jaz, Dolly, Blick, Dave, and the gang, Tommy Patrick, Brian White, Mike Keith, Kevin Keplar, Kate, Mike Coupland, Jenny Thunda, Raimi, Francis, Carlos, and all of the friends who I have loved most spending lazy Sundays like this one with - I have to repost from Carson's Content Done Better Blog what I think is one of the best of the youtube videos I have come across, thusfar (If you haven't caught Andy Samberg's and Justin Timberlake's Dick in a Box and Kelli's Shoes, I highly recommend them), "Lazy Sunday" from Andy Samberg and Chris Parnell.

Enjoy:).

Love,
Ben

Power as the source of most political and social problems

The source of most of our most unresolved political and social problems is that the problems, themselves, get interpreted as power battles rather than as collaborative efforts which more genuinely look out for the real, deepest, and most sincere interests of all parties involved.

It's the tragedy of power.

The major tragedies include terrorism, genocide, authoritarianism, torture, political repression, etc. One of the minor but still important tragedies is the inordinate amount of time and energy spent policing, controlling, punishing people and the consequence time and energy wasted by all people - including those policing, controlling, and punishing people - trying to stay out of trouble, whether the policing, controlling, punishing, or escaping punishment actually accomplish anything at all.

Sounds like a good book title.

The Limits of Power - an empirical discussion of the limits of power; free will, intellect, and morality; and least possible necessary aggression

A History of Liberal Democracy - a liberal progressive history of liberal democracy, meaning a history that makes the argument for progress based on liberalization and liberal democratic cultures, norms, and institutions (not liberal progressive in the contemporary sense of liberal or progressive politics; my assumptions are that contemporary liberals and conservatives and members of other ideologies and parties can and do make important contributions to the progress of liberal democratic cultures)

The Tragedy of Power - an empirical discussion of the tragic consequences of interpreting problems as power battles rather than as collaborative efforts that genuinely look out for the real, deepest, and most sincere interests of all parties involved

Perhaps I should do all three of these, to some degree, in one book, assuming, as I do, that only one, really will be read by most people in the long run.

Interesting questions.

Love,
Ben

The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio

If you have not seen Julianne Moore's beautiful portrayal of Evelyn Ryan in The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio, I highly recommend it.

Julianne's portrayal of Evelyn Ryan very much affirms for me why I take love and compassion so seriously as the truest source of strength in life, in a family, in a culture.

For so many in politics, in teaching, in families, and in life who lose track of that truest source of strength, I highly recommend this movie to remind you of what you've been forgetting and missing.

Love,
Ben

Terrorism, power and liberal democracy

In the last week, Melissa and I have watched both World Trade Center and United 93.

They are both sad and beautiful films that I recommend to everyone.

And both of them, with all of the various individual tragedies that they chronicle from that very tragic day have me reflecting on one very sad fact.

No matter what reasons we might imagine for why al Queda operatives were motivated to kill all those people on that day, or why terrorists are motivated to kill at any point (some variation of Peter Bergen and Michael Lind's thesis that pride motivates terrorism is the most persuasive motivation that I have read), what is clear about terrorism is that it is centrally motivated by a desire for power.

Al Queda and all terrorists believe that if they can use military force and political propaganda in ingenious and effective enough ways, they can force the hands of the subjects of their terrorism: the United States, Israel, Britain, Spain, Jordan, India, the West, Arab countries, whichever citizens of whichever countries that they direct their cult of death towards.

Terrorism, fundamentally, is brutal politics.

Terrorism is literally using all means necessary to acquire the power to force the hands of subject countries to do as terrorists see fit.

Generally, terrorists, like democratic peoples, believe that they can use power to solve the problems of the people they identify with. Islamic law is a cynical and romantic solution, many terrorists believe, for the myriad of problems that face their peoples. Military force, they believe, no matter how relatively weak compared to their opponents, can expel foreigners from lands they claim and exact retribution for perceived injustices.

