#131 / Baltimore And The Question

The idea that protest politics in Baltimore might lead to big political changes seems largely to have come to naught. That is pretty much what The New Yorker has told us, at any rate, in a report coming out of the elections held in Baltimore on Tuesday, April 26th. 

The New Yorker article talks about "protest" politics and "progressive" politics in the same breath, and documents the fact that both "protest" and "progressive" candidates lost big time in the primary elections. Hillary Clinton, for example, beat Bernie Sanders by about thirty percentage points in the State of Maryland. What does it all mean? Here is what Benjamin Wallace-Wells and The New Yorker think: 

Progressives have been left in a strange position this week, in Baltimore and everywhere else. In Maryland, the Democratic representative Donna Edwards ran an aggressive campaign for the U.S. Senate, thick with themes of racial and gender identity, and lost decisively to the more wonkish establishment candidate, Representative Chris Van Hollen. Nationally, the last hopes that Bernie Sanders might be the Democratic nominee are fading. And yet it seems strange to think that the progressive energies that have continually emerged in the protest movements will dissipate in the Democratic Party. It seems much likelier that the protest movements will continue than that they will simply give way to the Presidential election. But the immediate question for progressives is an anxious one: not whether their candidates can drive out the Democratic Party establishment—they haven’t—but how much the past few years of unrest have changed the atmosphere within it. Which Catherine Pugh they get, which Chris Van Hollen, which Hillary Clinton. Maybe that was always the question.

I agree with Wallace-Wells that there are two different ways that protest movements can achieve political success. First, such movements can change the elected officials who get to make the decisions - replacing current incumbents with different people with different ideas and different priorities. 

Second, political protest movements can force the existing elected officials to change the decisions they make. Wallace-Wells thinks that the second approach may still be achievable in Baltimore, and Maryland (and by extension, in the United States), even though the first approach failed last Tuesday.

In either case, organized political work is necessary. If the grassroots political movement for Bernie Sanders is just a movement aimed at electing Bernie Sanders President, it more and more looks, as Wells-Wallace says, that this is a hope that may not be realized. If that movement, however, is actually a "political revolution," as Bernie Sanders has proclaimed it, and if that movement is truly aimed at transforming the policies that govern the actions of the United States government, here and around the world, then the effort to make that change has just begun. 

I'm for Bernie for President, but I'm for that political revolution first and last, and I am not giving up!

Image Credit: 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/baltimore-and-the-future-of-protest-politics

#120 / Snapchat Politics

Jim Rutenberg, writing in the April 25, 2016 edition of The New York Times, says that the 2016 presidential campaign may be a "Snapchat election." As the headline on Rutenberg's article says, "In This Snapchat Campaign, Election News Is Big and Then It’s Gone."

I am presuming that readers of this blog post know about the Snapchat app. As originally designed, Snapchat lets you send a picture to a friend, with the picture then disappearing within about ten seconds after it has been viewed. The program is being augmented, I understand, to do much more, but that is the original, and still the basic, concept. 

The point of Rutenberg's article is that the real "facts" of what politicians have either done or said are increasingly irrelevant, because they are more and more transitory. His article is worth reading. 

If nothing counts in politics but perception, and even perception disappears within hours, or within days at the most, then we can't really have a politics based on either facts or truth. 

What do you think? That could be a problem!

Image Credit:

https://new.soldsie.com/blog/8-easy-ways-to-build-a-following-on-snapchat/

#119 / App Screens

The April 25, 2016 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle had an article in its Business Section that described a new company, Kamcord, that lets video gamers (and maybe you and me) go online with a continuous, live broadcast of whatever it is that we're doing. 

Kamcord will let you watch someone else play a video game. Would you find that fascinating? Well, millions of people apparently do, and we know, of course, that millions of people (correct that, probably hundreds of millions of people) enjoy watching live broadcasts of pornographic performances by rather ordinary young women, seated on their beds in the upstairs bedroom of the family home. I could give you a link or two for that, but that might take the fun out of exploring on your own. 

Here's the part of the Kamcord article that I thought worth highlighting: 

For many people, your phone screen is arguably more interesting than the world around you.... That’s why people stare at their phones for four to six hours a day. And now you’ll be able to share what is happening on your phone with the whole world.

If we are in danger of losing the "world around us" - that World of Nature that surrounds us, and that is ultimately the world upon which all life depends - part of the reason may be that we find "our" world so much more interesting. In other words, we want to have the "real" world beamed to us on a machine that humans have built, through a worldwide web of connections that humans have established. With that network, our human-built technologies tie real people to each other, but only through the medium of their "app screen."

