Barbara Tuchman was a historian who worked very hard at writing history so that the average person could understand it. She did not use a lot of scholarly sources nor did she document her works. Her most famous work was The Guns of August, but the book that I remember best was called The March of Folly. Her observation was that there are moments in history when leaders confront a major situation and despite wise and consistent intelligent counsel the leaders do exactly the wrong thing. She picked the Trojan Horse as her first example. There was massive opposition to bringing the horse inside, but the leaders brought it in. The decision resulted in defeat.
She has other examples such as King George and the American colonies. King George got all kinds of request from the colonies to be more responsive to them. He had lots of advisers in England who spoke against the King's policies of taxation. King George's arrogance and belief in his own power as King continued the polices in a march of folly into the American revolution. He lost.
Barbara's last example was the American policy in Vietnam. She suggested that there were no lessons won from the French. There no education in the Pentagon from the leaders on the ground. There was no listening to the voice of the people who grew more and more opposed to the war. And We lost the war. None of the horrible domino consequences seemed to have happened.
Barbara is dead now, but certainly if the march of folly was going forward in Vietnam the march is continuing in our country even more. We have had the movie the Inconvenient Truth, the movie Food, Inc. the movie, Waiting for Superman, and the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan exposing for us the major fault lines in our society. The response has been to pretend like the problems are not there or just to continue on as if there is nothing wrong.
The March of Folly is to continue to march forward in the same direction that you have been marching even when you have been clearly warned that there is danger ahead. We seem to be marching pretty steadily forward. The only good news may be tht England still exists as a pleasant place and the U.S. may be a pleasant place to be a former power.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Not to be Human
When the Republican majority in the House of Representatives was an accomplished fact, the response of John Boehner was to break down and shed tears of great joy and triumph. The response of many of the news agencies was to carry stories about the tears of joy. There were cynical, snarly comments made about “public tears” and Speaker Boehner was forced to defend himself in several television interviews. There seems to be something in the public opinion that does not want leaders to have emotions.
In fact, in this time immediately after an election now is a good time to look at the burden and limitations we, the public, places on the people who we expect to lead us. We may say we want people like us, people we can talk to, people who think like we do, people who share our values and our ideals, but there is also a very narrow and limited range of emotions they are permitted to have.
Some people will remember that before there was a Mitt Romney running for President there was in l968 a George Romney running for the Republican nomination. George had been a public supporter of our war in Vietnam, but during the campaign he honestly confessed that he felt he had been “brainwashed” by the military as to the reality of the war. In fact, most American accepted the military version of what was happening in Vietnam until things fell apart, but the public never considered George any further after his confession. We don’t want somebody like us who could be deceived by experts.
Tears really have been a problem. In the l972 campaign for President Senator Ed Muskie was the leading candidate for the nomination for the Democrats. On a snow afternoon in New Hampshire in front of a newspaper office the strain of campaigning and the dirty tricks of politics were too much. Ed Muskie broke down in tears. His frustration at the attacks on him and his wife flowed out in tears. He was never considered a serious candidate after those tears. No wonder John Boehner wanted to defend himself for his tears. It has been one of the great arguments against a woman president. She will be too emotional.
No trust, no tears. Howard Dean showed us we don’t want anybody with real passion that brings a scream to his lips. We have dismissed a number of high public servants from office because they told some jokes that most of us would have laughed at. We have just defeated Bob Etheridge, in part, because he showed some anger and was not polite to those invaders. There is a pretty serious straight jacket we want to put our public officials in.
If we want good, honest, hard working public officials, is it too much to ask to allow them to be able to laugh, to cry, to be angry, to admit that they get taken in by experts. It is reported that the shortest verse in the Bible is Jesus wept. That cry from the cross, “Why have you forsaken me?” is a pretty loud scream of anger as I hear it. Perhaps it will be a good thing if John Boehner is able to cry. Maybe we need more public figures who show emotions? Maybe?
In fact, in this time immediately after an election now is a good time to look at the burden and limitations we, the public, places on the people who we expect to lead us. We may say we want people like us, people we can talk to, people who think like we do, people who share our values and our ideals, but there is also a very narrow and limited range of emotions they are permitted to have.
Some people will remember that before there was a Mitt Romney running for President there was in l968 a George Romney running for the Republican nomination. George had been a public supporter of our war in Vietnam, but during the campaign he honestly confessed that he felt he had been “brainwashed” by the military as to the reality of the war. In fact, most American accepted the military version of what was happening in Vietnam until things fell apart, but the public never considered George any further after his confession. We don’t want somebody like us who could be deceived by experts.