It is this illiberal commitment to impose what terrorists argue is God's will, but is in fact their own, and liberal democratic commitments to freedom, democracy, equity, humanity, and other similar values that distinguish terrorists and their thinking from the citizens of liberal democratic countries they target.

This is all true except that liberal societies have one very important similarity to the illiberal commitments of terrorists that makes it harder for us to distinguish ourselves: our similar commitment to the idea that enough power will similarly solve the problems of liberal or illiberal societies.

It is all the fashion, these days. This foolish illiberal notion. It is more than fad in countries like North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Palistan. Sadly it is, in reality, less a fad in liberal democratic nations than is ideal.

But there is much more commitment, history, experience, thinking, cultural values, and institutions to support liberal democratic values in countries like the United States, France, Great Britain, Australia, Germany, Japan, Spain, Portugal, and other liberal democratic countries (although the majority of that list have developed those institutions fairly recently, within the last hundred years; and liberal democracy, while dating back many hundreds of years as an idea, a set of values and nascent commitments, is a little more than two hundred years old as a sustained commitment of governance and cultural development).

And, most hopeful, liberal democratic cultures are ones which are forever elaborating upon and expanding their liberal democratic ideals, with cultures - scholars, writers, directors and filmmakers, actors, musicians, and other entertainers, businesspeople, and other citizens - that perpetually lead their governments towards greater liberalization.

Liberalization is the movement away from power as the central organizing principle of human development. Power is still needed, to be sure. But power serves purposes more and more limited in the scope of its use in liberal societies and governments, ideally. Power is used less often, less readily, and with less force and aggression, over time, primarily because liberal democratic citizens hold themselves and one another to a higher standard of humanity and maturity in their dealings with the world. But power is also used less readily because it has consequences that lead those who hold it to, eventually, seek other more liberalized and liberalizing options.

All societies are fragile. But liberal societies are strongest because the freedom they create nurtures greater responsiveness, flexibility, humanity and collaboration, inclusion, resilience, and honest engagement and reflection in the face of even the most difficult challenges, terrorism included.

Terrorism is not the most difficult challenge that liberal democracies have faced. It is only the most recent among illiberal philosophies to openly challenge liberal cultures. And like every illiberal challenge before it, it will fail, ultimately, because liberal societies will learn resilience, strength, and confidence in the liberal values that make those societies and governments strong and will use those values, and especially the more honest engagement and reflection, to defeat terrorists and terrorism, politically and militarily.

Power, when it is not exercised consistent with the highest ideals of liberal values, persistently undermines and compromises those values and the strength that they nurture.

But the power of liberal societies is the capacity of their cultures to strengthen their commitments to liberal values - to freedom and equity and humanity, for real, not just as political rhetoric that does not match substantive policies - even as governments and citizen advocates resist the strengthening of those commitments and values within the institutions that animate liberal democracy.

Illiberality, ranging from conditions like genocide, terrorism, and authoritarianism to less severe restrictions like freedoms in liberal democratic countries, rules by fear and spreads fear throughout a community. And that fear undermines the freedom that is necessary for more genuine responsibility and virtue to take root. Without access to the free will that is the source of all virtue, all peoples, liberal or illiberal, are cut off from their capacity to teach and learn it most honestly, meaning freely.

Liberal democracy strengthens its commitments to liberalizing values, in the long run, despite short terms setbacks and regressive historical periods, like the current one, because it is liberalization and freedom that are the heart of the the strength of those cultures and their governing institutions, rather than the weakness that the fears and insecurities their citizens so often mistake those liberal values for. Fear rationalizes illiberality which rationalizes fear with rationalizes illiberality. It is a vicious cycle that terrorism is designed to create and accelerate. The virtuous circle of liberality is facilitated by free peoples deepening their commitments to liberal values, creating the space and freedom for more genuine safety, virtue, decency and hope to take place. All of which are only available to the extent that a culture is free. And all of which are hindered to the extent that freedom is limited, except when immediate violence or harm is taking place or imminent.

