There has recently been a bit of press about how President Obama is going toe-to-toe with Congress declaring that he wants to see spending cuts! Specifically, he says that he will not sign any bill that attempts to fund the F-22 aircraft project. Now, I thought that the President was a spend-thrift? Does this spending cut action prove me wrong? Let's take a look at the details.
Well, it is true that President Obama has said the program needs to be cut and that he won't sign any bill that funds the program. It sure feels like he is wanting to cut some pork, right!?
The bill the President is referring to is a $636 billion bill coming out of Congress. Within that bill you can see the f-22 project getting funding. The price tag for the f-22 in this bill: $369 million. Our heads start to spin... millions, billions! These are numbers we never have to deal with in our everyday lives. Let's put these numbers into perspective. The President is saying that he refuses to sign a bill that funds a project worth about 1/20th of 1% of the entire bill. Let me type that again... one twentieth of one percent of the entire bill.
Does this mean that the President is a man of principle? That might seem like a plausible guess. It isn't about how much of the bill it equals, but based on the primciple of not wanting to approve wasteful bork barrel spending, he refuses to sign a bill because he objects to a line-item worth 1/20th of 1% of the bill's total worth.
Here is the problem with that. Pork barrel spending watchdogs claim that the bill contains over 1,000 porkbarrel items in it. The f-22 project is maybe one of those one-thousand items!
Ok, there goes the case for "principle" out the window. Why then is this such a big deal? Well, to you and I who will never see $369 million in our lifetimes, it IS a big deal. But in reality it is a sham of a deal, a token if you will, of what might be wrong in this situation.
If the Presidents gets his fractional cut hacked out of the bill then it will likely be heralded as a "victory for the President" and will be remembered as his move to uphold his promise to get the pork out of Congress. But now, you and I both know, this is a dog and pony show.
This is like the President allowing Congress to go into all of our wallets and at the last minute putting on a loud show, "Wait just a minute! How DARE YOU CONGRESS. Give that man back his empty wallet! How DARE YOU take his wallet from him! You can take all the cash you want from the wallet but LEAVE THE MAN HIS WALLET FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!"
If you want to see the pork out of Congress, well... HEY I am with you. But this is a show and not principle. And if you are still thinking this is a pricipled move because the President really just wants to reduce military spending, well, you have another think coming! If they pull the f-22 out of the bill he said he would sign it: The remaining $636 billion of the bill is all funding programs at the Pentagon... think again!
Friday, July 31, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Favorite New Quote "The truth has come a' knockin!"
Recently a friend from work has decided to force me to watch season one of "Pushing Daisies." This is a very surreal TV show about a man who can bring dead people back to life for 60 seconds and he and some friends solve murders as a result of this gift. It is mostly a dark comedy and there is a lot to like about the show in its various parts while the jury is still out on the show as a whole (for me.) Even though the show only lasted a season and a half, it is growing on me as each episode takes creative turns with the characters and the relationships of those characters on the program.
Well, I have just found my new favorite quotation and it comes from this show.
Near the end of season one there is this episode where a man is killed by his neighbor. You see, the neighbor invited this man out on a double date and when the man meets the neighbor's girlfriend he finds out that the crazy neighbor is dating a life-sized plastic doll that only looks like a women (like I said, quite a surreal show.) Cutting to the chase, the main character in the show is about to confront the neighbor. As the main character is about to knock on the door to begin the confrontation, one of the main character's friends says...
"What if he does actually believe that his doll is a person? Maybe that is his truth, it's just different from our truth?"
The other friend of the main character replies... (and here is my new favorite quote)
"The truth ain't like puppies a bunch of them runnin' around, you pick your favorite. One truth. And it has come a' knock'n!"
Yes! I love it!
Well, I have just found my new favorite quotation and it comes from this show.
Near the end of season one there is this episode where a man is killed by his neighbor. You see, the neighbor invited this man out on a double date and when the man meets the neighbor's girlfriend he finds out that the crazy neighbor is dating a life-sized plastic doll that only looks like a women (like I said, quite a surreal show.) Cutting to the chase, the main character in the show is about to confront the neighbor. As the main character is about to knock on the door to begin the confrontation, one of the main character's friends says...
"What if he does actually believe that his doll is a person? Maybe that is his truth, it's just different from our truth?"
The other friend of the main character replies... (and here is my new favorite quote)
"The truth ain't like puppies a bunch of them runnin' around, you pick your favorite. One truth. And it has come a' knock'n!"
Yes! I love it!
What Can We Learn from Obama’s Thoughts About His Respected Friends Arrest
Here is how I would like to do this. Let’s look at The Good, the Assumptions and The Outcomes.
The Good
Obama can be a compassionate and committed friend. He knew his friend as well as his friend’s reputation and came to his friend’s defense based on what he (thought he) knew. We could always hope for such a friend in our own personal corner of life.
Obama is an educated man and reflects on other external information to review situations in a larger context. A couple of times now a number of radio talk shows from NPR to independent national commercial radio programs have attached themselves to Obama’s reflections on studies that state the idea that Black and Latinos are disproportionately stopped by the police, inferring that this is such a case.
Obama admitted that he knew little about the details of the case. He prefaced everything he said with that statement. I would go so far as to say that it seems to qualify any following remarks in that context.
The Assumptions
Obama said what he heard.
He claimed to have heard that his friend was inevitable inside his home having presented his ID to the police officer who eventually arrested him.
He also stated the assumption that the Boston Police department acted “stupidly.”
The Outcomes
Nothing is resolved yet. We know a few additional facts that we did not previously know. For example, we know, according to Reuters that the man was arrested outside his home, not in it. This simply demonstrates that Obama new less than he previously thought.
We know that Obama jumped to some conclusions about the cause of the arrest, that being racially motivated. According to the admitting of Obama his bias was motivated by those external sources of information that he allowed to influence his line of thinking. Said another way, while he might be right about the event being racially motivated, he could easily as well be wrong and his assumption simply demonstrates that he is willing to jump to certain conclusions based on his bias in the absence of fact.
Before we jump on him for that, I will admit that I do this as well from time to time within my conservative bias. The point is, just as a judge must separate themselves from their bias and review facts in the light of president judgments and the constitution, can Obama successfully do the same in his role as President? Rather than allowing his bias to generate strawmen for the purpose of knocking them down, can he, as President, refrain from building a case for bias and instead demonstrate being a reasonable person willing to wait for the facts? I heard his story of what he thought had transpired. I also agreed with his response to that story. At the same time I also, like many others felt like I was willing to wait for the facts. I didn’t want to jump in and say, “I think that cop was right,” or “Man, that poor respected citizen abused by that policeman.”
Obama could have said, “If what I have heard is the whole story and ends up being true, well, then I think that that police officer acted stupidly.” Moreover, if it were racially motivated I might have used more severe and critical language than simply calling it “stupid.”
But that isn’t what Obama did. Instead he made assumptions and literally claimed the entire police force acted “stupidly.” I am far less a believer that such a statement will come close to being true in this case. Maybe the cop individually acted stupidly, but that leap was clearly irresponsible. I wouldn’t be surprised if we soon read about a detraction on that point; either detraction or a White House redefining of “what the President meant” by that, which is an excuse rather than an apology.
But Obama said he didn’t know much, didn’t he? Well, yes he did. And yet he made the declarative statements he made. In other words, he knew he didn’t know enough, and at that level of knowledge he willingly rendered a biased judgment. I know plenty of people who know the limit of their knowledge and aren’t willing to render such a judgment.
Is this a big deal?
Well in the scope of this situation, I don’t think it is as big a deal as people are making it out to be. It does however raise questions about how Obama comes to conclusions about certain facts or even decisions without the availability of facts.
We already know that Obama isn’t a big reader, so how much insight does the man demand before he is ready to render a decision on big stuff like… the economy, healthcare plan details, local education funding in the multi-billion dollars with unprecedented new federal oversight, cap-and-trade policy, new U.N. Treaties that give jurisdiction over local government at an international level, etc?
My assumptive guess, based on this demonstration of his response in-kind… he doesn’t require nearly as much insight into these scenarios as we previously might have imagined.
The Good
Obama can be a compassionate and committed friend. He knew his friend as well as his friend’s reputation and came to his friend’s defense based on what he (thought he) knew. We could always hope for such a friend in our own personal corner of life.
Obama is an educated man and reflects on other external information to review situations in a larger context. A couple of times now a number of radio talk shows from NPR to independent national commercial radio programs have attached themselves to Obama’s reflections on studies that state the idea that Black and Latinos are disproportionately stopped by the police, inferring that this is such a case.
