« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »

April 30, 2007

The Purpose of Culture

We hear a lot these days about "sustainable" (fill in the blank).  I find this trend a matter of deep irony.  You see, all the things we talk about sustaining are things like the environment, economic development, and any other such issue that is amenable to the centralized control of an elite few.  In all the history of humankind no such enterprise has ever been sustainable for an extended period of time.  The best and brightest among us are just too bloody corrupt to do good well.

This is the very essence of why we have culture.  The dirty secret of culture is that it is not about what we are being told it is about.  We are being sold a culture that is about entertaining adults and empowering elites.  That is, by definition, an unsustainable development.

When we speak of "culture" in our society we are likely to think of a symphony orchestra or art museum.  Such a conception is an error.  Culture is really the accumulated stored wisdom of a society.  I have described it as the program that runs on the human machine.  That program, the product of vast human experience imparted to people over the course of an entire lifetime and (hopefully) expanded generation by generation, provides us with a vocabulary of behaviors and a capacity for apprehension of experience to make us better able to deal with the complexities of the world we must face.

The depth and reach of culture can be staggering.  In virtually every culture in the northern hemisphere that feature of the sky we now call the Big Dipper was once known as the Great Bear.  In nearly all of these cultures the three stars on the handle of the dipper were understood to be hunters pursuing the bear.  This is a fact that simply can't be explained away as a bunch of separate people converging on the same idea.  These conceptions of the Big Dipper, spread among cultures that had been separated from one another for more than 11,000 years, had been carried down by word of mouth through all those millennia and more.  The same is true of the flood stories common to so many cultures, particularly in the Middle East.  They were the cultural memory of real events that happened with the four hundred to six hundred-foot rise in sea levels at the end of the last ice age.  Nowadays our elites look askance at this ancient programming, thinking it too archaic to be valid for the modern world, and they seek, blithely, to overthrow it.

The same is true of those forces who seek to flood the United States with a naive and ignorant workforce and then empower them politically.  Through the 1960s a great effort was made to educate an electorate for the difficult and perilous process of self-government.  For thirty years now that process has been reversed.  Where my generation was once hailed as the most sophisticated in the history of the world hardly any fool would not be embarrassed to make such a claim today- even for young people born legitimately to the rights and privileges of American citizenship.

Even marriage is being presented to us in a way that is a bald obfuscation.  The contention over so-called "same sex" marriage is an attempt to sell us civil unions as a sexual environment.  That is simply not what marriage is for.  Marriage is a union designed for protecting and nurturing children and sustaining generational ties for the nurture of successive generations.  It has no other purpose.

The point of these illustrations?  Any ten-year-old child brought up in a culture that needed to know the time to plant crops knew more about the sky, from a depth of experience stretching back farther than our most ancient written history, than our kids today.  American kids were once raised steeped in the foundations of what makes us one nation, though we are from many lands.  Knowledge like this tied generations together-even across cultural divides like race and geography.  Now, though, all vestiges of "old" culture are seen with suspicion.  Nothing is "venerable".  Today's so-called culture is about distraction.  It is dismissive of wisdom.  It is intended to separate young from old. 

In short its purpose is to disable us, to make us dependent.

Culture is an evolutionary environmental adaptation for raising successful human beings.  In other words it is not 'for' adults.  Culture is for children and for the support of people who raise kids and teach them.  All our other appendages on culture are forms of corruption.

When culture becomes preoccupied with entertaining adults it starts to look at children as objects to be used for the entertainment of adults.  It is no longer important to these people whether these children will be able to make their way in a difficult world.  Society becomes inherently unsustainable.

That is the worst possible form of unsustainable development.

 

April 20, 2007

Flash Fame

Wanna be famous?  Do as the media shows others doing!  Rant!  Rave!  Blow yourself away after taking thirty total innocents with you!  The media will take the packet you send them as you take a breather from strenuous carnage and make you a cause celebre!

That's the ticket.  Let the rating points show the way.  Info-tainment as not even the Romans could do it.

