The Iranian movie “A Separation” is really about interpersonal clashes that can occur in any country. However, it is a glimpse into the lives of people in different classes and their hopes and concerns.
The take away for anybody with an open mind is that we are not at war with people in many countries. People in other countries have their hopes and dreams, jobs and responsibilities, and can care for one another as well as get into unreasonable disputes.
Showing posts with label charity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charity. Show all posts
Friday, March 03, 2017
Monday, November 16, 2015
Bombs only lead to more bullets
In response to the attacks in Paris, many countries are ready to bomb more ISIS territory even more than they already have. This may work against standing armies, but will it work against a constant recruiting machine that uses the bombing to show how "Islam is under attack."
Put another way: drone bombers create more drone soldiers.
A much better strategy would be dropping leaflets with Koranic verses of charity and forgiveness. Just like some "Christians" select verses from the Bible to justify punitive actions against those that disagree with them, there are "Muslims" who select verses from the Koran to justify their punitive actions. Just like many real Christians select verses from the Bible to lead a life of charity, there are Muslims who select verses from the Koran to lead a life of charity.
What would be the costs of millions of leaflets of Koranic verses of charity versus the costs of hundreds of bombs? Being bopped on the head by a dropped book may change a lot more minds than being bopped on the head by a dropped bomb.
Put another way: drone bombers create more drone soldiers.
A much better strategy would be dropping leaflets with Koranic verses of charity and forgiveness. Just like some "Christians" select verses from the Bible to justify punitive actions against those that disagree with them, there are "Muslims" who select verses from the Koran to justify their punitive actions. Just like many real Christians select verses from the Bible to lead a life of charity, there are Muslims who select verses from the Koran to lead a life of charity.
What would be the costs of millions of leaflets of Koranic verses of charity versus the costs of hundreds of bombs? Being bopped on the head by a dropped book may change a lot more minds than being bopped on the head by a dropped bomb.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Wouldn't true Christians be soft-hearted rather than hard-nosed?
The title of this entry is what came to my mind on reading David Brooks "The Next Culture War", New York Times, 2015-06-30, http://nyti.ms/1JmVd1w.
"Social conservatives are poised to heal broken pieces of society: they should do so rather than continuing to fight battles that are already over."
Rather than give emphasis to the tribal mentality of the Old Testament, wouldn't true Christians follow the "second greatest commandment", to love thy neighbor?
"Social conservatives are poised to heal broken pieces of society: they should do so rather than continuing to fight battles that are already over."
Rather than give emphasis to the tribal mentality of the Old Testament, wouldn't true Christians follow the "second greatest commandment", to love thy neighbor?
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Do we really have a five-party “system”?
Many commentators write about the “two-party system” as if it were enshrined in the Constitution. Actually, the writers of the Constitution feared factionalism. They thought their document would bring about a system of considered deliberation and reasoned arguments.
Unfortunately, factionalism reared its ugly head quite quickly. John Adams, a signer of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, a non-signer, soon fell into animosity about the direction of government. They did reconcile their differences in their elder years, but their dispute lingered in the Whig and Democratic parties.
The Whig party went into decline when several Whigs formed the Republican Party, partly because of opposition to the extension of slavery and partly because of support of modernization. Ironically, one of the Republican slogans was “Free Labor” as opposed to slave labor.
Over time, the parties’ basic tenets changed with changing times. The Republicans essentially became the party of Big Business and the Democrats became the party of the People. But these were not fixed ideologies. The parties adjusted their ideas to the times. Republicans put forth ideas that favored a “government for the people” and the Democrats put forward ideas that were corporate-friendly or status quo. Many commentators referred to the two parties as “big tent” parties; that is, all were welcome if they held loosely to a few basic tenets.
Then somewhere in the eighties or maybe even earlier, the Republicans morphed into a hard-nosed, doctrinaire party. The days of the RINO (Republican in Name Only) began. Some very stellar Republican politicians who got things done for the greater good were no longer welcome. The Republicans also drew in many evangelicals who knew exactly what God wanted; just the kind of religious influence that the signers of the Constitution worried about. The signers were very aware of the differences among denominations and didn’t want to favor one over the other.
The result of all these changes have left many would-be voters, and even regular voters dismayed. As the parties have hardened in their stances, many people see government as dysfunctional and more partisan than deliberative. Remember that phrase describing the U.S. Senate as “the greatest deliberative body in the world”? I’ll agree to the “deliberate” part, “deliberate” grandstanding for minor electoral advantage.