Obama admitted that he knew little about the details of the case. He prefaced everything he said with that statement. I would go so far as to say that it seems to qualify any following remarks in that context.
The Assumptions
Obama said what he heard.
He claimed to have heard that his friend was inevitable inside his home having presented his ID to the police officer who eventually arrested him.
He also stated the assumption that the Boston Police department acted “stupidly.”
The Outcomes
Nothing is resolved yet. We know a few additional facts that we did not previously know. For example, we know, according to Reuters that the man was arrested outside his home, not in it. This simply demonstrates that Obama new less than he previously thought.
We know that Obama jumped to some conclusions about the cause of the arrest, that being racially motivated. According to the admitting of Obama his bias was motivated by those external sources of information that he allowed to influence his line of thinking. Said another way, while he might be right about the event being racially motivated, he could easily as well be wrong and his assumption simply demonstrates that he is willing to jump to certain conclusions based on his bias in the absence of fact.
Before we jump on him for that, I will admit that I do this as well from time to time within my conservative bias. The point is, just as a judge must separate themselves from their bias and review facts in the light of president judgments and the constitution, can Obama successfully do the same in his role as President? Rather than allowing his bias to generate strawmen for the purpose of knocking them down, can he, as President, refrain from building a case for bias and instead demonstrate being a reasonable person willing to wait for the facts? I heard his story of what he thought had transpired. I also agreed with his response to that story. At the same time I also, like many others felt like I was willing to wait for the facts. I didn’t want to jump in and say, “I think that cop was right,” or “Man, that poor respected citizen abused by that policeman.”
Obama could have said, “If what I have heard is the whole story and ends up being true, well, then I think that that police officer acted stupidly.” Moreover, if it were racially motivated I might have used more severe and critical language than simply calling it “stupid.”
But that isn’t what Obama did. Instead he made assumptions and literally claimed the entire police force acted “stupidly.” I am far less a believer that such a statement will come close to being true in this case. Maybe the cop individually acted stupidly, but that leap was clearly irresponsible. I wouldn’t be surprised if we soon read about a detraction on that point; either detraction or a White House redefining of “what the President meant” by that, which is an excuse rather than an apology.
But Obama said he didn’t know much, didn’t he? Well, yes he did. And yet he made the declarative statements he made. In other words, he knew he didn’t know enough, and at that level of knowledge he willingly rendered a biased judgment. I know plenty of people who know the limit of their knowledge and aren’t willing to render such a judgment.
Is this a big deal?
Well in the scope of this situation, I don’t think it is as big a deal as people are making it out to be. It does however raise questions about how Obama comes to conclusions about certain facts or even decisions without the availability of facts.
We already know that Obama isn’t a big reader, so how much insight does the man demand before he is ready to render a decision on big stuff like… the economy, healthcare plan details, local education funding in the multi-billion dollars with unprecedented new federal oversight, cap-and-trade policy, new U.N. Treaties that give jurisdiction over local government at an international level, etc?
My assumptive guess, based on this demonstration of his response in-kind… he doesn’t require nearly as much insight into these scenarios as we previously might have imagined.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Kindle Book Reviews
So I am thinking about buying a Kindle. I love reading and spend a good portion of the week commuting on the DC Metro so maybe it is time to invest in a Kindle.
What I enjoy the most is the fact that while I could continue to buy lots of books I will no longer have the drawback of the weight and expense of having to move from apartment to apartment with a huge library.
I even found out recently that a few of the publishers who have published my favorite books are selling electronic copies to people at a discount if you can prove you own the book by naming a few obscure facts from within the pages of the text. Interesting!
So the million dollar question for me is, "Will they have the books for which I am looking?" To answer this question I checked out the Amazon.com Kindle store. This was also very interesting. You can see the complete supply of books which range from very obscure goofy texts to extremely popular books that are currently riding the waves of the New York Times bestseller list.
You can annotate the pages, bookmark each book you are reading and if you buy the crazy expensive version then you can even put any PDF from anywhere on the device and read it as you go (I currently own a number of book PDFs and I could include those books in my library.)
At the moment the larger Kindle claims to be able to store about 3,500 books at a time. I feel safe in saying that this is more than the number of books I am typically and concurrently reading, so that would suite me fine. In addition, if I were to hop into my car, I can plug the Kindle into my car stereo and the Kindle will read my book to me. Wait, it gets better. Kindle will also play MP3s for you, so you can throw a few tunes on the device and listen to music on the go while you are reading.
It works in daylight, it is crazy thin and amazingly lite. Have I sold myself yet? I hope so. Now I just need to find a few hundred dollars to get my "kindle" on, if you know what I mean (what? I don't even know what I mean.)
As a side note, as I was reviewing the Amazon Kindle book supply I came across quite a number of interestingly opinionated reviews. I came to a book entitled "Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine." Now I have heard of Glen Beck but I really don't know what he is about other than the fact that he seems to be this slightly goofy conservative commentator. Not that I have a problem with that: I am goofy and I am conservative. I digress. I don't know Glen Beck or his material.
I started to review the synopsis of his book and decided that the Thomas Paine history part sounded interesting. Then I wondered if other people had left comments. Well, of course they had. Here, without permission is a copy of one of those comments...
This is America's eleventh hour! Our democracy is morally, politically and economically bankrupt. I suggest we stop hiding behind "trashy best-sellers" and pore over Glenn Beck's "Common Sense." If for no other reason, at least to grasp a sense of ominous reality and sobering history.
As a former Cuban immmigrant (50 years ago) I see so many similarities between my former country before Castro's revolution and the US today, that sometimes I think I'm re-living a nightmare.
Andrew J. Rodriguez
Author: "Adios, Havana," a Memoir
Here is a link to the commentator's book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Adios-Havana-Andrew-J-Rodriguez/dp/1598000489/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248395449&sr=1-1
I am hoping that this serves as a reminder that not everyone concerned with the state of the country is a white middle-aged card-carrying Republican. Food for thought, people.
Now, where did I put my credit card?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Another $18 million down the drain
Recently I have read stories where we are being told that the economy is once again sound, but not quite back to where we would really like to see it. In other words, “Everybody relax, but not too much.” And why should we relax but not too much? Mostly because there is more fund raising to do. Current the Congressional Budget Office took a look at the recent government plans for health care and announced that it will now add yet another $1 trillion to our national deficit. This is on top of the few other trillions of dollars scheduled to be added onto the deficit since the conclusion of the 2008 election. It was at this time that now in an unprecedented reach-out to influence the Congressional Budget Office, the White House has invited the leadership of the CBO over for a private meeting. Hmmmm? If I am a betting man I would guess that the meeting might have to do with the unfavorable review of the financial outlook of the plan.
Back to the fund raising. While we should relax, one reason we shouldn't relax is because if we don't and health care keeps treading forward as it is today, then we are being told that we could be buried under the expenses of medicare and medicaid costs in future years. On that point alone we are told we should quickly approve this current government health care makeover plan. But, then again, these were the same people who told us to “act now” on the near trillion dollar bailout so that we can save jobs only to completely blow away their worst case scenario on national unemployment anyway (despite the fact that congress “act(ed) now!”) These were the same folks that admitted not long ago that the economy was worse off than they anticipated and that “they were wrong” about their understanding of it. Now we should relax, but not so much that we don't feel this new pressure to solve something else that they are likely wrong about as well.
And the newest, well, not so new fiasco has everything thing to so with how they intend to share information about all of the recovery dollars being spent. Recently Elijah Cummings, the Democrat from Maryland said “If we can't show them that we are doing the right thing with their money, we're going to have problems.” So how will they show us?
Check out the website... http://www.recovery.gov
This is a new website, but apparently it is not new enough. I know, the web moves quickly and this site has been up for what... a couple months now. That is like a century in internet years, right? We'll that is what the White House thinks. So, they recently awarded what will turn out to be an $18 million contract to a company called Smartronix from Maryland (isn't that convenient) that will... redesign the site? That's right. I know of a multimillion dollar company that revamped their entire e-commerce / website by simply putting a single company on less than $1 million annual retainer! They are doing fine! And yet for some reason Recovery.gov needs $18 million to pull this off? That is pretty amazing.
And here is the killer. What are they going to do for recovery.gov again. They are going to redesign the site. Let's take a look at their website.
Go check out... http://www.smartronix.com
Is this a web 2.0 demonstration of social interactive web technology? Does this group even advertise “website redesign” tallent in their top skillset? No!!!