At Virginia Tech this week the world was witness to the cost of media hype. Nine years ago the worldwide media made stars out of a couple of misfit high school boys after they had killed a dozen of their peers. Their faces became familiar to everyone. Their maladjusted pain became everyone's judgement-free pain. Their victims were made into nobodies, pawns, unfeeling props in a national morality play.
The media accorded the limelight to the audacious brutality of the killers and lifted them up as a sort of anti-hero to be gazed upon by all. The meekness of their victims was rewarded with silence, and sod.
What is our reward for this action toward the killers at Columbine? The monster of Virginia Tech, of course. An attention starved, misfit, bitter outcast has, in the eyes of thousands of other attention starved, misfit, bitter outcasts, been made into a star emblazoned brightly upon the media firmament where everyone MUST see him. Thus is cocked the hammer on the next April copycat killer.
NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and all the others who revelled in the chance to make money from lurid murder, who bathed in the blood of the innocent, and made icons of those who released that crimson torrent, they killed thirty-two people filled with promise at Virginia Tech.
And now they have set us up for the next round of loss, and, of course, ratings bonanzas.

April 19, 2007

The Death Eaters

Yesterday the Supreme Court, in a narrowly drawn 5 to 4 decision, upheld a 2003 federal law outlawing partial birth abortions.

Predictably this was both hailed and derided as an attack on Roe v. Wade.  Should it turn out to be so so much the better but, in point of fact, it simply accepts human revulsion at the torture killing of any animal, human or not. 

In numerous reports published during the day yesterday it was noted that Ruth Bader Ginsberg took the extraordinary step, during the announcement of the decision, of reading exerpts of her dissent.  She claimed this was an extraordinary step away from Roe, and from four decades of supporting decisions, a notion echoed by numerous others on both sides of this contentious debate.

Is this true?  If so, what does it say about Roe and about the people who support it.

In the procedure the child is partially removed from the womb, feet first, its head is then punctured, and the brain is suctioned to kill the child and cause the skull to collapse.  In the State of Texas were an individual to perform a similar procedure on an animal they would be subject to a prison term.  No one in the debate can reasonably claim the procedure, which is performed almost exclusively on viable infants, is not painful.  It certainly is.  We allow protection under the law for animals from needlessly painful death, though animals have no prospect what-so-ever of gaining full human rights.  Yet, were the head of the child in such an abortion to exit the birth canal that child would have the full protection of all laws granting human rights and the procedure would instantly become full-fledged murder.  Indeed, in Texas again, the act of preparing the skull for suctioning could be interpreted as a separate felony assault, which would make the murder a capital crime. 

What Justice Ginsburg railed in support of was not merely a form of birth control or a means of providing greater health access for women.  It was the capacity under the law to find an inconvenient class of people not merely not to be people, but to be not worthy even of those protections from the most grotesque brutalities we provide to animals.  It is perfectly acceptable to her and those who believe as she does that the difference between legal humanity and legal oblivion has nothing to do with the capacity to feel, to suffer, to travel four inches further and become part of this world's chosen species.  There is no humility in her stance at all. 

The difference between human and non-entity is what we deign it to be.

This is a comfortable stance for the Left in America.  For the time being they feel secure as the definers of things.  They feel presently unthreatened by legal precedent that fails to accord any status at all to a class of human being. They know they are not members of that class.  Where the law can define away the humanity of one human class for the sake of convenience, however, it can define away that of any other.  All we need is a curtain like that of the womb to draw over the events that follow and give legal cover.  Perhaps it will be the nursing home door some day.  Perhaps it will be the asylum wall, the prison bar, or the plate-glass window.

With her defense of unabridged abortion rights Ruth Bader Ginsberg reveals this issue for what it really is- a fight to wrench law from any controlling authority whatsoever, and set on the pedestal as morality itself.  And if you become inconvenient after that day?

So long as you're not me, I'm supposed to believe, since it's legal, it's OK.

April 14, 2007

Intelligent Evolution

Lee Emmerich Jamison

Albert Einstein was famous for his use of mind experiments, little mental models and scenarios set up to explore ideas.  Let's try one here.

