Hopefully if you are enlightened enough to be reading the Manifesto you are familiar with the fact that we share 97% of our DNA with chimps. This gives rise to myriad analogies and comparisons between us and our closest relatives.
Chimps are warlike, they fight with other troops. This gives justification to our ideas about war with other countries, other races, any old Other. Chimps have an alpha male structure. This is used to justify our societal structure, in which aggressive, dominant males are rewarded, other males are forced to be subservient, and females are just oppressed outright.
Yes, humans share many of these traits (unfortunately). And so do most other primate species, so it would seem that this is just part of our nature, right?
Wrong. I would suggest that we have another alternative: the bonobo. Once called "pygmy chimps," bonobos are in fact a separate species, and they possess radically different social behaviors. Instead of using aggression and dominance to solve social conflicts, they use sex. Really! They are the original "free love" movement! And instead of being alpha-dominated, the have a more egalitarian society.
So why, when we have two choices before us, do we choose the more warlike? Ok, I know that 99% of the answer is that most people have never heard of bonobos. But the other part is that people don't want to believe it. They don't want to believe that we just might have some socialism in our true natures. They don't want to believe that we are wired to solve our problems with love instead of hate.
The truth is, we'll never know. But what if, instead of believing the standard chimp path....what if we believed in our bonobo possibilities?
Monday, April 26, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Why Tea and Guns Don't Mix
You may have heard about the "Anti Tax" rallies that were held (coincidentally?) on April 19, the 10th anniversary of the Oklahoma Bombing (ie, major act of domestic terror). I read some comments that were just so over the top that I had to ponder them for a few days.
First, let's get it straight that I am not anti-gun. I've shot guns, I've had to carry guns for work (bear protection!). I am a-ok with the GENERAL idea of gun owership. What I'm not ok with is completely unregulated ownership -- but then I'm such a commie treehugger that I'm not into unregulated anything....
So, the quote I read (over on HuffPo, if you want to see yourself) was essentially this (paraphrased): If you don't buy health insurance, they'll come to arrest you, and you'll need your gun then to resist.
Ok, let's just put aside the fact that it is COMPLETELY LUDICRIOUS that there will be roving squads of insurance-checking cops. Seriously, this guy is advocating ARMED RESISTANCE TO ARREST??????
There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to begin and remain civil. Maybe I should explain to the tea-bagging nutters that the long and honored tradition of resistance is called CIVIL disobedience for a reason. Perhaps I should point out that no sane human being, ever, has advocated fatal armament against lawful arrest. Perhaps I should point out just how fucking stupid this is.
I know it's useless to ask, but exactly why is having a little screening on gun buyers a violation of one's rights? After all, if one is a crazy motherfucker, perhaps he/she shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Maybe it's ok to allow, say, hunting guns, but not handguns and assault machines like AK 47s. I mean really, do you honestly think you need either of those in your daily life? Do you think that is what the Fathers envisioned? I am pretty sure that Jefferson and friends would agree that such weapons are beyond the scope of Amendment #2.
Of course, Amendment #1 protects your right to be a dumbass, so there you have it.
First, let's get it straight that I am not anti-gun. I've shot guns, I've had to carry guns for work (bear protection!). I am a-ok with the GENERAL idea of gun owership. What I'm not ok with is completely unregulated ownership -- but then I'm such a commie treehugger that I'm not into unregulated anything....
So, the quote I read (over on HuffPo, if you want to see yourself) was essentially this (paraphrased): If you don't buy health insurance, they'll come to arrest you, and you'll need your gun then to resist.
Ok, let's just put aside the fact that it is COMPLETELY LUDICRIOUS that there will be roving squads of insurance-checking cops. Seriously, this guy is advocating ARMED RESISTANCE TO ARREST??????
There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to begin and remain civil. Maybe I should explain to the tea-bagging nutters that the long and honored tradition of resistance is called CIVIL disobedience for a reason. Perhaps I should point out that no sane human being, ever, has advocated fatal armament against lawful arrest. Perhaps I should point out just how fucking stupid this is.