And buckle up for the final note: How will this $18 million pay out? Over the next five years! Said another way, the White House would have us believe that the economy is sound, but could be doing better, so shift your focus to spending $1 trillion in deficit on national healthcare, but well, understand that we feel it is important to set into motion a 5 year plan on phase 2 of a website that explains how we are still recovering from this slump we recently shouldn't feel too bad about, but well, don't get too comfortable?
Are you feeling schizophrenic yet? Well, you should be feeling crazy. Because this current batch of politicians seem to be willing to say whatever the heck they want in completely contrary directions so people will do what they want them to do. What kind of suckers are we? What kind do they take us for?
If you watched TV tonight then at the minimum maybe you got a small feeling of levity when President Obama cracked a few jokes. He can be a very endearing and personable seeming fellow. I can honor that in the man. But it is time to get real people. He may be personally likable, but we don't have to like what he is doing with the other face he seems to have.
Back to the fund raising. While we should relax, one reason we shouldn't relax is because if we don't and health care keeps treading forward as it is today, then we are being told that we could be buried under the expenses of medicare and medicaid costs in future years. On that point alone we are told we should quickly approve this current government health care makeover plan. But, then again, these were the same people who told us to “act now” on the near trillion dollar bailout so that we can save jobs only to completely blow away their worst case scenario on national unemployment anyway (despite the fact that congress “act(ed) now!”) These were the same folks that admitted not long ago that the economy was worse off than they anticipated and that “they were wrong” about their understanding of it. Now we should relax, but not so much that we don't feel this new pressure to solve something else that they are likely wrong about as well.
And the newest, well, not so new fiasco has everything thing to so with how they intend to share information about all of the recovery dollars being spent. Recently Elijah Cummings, the Democrat from Maryland said “If we can't show them that we are doing the right thing with their money, we're going to have problems.” So how will they show us?
Check out the website... http://www.recovery.gov
This is a new website, but apparently it is not new enough. I know, the web moves quickly and this site has been up for what... a couple months now. That is like a century in internet years, right? We'll that is what the White House thinks. So, they recently awarded what will turn out to be an $18 million contract to a company called Smartronix from Maryland (isn't that convenient) that will... redesign the site? That's right. I know of a multimillion dollar company that revamped their entire e-commerce / website by simply putting a single company on less than $1 million annual retainer! They are doing fine! And yet for some reason Recovery.gov needs $18 million to pull this off? That is pretty amazing.
And here is the killer. What are they going to do for recovery.gov again. They are going to redesign the site. Let's take a look at their website.
Go check out... http://www.smartronix.com
Is this a web 2.0 demonstration of social interactive web technology? Does this group even advertise “website redesign” tallent in their top skillset? No!!!
And buckle up for the final note: How will this $18 million pay out? Over the next five years! Said another way, the White House would have us believe that the economy is sound, but could be doing better, so shift your focus to spending $1 trillion in deficit on national healthcare, but well, understand that we feel it is important to set into motion a 5 year plan on phase 2 of a website that explains how we are still recovering from this slump we recently shouldn't feel too bad about, but well, don't get too comfortable?
Are you feeling schizophrenic yet? Well, you should be feeling crazy. Because this current batch of politicians seem to be willing to say whatever the heck they want in completely contrary directions so people will do what they want them to do. What kind of suckers are we? What kind do they take us for?
If you watched TV tonight then at the minimum maybe you got a small feeling of levity when President Obama cracked a few jokes. He can be a very endearing and personable seeming fellow. I can honor that in the man. But it is time to get real people. He may be personally likable, but we don't have to like what he is doing with the other face he seems to have.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Si Senior, Gracias
Tonight I am returning from having been downtown to relax a little before heading into the next business week here. On the way home to Crystal City I went to catch the yellow line from Chinatown and was fully distracted by my thoughts and the soundtrack playing through my iPhone.
I flipped open the metro app to see when the train would arrive and it said it would show up in about one minute. Just then people started to fill the platform from various directions.
I noticed this Hispanic family paying very close attention to their map and each other. Everyone was holding hands. Suddenly the matriarch of the family stepped up the couple standing beside me and said something in Spanish. The darker-skinned man next to me replied "Si!" and the lady smiled.
As the metro opened its doors the family, hand in hand all flowed onto the train.
I found myself sitting just behind the couple who offered advice in Spanish to the family. They all kept smiling over in the direction of the couple, appearing thankful for his having shared advice with them. Then I overheard the couples conversation.
"I did not know you knew Spanish," she said.
"Yeah, people see me and think I know Spanish. This wasn't the first time," he replied.
He went on, "Usually it is just a question and so I just say 'Si' which means yes."
I was in shock! What did the family ask him? Were they on the right train? Did they ask about something to do with what would be at their coming destination?
At the next stop the family got up, all hand in hand, and began to file off the train. Each of them smiled at the couple. The patriarch of the family took up the rear of their family line and as he exited the train said, "Gracias!" to the couple.
As our train took off again, their conversation briefly continued.
"What did he say," she asked.
"He said Gracias, which I think means... like... 'You are a very kind person'... or something like that," he replied.
I really hope that family is not lost in DC? How bizarre was that?
I flipped open the metro app to see when the train would arrive and it said it would show up in about one minute. Just then people started to fill the platform from various directions.
I noticed this Hispanic family paying very close attention to their map and each other. Everyone was holding hands. Suddenly the matriarch of the family stepped up the couple standing beside me and said something in Spanish. The darker-skinned man next to me replied "Si!" and the lady smiled.
As the metro opened its doors the family, hand in hand all flowed onto the train.
I found myself sitting just behind the couple who offered advice in Spanish to the family. They all kept smiling over in the direction of the couple, appearing thankful for his having shared advice with them. Then I overheard the couples conversation.
"I did not know you knew Spanish," she said.
"Yeah, people see me and think I know Spanish. This wasn't the first time," he replied.
He went on, "Usually it is just a question and so I just say 'Si' which means yes."
I was in shock! What did the family ask him? Were they on the right train? Did they ask about something to do with what would be at their coming destination?
At the next stop the family got up, all hand in hand, and began to file off the train. Each of them smiled at the couple. The patriarch of the family took up the rear of their family line and as he exited the train said, "Gracias!" to the couple.
As our train took off again, their conversation briefly continued.
"What did he say," she asked.
"He said Gracias, which I think means... like... 'You are a very kind person'... or something like that," he replied.
I really hope that family is not lost in DC? How bizarre was that?
America is Democrazy - Afterward
OK, I have investigated the history and a quick sampling of current events that contrast Socialism, Communism, Democracy and Republic governance. I can say that while this has in no way been a complete review of the history on these topics it has been very eye-opening. I am certain there is so much more to know and understand but I feel like my ever-so-slightly-less than superficial understanding of these forms of government has put some concerns to rest while giving birth to others.
Initially my reason for investigating this was in response to hearing people debate whether our current Congress + President is or is not moving our country toward Socialism. In addition to that I have listened to discussions where people want to talk about various sliding-scales of socialist ideals and how a government could employ an administration that is either more or less “socialist” without actually being or legitimately moving toward a truly socialist form of government. I have come to a few conclusions on these points but I think it is important that people read the included links to my 5 previous blog entries before entering into debate about my conclusions. Here are a few of my thoughts:
Social politics is a scale from a category I will call “complete automatons” on the left to “total personal freedom” on the right. In the case of utopian social control or “complete automatons” is complete and total fiction. And in the case of utopian liberty or “total personal freedom” you again have a fictional reality that will never be attained. So the scale seems to look like this, in short:
So if you have been thinking that Socialism is an issue of being “more socialist” or “less socialist” then you would be right because at it's nature it is transitional. The problem is in embracing an increasingly socialist-trending government. We know by definition, literally, where that is headed and it is unsuccessful.
I also found the tactics of Stalin's form of Communism an eye-opener. From the manner of propaganda to the intentional “cult of personality”, it reminds me of the current trend in American politics. These days I regularly read about how the opinion polls on Democrats and Republicans are down but the “Obama brand” is strong. This is very Stalin-esk in the light of history. All of that to say that I think we have nearly outlived our roots as a society and that the most basic political tricks are ruling public opinion these day. We are nearly ignorant of our history or of world history and as a result we are a living example of repeating that history.