I remember being really proud, when I was in college, when I learned what the esoteric word "disintermediate" meant. Look it up. The word actually has connotations beyond the strictly economic focus highlighted by Wikipedia.

My suggestion? Let's start disintermediating now. Back to the real world. Leave those "app screens" behind!

Image Credit:

http://www.beaglesloft.com/tracks

#118 / WHEE!!!

Michael Lissack is the Executive Director of the Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence. He is also President of the American Society for Cybernetics. In other words, Lissack is a "tech guy." It appears, however, that Lissack is also a "political guy," and he is predicting that Donald Trump will beat Hillary Clinton in November.

The headline on Lissack's blog posting on April 24, 2016 reads as follows: "What the media will never understand about Trump supporters."

I suspect the media will end up doing a better job of understanding Trump supporters than Lissack now predicts, but since Lissack is currently proclaiming that the media doesn't "get it," we are, of course, expecting Lissack to deliver the insights that he says the media won't, or can't.

Does Lissack deliver some important insight about Trump supporters? I think he does!

Here is what Lissack says about Trump supporters, his observations being presented by contrasting the Trump campaign with the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton: 

Traditional candidates such as Hillary Rodham Clinton run “I’m with her” campaigns. By “I’m with her” (which actually is HRC’s campaign slogan) the campaign defines the candidate using a set of archetypal stories, policy positions, and public appearances. That definition is presented to the public, and the candidate asks supporters to identify with the position. In effect, the definition of the candidate becomes a sorting mechanism — one either agrees with the prevailing definition or one does not. HRC, at this point in time, has similar negatives in terms of numbers as Donald Trump. But, HRC has nowhere near the fierce loyalty displayed by the Trump supporters. HRC is well defined — you are with her or you are not. 

Donald Trump is successfully running a “He’s with me” campaign... The difference between these two campaigns is what will make the 2016 election.

Politicians ... who seek to challenge the powers that be are not stuck running “I’m with her” campaigns. Indeed, HRC faced such a ... candidate in 2008. Barack Obama campaigned not on details but on the possibility of hope and change. Hope and change are and were vague. That vagueness allowed Obama supporters to see in the slogan whatever it was that they were hoping to have accomplished as a goal. Supporters’ hopes and dreams were the promise of candidate Obama. Not specifics. Not a definition. But the individual hopes and dreams of the individual supporters... In 2008, Barack Obama successfully ran a “He’s with me” campaign.

In 2016, it is Donald Trump who is running the “He’s with me” campaign. The vague promises to make America great again … I will make you feel good … I express your anger … I am your vehicle ... are all Donald-isms for “He’s with me,” [and] “He’s with me” will beat “I’m with her” every time. 

I do think that Lissack is making an important point, but I would argue that Trump and Hillary are more alike than different. Clinton is asking voters to give her, personally, the power of the Presidency. She promises to use that power to "fight for us." 

In the Clinton campaign, our job as voters is simply to pick the best candidate (Hillary), and she'll take over and do it all from there. Despite the fact that he promotes generalities rather than specifics, and mis leading voters to conclude that "He's with me," Trump is trying to sell us the same product. He, too, is urging the voters to "let him do it." He may be "vague" about what he is going to do, so that the voters can think that "he's with me," but Both Trump and Clinton are asking voters to elect them, so they, the elected officials, can take care of the problems, and realize our opportunities. Both Hillary and Trump are going to be "fighting for us," if elected. Both of these candidates tell us that they can take care of the challenges. All we have to do is give them a chance by voting them in. 

Lissack doesn't mention the OTHER major candidate still appealing to the voters for support. Bernie Sanders is that candidate. Unlike both Trump and Clinton, Sanders is not advertising what HE will do; he is calling on the voters to do it themselves! He has issued a call for a "political revolution," and what he is advertising is ongoing political participation.

So, I would draw the basic distinction differently from Lissack. I see the choice as being either "We," or "She" (or "He," if you like Trump). Is this campaign about picking someone to be in charge, or is the campaign about a collective effort to transform America?

Commentators have noted the incredible enthusiasm that Sanders has generated. I would call that the "Whee" factor. 

An appeal to our collective political engagement is incredibly energizing, because it is a call to return to what brought the nation into existence in the first place. Fundamentally, as long as there remains a commitment to democratic self-government, we are going to be less interested in the "I'm with her" or "he's with me" distinction than in the idea that WE are all in this together. 