Imagine that you are a benign sentient microbe.  You and a social network of your friends live in a human brain, each of you able to observe the actions of at most fifteen or twenty neurons.  As individuals you would be able to observe the firing of these neurons.  As a group you might be able to ascertain that there is an order to the "universe" of the vast organism comprised of your, and their, neurons.  Would you, or all of you together, be able to detect the intelligence of the larger organism?

No.  Undoubtedly you would not.

The debate between the religious and atheists has, of late, become rancorous.  We are seeing a genuinely remarkable phenomenon in that atheism is being expressed evangelically. Let us examine why this is happening.

By all accounts the current spur for evangelical atheism is the rise of radical Islam and the threat implied by the essential intolerance of Islamic faith and its propensity for expressing itself in law.  But atheism is, by definition, the absence of a god of any sort.  That means that, though Islam seems to be the proximate trigger for atheistic radicalism, all forms of religious faith, especially Christianity, have become the movement's targets.  The reasoning appears pretty simple.  1. There is no god. 2. All assertions of god are superstition.  3. Islamic superstition constitutes a danger to civilization.  4. All superstitions represent intellectual weakness and are, therefore, subject to becoming the same sort of danger Islam represents.  5. All superstitions are a danger and should be eliminated.

What no one says, because it strikes at the logical heart of atheism itself, is that there is also another logical point. 6. All superstition is heresy.  In other words, once one has established an acceptable order for the world the things that fall outside that order become unacceptable.  Any religion presents itself as an attack on radical atheism if radical atheism has become the acceptable rational underpinning of society.

In as much as atheism has not yet become the rational foundation of our world (thank God) now is a good time to examine the surprisingly questionable logic atheists apply to their arguments and why these arguments seem to hold so much sway today.

In my introduction to this article one can see a kernel of my approach.  Atheism can't say there is no order to the world.  Nor can it say there is no overarching reality not beholden to our perspective.  Nor even can atheism claim that design processes of enormous power are not at work in the universe.  All of these statements are logical fallacies easily debunked in simple debate.  What atheists do, rather, is attack, on the small end of the logical scale, specific presentations or images of God, and on the large end of the scale, a sentient or self-aware overarching intelligence.

The vast majority of atheist attacks on religion take the first of these approaches.  The reason is simple.  Virtually all organized religions organize themselves around a fairly specific image of God.  The more specific the image is the easier it is to debunk the image.  I'm actually very much in favor of this sort of challenge to religion.  If we have a false image standing in for God in our common conception we commit idolatry.  Atheists do all religion a great service when they point out what we should already know - idolatry is bad.

The second approach is usually taken up with ipso facto statements not dissimilar to saying "All of the images of God I've debunked are wrong therefore there is no god."  This is something like saying all the pictures of the Baron de Bastrop from Texas history are wrong, (there being no contemporary images on which to base them) ergo he was a fictional character.  Here, of course, there is another logical fallacy.  Our inability to create an accurate image of God does not mean there is no God any more than our inability to define an accurate unified field theory for physics means there is no uniform reality for the universe in which we live.

Winnowing all this detail away, the single key point in the atheist's view of the world is that whatever provides order to the universe is not self-aware.  The order we see is without purpose.  That is the cornerstone of their faith.  Break or erode that stone and any moral authority they claim becomes null and void.

Thus am I delivered to my thought experiment.  The workings of individual neurons in a human brain are not driven by self awareness.  As a matter of fact an enormous amount of the activity in a brain could be said to be random to an extent we would be be apalled to know, given our sometimes defensive insistence on our own self-awareness.  Meanwhile, brain studies steadily reveal processes which look for all the world very like the random processes of evolution itself.  The haphazardness of the lowest levels of brain activity is channelled through pathways shaped by environment (memory) each of which shows a variety of specializations (speciation, or programming) for the accomplishment of some task (survival).  The signal cascades initiated by random neural firings less well adapted to the issue (environment) at hand are supressed while those better adapted tend to survive.

I would make the argument that any argument that can effectively define away the intelligence of the larger creation as we experience it in the world of genetic studies could also be used to define away our own assurance of self-awareness.  For that reason they are suspect in dealing with the difficulty of detecting a self-awareness we could recognize in the larger universe.

I will continue to add to these thoughts as days go by

April 12, 2007

Is Somebody Listening?