Finally, in the Socialist example of Robert Owen I found too many parallels for the way he invested in the Socialist economy to what America is doing right now, HOWEVER, these investments will likely fail for the same reason Owen's New Harmony, Indiana, experimental community failed. To recap, like New Harmony, America's leadership is mostly sloppy with their theory and implementation at best and that for our investment to be a success we would have to subjugate some basic capitalist ideals such as personal sovereignty and self-preservation. I will be bold in saying that I am not in favor of such a plan succeeding under any conditions. I would rather be a person of values, knowing the importance of civic liberty and sovereignty rather than trade those values in for a socialist transition toward nationalized communism.
Understand that communism comes in many forms (it is all not Stalinism.) There is Maoism and a host of other variant from parts of the world with flavors of communism that seem far less tyrannical but that are all equally failing. If someone were to say “Socialism is a sliding transition toward communism” people today would be quick to call you a conspiracy theorist. But it is the very definition. And people continue to absorb the principles in those philosophies and styles of governance. For example, Socialism is primarily an economic theory. People who rage against “corporate America” yelling non-specific stereotypical accusations at people who support Capitalism are in fact siding with Socialist philosophy. It isn't like Socialism, rather it is part and parcel with the "class war" agenda against industrial development in a free market categorically that makes it Socialism specifically. Contrast that with people who talk intelligently about actual problems in a capitalist society that are not proposing Socialist solutions that contradict the values of Capitalism. Equally so, people who rage against any semblance of a faith-informed politics are actually siding with a number of oppressive tenants of Communism. Again, contrast that with people who don't demand that a person compartmentalize their life but rather allow their faith, education, intelligence all inform their decision process in a truly rational manner. Ruling out faith as an inappropriate informing factor is specifically an agenda item for the Communist model. I am not making these talking points up. It is in there!
I am learning to think through this stuff as I am sure we all are. But as an experience, I highly recommend people take the time to review history on this topics and not simply take someone else's word for it. In the mean time, TAKE MY WORD FOR IT... just kidding. Feel free to read my thoughts and come up with some of your own (as I am sure you will.)
Here are the links to the blog posts:
Initially my reason for investigating this was in response to hearing people debate whether our current Congress + President is or is not moving our country toward Socialism. In addition to that I have listened to discussions where people want to talk about various sliding-scales of socialist ideals and how a government could employ an administration that is either more or less “socialist” without actually being or legitimately moving toward a truly socialist form of government. I have come to a few conclusions on these points but I think it is important that people read the included links to my 5 previous blog entries before entering into debate about my conclusions. Here are a few of my thoughts:
Social politics is a scale from a category I will call “complete automatons” on the left to “total personal freedom” on the right. In the case of utopian social control or “complete automatons” is complete and total fiction. And in the case of utopian liberty or “total personal freedom” you again have a fictional reality that will never be attained. So the scale seems to look like this, in short:
- Fascist / Communist: Total tyrannical control.
- Socialism: Karl Marx said this is a temporary transitional form of government at best from capitalism to Communism.
- Capitalist / Republic: Values driven civic-liberty-focused governance with a free-market economy.
So if you have been thinking that Socialism is an issue of being “more socialist” or “less socialist” then you would be right because at it's nature it is transitional. The problem is in embracing an increasingly socialist-trending government. We know by definition, literally, where that is headed and it is unsuccessful.
I also found the tactics of Stalin's form of Communism an eye-opener. From the manner of propaganda to the intentional “cult of personality”, it reminds me of the current trend in American politics. These days I regularly read about how the opinion polls on Democrats and Republicans are down but the “Obama brand” is strong. This is very Stalin-esk in the light of history. All of that to say that I think we have nearly outlived our roots as a society and that the most basic political tricks are ruling public opinion these day. We are nearly ignorant of our history or of world history and as a result we are a living example of repeating that history.
Finally, in the Socialist example of Robert Owen I found too many parallels for the way he invested in the Socialist economy to what America is doing right now, HOWEVER, these investments will likely fail for the same reason Owen's New Harmony, Indiana, experimental community failed. To recap, like New Harmony, America's leadership is mostly sloppy with their theory and implementation at best and that for our investment to be a success we would have to subjugate some basic capitalist ideals such as personal sovereignty and self-preservation. I will be bold in saying that I am not in favor of such a plan succeeding under any conditions. I would rather be a person of values, knowing the importance of civic liberty and sovereignty rather than trade those values in for a socialist transition toward nationalized communism.
Understand that communism comes in many forms (it is all not Stalinism.) There is Maoism and a host of other variant from parts of the world with flavors of communism that seem far less tyrannical but that are all equally failing. If someone were to say “Socialism is a sliding transition toward communism” people today would be quick to call you a conspiracy theorist. But it is the very definition. And people continue to absorb the principles in those philosophies and styles of governance. For example, Socialism is primarily an economic theory. People who rage against “corporate America” yelling non-specific stereotypical accusations at people who support Capitalism are in fact siding with Socialist philosophy. It isn't like Socialism, rather it is part and parcel with the "class war" agenda against industrial development in a free market categorically that makes it Socialism specifically. Contrast that with people who talk intelligently about actual problems in a capitalist society that are not proposing Socialist solutions that contradict the values of Capitalism. Equally so, people who rage against any semblance of a faith-informed politics are actually siding with a number of oppressive tenants of Communism. Again, contrast that with people who don't demand that a person compartmentalize their life but rather allow their faith, education, intelligence all inform their decision process in a truly rational manner. Ruling out faith as an inappropriate informing factor is specifically an agenda item for the Communist model. I am not making these talking points up. It is in there!
I am learning to think through this stuff as I am sure we all are. But as an experience, I highly recommend people take the time to review history on this topics and not simply take someone else's word for it. In the mean time, TAKE MY WORD FOR IT... just kidding. Feel free to read my thoughts and come up with some of your own (as I am sure you will.)
Here are the links to the blog posts:
What is a Republic
A Republic is a representative-based government without a monarch. In a Monarchy the government is headed by an individual typically legitimized by heredity often thought to be christened by God. The leadership of a Monarchy typically rules their entire life or until they abdicate to a descendant. In a Republic the governmental legislators are legitimized by their Constitution and via selection by citizens.
There are a few versions of what makes up a Republic and in the case of America the politics are most well defined as a representative democracy. Contrast that with the early democracy of Roman where citizens voted in the Assembly in a form of direct democracy, America selects it's representatives and indirectly adheres to a democratic philosophy of governance.
The idea of a Republic comes from the Renaissance. The most basic core value of a Republic is Liberty. Said another way, a Republics first priority is value-based Liberty or Freedom for it's population. This is an interesting distinction. The latin phrase “libertas populi” means something more like “civic liberty” as opposed to the more nebulous “personal freedom” though both ideas can be found in that phrase.
The definition of liberty is where we begin to see a split between liberal and conservative citizens of a Republic such as the United States of America. Historically, liberals would bring an emphasis to the idea of personal freedom (it is good for everyone for individuals to maximize their freedom: to each his own) while conservatives would prefer to it through the viewpoint of civic liberty (it is good for everyone for individuals to adhere to a common standard: for the betterment of all) Neither of these overarching philosophical talking points address what is actually being stated in the Constitution under Article four.
In Article four of the Constitution it says that the U.S. government will “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” Because the concept of a guarantee has become so watered down today, and as well because we are more focused on federal governance than on individual State governance we might want to take a moment to talk about that phrase.
When the Constitution was signed the colonies were separate States. This means that they were sovereign but with both internal and external relationships to another governmental entity, namely the United Kingdom or Great Britain. The Constitution legitimized a federation of governance over a collection of States. And why would a State switch it's allegiance from G.B. to this new United States of America?
Well, the federal entity was guarantying (i.e. militarily protecting) the States sovereign right to implement a Republican government as opposed to being governed by the Monarchy in England.
What other roles does the new United States of America play other than military defense? According to the founding documents, it would liaise on behalf of those united State with other sovereign nations. It would also play a role in signing treaties between U.S.A. and other nations. How about education, healthcare, financial stability, retirement of its citizens, federal taxation? In all of these cases... it was left up to the States to decide. In the case of taxation however, it wasn't until the first World War that the federal government had grown so large that the constitution was amended to allow for federal taxation (something previously considered unconstitutional.) It was also the advent of federal taxation that lead to ever-increasing growth of scope of responsibility within the federal government (i.e. now that funding was available, so much more could be done.)
So what is distinctive about a Republic?
As you can see if you have been following the other blog entries, nearly all of the other forms of government are based on economic theory. At this point, a Republic stands alone. It's bold declaration that it values civic liberties as the foundation for it's guiding existence makes it revolutionary in it's approach to governance. You might now wonder if that is true in the light of the existence of Monarchies, but in that case you need to know that nearly all Monarchies were again also Republics (U.K. under the King/Queen, Italy under the Pope, etc.)