Back to the signers of the Constitution: I think they had in mind a constituency who knew the men they were electing, if not personally, at least by reputation. Now we know our candidates by the slick literature they send out and the amount of TV exposure they get. Unfortunately, third parties spend millions smearing the candidates based on private interest, not the public good that the candidates may promote.
My solution to all this mismatch of ideas and actions is either all candidates are independents selected on the merits they project or candidates are loosely organized into parties that reflect their own interest.
My choices for parties would be Libertarian, Business, Evangelical, Charity, and Common Good.
The Libertarian Party would be almost anti-government. To them, the individual is primary, government just gets in the way of freedom. Taxes are just stealing money. Laws are for other people.
The Business Party would be all in support of large corporations with a bit of a sop to small businesses. Taxes and regulations just get in the way of corporations “returning value” to their shareholders.
The Evangelical Party would be Bible-centric and would pass laws pushing for more religion in government and for how all should behave, both in public and private.
The Charity Party would take up the causes of those groups who they feel are disenfranchised by government or society. This Party is difficult to criticize because there are many people with problems that they did not create. On the other hand, many people in a given group have managed without the Charity Party’s help.
Finally, the Common Good Party is my party (if I were to cease being a Party of One). This is the party that takes seriously “General Welfare” and “Common Defense” in the Constitution. The Common Good Party is concerned with infrastructure, safety regulations, commercial laws, and many other laws and expenditures that help promote a prosperous society.
The Libertarian Party ignores how much it depends on government. What if a libertarian had been defrauded. Would that person depend on a tax-supported court to seek reparation? Or would the Libertarian have it out with six-guns on the streets of Laredo?
The Business Party is similar to the Libertarian Party with the emphasis on large organizations rather than individuals. But would a modern corporation survive without public schools to train a large number of people in increasingly complicated skills, without roads to move its goods around, without police and courts to seek redress for those who would harm the corporation?
The Evangelical Party seems to pick and choose what Bible verses to use. Two that it seems to me that they ignore most are “Be not like the hypocrites who pray in public to be seen by men…” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” One could also say the writers of the Constitution were all to familiar with the picking and choosing done by various sects; that’s why they wanted “no religious test”.
The Charity Party’s hearts are in the right place, but the number of problems is so large that many people can’t put their hearts and souls into all those the Charity Party thinks are important. Government does need a few members of this party just to keep some of issues on the table.
We probably will never have a single Common Good Party because people never agree on the priorities. This gets back to the Constitution which didn’t really define “General Welfare”. We do need to have more people who run for office speak out for the common good rather than promote a private interest.
Mel keeps wishing for a majority government, but he keeps seeing a minority voting.
Unfortunately, factionalism reared its ugly head quite quickly. John Adams, a signer of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, a non-signer, soon fell into animosity about the direction of government. They did reconcile their differences in their elder years, but their dispute lingered in the Whig and Democratic parties.
The Whig party went into decline when several Whigs formed the Republican Party, partly because of opposition to the extension of slavery and partly because of support of modernization. Ironically, one of the Republican slogans was “Free Labor” as opposed to slave labor.
Over time, the parties’ basic tenets changed with changing times. The Republicans essentially became the party of Big Business and the Democrats became the party of the People. But these were not fixed ideologies. The parties adjusted their ideas to the times. Republicans put forth ideas that favored a “government for the people” and the Democrats put forward ideas that were corporate-friendly or status quo. Many commentators referred to the two parties as “big tent” parties; that is, all were welcome if they held loosely to a few basic tenets.
Then somewhere in the eighties or maybe even earlier, the Republicans morphed into a hard-nosed, doctrinaire party. The days of the RINO (Republican in Name Only) began. Some very stellar Republican politicians who got things done for the greater good were no longer welcome. The Republicans also drew in many evangelicals who knew exactly what God wanted; just the kind of religious influence that the signers of the Constitution worried about. The signers were very aware of the differences among denominations and didn’t want to favor one over the other.
The result of all these changes have left many would-be voters, and even regular voters dismayed. As the parties have hardened in their stances, many people see government as dysfunctional and more partisan than deliberative. Remember that phrase describing the U.S. Senate as “the greatest deliberative body in the world”? I’ll agree to the “deliberate” part, “deliberate” grandstanding for minor electoral advantage.
Back to the signers of the Constitution: I think they had in mind a constituency who knew the men they were electing, if not personally, at least by reputation. Now we know our candidates by the slick literature they send out and the amount of TV exposure they get. Unfortunately, third parties spend millions smearing the candidates based on private interest, not the public good that the candidates may promote.