I know it's useless to ask, but exactly why is having a little screening on gun buyers a violation of one's rights? After all, if one is a crazy motherfucker, perhaps he/she shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Maybe it's ok to allow, say, hunting guns, but not handguns and assault machines like AK 47s. I mean really, do you honestly think you need either of those in your daily life? Do you think that is what the Fathers envisioned? I am pretty sure that Jefferson and friends would agree that such weapons are beyond the scope of Amendment #2.
Of course, Amendment #1 protects your right to be a dumbass, so there you have it.
Monday, April 19, 2010
He Said/She Said: the next chapter
ecnaveterbor responds!
Taxes pay for all systems of government, chosen in our case (arguable), or, imposed in other countries, thus; we all serve the system that governs us. In America our economic system is capitalism which generates the money that drives our economy which, in turn, supports our government. There is no getting around that point. It really doesn't matter who you work for (government or private enterprise) because we all pay taxes. In my opinion, all of our jobs are of equal importance and all jobs require sacrifice. The commuter who dies on the freeway or the soldier who dies in the field both die serving their country. Surly, the soldier’s sacrifice makes more sense in the grand scheme of things; however, I don’t think we should forget the commuter either because his/her income generates the taxes which support the soldier. I guess what I am trying to say is that dead is dead and that life is precarious. Honor and sacrifice are just words used by the living to cope with the fact that we are all going to die.
You are correct in pointing out my mistake. I did mix up our economic system with our democratic system of government. I did not follow my thoughts according to the proper order of things. I stand corrected.
The founders wanted little to no interference; that is no interference from the government, religion or with the economy. *This is a point that will require research. It would, most likely, be a good exercise for all Americans to investigate their origins.*
Anyhow, what a great point you make regarding interference!!!
The anti-monopoly stuff came about during the industrial revolution and that was the beginning of free market regulation and the beginning of big government as well. Who is to say what the worst evil is? There is plenty of evidence of malevolence from both rampant capitalism and runaway big government (world wide). And, let us not forget the damage caused by big religion. Moreover, all governmental/monetary systems in the last century have failed, at least to some degree or entirely i.e. democracy/capitalism, socialism, communism and fascism.
Taxes pay for all systems of government, chosen in our case (arguable), or, imposed in other countries, thus; we all serve the system that governs us. In America our economic system is capitalism which generates the money that drives our economy which, in turn, supports our government. There is no getting around that point. It really doesn't matter who you work for (government or private enterprise) because we all pay taxes. In my opinion, all of our jobs are of equal importance and all jobs require sacrifice. The commuter who dies on the freeway or the soldier who dies in the field both die serving their country. Surly, the soldier’s sacrifice makes more sense in the grand scheme of things; however, I don’t think we should forget the commuter either because his/her income generates the taxes which support the soldier. I guess what I am trying to say is that dead is dead and that life is precarious. Honor and sacrifice are just words used by the living to cope with the fact that we are all going to die.
You are correct in pointing out my mistake. I did mix up our economic system with our democratic system of government. I did not follow my thoughts according to the proper order of things. I stand corrected.
The founders wanted little to no interference; that is no interference from the government, religion or with the economy. *This is a point that will require research. It would, most likely, be a good exercise for all Americans to investigate their origins.*
Anyhow, what a great point you make regarding interference!!!
The anti-monopoly stuff came about during the industrial revolution and that was the beginning of free market regulation and the beginning of big government as well. Who is to say what the worst evil is? There is plenty of evidence of malevolence from both rampant capitalism and runaway big government (world wide). And, let us not forget the damage caused by big religion. Moreover, all governmental/monetary systems in the last century have failed, at least to some degree or entirely i.e. democracy/capitalism, socialism, communism and fascism.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
He Said/She Said: I lob the ball back!