There have been attempts at drawing a distinction between Republics and Monarchies saying that Monarchies are about land ownership while Republics are about acquisition of wealth through commercial production but this is a fairly recent concept and it breaks down as an argument under certain living examples today.
The fact is that faith played a huge historical role in the formation of Republics. Take for example the Catholic faith. Many Republics in the Middle Ages were legitimized by their position with relationship to their King/Queen and how they related to the Catholic Church. Later under Luther and the Protestant Reformation there were many Republics created without being legitimized by the Catholic Church. This was a further move toward civic liberties often legitimized by Constitutions and not by the Catholic Church. But still, the formation of a Republic existed as a matter of united civic values relating to faith.
In the case of the U.S.A the colonial leadership they continued to feel that faith played a role in legitimizing their governance but rather than coming from the Monarchy, their power came from the people in a way that can only be described as a Republic. From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
And why did we form a Republic?
We often hear it had to do with “taxation without representation” like we seceded simply because of taxes! The fact is that they were struggling with the laws and the poor implementation of the rule of law in the States. In essence the Monarchy was on a power trip and living out a tyrannical set of abuses for whatever reason on the colonies. The colonies would have been satisfied to have been considered Republic-governed States, a part of the U.K. They were not being treated as such.
So with obvious faith when they wrote the phrases...
"... the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them ..."
"... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."
"... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world ..."
"... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
...they established a new Federal Government and in the Constitution promised that the new United States of America would "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."
So, is America a Republic?
It is clear historically that we are a Republic. But the founders of America were not ignorant. They understood that tyrannical leadership can spring up at any time and break, redefine, pillage and destroy what the generations before them suffered so hard to defend. In the Declaration of Independence it also says...
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...”
The “such principles” they refer to are the unalienable God-given rights they mention before that phrase. The Republic of America was not a government founded on economic policies but on faith that informs the politics of the nation.
So with the same understanding and educated effort of Ben Franklin, who after he helped to draft the Constitution was asked by a woman, “Sir, what have you given us?” when anyone asks us what kind of government America has, we should reply...
America is “A Republic... if you can keep it.”
Here are the links to the blog posts:
There are a few versions of what makes up a Republic and in the case of America the politics are most well defined as a representative democracy. Contrast that with the early democracy of Roman where citizens voted in the Assembly in a form of direct democracy, America selects it's representatives and indirectly adheres to a democratic philosophy of governance.
The idea of a Republic comes from the Renaissance. The most basic core value of a Republic is Liberty. Said another way, a Republics first priority is value-based Liberty or Freedom for it's population. This is an interesting distinction. The latin phrase “libertas populi” means something more like “civic liberty” as opposed to the more nebulous “personal freedom” though both ideas can be found in that phrase.
The definition of liberty is where we begin to see a split between liberal and conservative citizens of a Republic such as the United States of America. Historically, liberals would bring an emphasis to the idea of personal freedom (it is good for everyone for individuals to maximize their freedom: to each his own) while conservatives would prefer to it through the viewpoint of civic liberty (it is good for everyone for individuals to adhere to a common standard: for the betterment of all) Neither of these overarching philosophical talking points address what is actually being stated in the Constitution under Article four.
In Article four of the Constitution it says that the U.S. government will “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” Because the concept of a guarantee has become so watered down today, and as well because we are more focused on federal governance than on individual State governance we might want to take a moment to talk about that phrase.
When the Constitution was signed the colonies were separate States. This means that they were sovereign but with both internal and external relationships to another governmental entity, namely the United Kingdom or Great Britain. The Constitution legitimized a federation of governance over a collection of States. And why would a State switch it's allegiance from G.B. to this new United States of America?
Well, the federal entity was guarantying (i.e. militarily protecting) the States sovereign right to implement a Republican government as opposed to being governed by the Monarchy in England.
What other roles does the new United States of America play other than military defense? According to the founding documents, it would liaise on behalf of those united State with other sovereign nations. It would also play a role in signing treaties between U.S.A. and other nations. How about education, healthcare, financial stability, retirement of its citizens, federal taxation? In all of these cases... it was left up to the States to decide. In the case of taxation however, it wasn't until the first World War that the federal government had grown so large that the constitution was amended to allow for federal taxation (something previously considered unconstitutional.) It was also the advent of federal taxation that lead to ever-increasing growth of scope of responsibility within the federal government (i.e. now that funding was available, so much more could be done.)
So what is distinctive about a Republic?
As you can see if you have been following the other blog entries, nearly all of the other forms of government are based on economic theory. At this point, a Republic stands alone. It's bold declaration that it values civic liberties as the foundation for it's guiding existence makes it revolutionary in it's approach to governance. You might now wonder if that is true in the light of the existence of Monarchies, but in that case you need to know that nearly all Monarchies were again also Republics (U.K. under the King/Queen, Italy under the Pope, etc.)
There have been attempts at drawing a distinction between Republics and Monarchies saying that Monarchies are about land ownership while Republics are about acquisition of wealth through commercial production but this is a fairly recent concept and it breaks down as an argument under certain living examples today.
The fact is that faith played a huge historical role in the formation of Republics. Take for example the Catholic faith. Many Republics in the Middle Ages were legitimized by their position with relationship to their King/Queen and how they related to the Catholic Church. Later under Luther and the Protestant Reformation there were many Republics created without being legitimized by the Catholic Church. This was a further move toward civic liberties often legitimized by Constitutions and not by the Catholic Church. But still, the formation of a Republic existed as a matter of united civic values relating to faith.
In the case of the U.S.A the colonial leadership they continued to feel that faith played a role in legitimizing their governance but rather than coming from the Monarchy, their power came from the people in a way that can only be described as a Republic. From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
And why did we form a Republic?
We often hear it had to do with “taxation without representation” like we seceded simply because of taxes! The fact is that they were struggling with the laws and the poor implementation of the rule of law in the States. In essence the Monarchy was on a power trip and living out a tyrannical set of abuses for whatever reason on the colonies. The colonies would have been satisfied to have been considered Republic-governed States, a part of the U.K. They were not being treated as such.
So with obvious faith when they wrote the phrases...
"... the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them ..."
"... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."
"... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world ..."
"... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
...they established a new Federal Government and in the Constitution promised that the new United States of America would "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."
So, is America a Republic?
It is clear historically that we are a Republic. But the founders of America were not ignorant. They understood that tyrannical leadership can spring up at any time and break, redefine, pillage and destroy what the generations before them suffered so hard to defend. In the Declaration of Independence it also says...
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...”
The “such principles” they refer to are the unalienable God-given rights they mention before that phrase. The Republic of America was not a government founded on economic policies but on faith that informs the politics of the nation.
So with the same understanding and educated effort of Ben Franklin, who after he helped to draft the Constitution was asked by a woman, “Sir, what have you given us?” when anyone asks us what kind of government America has, we should reply...
America is “A Republic... if you can keep it.”
Here are the links to the blog posts:
What is Communism
Communism is like Socialism but with the safety wheels taken off. If you want to learn about some of the history of Socialism, you can read a previous blog entry in this set.
Communism is a social and economic political ideology. According to the founders of the philosophy, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (mid 1800s), authors of The Communist Manifesto, the exploited working class within a Capitalist society must rise up in a revolutionary manner to overthrow their Capitalist forms of government in order to implement a transitional Socialist dictatorship via the collective working class (think: philosophical modern Democracy ruled by only the “working class” ) in hopes to eventually evolve into a form of governance of communal classless society that equally shares ownership as well as the means of production.
Today there are a number of different forms of transitional Communism. The most famous forms are politically moderate Communist ideologies that push less for revolution and proletarian (working class) democracy but rather believe in parliamentary forms of governance where representatives would vote in place of the citizens. These moderate communist forms are often politically referred to as Reformists or Social Democrats.
In America in the 1800s New Harmony, Indiana underwent an attempting to form a Capitalist + Socialist form of economic experiment. Within 2 years it failed because Capitalism values personal ownership and personal sovereignty. But Socialism is only a transitional stage between Capitalism and Communism according to Karl Marx. In the early 1900 Vladimir Lenin lead Russia into a Socialist revolution which resulted in a similar incompatibility of values. 100 years earlier in America it was also said that the New Harmony Experiment failed because the leadership in the situation were all not embracing a purer form of Socialism (in the educated and motivated sense of the word.) Back in Russia Communism would not be allowed to failed because of such values.