My solution to all this mismatch of ideas and actions is either all candidates are independents selected on the merits they project or candidates are loosely organized into parties that reflect their own interest.
My choices for parties would be Libertarian, Business, Evangelical, Charity, and Common Good.
The Libertarian Party would be almost anti-government. To them, the individual is primary, government just gets in the way of freedom. Taxes are just stealing money. Laws are for other people.
The Business Party would be all in support of large corporations with a bit of a sop to small businesses. Taxes and regulations just get in the way of corporations “returning value” to their shareholders.
The Evangelical Party would be Bible-centric and would pass laws pushing for more religion in government and for how all should behave, both in public and private.
The Charity Party would take up the causes of those groups who they feel are disenfranchised by government or society. This Party is difficult to criticize because there are many people with problems that they did not create. On the other hand, many people in a given group have managed without the Charity Party’s help.
Finally, the Common Good Party is my party (if I were to cease being a Party of One). This is the party that takes seriously “General Welfare” and “Common Defense” in the Constitution. The Common Good Party is concerned with infrastructure, safety regulations, commercial laws, and many other laws and expenditures that help promote a prosperous society.
The Libertarian Party ignores how much it depends on government. What if a libertarian had been defrauded. Would that person depend on a tax-supported court to seek reparation? Or would the Libertarian have it out with six-guns on the streets of Laredo?
The Business Party is similar to the Libertarian Party with the emphasis on large organizations rather than individuals. But would a modern corporation survive without public schools to train a large number of people in increasingly complicated skills, without roads to move its goods around, without police and courts to seek redress for those who would harm the corporation?
The Evangelical Party seems to pick and choose what Bible verses to use. Two that it seems to me that they ignore most are “Be not like the hypocrites who pray in public to be seen by men…” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” One could also say the writers of the Constitution were all to familiar with the picking and choosing done by various sects; that’s why they wanted “no religious test”.
The Charity Party’s hearts are in the right place, but the number of problems is so large that many people can’t put their hearts and souls into all those the Charity Party thinks are important. Government does need a few members of this party just to keep some of issues on the table.
We probably will never have a single Common Good Party because people never agree on the priorities. This gets back to the Constitution which didn’t really define “General Welfare”. We do need to have more people who run for office speak out for the common good rather than promote a private interest.
Mel keeps wishing for a majority government, but he keeps seeing a minority voting.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Helping the sick and injured is age-old
Many hunter-gatherer cultures helped those who could not contribute fully. Many of us have read stories about hunter-gatherer cultures caring for the elderly and healing the sick, but do we know how much they cared for those younger who could never contribute a great deal to the group?
As it is, archeologists have found cases of primitive societies caring for people that couldn't even feed themselves or could not keep up as the group traveled. See "Ancient Bones that Tell a Story of Compassion", James Gorman, New York Times, 2012-12-17.
The archeologists, Lorna Tilley and Mark Oxenham, ask "what care for the sick and injured says about the culture that provided it."
These pre-historic cultures were close-knit communities that knew all of their members. It is hard not to care for those in a small community. But what happens as the community becomes larger, more diverse, and more dispersed? Children move to another city or even another country. People associate more with those at the factory or office than they do with people on their own block. Driving out the garage and down the street we may not even meet many of our neighbors. We don't know who is sick and disabled. Even when we know our own neighbors, we aren't aware of all of their problems. It took a mail carrier asking a neighbor about my step-father before anybody realized that he had died.
Even when we know a neighbor is ill, do we have the skills needed to care for the neighbor? Our expectations of health-care are much higher than in pre-historic times. In the last few centuries, charitable groups established hospitals to take care of people who couldn't be cared for at home. But our expectations became even higher and many of those groups could not raise sufficient funds to give care to all who needed it. Hospitals needed to charge all comers in order to have the funds; those without enough money often did without needed care.
If we are to replicate in today's dispersed societies the attention given to the sick and injured in primitive societies, wouldn't we need to have universal health care? We still must ask "what care for the sick and injured says about the culture that provided it." We certainly have many politicians who are more concerned with guaranteeing people access to guns than guaranteeing people access to health care.
As it is, archeologists have found cases of primitive societies caring for people that couldn't even feed themselves or could not keep up as the group traveled. See "Ancient Bones that Tell a Story of Compassion", James Gorman, New York Times, 2012-12-17.