Lee Emmerich Jamison

To say I'm mad at the Republican party is like saying I may find a use for air today.  Recently I sent them an e-mail in response to one of their shill-o-grams telling the party as much. 

Suprise!, Suprise!, I got a response. 

It's not much, but I share it with you below, along with the e-mail that prompted it.

Thank you for contacting the Republican National Committee.  Your
comments will be included in the daily report to the Chairman.  We
sincerely appreciate your input and interest.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Jamison [mailto:leejamison@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:31 AM
To: Info Services Temp
Subject: Protect the Damn Border!!!!!!

Sirs,
  
  While you're crowing to us about Democrats micromanaging the war take
a gander at the planks in your own eyes.  We hire Republicans to
protect
the sanctity of the United States of America, most of us because we
genuinely feel that this country is THE HOPE FOR FREEDOM FOR ALL
MANKIND.  Right now, however, the Republican Party's national machinery
is hard at work undermining the sovereignty of the nation.  They have
criminally prosecuted border agents who have attempted to protect us
from drug runners and sent a message to the whole world that we are not
only open for business, but open to bald plunder.
  
  Republicans are out of power because they have been sabotaged from
within by a powerful corporate elite who have no respect for the
inconvenience of nation-states and are tired of having to compromise
with the common folk they consider little more than a rabble over such
niceties as the "rule of law".  As long as this party is under the
influence of a President that respects neither his own borders nor the
people who would have him enforce them it will be open season on
pointless pachyderms.
  
  Democrats are now, and always have been, a party of people who lead
with bigotry.  If Republicans are not willing to answer that bigotry
with openess, truth, and the public empowerment that comes of enforcing
the laws we insist our government abide by they are only another, more
insidious, form of Democrat.
  
  Enforce the damn border!!!!!!!!!!  Respect the Will of the
People!!!!!!!!  I will not shill for a corrupt bunch of international
corporate cronies led by George W. Bush.
  
  Lee Jamison

You may remember the old story about the farmer, his new bride, and the ass.  As you will recall after two warnings the farmer kills the ass with a beam across the forehead.  Our trouble is that when a natural ass puts on an elephant suit it seems we have to hit him more than once just to get his attention.  Keep after it.  The hide may be thick but once we have gotten down to the donkey inside we may yet be able to get him to act like an elephant.

(By the way, I do draw a distinction between Democrat office-holders, as criticized above, and well-meaning ordinary people who vote Democrat.)

April 10, 2007

The Spirit of the Game

Lee Emmerich Jamison



A friend let me borrow a book on baseball written by philosophers.  It is remarkable how fascinating thinking people find the game of baseball.   In one chapter in particular a philosopher addressed the issue of the "spirit of the game" as it applied to umpiring.  He then implied a connection to the philosophy of law.  

Upon some reflection there is good reason why we should not want philosophers deciding how judges umpire the game of life.

The argument crystallized around two instances where an umpire's call went to the heart of how the game of baseball is played. The first dealt with a call from the 1880s. In this instance a batter got a hit with men on base. As the first of these runners crossed the plate he began to interfere with the catcher, who was thus unable to tag a succeeding runner out. By the letter of the law of those early days of the sport this unsportsmanlike behavior was not expressly forbidden because the definition of "runner" applied only to those on the base paths. When the runner crossed home plate he technically was no longer a runner, so the rule in effect at the time preventing a "runner" from interfering with the fielders of the other team appeared not to apply to him. The umpire called him out anyway, sent the other runners back to the base paths, and killed what had appeared to be a legal, if not moral, rally. The next week the rules of baseball were changed both to ratify the umpire's extraordinary decision and to make clear that the intent of the game did not include former runners being free to interfere with the action on the field.

The second incident was from more recent memory. In the late 1970s, in a game played in the American League, an apparent home run was hit with two outs in the top of the 9th inning. The team in the field protested the hit on the grounds that the bat with which the home run was hit was covered with pine tar farther up the bat than the rules allowed. On those grounds, the argument went, the bat was illegal. Since the rules required that a batter who uses an illegal bat to be called out the home run was nullified with a game-ending out call.