Image Credit:

(1) - https://medium.com/@michael.lissack/what-the-media-will-never-understand-about-trump-supporters-a32c8b50f487#.2eqfat4fn

(2) - https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-urges-iowa-voters-finish-shopping-choose-her-035035554.html?ref=gs

(3) - https://codygough.com/2016/01/27/i-support-bernie-sanders-and-im-not-stupid-or-unrealistic/

#117 / King For King And Queen For Queen

Houston, Texas flooded in May 2015. It has flooded again in April 2016, with at least seven people dead this time around. 

This is just what I was talking about in the posting I made yesterday. 

We had better pay attention. 

Well, it's sugar for sugar 

And salt for salt 

If you go down in the flood 

It's gonna be your own fault

 Oh mama,

You gonna miss your best friend now 

You're gonna have to find yourself 

Another best friend, somehow

Image Credits: 
(1) (2) (3) (4) - https://weather.com/safety/floods/news/houston-flooding-wildest-images

(5) - http://abcnews.go.com/US/houston-flooding-dead-rain-expected/story?id=31302320

#116 / Looming Dark

Our foundation of Earth knowledge, largely derived from historically observed patterns, has been central to society’s progress. Early cultures kept track of nature’s ebb and flow, passing improved knowledge about hunting and agriculture to each new generation. Science has accelerated this learning process through advanced observation methods and pattern discovery techniques. These allow us to anticipate the future with a consistency unimaginable to our ancestors.

oooOOOooo

The observation above is from William Gail, writing in The New York Times. Gail tells us that "A New Dark Age Looms." Gail's vision is less horrific, I suppose, than the vision of Frank P. Fenner, whose prognostications I mentioned in my posting yesterday. Fenner predicts  that the entire human race will become extinct within the next 100 years.

Fenner was an eminent scientist, a virologist, and a Professor of Microbiology at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University, Canberra. Gail is a meteorologist, and his predictions about a looming "New Dark Age" derive from an observation that would come naturally to someone in his profession. Weird and unpredictable weather events, like the recent flooding in Houston, Texas, are one of the most noticeable results produced by the human-caused global warming that is putting human civilization at risk. 

According to Gail: 

As Earth warms, our historical understanding [the "Earth knowledge" cited by Gail above] will turn obsolete faster than we can replace it with new knowledge. Some patterns will change significantly; others will be largely unaffected, though it will be difficult to say what will change, by how much, and when. 

The list of possible disruptions is long and alarming. We could see changes to the prevalence of crop and human pests, like locust plagues set off by drought conditions; forest fire frequency; the dynamics of the predator-prey food chain; the identification and productivity of reliably arable land, and the predictability of agriculture output. 

Historians of the next century will grasp the importance of this decline in our ability to predict the future. They may mark the coming decades of this century as the period during which humanity, despite rapid technological and scientific advances, achieved “peak knowledge” about the planet it occupies. They will note that many decades may pass before society again attains the same level.

Fenner's point (and his prediction about the imminent extinction of the entire human race) is based on what he believes will be the inevitable consequence of human overpopulation and environmental destruction. Gail's somewhat less dramatic speculations are based on the fact that human activities have now altered the natural environment to such an extent that we can no longer rely on what used to be its predictable patterns of behavior. 

Both scientists are similarly noting that while humans have historically relied on the Earth to be the stable environment within which we can create a "human world," the extent of human activity within that human world has now grown to such a point, and has affected the natural environment to such an extent, that Nature can no longer be relied upon to sustain it (Fenner), or to provide it with a predicable environment upon which human beings can rely (Gail).

Humans have been acting as though "our" world is the only one that matters; yet, in fact, everything we do, and our very lives, depend upon the Earth, on the World of Nature that we did not create. 

Here's how Fenner would undoubtedly put it: "Learn that lesson or die."

Image Credit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/opinion/a-new-dark-age-looms.html?_r=0

#115 / Fenner Or Faulkner?

As the tides bring their tributes to the beach, so does the Internet deposit strange thoughts on the shores of my consciousness. 

Take that picture above, for instance, which accompanied an article claiming that "one of the world’s leading scientists, Professor Frank Fenner, has made a grim prediction: He says that humans will be completely WIPED OUT in 100 years, as overpopulation and environmental destruction will cause humans to become extinct in a matter of years." 

You can read the article for yourself by clicking this link.

While there is much truth in what the article says, and while I think we should pay heed to the warning it conveys, I have decided to pick Faulkner over Fenner. 

I say, with Faulkner: 

I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last ding dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. 

I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. 

The poet’s, the writer’s, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet’s voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.