After 4 years of civil war lead by the Bolsheviks under Lenin, a form of social communism had taken hold but the leadership still struggled with capitalist ideals like personal sovereignty. Joseph Stalin followed Lenin in leading the Russian Communist movement and crushed any remaining over capitalist ideals converting Russian Communism into a form now referred to as the Communist Totalitarian ideology. How did Stalin do this? Lenin opened the door to the Marxist economic philosophy in Russia. Stalin wanted to ensure that Communism continued and that he would remain the figurehead to that movement. As a result his implementation of Communism resulted in something called Stalinism which was most famous for maintain communism with him as the head by: enlarging the reach of his government in ways that reduced personal sovereignty, national and international spying, punishment by law enforcers that did not involve court-based judgments, political “purgings” by killing, suppressing or exiling political opponents, extensive use of propoganda to establish a “personality cult” around him in order to maintain control over the nation and his Communist party. This is what it took from the Stalinism form of Communism to crush the values found in Capitalism.
Nearly 80 years later we learned that the Soviet Union established by Lenin, bolstered by Stalin, was nearly bankrupt. America in the 1980 cranked up nearly every political and social pressure to hen reveal that the U.S.S.R. was a failed experiment in Socialism and Communism. By the end of the 1980s the Soviet Union was no more and former Soviet nations began to move back toward Capitalist economics.
So is America Communist? In my opinion, like socialist ideology in America, people still promote certain values found in Marxist ideals like “class war” or “political governance of the means of production”, or “the subjugation of personal sovereignty for the purpose of social reform” or even “communal ownership via federal governance (of certain resources or opportunities)” but fundamentally America itself and its founding documentation doesn't allow for the Elected to simply do away with our Capitalist Republic in favor of the current winner 's sociopolitical-economic ideology. Well, not inevitably. It will always take a revolution to undo our Constitution or Bill of Rights or the values found in the Declaration of Independence. That is not to say that various expensive sociopolitical-economic “experiments” could not be attempted in ignorance in such a way as to simply cause long and painful and sometimes irreparable harm to America without actually turning us into something we are not.
It is better that we know the definition of these ideologies and their historical experiments before we simply jump out-of-context into some new political movement.
Here are the links to the blog posts:
Communism is a social and economic political ideology. According to the founders of the philosophy, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (mid 1800s), authors of The Communist Manifesto, the exploited working class within a Capitalist society must rise up in a revolutionary manner to overthrow their Capitalist forms of government in order to implement a transitional Socialist dictatorship via the collective working class (think: philosophical modern Democracy ruled by only the “working class” ) in hopes to eventually evolve into a form of governance of communal classless society that equally shares ownership as well as the means of production.
Today there are a number of different forms of transitional Communism. The most famous forms are politically moderate Communist ideologies that push less for revolution and proletarian (working class) democracy but rather believe in parliamentary forms of governance where representatives would vote in place of the citizens. These moderate communist forms are often politically referred to as Reformists or Social Democrats.
In America in the 1800s New Harmony, Indiana underwent an attempting to form a Capitalist + Socialist form of economic experiment. Within 2 years it failed because Capitalism values personal ownership and personal sovereignty. But Socialism is only a transitional stage between Capitalism and Communism according to Karl Marx. In the early 1900 Vladimir Lenin lead Russia into a Socialist revolution which resulted in a similar incompatibility of values. 100 years earlier in America it was also said that the New Harmony Experiment failed because the leadership in the situation were all not embracing a purer form of Socialism (in the educated and motivated sense of the word.) Back in Russia Communism would not be allowed to failed because of such values.
After 4 years of civil war lead by the Bolsheviks under Lenin, a form of social communism had taken hold but the leadership still struggled with capitalist ideals like personal sovereignty. Joseph Stalin followed Lenin in leading the Russian Communist movement and crushed any remaining over capitalist ideals converting Russian Communism into a form now referred to as the Communist Totalitarian ideology. How did Stalin do this? Lenin opened the door to the Marxist economic philosophy in Russia. Stalin wanted to ensure that Communism continued and that he would remain the figurehead to that movement. As a result his implementation of Communism resulted in something called Stalinism which was most famous for maintain communism with him as the head by: enlarging the reach of his government in ways that reduced personal sovereignty, national and international spying, punishment by law enforcers that did not involve court-based judgments, political “purgings” by killing, suppressing or exiling political opponents, extensive use of propoganda to establish a “personality cult” around him in order to maintain control over the nation and his Communist party. This is what it took from the Stalinism form of Communism to crush the values found in Capitalism.
Nearly 80 years later we learned that the Soviet Union established by Lenin, bolstered by Stalin, was nearly bankrupt. America in the 1980 cranked up nearly every political and social pressure to hen reveal that the U.S.S.R. was a failed experiment in Socialism and Communism. By the end of the 1980s the Soviet Union was no more and former Soviet nations began to move back toward Capitalist economics.
So is America Communist? In my opinion, like socialist ideology in America, people still promote certain values found in Marxist ideals like “class war” or “political governance of the means of production”, or “the subjugation of personal sovereignty for the purpose of social reform” or even “communal ownership via federal governance (of certain resources or opportunities)” but fundamentally America itself and its founding documentation doesn't allow for the Elected to simply do away with our Capitalist Republic in favor of the current winner 's sociopolitical-economic ideology. Well, not inevitably. It will always take a revolution to undo our Constitution or Bill of Rights or the values found in the Declaration of Independence. That is not to say that various expensive sociopolitical-economic “experiments” could not be attempted in ignorance in such a way as to simply cause long and painful and sometimes irreparable harm to America without actually turning us into something we are not.
It is better that we know the definition of these ideologies and their historical experiments before we simply jump out-of-context into some new political movement.
Here are the links to the blog posts:
What is Socialism
Socialism is first and foremost an economic theory. If someone says “This country is socialist” they mean to speak specifically to the way politics manages the economic administration of the country.
So what does this economic perspective encompass? Traditionally, socialist (economic) political agenda includes collective ownership and administration of (1) the means of production, (2) the distribution of goods and it's fair distribution across the full spectrum of society in an egalitarian (aka all people are philosophically equal) manner.
To offer a little history the most famous promoter of the Socialist perspective was Karl Marx. He said that socialist ideals would be achieved via class struggle where the working class would fight to come into power. Said another way (that you have maybe heard in the press), Socialism would be achieved via a proletarian “class war” revolution.
In an American form of government we are ruled by a Constitution. All other laws in our country are based on and conform with the rule of law provided by the Constitution. If laws are suggested that do not comply with the Constitution then we hear that the ruling was “un-Constitutional” and the ruling is typically addressed and reversed.
In a proletarian (or working class) “class war” the only way an American form of government becomes truly socialist would be via revolution. A revolution would be required to abandon the Constitution which explicitly declared that we have a Republican and not Socialist form of government. Said another way, no matter who is elected in the American form of government, the elected rulers cannot simply convert the government from a Republic to a Socialist form.
As late as the late 1700 and early 1800 a man by the name of Robert Owen from Wales helped to co-found the Socialist economic theory. Mr. Owen believed that Socialism should be founded on three core philosophies: (1) people are a product of their environment and are not responsible for who they have become. They are a socially engineered creature and society is responsible and not the individual, (2) all religions are absurd and weaken mankind while general spirituality is acceptable to a degree, and (3) that the government should manage the output of the nation on an administrative level.
Socialism has not moved far from the days of Robert Owen. In fact in as late as 1825 Owen himself ventured to implement a form of Socialism within a Capitalist society. The experiment lasted two years, was placed in New Harmony, Indiana (USA), and was a miserable failure. Even though a lot of money had been invested in the socialist experiment (this was a historical hallmark of Owen's form of socialism... the large financial investment) it was said to have failed because the social mix in the planned community consisted of people who were well intentioned but contained others who were called “wrongheaded enthusiasts” or “lazy theorists.” Said another way, for Owen's Socialism to have worked in a Capitalist society it would have demanded that all those in power be well educated in the principles of socialist production, confirmedly well intentioned.
On the flipside Josiah Warren, a participant in the experiment, said that it was a plan doomed to fail from the beginning because it ran against traditional Capitalist values such as individual sovereignty and private ownership. It seems that Josiah had a grasp of the incompatible values between Socialism and Capitalism while Owen would have to subjugate Capitalism to the values of Socialism to be successful.
So is America Socialist? Well, I think this selection of history demonstrates that while America is confirmedly Capitalist that people from time to time attempt to implement Socialist philosophical economic theory into it. Because Capitalism is not compatible with Socialism one or the other eventually must step aside. And since Capitalism values personal individual sovereignty and private ownership and these value must be removed from society for Socialism to inevitably work, I don't see America truly embracing Socialism anytime soon.