American League president Lee McPhail reviewed the call the next day and reversed it, reinstating the home run. The game was finished that afternoon from the point of the call and the former losing team won. McPhail's explanation of the reversal stated that the call, while correct to the letter of the law, violated the spirit of the game in that it substituted a narrow legalism for the embrace of the athletic "excellences" baseball is intended to celebrate.

Now, from what I stated earlier one might think I had a problem with these decisions. Not so within their contexts. The spirit of sporting excellence implied in both decisions is how sport ought to be done. Should that spirit of excellence also apply to our conduct of the law? Isn't the spirit of the law a concept that rises above the petty importance of the letter of the law? In point of fact the answer to both questions is no.

An exclusivity founded in excellence is the point of the rules of baseball. The fifty people in a stadium who do baseball best are all supposed to be on the teams- not in the stands. That excellence keeps the other fifty thousand people interested enough to stay. Otherwise, though, the spectators are irrelevant. The conduct of the game would be the same if they were not there. The (rare) liberties umpires may take are designed to keep mere mortals out of the game.

The point of the law, particularly in America, is different. Yes we all desire and benefit from excellence. We are better off when the law promotes this high goal, but unlike baseball, where a committee of (incredibly) wealthy owners makes the rules and their employees both enforce and play by the rules, in law the common spectators are intimate participants. We are supposed to take part in the process that produces law. Then we are required to live under the rules we have made.

Permitting liberties like those mentioned above is just as exclusionary in law as it is in sport, but when the people are shut out of the process the perceived legitimacy of the law we must live by suffers. In a free society the legitimacy of the law is more important than its perfection.

When laws are enforced as written we feel the effects of what we have fought for and won. When the law thus made is good that helps the spectators to feel empowered. When the law is ill conceived or just plain bad (Prohibition comes to mind) the results are chastening. The spectators will continue to participate to get the excellence they desire because they have felt the unanticipated and unwanted effects of their own power.

When interventions, even well meaning ones, interfere with this process and negate the spectators' work we might get a higher level of excellence. We might also be forced out of our homes or businesses for the profit of others, or be made to pay for or participate in things we find abominable. In any event the umpires will have declared us incompetent to decide for ourselves.

Law is not a spectator sport. If all we can do is watch as the best players do the law on the field all of us in the stands are in deep trouble. We are the owners. We appoint the rules committee. We'd best not become irrelevant. In this game it is far better to suffer, and then correct, our own occasional bad rule than it is to allow the umpires to decide for themselves how they will enforce the spirit of the game.



Lee Jamison may be reached for comment at lee@leejamison.com.

April 06, 2007

Freedom's Anchor

Lee Emmerich Jamison

Freedom.  What does that word mean to you?  Is it just doing what you please, or is there something deeper to it?  I think it means having a grasp of both what I must respect in others and what others must respect in me.  One can't be free if one has no regard for the needs and concerns of others.  Why?  Because that disregard will lead to the harm of others.  Then their self defense will close off even one's otherwise harmless options.  One also can't be free if the larger society, particularly the government, can disregard one's own needs and concerns.  The need side of that equation is obvious.  Fail to fill true needs and a person sickens and/or dies.  But governments do not exist over needs. Tribes fill those just fine.  Governments exist because of concerns, the reduction of anxiety, the desire to know one's place in the world, to be assured that there will be order in society, and the sense that one's efforts will be to one's own credit.  In large societies failure to meet the challenge of these concerns results in a cultural paralysis.  That is, by definition, a loss of freedom.

To meet the challenge of establishing a free society our culture, from its ancient roots in the Middle East and Persia, set out laws binding (at least nominally) even on the elite of society. A people who know well what they must not do may feel freer to do those things society permits.  Thus we became, and by halting steps have improved on being, nations of written and comprehensible laws and not just the stuttering pawns of powerful men.

A crucial part of making a modern nation of laws and not of men is having laws that reflect the wishes of the people.  We addressed this idea and how to reinforce this fading national trait in yesterday's post.  Of as much importance, though, is the notion that those who carry out the commands contained in the laws thus made do so faithfully.  They must be restrained by the law themselves or the effort that went into civilizing a whole people into taking part in governing themselves becomes mute.  