This quote, from Faulkner's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, is pinned inside my closet, as it was pinned inside the closet of my father. I got that quote from him. It is a prized possession.  It is in this spirit, each day, that I write to whoever might read this Two Worlds blog. 

Image Credit:

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/06/humans-will-be-extinct-in-100-years-says-eminent-scientist/

#114 / Why Buddha Touched The Earth

The bhūmisparśa or "earth witness" mudra of Gautama Buddha is one of the most common images of Buddhism. It depicts the Buddha sitting in meditation with his left hand, palm upright, in his lap, and his right hand touching the earth.

oooOOOooo

John Stanley and David Loy have written an article titled, "Why the Buddha Touched the Earth." I came across the article in the April 2016 edition of Common Ground. Here's the passage that caught my attention:

In one of Buddhism’s iconic images, Gautama Buddha sits in meditation with his left palm upright on his lap, while his right hand touches the earth. Demonic forces have tried to unseat him, because their king, Mara, claims that place under the bodhi tree. As they proclaim their leader’s powers, Mara demands that Gautama produce a witness to confirm his spiritual awakening. The Buddha simply touches the earth with his right hand, and the Earth itself immediately responds: “I am your witness.” Mara and his minions vanish. The morning star appears in the sky. This moment of supreme enlightenment is the central experience from which the whole of the Buddhist tradition unfolds.

This story suggests to me that we realize our rightful place in existence when we acknowledge that we spring from, are connected to, and depend upon the Earth that sustains all life. 

When we forget our ultimate dependence on the Natural Environment, and act as though we can live in a world of our own creation, without conforming that world, and our behavior, to the requirements of the Earth, demonic and destructive powers will have their way. 

How can we doubt that? Just look around, today!

Image Credit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudra

#113 / Assisting Evolution

Elizabeth Kolbert has an article out in the April 18, 2016 edition of The New Yorker that Kolbert titles "Unnatural Selection." The article mainly tracks the work of Ruth Gates, a marine biologist who works at the Hawai'i Institute of Marine Biology, and who is trying to save coral, at a time when ocean acidification, caused by global warming, is threatening to kill all coral, everywhere. 

Gates is, according to Kolbert's report, "a glass half full sort of person." That characterization is meant to explain what keeps Gates going, in view of the incredibly powerful reasons to be pessimistic. The views of many scientists who study coral are summed up in this headline from The Guardian: "How global warming sealed the fate of the world's coral reefs." Note the past tense! 

Or, to pick another headline from The Guardian: "I was shocked: most of the coral in the Great Barrier Reef is dead or dying."

The "half full" optimism that Gates is able to muster is based on her work to create human designed coral reefs that will be "capable of withstanding human influence." In short, Gates says, "I am a futurist. Our project is acknowledging that a future is coming where nature is no longer fully natural."

Gates is part of an effort to supplant the World of Nature with a world that we create. Such a world will be able, perhaps, to "withstand human influence" because it will be a world actually created by human beings.

It may be, given our current situation, that we now have nowhere else to go but to attempt this type of substitution, since our human civilization, and human lives, are are so utterly dependent on the Natural World, a world in which we appear as creatures, not creators.

Kolbert's latest article on "Unnatural Selection" is, like all her writings, well worth reading. She definitely gives Gates' "half-full" approach a more than fair hearing. Between the lines, however, I think I sense on Kolbert's part a significant doubt that we can really substitute a human-created world for the World of Nature that our actions are destroying.

The coral reefs in the oceans of the globe are only one example of what we are doing to the World of Nature upon which we ultimately depend for everything.

Image Credit: 

http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/957967/positive-thinking

#112 / Precision Medicine

This Spring, a major conference on Precision Medicine will take place at the University of California at Santa Cruz. If you are unclear on what "Precision Medicine" is all about (I certainly was), just click the link, to see what the National Institutes of Health have to say about it. Or, to cut to the chase, you can read this very short summary of the longer NIH statement:

Precision medicine is an emerging approach for disease treatment and prevention that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle for each person. While some advances in precision medicine have been made, the practice is not currently in use for most diseases. 

We, as biologically determined creatures, are more and more delving into the intricate mechanisms that have encoded and implement the "laws" or "rules" that govern our biological existence. We are starting to tinker! The more we learn, the more we will do that, manipulating the genetic codes that determine so much about us as living beings, so we can write our own rules. 

Lots of positive benefits may be on the horizon. 

But dangers, too. 

Heads up!