As an additional side note, it took two years for Owen's Indiana experiment to fail. Again, recall that it required a large investment and as at war in Capitalist values and it still took two years to fail. If you increase the scale of the experiment to encompass all of the United States and increase the investment from, say, thousands of dollars to, say, trillions of dollars you can imagine that America could try a grander “Capitalism + Socialism” experiment again, but he result will likely be one of three scenarios:
1.Capitalism leaves the equation quickly and Socialism becomes the economic theory for America.
2.Capitalism leaves the equation slowly and Socialism becomes the economic theory for America but the investment is so expensive that it reduces everyone into either the “working class” or into the “administrative (governing) class” (read the history of Communism.)
3.Capitalism stays and Socialism leaves slowly, and we are again buried under the investment of the experiment in a new national great depression.
At the moment I don't think we are in a place that could truly afford the investment to make such an experiment a success (if it could be a success at all.) I worry that we might try however and end up in scenario #3 above.
Regardless of speculation, I do not believe America has a Socialist form of government. Based on this history I do believe we might be heading for a new experiment in merging socialist values with capitalist values.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that Karl Marx said that Socialism is only a transitional stage. History tells us that his assertion is true. Countries do not inevitably stay socialist. According to Marx, on one end of the economic spectrum lives Capitalism, on the other end Communism. Karl Marx said that Socialism is the transitional stage from Capitalism to Communism.
Read my blog entry on Communism to learn more.
Here are the links to the blog posts:
So what does this economic perspective encompass? Traditionally, socialist (economic) political agenda includes collective ownership and administration of (1) the means of production, (2) the distribution of goods and it's fair distribution across the full spectrum of society in an egalitarian (aka all people are philosophically equal) manner.
To offer a little history the most famous promoter of the Socialist perspective was Karl Marx. He said that socialist ideals would be achieved via class struggle where the working class would fight to come into power. Said another way (that you have maybe heard in the press), Socialism would be achieved via a proletarian “class war” revolution.
In an American form of government we are ruled by a Constitution. All other laws in our country are based on and conform with the rule of law provided by the Constitution. If laws are suggested that do not comply with the Constitution then we hear that the ruling was “un-Constitutional” and the ruling is typically addressed and reversed.
In a proletarian (or working class) “class war” the only way an American form of government becomes truly socialist would be via revolution. A revolution would be required to abandon the Constitution which explicitly declared that we have a Republican and not Socialist form of government. Said another way, no matter who is elected in the American form of government, the elected rulers cannot simply convert the government from a Republic to a Socialist form.
As late as the late 1700 and early 1800 a man by the name of Robert Owen from Wales helped to co-found the Socialist economic theory. Mr. Owen believed that Socialism should be founded on three core philosophies: (1) people are a product of their environment and are not responsible for who they have become. They are a socially engineered creature and society is responsible and not the individual, (2) all religions are absurd and weaken mankind while general spirituality is acceptable to a degree, and (3) that the government should manage the output of the nation on an administrative level.
Socialism has not moved far from the days of Robert Owen. In fact in as late as 1825 Owen himself ventured to implement a form of Socialism within a Capitalist society. The experiment lasted two years, was placed in New Harmony, Indiana (USA), and was a miserable failure. Even though a lot of money had been invested in the socialist experiment (this was a historical hallmark of Owen's form of socialism... the large financial investment) it was said to have failed because the social mix in the planned community consisted of people who were well intentioned but contained others who were called “wrongheaded enthusiasts” or “lazy theorists.” Said another way, for Owen's Socialism to have worked in a Capitalist society it would have demanded that all those in power be well educated in the principles of socialist production, confirmedly well intentioned.
On the flipside Josiah Warren, a participant in the experiment, said that it was a plan doomed to fail from the beginning because it ran against traditional Capitalist values such as individual sovereignty and private ownership. It seems that Josiah had a grasp of the incompatible values between Socialism and Capitalism while Owen would have to subjugate Capitalism to the values of Socialism to be successful.
So is America Socialist? Well, I think this selection of history demonstrates that while America is confirmedly Capitalist that people from time to time attempt to implement Socialist philosophical economic theory into it. Because Capitalism is not compatible with Socialism one or the other eventually must step aside. And since Capitalism values personal individual sovereignty and private ownership and these value must be removed from society for Socialism to inevitably work, I don't see America truly embracing Socialism anytime soon.
As an additional side note, it took two years for Owen's Indiana experiment to fail. Again, recall that it required a large investment and as at war in Capitalist values and it still took two years to fail. If you increase the scale of the experiment to encompass all of the United States and increase the investment from, say, thousands of dollars to, say, trillions of dollars you can imagine that America could try a grander “Capitalism + Socialism” experiment again, but he result will likely be one of three scenarios:
1.Capitalism leaves the equation quickly and Socialism becomes the economic theory for America.
2.Capitalism leaves the equation slowly and Socialism becomes the economic theory for America but the investment is so expensive that it reduces everyone into either the “working class” or into the “administrative (governing) class” (read the history of Communism.)
3.Capitalism stays and Socialism leaves slowly, and we are again buried under the investment of the experiment in a new national great depression.
At the moment I don't think we are in a place that could truly afford the investment to make such an experiment a success (if it could be a success at all.) I worry that we might try however and end up in scenario #3 above.
Regardless of speculation, I do not believe America has a Socialist form of government. Based on this history I do believe we might be heading for a new experiment in merging socialist values with capitalist values.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that Karl Marx said that Socialism is only a transitional stage. History tells us that his assertion is true. Countries do not inevitably stay socialist. According to Marx, on one end of the economic spectrum lives Capitalism, on the other end Communism. Karl Marx said that Socialism is the transitional stage from Capitalism to Communism.
Read my blog entry on Communism to learn more.
Here are the links to the blog posts:
Saturday, July 18, 2009
What is Democracy
The word democracy means “majority rule.” What does this mean in practical terms? Well, fundamentally it means that when faced with a decision that results in “rule” the majority of people decide.
Let's quickly imagine what a majority ruling could mean in reality. Think about various scenarios: race demographics, companies that employ us, folks on a camping trip, etc. And now imagine that for each situation there are no guiding principles but rather decisions voted upon by a group of available contemporaries and whatever that majority looks like in that moment decides what the current rule looks like. Sounds sort of wild-west doesn't it?
Now, you might imagine that a majority rule scenario was how we were founded, correct? But rather than voting on a moment requiring a ruling, we voted on a constitution that established a basis for future rulings. In that case you would be mostly right, except for the fact that we didn't vote as a country of people in an opportunity. A number of colonial leaders voted or rather drafted the Constitution which defined a new way of governing, not by majority rule but by a rule of law that outlined a limited form of government with a very particular purpose.So if Democracy means majority rule, how did the phrase get re-purposed to mean a select group of people rule? Is it still a Democracy if the majority does not rule but there is another guiding rule of law that is simply implemented by a representative minority?
Is America a democracy? Well, I believe as a philosophy, we could say that we are philosophically democratic. But in reality, we are ruled by established law and to this day we continue to refer to the Constitution as our basis for law and legal rulings.
To offer a little Democracy backstory, in ancient Rome if you were a citizen, you were allowed to vote in the Assembly (think about how big those meetings must have been!) This was a more true form of Democracy. In an American form of government you cannot vote with regard to Congressional laws unless you are a seated senator (and even there you will find certain exceptions.) So, clearly America may be philosophically a Democracy, but in reality and by all practical means, we are not a Democracy by that definition of that form of government.
By the Middle Ages, Democracies began to take a different form. The groups being allowed to vote became smaller and more representative rather than inviting citizens to vote. Some might blame the degree of education or lack thereof during the Middle Ages on the reason voting power became representative. Said another way, Democracies simply began to morph into an elite group of empowered individuals who ruled in their delegated minority and simply called themselves representatives of the majority. It is as if by the Middle Ages the notion of Democracy almost fully transitioned from a true form of citizen governance to simply a philosophy of words. In this sense of the definition for Democracy, America does partly fit this form of rule. But we still have a guiding Constitution which forms a basis for rule, which again challenges the notion of America having a Democratic form of government.
Finally America was established and we “Declared” and “Constituted” our rights and rule of law. Interestingly enough there is not a single mention of democracy in either of these documents. I find it interesting that while there were documented (not in these documents) various philosophies of Democracy, that our form of government is not described as a Democracy.