Tears really have been a problem. In the l972 campaign for President Senator Ed Muskie was the leading candidate for the nomination for the Democrats. On a snow afternoon in New Hampshire in front of a newspaper office the strain of campaigning and the dirty tricks of politics were too much. Ed Muskie broke down in tears. His frustration at the attacks on him and his wife flowed out in tears. He was never considered a serious candidate after those tears. No wonder John Boehner wanted to defend himself for his tears. It has been one of the great arguments against a woman president. She will be too emotional.
No trust, no tears. Howard Dean showed us we don’t want anybody with real passion that brings a scream to his lips. We have dismissed a number of high public servants from office because they told some jokes that most of us would have laughed at. We have just defeated Bob Etheridge, in part, because he showed some anger and was not polite to those invaders. There is a pretty serious straight jacket we want to put our public officials in.
If we want good, honest, hard working public officials, is it too much to ask to allow them to be able to laugh, to cry, to be angry, to admit that they get taken in by experts. It is reported that the shortest verse in the Bible is Jesus wept. That cry from the cross, “Why have you forsaken me?” is a pretty loud scream of anger as I hear it. Perhaps it will be a good thing if John Boehner is able to cry. Maybe we need more public figures who show emotions? Maybe?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Both Ways
There has been another tragic shooting in a public place (this time in Arizona). One of the people shot was a Democratic congress woman who had been the subject of much of the Republican attack rhetoric in November. The shooter was a man with mental problems. The combination of events has produced a great deal of hostile discussion as to whether or not the attack language in politics has any responsibility for the shooting. Democratic talk show hosts have attempted to put the blame on the vicious kind of talk that Beck, "Rush," and others constantly put forth. The Republicans talk hosts have been denying responsibility and pointing to the same kind of language in the Democratic campaigns. Of course, both sides want to blame the other side.
Such events, at a minimum, ought to remind both sides that speech, words, language has consequences. Neither side can blame the other and not accept the their own share of blame. Words have power. The Dr. King speech has left a tremendous beacon of hope for a whole half a century. But if a positive speech like that can have that kind of good, then certainly it must be possible for a constant barge of negative, hostile, mean, incendiary speeches to have negative and horrible consequences. There were good reasons why Jesus says our speech should be rather simple. Our "Yes" yes and our "No" no, and there should be no swearing or expansion on the answers. James talks about the evil that can come from the tongue and how hard it is to control the tongue.
The current debate about the impact of vicious language in the shooting in Arizona is not going to have much effect for it is now clearly wrapped up in the two sides aggressively blaming the other, and neither side willing to see that the claims the make against the other applies to them as well. The arguments that are made cut "both ways." Words have consequences and the words from both sides have been less that sane, reasonable, and limited.
The other issue that comes up is the whole question of gun control as Arizona has almost no gun controls. No license, no waiting period, no background check. To suggest that such rules might have helped prevent this event immediately draws the old maxim, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." But surely society has a responsibility to its citizens to try to protect the citizens from those who are not able to be responsible for themselves. The shooter's past might well have been revealed in a background check. The obstacles in his way to getting a gun may have prevented this event.
In a much broader discussion there is a major division in our society. No one denies that personal responsibility is where blame ought to be placed. Sex education ought to be taught at home. Parents ought to discipline their children. Two parents ought to be raising a child. Those are all agreed. That is the way we think it SHOULD be done. The division in our society comes when it is finally admitted that it is not that way for all people. There are children who learn about sex on the street. There are children who have no parents to teach them. There are single parents. Then the question is does society as a whole have a responsibility for doing what has not been done?
Does society have a responsibility to protect the citizen from a person with mental problems from getting a weapon? Does society need to teach in school sex education. Who provides and gives discipline when parents fail to do the job? Are we our brothers and sisters keeper?
In Arizona, I have heard them saying that we need to get back to "Frontier Justice." Everybody with a gun on her hip and the right to use it as quickly as possible? Somehow I am not sure that is what Jesus has in mind for the kingdom of God.
Such events, at a minimum, ought to remind both sides that speech, words, language has consequences. Neither side can blame the other and not accept the their own share of blame. Words have power. The Dr. King speech has left a tremendous beacon of hope for a whole half a century. But if a positive speech like that can have that kind of good, then certainly it must be possible for a constant barge of negative, hostile, mean, incendiary speeches to have negative and horrible consequences. There were good reasons why Jesus says our speech should be rather simple. Our "Yes" yes and our "No" no, and there should be no swearing or expansion on the answers. James talks about the evil that can come from the tongue and how hard it is to control the tongue.