Image Credit:

https://www.dtmi.duke.edu/news/precision-medicine-duke

#111 / Time Out Of Mind

I read The Wall Street Journal every morning, except on Sunday, when they don't publish. Last Friday, I learned that Amazon and Lions Gate Entertainment are going to collaborate on a new television series, based on songs by Bob Dylan. 

Apparently, the series will be titled "Time Out Of Mind," which is the title of one of Dylan's albums, released in 1997 and the recipient of three Grammy Awards. While the Time Out Of Mind album will provide the television series its overall title, I guess the individual episodes can reflect and refer to any of the 600-plus songs that Dylan has authored.

The Journal was mostly interested in the business aspects. I'll mainly be interested in how well the series conveys the insights and contents of the songs. I consider myself privileged to have been alive during the time that Bob Dylan has written and performed. He's up there with Shakespeare, in my opinion. I have a signed "Time Out Of Mind" poster in my home office, and I'm heading off to see Dylan when he next appears in the Bay Area, in June. 

I may even have to start watching TV!

Image Credit:

(1) - http://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-developing-tv-series-from-bob-dylan-songs-1460626381

(2) - Gary Patton personal photo

#110 / Callus

Today, a presidential primary election is taking place in the state of New York. Who will win those New York delegates? It's a consequential question. 

Last week, there was a debate between the candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, characterized by Reuters as a "Brooklyn brawl." A significant amount of news coverage about the debate and its aftermath focused on the "tone" of the exchanges between the candidates, and there was a lot of concern about the vituperative nature of the comments made by Sanders' partisans, or by those supporting Clinton.

Having been a political candidate myself, on six different occasions, I am well aware that political contests are often anything but "polite." Unlike some, I do not deplore this, though I am willing to observe that unconstrained negativity against one's opponent is often the opposite of effective, as a political strategy. 

My belief is that "politics" is supposed to be a contest. We, collectively, create a human world based on our collective decisions about what we should do, how we should allocate our resources, what kind of behavior we should encourage, and what sort of behavior we should discourage, or outright prohibit. 

Our "laws," which result from our political decisions, are essentially prescriptive. They tell us not what we have to do, but what we have decided we "ought" to do, and there is no "right" answer. There are usually at least two good arguments for any particular position or policy, and we need to have a spirited debate to illuminate the differences, so we can ultimately decide. Since the choices we will ultimately make are so charged with consequence, it is obvious that spirits are bound to run high, as the debate progresses. 

I do not deplore this. I think that spirited political exchanges are actually what we want, not what we should be attempting to avoid. From conflict and controversy, debate and division, will ultimately come the political decisions that will shape our collective future. That's what "politics" is supposed to be all about. 

That said, and remembering my comment that an unrestrained attack on one's opponent, or on his or her positions, is often contraindicated as a matter of good political strategy, our politics can only be successful in doing what it is supposed to do if the candidates, their supporters, and the public at large will "toughen up," and learn to endure and tolerate uncomfortable argumentation, which we sometimes find distasteful, as the way to get to good decisions.

I think we all need to develop a kind of "political callus," a toughening up of our "political thin skin," to absorb repeated and abrasive contacts that threaten to disturb and injure us. 

Nature provides a remedy when repeated abrasive contact threatens to injure our bodily skin. Candidates, their supporters, and the public at large need a comparable defense mechanism, so that we can bear the sometimes abrasive nature of political discourse, and then shake our callused hands at the end, and move on to implement our chosen decisions, to transform and change our world. 

Image Credit:

http://study.com/academy/lesson/callus-definition-formation-treatment.html

#109 / Facebook Tells Me What I Need To Know

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Jeffrey Herbst tells us that "the algorithm is an editor." Click the link to read his article. Herbst believes that social media, such as Facebook, are now effectively picking what news items we see, and thus defining the reality we experience. Herbst calls this new role "editorial," but the editorial aspects of the process he outlines go far beyond what has typically been thought of as the role played by a newspaper editor. 

A newspaper editor has the power to define the reality that will be experienced by the readers of the newspaper. All readers will see the world through the same window. When an "algorithm" makes editorial decisions, the algorithm does not do so on a "collective" basis, as in the case of a newspaper editor. The social media algorithm that will determine what news you see will present you with news packaged up for you on an "individual" basis. Each one of us will be presented with a view into reality that is crafted for our own, personal consumption. We will, in other words, no longer be able to be confident that we are living in a "common" world. 

There are lots of implications, as new technologies rearrange reality for us. One lesson: get out of the house more! Experience "the news" firsthand. The best way to do that is by "making" the news!