First of all, my friend, these ideas are not "irksome." I love nothing more than intellectual discourse.
You claim that we cannot be socialist or have socialist ideas because we are designed to be a capitalist culture. That is somewhat accurate. The Founders definitely envisoned a country with a certain level of free enterprise. However, they also had a deep sense of the common good.
What the Founders sought to create was a democratic republic. Not a captialistic republic. Their aim was democracy, not an economic system. That came later. Their focus was on individual liberties and rules of governance, not the marketplace. In fact, they set up several things to avoid corportist culture. I'll be damned if I can remember any of them, but I know I heard Thom Hartmann talking about this just recently. Like the whole concept of corporate personhood (which is complete and total BS) -- there was something the Founders set up to avoid that very idea. Go search around Thom's site for details.
In any event, your response doesn't really respond to the original hypothesis that in a capitalist society we all serve our country. In a capitalist society, we only serve our masters -- ie, those with power over the paycheck. Captialism as an economic system contains nothing regarding social values or the commonwealth. It's all about the individual, and therefore, inherently selfish.
Which is not to say that capitalism is evil. Or even that pure socialism is the best. As with most things, the neither extreme is optimal. When I say socialism, I mean what they have in Europe. It's a blend of both systems. It does not eliminate personal/private wealth (like pure Marxism), but neither does it glorify the "free market." Anyone with the slightest understanding of our current economic structure (and, ahem, crisis) can see that unregulated capitalism is dangerous. In fact, I'd bet money that unregulated corporatism is exactly opposite to what Jefferson et al had in mind.
There is a myth about America. It's that we are a nation founded on the ideals of individualism, in relation to economic success. That if we just work hard enough, we can achieve anything. That has never been true and never will. Our individualism is in regards to freedoms -- of religion, of speech, of thought, of belief -- and yes, I suppose the freedom to be a capitalistic asshole. It's really about freedom from oppression, from King George, from a dictatorial government, from our corporate master.
The bottom line is: there's no reason we can't have economic success AND social commonwealth. People just need to get off their "I hate the guvment" barstools and really think for a moment. I know that will be painful for some. But you know it's the truth.
You claim that we cannot be socialist or have socialist ideas because we are designed to be a capitalist culture. That is somewhat accurate. The Founders definitely envisoned a country with a certain level of free enterprise. However, they also had a deep sense of the common good.
What the Founders sought to create was a democratic republic. Not a captialistic republic. Their aim was democracy, not an economic system. That came later. Their focus was on individual liberties and rules of governance, not the marketplace. In fact, they set up several things to avoid corportist culture. I'll be damned if I can remember any of them, but I know I heard Thom Hartmann talking about this just recently. Like the whole concept of corporate personhood (which is complete and total BS) -- there was something the Founders set up to avoid that very idea. Go search around Thom's site for details.
In any event, your response doesn't really respond to the original hypothesis that in a capitalist society we all serve our country. In a capitalist society, we only serve our masters -- ie, those with power over the paycheck. Captialism as an economic system contains nothing regarding social values or the commonwealth. It's all about the individual, and therefore, inherently selfish.
Which is not to say that capitalism is evil. Or even that pure socialism is the best. As with most things, the neither extreme is optimal. When I say socialism, I mean what they have in Europe. It's a blend of both systems. It does not eliminate personal/private wealth (like pure Marxism), but neither does it glorify the "free market." Anyone with the slightest understanding of our current economic structure (and, ahem, crisis) can see that unregulated capitalism is dangerous. In fact, I'd bet money that unregulated corporatism is exactly opposite to what Jefferson et al had in mind.
There is a myth about America. It's that we are a nation founded on the ideals of individualism, in relation to economic success. That if we just work hard enough, we can achieve anything. That has never been true and never will. Our individualism is in regards to freedoms -- of religion, of speech, of thought, of belief -- and yes, I suppose the freedom to be a capitalistic asshole. It's really about freedom from oppression, from King George, from a dictatorial government, from our corporate master.