The current debate about the impact of vicious language in the shooting in Arizona is not going to have much effect for it is now clearly wrapped up in the two sides aggressively blaming the other, and neither side willing to see that the claims the make against the other applies to them as well. The arguments that are made cut "both ways." Words have consequences and the words from both sides have been less that sane, reasonable, and limited.
The other issue that comes up is the whole question of gun control as Arizona has almost no gun controls. No license, no waiting period, no background check. To suggest that such rules might have helped prevent this event immediately draws the old maxim, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." But surely society has a responsibility to its citizens to try to protect the citizens from those who are not able to be responsible for themselves. The shooter's past might well have been revealed in a background check. The obstacles in his way to getting a gun may have prevented this event.
In a much broader discussion there is a major division in our society. No one denies that personal responsibility is where blame ought to be placed. Sex education ought to be taught at home. Parents ought to discipline their children. Two parents ought to be raising a child. Those are all agreed. That is the way we think it SHOULD be done. The division in our society comes when it is finally admitted that it is not that way for all people. There are children who learn about sex on the street. There are children who have no parents to teach them. There are single parents. Then the question is does society as a whole have a responsibility for doing what has not been done?
Does society have a responsibility to protect the citizen from a person with mental problems from getting a weapon? Does society need to teach in school sex education. Who provides and gives discipline when parents fail to do the job? Are we our brothers and sisters keeper?
In Arizona, I have heard them saying that we need to get back to "Frontier Justice." Everybody with a gun on her hip and the right to use it as quickly as possible? Somehow I am not sure that is what Jesus has in mind for the kingdom of God.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Pascal's wager and Global Warming
Once again on the first day of the new year, 2011, I saw a rant about how global warming is all part of some Democratic scam to steal profit, success, and power from corporations. There is, to quote them, no scientific evidence to support the claims of Global Warming. Now that in itself seems rather strange because I have read lots of scientists who conclude that there is Global Warming, but I might be willing to accept in principle that there is no conclusive proof for Global Warming. Even as there is no conclusive proof for half of the things we do based on our current scientific information.
But it seems to me that the question of Global Warming could very well benefit from applying Pascal's Wager about the existence of God and Heaven. Pascal was a French mathematician and theologian. He proposed the following argument. If we "wager" that there is a God and Heaven, and live with that faith, and die and there is a God and a Heaven, then you win. If you wager that there is not a God and a Heaven, and you die and there is a God and a Heaven, you lose. If you wager that there is a God and a Heaven and you die and there is no heaven and no God, then you have lose. If you don't believe in God and a Heaven, and you die, and there is no God and no heaven, then you may win the wager, but you are still dead and no place to go. So the only good wager is to believe there is a God and a Heaven and see what happens. It is the only wager that has a possibility of winning.
If that wager is applied to Global Warming and we begin to make changes that are shaped by that conviction then we may some positive changes in our lives which are good even if we discover that Global Warming is not as serious as some fear. If we wager that there is no Global Warming and do nothing and there is Global Warming happening, then there are going to be very serious negative consequences. The wager that there might be Global warming benefits us even if it turns out to be unnecessary. The wager that there is no Global Warming happening will bring more of the same for society now or worse.
The wager that Global Warming may be happening and making changes as a result of that conviction is the wager that has a win-win either way it happens. The wager that it is not happening has a negative outcome and a neutral (life goes on as currently being lived)outcome. It seems wise to me to wager that Global warming is happening.
But it seems to me that the question of Global Warming could very well benefit from applying Pascal's Wager about the existence of God and Heaven. Pascal was a French mathematician and theologian. He proposed the following argument. If we "wager" that there is a God and Heaven, and live with that faith, and die and there is a God and a Heaven, then you win. If you wager that there is not a God and a Heaven, and you die and there is a God and a Heaven, you lose. If you wager that there is a God and a Heaven and you die and there is no heaven and no God, then you have lose. If you don't believe in God and a Heaven, and you die, and there is no God and no heaven, then you may win the wager, but you are still dead and no place to go. So the only good wager is to believe there is a God and a Heaven and see what happens. It is the only wager that has a possibility of winning.
If that wager is applied to Global Warming and we begin to make changes that are shaped by that conviction then we may some positive changes in our lives which are good even if we discover that Global Warming is not as serious as some fear. If we wager that there is no Global Warming and do nothing and there is Global Warming happening, then there are going to be very serious negative consequences. The wager that there might be Global warming benefits us even if it turns out to be unnecessary. The wager that there is no Global Warming happening will bring more of the same for society now or worse.
The wager that Global Warming may be happening and making changes as a result of that conviction is the wager that has a win-win either way it happens. The wager that it is not happening has a negative outcome and a neutral (life goes on as currently being lived)outcome. It seems wise to me to wager that Global warming is happening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)