Image Credit:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-algorithm-is-an-editor-1460585346

#108 / David Brooks Does Tip O'Neill

David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times, has lots of self-confidence. Brooks regularly issues his rather Pontifical statements with a great deal of downbeat panache, and gives the impression that he knows more about whatever topic he's discussing than most other mortals ever could or will. Actually, I'm kidding about the "most."

Brooks' column on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, was modestly titled, "How To Fix Politics."

Brooks calls the current presidential campaign "depressing" (let's agree with him there, at least insofar as he is referring to the Republican Party proceedings, unless the word "scary" might seem a better fit). Brooks also deplores the loss of "middle ring" relationships, by which he means real relationships with real people whom one knows personally. These would be the people who live and/or work in the same general geographical, township level area that you do. 

I'll give a nod to David Brooks on that observation, too. I think that the failings of our politics are connected, as Brooks suggests, with a deterioration in our "civic life." This is a deterioration that Brooks bemoans.

Brooks ends his column with thoughts about how politics can be transformed by a "cultural shift," as we seek "the highest level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs." This is where I somewhat lose patience with Brooks' presentation, and remember my typical annoyed reaction to the almost always patronizing tone of Brooks' pronouncements.

In essence, Brooks argues, we are "asking too much" of politics, and we can only "salvage politics" by the "nurture [of] the thick local membership web that politics rests within."

I have a bit of a quarrel with the grammar of that sentence. Ending a sentence with a preposition, the preposition in this case being the word "within," is not what I was taught is grammatically proper. That criticism aside, I also have a rather negative reaction to the substance of what Brooks is saying, at the very end of this column. After all the "wind up," the characteristic, high-falutin' tone that Brooks employs boils down to this advice:

All politics is local.

Tip O'Neill said that, long before David Brooks pontificated, and I think O'Neill was right. 

Brooks is right, too, but basically because he agrees with O'Neill. He could just as well have referred us to O'Neill's book. Let me do that right here. If you want to help "fix politics," you'd be wise to take some tips from Tip O'Neill.

Image Credit: 

http://irishecho.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SpeakerONeill.jpg

#107 / Agency

The Merriam Webster Dictionary (online) has several definitions of the word "agency" that seem quite familiar. These definitions capture what the word "agency" meant to me as I progressed in my education from elementary school, to junior high school, to high school, to the university, and then on to law school: 

1a: the office or function of an agent; b: the relationship between a principal and that person's agent 

2: a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved: instrumentality  

3: an establishment engaged in doing business for another  

4: an administrative division (as of a government)

"Agency" has most traditionally meant either a company of some kind that works for another, as an insurance agency, for instance; or as an advertising agency. The same sense of the word applies with respect to governmental "agencies" of various kinds, denoting an institution that works for another.

Alternatively, and this is the more specifically "legal" definition, the word "agency" speaks of an arrangement by which one person (the agent) is officially commissioned by another, who is called the "principal," to act on behalf of the principal. There was a whole course on this kind of "agency" in my law school curriculum. Key questions included the responsibility of the principal for the acts of the agent, in various circumstances.

When I hear or see the word "agency" being used today, however, and particularly as I have listened to how the word is used by the students I teach in the Legal Studies program at the University of California, Santa Cruz, I am struck by the fact that the word "agency" is now often employed in a rather different way from the way I remember it being used in the past. A recent article on sex and teenage girls provides a good example: "In a prevailing view, girls have no agency of their own..."

The Wikipedia definition captures this different usage in its listing titled, Agency (sociology):

In social science, agency is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices ... One's agency is one's independent capability or ability to act on one's will. 

Traditionally, "agency" referred to a situation in which an "agent," or an "agency," worked for someone else. Two people, or two entities, were always involved. Now, "agency" means my own, personal ability to act independently. That seems to be a completely different thing.

I haven't taken the time to research exactly how, when, or why this transition in word usage occurred, but I do find myself being surprised at what this expression has come to mean, as I hear students talking about their "agency," or some other person's "agency."

To my ear, "agency" in this more current usage sounds something like "personal freedom," or "my ability to take action."

Whatever word you want to use, I'm in favor of that!

Image Credit:

http://www.mediator.co.uk/news/evolving-agency-landscape/

#106 / Just A Few More Words...

In yesterday's blog posting, I cited a recent article by Naomi Klein (pictured above). Her article is titled, "We’re out of time on climate change. And Hillary Clinton helped get us here."

I have just a "few more words" I want to highlight today, as a summary of Klein's argument that Bernie Sanders, rather than Hillary Clinton, should be elected President of the United States this November. 