The archeologists, Lorna Tilley and Mark Oxenham, ask "what care for the sick and injured says about the culture that provided it."
These pre-historic cultures were close-knit communities that knew all of their members. It is hard not to care for those in a small community. But what happens as the community becomes larger, more diverse, and more dispersed? Children move to another city or even another country. People associate more with those at the factory or office than they do with people on their own block. Driving out the garage and down the street we may not even meet many of our neighbors. We don't know who is sick and disabled. Even when we know our own neighbors, we aren't aware of all of their problems. It took a mail carrier asking a neighbor about my step-father before anybody realized that he had died.
Even when we know a neighbor is ill, do we have the skills needed to care for the neighbor? Our expectations of health-care are much higher than in pre-historic times. In the last few centuries, charitable groups established hospitals to take care of people who couldn't be cared for at home. But our expectations became even higher and many of those groups could not raise sufficient funds to give care to all who needed it. Hospitals needed to charge all comers in order to have the funds; those without enough money often did without needed care.
If we are to replicate in today's dispersed societies the attention given to the sick and injured in primitive societies, wouldn't we need to have universal health care? We still must ask "what care for the sick and injured says about the culture that provided it." We certainly have many politicians who are more concerned with guaranteeing people access to guns than guaranteeing people access to health care.
Saturday, August 04, 2012
A modern parable of the Good Samaritan
man was robbed, beaten, and left for dead late one evening in a downtown.
A conservative drove by in his SUV, rolled down the window, and shouted, "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!"
A liberal drove by in his Prius, rolled down the window, and shouted, "The government will by soon to help you."
A homeless man walked by and asked, "Can I help?" The beaten man could barely whisper, "Please!" The homeless man, seeing all the cuts and bruises, said, "I'll be right back!"
He went to a public restroom to get some paper towels. The restroom only had hand dryers. The homeless man tried a second and then a third public restroom. The third had paper towels. He grabbed a couple dozen, moistened half of them, and ran back to the beaten man.
The homeless man used the wet paper towels to wipe away the blood and to soothe the bruises. He used the rest of the paper towels to dry the man up.
The homeless man tried to help the beaten man up, but the man couldn't stand. The homeless man knelt down, put the beaten man's arms around his neck, and stood up. He carried the beaten man on his back nearly a mile to the nearest hospital.
The homeless man deposited the beaten man at the emergency room, explained what he had found, what he did, and walked out the door.
One nurse asked another who the man was who brought the beaten man in. The other replied, "I don't know, but the beaten man is City Councilor Tightwad. He voted last year to cut the city's shelter, police, and fire budgets in half."
A conservative drove by in his SUV, rolled down the window, and shouted, "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!"
A liberal drove by in his Prius, rolled down the window, and shouted, "The government will by soon to help you."
A homeless man walked by and asked, "Can I help?" The beaten man could barely whisper, "Please!" The homeless man, seeing all the cuts and bruises, said, "I'll be right back!"
He went to a public restroom to get some paper towels. The restroom only had hand dryers. The homeless man tried a second and then a third public restroom. The third had paper towels. He grabbed a couple dozen, moistened half of them, and ran back to the beaten man.
The homeless man used the wet paper towels to wipe away the blood and to soothe the bruises. He used the rest of the paper towels to dry the man up.
The homeless man tried to help the beaten man up, but the man couldn't stand. The homeless man knelt down, put the beaten man's arms around his neck, and stood up. He carried the beaten man on his back nearly a mile to the nearest hospital.
The homeless man deposited the beaten man at the emergency room, explained what he had found, what he did, and walked out the door.
One nurse asked another who the man was who brought the beaten man in. The other replied, "I don't know, but the beaten man is City Councilor Tightwad. He voted last year to cut the city's shelter, police, and fire budgets in half."
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
One speech worth listening to again and again
You can listen to Charlie Chaplin's speech from "The Great Dictator" at http://www.upworthy.com/the-one-speech-every-human-being-on-earth-should-hear.
It includes many visuals to back up his words.
I'm a bit pessimistic about it's effectiveness. Chaplin made the movie in 1940 as a counter to Hitler, and Hitler got worse. Let's hope at least a few no-shows have their minds changed by this speech and show up at election time.
It includes many visuals to back up his words.
I'm a bit pessimistic about it's effectiveness. Chaplin made the movie in 1940 as a counter to Hitler, and Hitler got worse. Let's hope at least a few no-shows have their minds changed by this speech and show up at election time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)