Failing at this ideal is not merely the first step into tyrrany.  We see in the struggles of newly freed peoples such as those in Russia who have never had the responsibility of participating in self-government such civic power requires a level of skill in cooperation they have never developed.  When the authorities who execute laws and the courts that adjudicate them show disdain for the people's choices they push the populus down a path that leads eventually to an irrevocable cynicism. A truly cynical people, because they are incapable of seeing the needs and concerns of their neighbors in the same light as their own, can never be free.

We must never permit government in America to do this to us.

As was noted in yesterday's post the courts in America began to take a high-handed approach with the law during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt.  In the crisis of the Great Depression it seemed expedient to free the courts from the constraints of the Consititution so that the government might take measures to reestablish the economy.  What we now know, though, is that the extraconsititutional measures of those days did not end the Depression, which was, in fact as bad or worse in the early days of 1941 as it had been in 1932.  Perverse deflationary monetary policies, which rewarded the hoarding of cash with an effective artificial 'interest' rate, depressed economic activity in a way only the real crisis of W.W.II could overcome.

The economic legacy of the Great Depression we will discuss later.  Suffice it for now to say that the society that invests in money starves.  The judicial legacy haunts us even now.  Freed of its moorings in the Constitution the court system has become the only branch of government with the remarkable lattitude to decide for itself what its own powers are.  This presents us with a more and ever more politicized judicial process as a vicious cycle has emerged from each new and more bizarre court decision.  The courts negate the wishes of the people arbitrarily with some fiat from on high.  The people try to respond with elected office holders who will rewrite law to accomplish their goals.  The people then feel disempowered as the courts negate even this effort.  The makeup of the courts themselves then become a major issue in elections for political offices.  Finally, "wise" people decry the politization of the courts!

All of this happens because it seemed wise at some point to bypass the difficult and, frankly, often flawed process of making law by the Constitution's prescription.

This necessitates a third step in the process of reestablishing rule of law in America. (The first two were discussed yesterday.)   We must reestablish the primacy of the literal written words, as understood by those who wrote them, in the interpretation of Constitutional law.  The constitutional amendment that makes this move would, by its nature, negate nearly three fourths of the Federal government as we know it today.  To do so "cold turkey" would be not merely disruptive, but devastating.  For that reason this amendment must provide a sunset period during which government powers not yet explicitly authorized by the Consitution may remain in force, but setting a date-certain at which such extraconstitutional powers will expire.  This should probably be a ten-year period to allow the people to understand the power they have gained and the responsibilities they will then bear.

The people themselves will then be required to decide whether abortion will be an explicitly protected right established in the Constitution, whether public payments may be made for charitable causes, whether religious expression may be supressed in public venues, what restrictions the federal government may place on the public policies of the states, whether the federal government has any role to play in education, and whether goverments have the right to seize private property for the ostensible "greater good" through a profitable use by other private property owners. 

At the end of the ten years, as the tenth amendment now states, those powers not explicitly granted to the federal government will be reserved to the states or to the people.  That is to say, what is not specifically written into the government's powers the government may not do

That's all pretty frightening, is it not?  Not nearly so much so as what government will morph into if we fail to take command of it.  Over the last seventy years we have opted to get a sense of well-being from allowing a "bad dog" to hold the things we fear at bay.  We have begun to pay a price as that bad dog cared less and less what we wanted and how we felt.  Bad dog government now thinks more about its own needs and concerns than it thinks of ours. 

For now you will only hear of suggestions such as this one in private venues like this one.  Why is that?  Once the bad dog no longer fears you he is free to choose whom he serves.  Will he serve you who can offer him little or those you first empowered him to protect you from, those who can offer him much?

There is the crux of the issue.  The government that is not beholden to you will serve the most powerful, the people you have the most reason to fear.  They are the ones who have the power to control the information you get, the ones who can lull you to sleep, or distract you with anxieties.

Let government, through the fiat powers of the courts, decide for itself how powerful it will be and the people you will eventually serve will be the people you feared the most to begin with.