Commenting on what she sees as the Clinton worldview, Klein makes this observation:  

At the centre of it all is the canonical belief that change comes not by confronting the wealthy and powerful but by partnering with them. 

That's not the right approach, says Klein.

I have to say that I agree.

That's not the right approach, says Klein

That's not the right approach, says me.

Image Credit:

http://www.john-adams.nl/naomi-klein/

#105 / Four Or Eight Years

Naomi Klein, a very credible commentator on the global warming crisis that confronts human civilization, has written a book about the crisis called, This Changes Everything. More recently, Klein has written an article titled, "We're Out of Time on Climate Change."

Klein's recent article, the basis for this blog posting, discusses the Democratic primary campaign for the Presidency, focusing specifically on Hillary Clinton's claim that Bernie Sanders has been "lying," insofar as the Sanders' campaign has pointed out that lobbyists tied to the fossil fuel industry have been providing significant funding for Clinton's Presidential bid. 

A video that went viral showed Hillary Clinton shoving her finger in the face of a young Greenpeace organizer, who was seeking a commitment from Clinton that Clinton's campaign would refuse fossil fuel money. Clinton denied any such support (although the facts are very clear that her campaign has received multiple millions of dollars from the oil and gas industry). In an exchange some time later, Clinton stated that the young people who seem so concerned about what fossil fuel money is doing to American politics are simply failing to "do their own research," making themselves susceptible to what Clinton has claimed are "lies" originating from the Sanders' campaign.

Eva Resnick-Day, the 26-year-old Greenpeace activist who elicited the "I'm so sick” finger-in-the-face response from Clinton, has a very moving perspective on just how fateful this election is, and how much hangs in the balance. Responding to Clinton’s claim that young people “don’t do their own research,” Resnick-Day told Democracy Now!:

As a youth movement, we have done our own research, and that is why we are so terrified for the future…. Scientists are saying that we have half the amount of time that we thought we did to tackle climate change before we go over the tipping point. And because of that, youth—the people that are going to have to inherit and deal with this problem—are incredibly worried. What happens in the next four or eight years could determine the future of our planet and the human species. And that’s why we’re out there…asking the tough questions to all candidates: to make sure that whoever is in office isn’t going to continue things as they’ve been, but take a real stand to tackle climate change in a meaningful and deep way for the future of our planet.

I added the emphasis. I highlighted those significant words: "four or eight years." Eva Resnick-Day may be right, and "four or eight years" may be all the time we have left to make the dramatic changes we need to make. Naomi Klein, a credible voice, suggests that "we're out of time on climate change."

Maybe we are out of time. Or, maybe, like the Golden State Warriors have done so often during the basketball season just ended, we can find it within ourselves, in a final few minutes, to take the actions we need to take to change our fate.

There is no doubt that Greenpeace is right in trying to get pledges from the candidates that they will refuse all oil and gas industry donations. Whether a candidate is, or is not, beholden to the fossil fuel industry should make a huge difference, as we cast our votes. 

Who we elect as President will be of preeminent importance, if we only have "four or eight years."

Image Credit:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/07/out-of-time-climate-change-hillary-clinton

#104 / Arendt On Film

You can read Roger Berkowitz' review of this new film by clicking this link. Berkowitz is the Academic Director of The Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities at Bard College, and his comments on anything related to Arendt are always worth reading. 

Here is the Arendt quote from the Berkowitz review that I want to highlight (he complains that the filmmaker has altered the quote; I'm sticking with the original wording): 

What the masses refuse to recognize is the fortuitousness that pervades reality. They are predisposed to all ideologies because they explain facts as mere examples of laws and eliminate coincidences by inventing an all-embracing omnipotence, which is supposed to be at the root of every accident. Totalitarian propaganda thrives on this escape from reality into fiction, from coincidence into consistency…Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrine, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself.

It is important, I think, to see that Arendt correlates totalitarianism with a predisposition to "explain facts as mere examples of laws..." 

As I frequently note, in discussing my "Two Worlds" hypothesis, the World of Nature, upon which all life ultimately depends, is governed by "natural laws" that perfectly describe what happens in that world, and what must happen, because such laws, when we have learned enough about the Natural World that we can define them, are purely "descriptive" of a reality that is a given to all humans. Within the World of Nature, we act as creatures, not creators, and we are subject to the laws that govern the Natural World.

In the "human world," the world we most immediately inhabit, and a world that we create, "law" denotes a completely different phenomenon. None of the human laws that we utilize to govern our collective behavior must be obeyed. Human laws can be "broken," unlike the laws that govern the Natural World. Our human laws are not "descriptive" of what must and will happen; they are "prescriptive," and they tell us what we have decided we want or ought to do. 