The bottom line is: there's no reason we can't have economic success AND social commonwealth. People just need to get off their "I hate the guvment" barstools and really think for a moment. I know that will be painful for some. But you know it's the truth.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
He Said/She Said: Guest Blogger Debate!
My very dear friend ecnaveterbor read my post about Serving One's Country and posited the following hypothesis: in a capitalist society, we all serve our country.
I disagreed and said: In a capitalist society, we all serve ourselves. It is only when there is an "institutionalized" understanding of the common good that we get societal service all around.
At this point, we agreed that some online debate would be fun, so enjoy!!!! I hope to post follow ups to this as we proceed!
In the beginning.....ecnaveterbor said:
I can see that you are ramping up here and looking for some feedback. It is surprising that no one has commented. Your way of thinking (according to the writing) is prevalent amongst many liberal minded folks. And, most are passionate. I do not know how these sites are found; perhaps, it is difficult.
Regarding this post, I don’t know if I can fully agree. Here is why: We are designed to be a corporate culture. I do not have time to cite examples and do wish I did because I am fairly certain that this whole idea of socialism in America is in direct contradiction with our entire societal and governmental structure as written by our founding fathers. These are the beginning moments of my thesis statement. This is cool. You will be able to see it blossom (if I stick with it) into something more. Raw data for GeekChick…
I realize that these ideas are irksome to you; however, open your mind and let the ideas simmer. I am not talking about which system is better nor am I trying to win you over. Currently, Americans are trying to meld opposing systems together without a consensus. No one knows what or who they are anymore. This is compounded by the fact that our education system (as a whole) does not allow people to come away able to think critically and; therefore, we are stuck in a quagmire of slogans and sound bites. That is as much as the average person can comprehend and regurgitate. You can see how no one child is left behind. I am way off point. You will not see a right wing or left wing view from me although you will see something different. I want to take a walk down the road not taken. You know the one that the designers or our constitution and way of life may have intended without all of the current confusion. I am a dreamer, I know.
****************
I need to let this simmer before replying. So you, loyal reader, can do the same. Think about ecnaveterbor's words. I will reply soon.......
I disagreed and said: In a capitalist society, we all serve ourselves. It is only when there is an "institutionalized" understanding of the common good that we get societal service all around.
At this point, we agreed that some online debate would be fun, so enjoy!!!! I hope to post follow ups to this as we proceed!
In the beginning.....ecnaveterbor said:
I can see that you are ramping up here and looking for some feedback. It is surprising that no one has commented. Your way of thinking (according to the writing) is prevalent amongst many liberal minded folks. And, most are passionate. I do not know how these sites are found; perhaps, it is difficult.
Regarding this post, I don’t know if I can fully agree. Here is why: We are designed to be a corporate culture. I do not have time to cite examples and do wish I did because I am fairly certain that this whole idea of socialism in America is in direct contradiction with our entire societal and governmental structure as written by our founding fathers. These are the beginning moments of my thesis statement. This is cool. You will be able to see it blossom (if I stick with it) into something more. Raw data for GeekChick…
I realize that these ideas are irksome to you; however, open your mind and let the ideas simmer. I am not talking about which system is better nor am I trying to win you over. Currently, Americans are trying to meld opposing systems together without a consensus. No one knows what or who they are anymore. This is compounded by the fact that our education system (as a whole) does not allow people to come away able to think critically and; therefore, we are stuck in a quagmire of slogans and sound bites. That is as much as the average person can comprehend and regurgitate. You can see how no one child is left behind. I am way off point. You will not see a right wing or left wing view from me although you will see something different. I want to take a walk down the road not taken. You know the one that the designers or our constitution and way of life may have intended without all of the current confusion. I am a dreamer, I know.
****************
I need to let this simmer before replying. So you, loyal reader, can do the same. Think about ecnaveterbor's words. I will reply soon.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)