While we still can through our legitimate powers we must take back what is ours. These three steps will go a long way toward doing that.

April 05, 2007

Running Against Washington

Lee Emmerich Jamison

It is popular for politicians running for national office to run against Washington.  Remember Jimmy Carter?  Yeah, like that.

We prove over and over that the American people, at best, dislike Washington.  At worst we would push it into the Atlantic and start over.  Well, while you ponder how someone like Barak Obama can run against the power structure on which he stands, why not think seriously about how to reduce the influence of a city the inhabitants of which have a serious claim to owning the country.

How would you go about changing the way America is run so that the pawl on the ratchet of power favors ordinary people once again?

The first thing I would do is recognize one simple fact.  At present we are no longer a nation of laws.  During the crisis of the Great Depression Franklin Roosevelt was in office long enough to install a Supreme Court that allowed him to enact flagrantly unconstitutional measures.  That was a serious time and one may speak highly of Roosevelt's leadership in the midst of necessity, but the lingering effect of what he did empowered an elite to make choices directly contravening the will of the people.  We became a nation of men, not of laws.  Three fourths of the money we spend at the federal level in this country is unconstitutional by a common sense reading of the Constitution.  Only by having case law supersede the words of the Constitution (in the eyes of a few dark-robed visiers) can one reconcile our founding law with our current behavior.

Second, we must re-orient the pawl on government's ratchet in our favor.  That means we, as a people, must insist that our leaders install those changes in the Constitution that will both reign in the courts and reinforce our influence over those who represent us.

First and most importantly we must change the balance of power in Washington to favor us.  There are two steps to this. 

1. We must limit the time people can serve in any and all elective offices authorized by law.  Yes, that means term limits.  More than that, it means lifetime limits on how long any person can serve in public office.  My formula is pretty simple.  Limit total service in the House of representatives to eight years and eliminate pensions.  Limit service in the Senate to twelve years.  In both houses outlaw seniority as a consideration in assigning positions of power.  The term of the president would remain as it is.  The total length of time any one person would be permitted to hold any elective office or all offices authorized under the Constitution cumulatively, including the Supreme Court, would be twenty-four years.  Even in the Supreme Court continuation after twelve years would be contingent upon the jurist getting at least forty percent of the vote in a nation-wide reauthorization election.

This measure, which would require a Constitutional amendment, would force a greater turnover of leadership in Washington and would make it much harder for people in Congress to cloak themselves in bureaucracy to insulate themselves from us.  Furthermore, because the constantly incoming freshmen would fine the maze of bureaucracy to be an irritation they would be less inclined to extend it and, may even be inclined to reduce it.  In any event they would be highly unlikely to permit the bureaucracy to be condescending to us as is the case today.

2. We must bring our Congressional delegations home.  There is no need to have our representatives resident in Washington, D.C.  They need only be in Washington for certain ceremonial occasions.  Electronic communications obviate the need for members of Congress to be there, where people with deep pockets can concentrate a few lobbyists to overwhelm our personal influence.  Representatives should be officed in their districts.  Senators should be officed in the largest and second largest metropolitan areas in their respective states (again, not by seniority but by the order of second election of their particular senatorial seat as established originally in the Constitution and in the statutes by which each state was admitted to the union).

This Constitutional amendment would disperse the Congress and make it more difficult for a few influential people to make government act like their playground.  Their primary relationships should be with their constituents.  Washington is a seductive place full of very intelligent people.  As a matter of fact they are smarter, on average, than we are.  That is beside the point.  If government by the smartest people worked better than government of the people oligarchies would rule the world.  Such is obviously not the case.

American government overwhelmed the world because the society it engendered had distinct EVOLUTIONARY advantages over the governments of the rest of the world.  A society ruled by the smartest members of that society can't help but limit its evolutionary vocabulary in crippling ways.  Such a society makes social decisons it sees as imperatives though they are, in fact, forms of corruption.  If we want America to continue to thrive we must reinforce the evolutionary advantages of dispersed power and minimize the rule of even our brightest and best.

We must become, once again, a nation of laws.  These are steps one and two.

I'll discuss step three tomorrow, I hope...


Hosting by Yahoo!