Within the realm of the human world that we create, a world we create, in fact, largely by articulating and then following "laws" of human design, law is the locus of human freedom. 

Totalitarians shy from freedom, both from a reluctance to submit to the demands that freedom imposes, and from a fear of the vast unknown universe of possibility that freedom makes available to us. 

As usual, Arendt is spot on!

Image Credit:

https://medium.com/amor-mundi/the-cynicism-of-paraphrasing-a-review-of-vita-activa-the-spirit-of-hannah-arendt-43b319826128#.89xxrrca2

#103 / Can We Talk?

Click on this link to be connected to an inspiring article in the April 10, 2016 edition of The New York Times Magazine. The article is titled, "Can We Talk?" and it documents the success of the Leadership LAB, a Los Angeles-based organization that "organizes and empowers communities to defeat anti-LGBT prejudice locally, and through hands-on mentorship with activists from around the world."

If we create the human world that we most immediately inhabit through politics (and we do), and if we want to change that world (which I am pretty sure we also want to do), then we have to find a way to make politics transformative. 

Read the article. 

The Leadership LAB has demonstrated that it is possible to "change voters minds...by having a conversation."

It seems that we can use the "talking cure."

In fact, that's probably the only prescription that is going to work!

Image Credit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/magazine/how-do-you-change-voters-minds-have-a-conversation.html?_r=0

#102 / These Coming Crests

For The Children

Gary Snyder

The rising hills, the slopes,
of statistics
lie before us.
The steep climb
of everything, going up,
up, as we all
go down.

In the next century
or the one beyond that,
they say,
are valleys, pastures,
we can meet there in peace
if we make it.

To climb these coming crests
one word to you, to
you and your children:

stay together
learn the flowers
go light

Image Credit:

http://www.smuggs.com/pages/universal/view-blog/2014/05/

#101 / 48 Hills On Housing

There are forty-seven named hills in San Francisco, and "one more hill to climb." That's the explanation that Editor Tim Redmond provides for the name of his unabashedly liberal daily newspaper about politics and life in San Francisco. 

48 Hills is daily, and it's online. It's also free to subscribe, and I do. Look for the subscription box at the bottom right hand corner of the home page. Of course, you can also donate, and even take a tax deduction for the contribution. I do that, too. If you care about politics, and especially about politics in San Francisco, I think you should probably check out 48 Hills. The television interview from which the photo has been taken will give you some more background. 

On April 5th, Tim Redmond turned his attention to inclusionary housing, and to the fact that liberal economist Paul Krugman doesn't seem really to "get it." Krugman's approach is to solve housing problems by letting developers build more housing. More housing, more density, more supply: surely that will mean that the price will go down, right?

Actually, not! And that's the point that Redmond makes:

Krugman is great on a lot of big national economic issues. He’s terrible when it comes to cities. 

The guy famously came out against rent control years ago, when any urban economist with any sense knows that rent control is one of the most powerful [tools to prevent] displacement. It’s what makes an urban middle class possible in a city like San Francisco. 

And now he’s saying that cities need to reduce zoning rules and allow more housing, of any height, pretty much anywhere. He praises the idea that NY Mayor DeBlasio is pushing, which is similar to what SF Mayor Lee is pushing, which in essence cedes to the private market the responsibility to provide affordable housing and assumes that some modest percentage of “affordable” units in luxury towers that are geared to the same crooks and despots now in the news will be a real solution to the urban housing crisis.

Here's how Redmond completed his Krugman critique: 

I shouldn’t have to keep saying this, but I will: You need to build at least 30 percent affordable housing in every luxury project just to stay even, and not make things worse. Which means if you want to add to the stock of affordable housing, you have to force developers to build 40, 50, 60 percent of the units for people of more modest means.

Krugman ought to know that the middle class in an American city is not a natural consequence of capitalism. It requires strict regulations and controls. It means, sometimes, slowing down the booms that make a few rich so that the rest of us have a chance, too.

That’s perfect liberalism, in the old school. Except that these great scholars and writers (and politicians) don’t seem to want to bring those policies back home

Redmond's right, and his prescription works for Santa Cruz, just as much as for San Francisco. 

Don't let the developers build anything at all unless 50% or more of what they build will be permanently price-restricted to be available for sale or rent to persons with average or below average incomes. 

That's called "inclusionary housing."

That, not more market rate density, is what we need!

Image Credit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6d00IXk5Hg