Even amidst terror there is hope. And true hope is found inside of the elaboration and expansion our liberal values.

Love,
Ben

What enlarges and sustains our values?

The craziest thing for me to observe as I watch this period of rationalizing control in the name of freedom is asking and answering the question, "What sustains our values?"

And when I say values, I don't just mean our value for freedom or democracy. I mean all of them. I mean our commitment to gender equity, to racial equity, to equity based on income and needs met, I mean our opposition to slavery and our commitment to universal suffrage and one vote for every person. I mean our commitment to intelligence and education. I mean our commitment to a healthy world, a safe world, and world with as clean an environment as possible. I mean our commitment to economic abundance and shared abundance. I mean our commitment to ethnic and religious equity that we can take less for granted as we watched ethnic and religious sectarianism tear apart Iraq. I mean our commitment to openness and transparency, to decency and humanity, to honesty and hope.

Do most people really believe that such values are sustained primarily, if at all, by laws? By rules? By force? By coercion?

Because the plain reality is that if these values were sustained primarily if at all by laws and rules and force and coercion is that none of them could be sustained at all, for long. They couldn't maintain themselves in the face of opposition from a culture that had not internalized those values, by conscience, mind, heart and soul.

Without a commitment to conscience, mind, heart and soul to ground and give real expression to abstract values and their far more blunt and abstract expression in laws and rules, by force and coercion, these values would never find real life. They would always be tucked away in dusty and little consulted codes of conduct, only to be considered when a violation is alleged, which would be often and regular in a society that had not internalized the values they aspire to pass on.

There can be no doubt, really, that it is conscience and not rules that embody our values, since conscience is what distinguishes between good laws and bad so that they can be amended. There would be no need for democracy were values found in laws, because there would be no need for revision since no other authority could trump legal or political authority.

It is not just the inspiration for a free society, it is the function of a free society and our greatest check against tyranny that conscience trumps laws and rules and other political and legal controls.

Would all of those rationalizing force as a central governing philosophy really collude with Nazi-era laws that mandated the reporting of Jews to the German government? Would they really collude with fugitive slave laws of 19th century America? Would they really collude with laws that imprisoned adulterers, homosexuals, sodomizers, imbibers of alcohol, and heretics to the Church?

And the sad answer to that question is that during another era, many of they would and did. Sadly. And the law was excuse and rationalization for all of it. Sadly. So much human tragedy for so little purpose. And all in the name of human or divine law. Sadly.

We have escaped all of that tendency, thankfully, finally finding the present and forever future balance between freedom and control. We should be thankful for our own unflinching wisdom. It would be difficult to find this balance without such foresight.

But the truth is that, in so many ways, we are just like those past generations, thinking that we have found the right path or balance, convinced of our decency and humanity because of how much more brutal and controlling and indecent past generations were, and convinced of our own unchallengeable wisdom that will sustain itself over the generations that we have summoned because we have finally arrived upon the means of promoting good behavior that has eluded past generations, even as it mimics those eras.

Hubris is how the ancient Greeks referred to this mistake of humanity. Arrogance is a good enough common term.

Do we really believe that force could sustain and enlarge all of those values?

Somehow I doubt it. Especially given its clearly poor historical record on the matter.

But we rationalize it anyway because we are afraid to live without it. I do the same, I think. I'm trying to let it go. To learn where more force or aggression is more appropriate. But to avoid it as much as possible.

I'm probably off the mark like everyone else. But presuming against the use of force and aggression, as much as possible and only using them when they are necessary as much as my forever fallible judgment can render, is a good start, I hope.

It is frustrating to me that we would give such cover to our pretense of infallibility, during this period. And it is more frustrating for me to watch people who least deserve that cover taking the most advantage of it.

Hubris, the Greeks wrote. Cynicism, I would add. They generally go hand in hand, is my experience.

I can only hope that we can slowly grow our way out of them.

Love,
Ben