In the case that you might be thinking I am drawing up a straw man, I am not. You might want to ask me, “Well, just because they didn't say it, doesn't mean it isn't true, right?” Let's take an example of that:
If you were to say, “Steve is a fighter,” and your basis for this is founded in the probability that Steve didn't mention that he isn't a fighter, well, you might be right, but you might as well be wrong. Now, what if I did explicitly say, “Steve is a lover.” In that case would it not be more accurate to say, “Steve is a lover, not a fighter.” It would be more accurate yet to say “Steve is surely a lover, but he might also be a fighter,” as long as the two things aren't contradictory.
Equally as interesting, it is explicitly documented in the constitution under Article 4, Section 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...”
In the blog article for What is a Republic you can decide if it is possible for America to be both a Republic as well as a Democracy and if these ideas are contradictory.
Here is where you scratch your head. If you have been asked or asked people “What form of government does America have?” and the popular answer to date has been, “We are a democracy” then you might want to examine why the notion of a Democracy is now more popular that the answer “We are a Republic.”
Here are the links to the blog posts:
Let's quickly imagine what a majority ruling could mean in reality. Think about various scenarios: race demographics, companies that employ us, folks on a camping trip, etc. And now imagine that for each situation there are no guiding principles but rather decisions voted upon by a group of available contemporaries and whatever that majority looks like in that moment decides what the current rule looks like. Sounds sort of wild-west doesn't it?
Now, you might imagine that a majority rule scenario was how we were founded, correct? But rather than voting on a moment requiring a ruling, we voted on a constitution that established a basis for future rulings. In that case you would be mostly right, except for the fact that we didn't vote as a country of people in an opportunity. A number of colonial leaders voted or rather drafted the Constitution which defined a new way of governing, not by majority rule but by a rule of law that outlined a limited form of government with a very particular purpose.So if Democracy means majority rule, how did the phrase get re-purposed to mean a select group of people rule? Is it still a Democracy if the majority does not rule but there is another guiding rule of law that is simply implemented by a representative minority?
Is America a democracy? Well, I believe as a philosophy, we could say that we are philosophically democratic. But in reality, we are ruled by established law and to this day we continue to refer to the Constitution as our basis for law and legal rulings.
To offer a little Democracy backstory, in ancient Rome if you were a citizen, you were allowed to vote in the Assembly (think about how big those meetings must have been!) This was a more true form of Democracy. In an American form of government you cannot vote with regard to Congressional laws unless you are a seated senator (and even there you will find certain exceptions.) So, clearly America may be philosophically a Democracy, but in reality and by all practical means, we are not a Democracy by that definition of that form of government.
By the Middle Ages, Democracies began to take a different form. The groups being allowed to vote became smaller and more representative rather than inviting citizens to vote. Some might blame the degree of education or lack thereof during the Middle Ages on the reason voting power became representative. Said another way, Democracies simply began to morph into an elite group of empowered individuals who ruled in their delegated minority and simply called themselves representatives of the majority. It is as if by the Middle Ages the notion of Democracy almost fully transitioned from a true form of citizen governance to simply a philosophy of words. In this sense of the definition for Democracy, America does partly fit this form of rule. But we still have a guiding Constitution which forms a basis for rule, which again challenges the notion of America having a Democratic form of government.
Finally America was established and we “Declared” and “Constituted” our rights and rule of law. Interestingly enough there is not a single mention of democracy in either of these documents. I find it interesting that while there were documented (not in these documents) various philosophies of Democracy, that our form of government is not described as a Democracy.
In the case that you might be thinking I am drawing up a straw man, I am not. You might want to ask me, “Well, just because they didn't say it, doesn't mean it isn't true, right?” Let's take an example of that:
If you were to say, “Steve is a fighter,” and your basis for this is founded in the probability that Steve didn't mention that he isn't a fighter, well, you might be right, but you might as well be wrong. Now, what if I did explicitly say, “Steve is a lover.” In that case would it not be more accurate to say, “Steve is a lover, not a fighter.” It would be more accurate yet to say “Steve is surely a lover, but he might also be a fighter,” as long as the two things aren't contradictory.
Equally as interesting, it is explicitly documented in the constitution under Article 4, Section 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...”
In the blog article for What is a Republic you can decide if it is possible for America to be both a Republic as well as a Democracy and if these ideas are contradictory.
Here is where you scratch your head. If you have been asked or asked people “What form of government does America have?” and the popular answer to date has been, “We are a democracy” then you might want to examine why the notion of a Democracy is now more popular that the answer “We are a Republic.”
Here are the links to the blog posts:
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Crazy Dream
When the phone rang, somehow I knew the call was coming from upstairs so I rounded the corner and silently leaped up the stairs to find the source of the call. As I quietly but quickly stepped into my sisters bedroom I slipped into the secret cubbyhole that we often used to sneak around the house inside the walls. The caller was just ahead of me. But once I was inside the hidden space I found I was chasing myself, but not just myself, a version of myself from 1992. It didn't look like me, it was me and my heart was racing. I could feel my surprise. Not my surprise but the surprise of the younger version of myself, and I could literally feel it. It was like we were occupying the same time and our consciousness was merging. My younger self dashed into a room off of the secret space I had never in all of my dreams been into. My heart was racing. What could be around that corner? I was about to find out.
I almost never remember my dreams. Most of the time they are a mix of current events warped into something either humorous or disturbing or nonsensical. Once in a while suddenly realize I am dreaming and the dream dissolves away. Other times I question if I am dreaming and the dream just goes extra goofy. But there are these times I have these deeper more complicated dreams that end up being reoccurring. For example, when I was in college I would have these dreams that I was back in either my house in Duluth, MN, or in the house in Neenah, WI, and we would have some reason to be sneaking around the house. In both of those houses my sister Katy's bedroom was located in the Southwest corner of the house, on the second floor, and I would dream that from that room there was a crawl-space that led to a space between the walls and we could get around the house by carefully navigating our way through the walls. I have had a number of reoccurring dreams in my life and I believe this is the last of it's kind in my life at this point. All of the others were younger and more warped.
Last night I had a dream but it was not really a reoccurring dream with regard to the storyline. The location however, the crawl-space, only existed inside that reoccurring dream from my college days. And to establish a bit more history, I haven't had that dream in so many years that I couldn't begin to tell you when I had it last.
In the dream I was hanging out with my two sisters and similar to most of the deeper dreams I sometimes have I seemed to be able to suddenly remember a lot of backstory to our completely fictional dream situation, which makes the dream seem so much more real. As we were standing there Amy and Katy were saying goodbye to me and getting into a car to drive away, presumably back home to Wisconsin (as I live in Arlington, VA across the Potomac from DC.) Amy gave me her cell phone number and as she was leaving I recorded it into my cell phone and I waved goodbye. The weather was sort of gloomy and cloudy with impending rain that refused to fall until it was good and ready. As I walked back into the house my phone began to ring.
There was something funny about the way the phone rang. While I knew my sisters just drove away, part of the dream seemed to splinter at that moment. I was suddenly standing in my Duluth home and while I could still see my sisters car heading down the street I knew the phone call was really coming from the second floor of the house even though my phone said it was my sister Amy. In that moment I knew that the car driving away was sort of like a dream but then I wondered if what was upstairs was somehow real. So I headed up the stairs.
I have seen myself in a dream before. Typically seeing myself just means I am seeing the dream from a third-person perspective, a non-participant simply observing the moment. This was different. First, I remembered the outfit I was wearing. In fact I remember the exact moment because my mom took a picture of me that day. I was wearing jeans and a tucked in flannel dress shirt and a lazy beard on my face. I was barely old enough to grow a beard but I think that was the reason I did it. I never saw my bearded face. Second, as the younger version of me darted around the corner I could feel his feelings of fear and excitement and virtually hear his thoughts in my head, which made my heard hurt a little like when you are running a high temperature. That never happened to me in a third-person perspective dream before.
Once I rounded the corner into the new hidden room, the younger version of myself was gone and I was standing in a room much like the attic of a house with exposed wooden beams and small windows. At that point I said aloud, “This is bizarre.” From the northwest corner of the room standing by a small window was a man I couldn't describe who told me, “You are dreaming,” and he motioned with his hand to a balcony. I opened the french doors and stepped out on the balcony. Someone who looked like my sister Katy was standing on the balcony, but it wasn't my sister Katy. She only looked like her for some reason. She pointed out to the street where I saw a 30-something aged woman with two kids. The woman was around my age and one child was very young and sitting on her hip. The other kid was standing beside her holder her other free hand. I never saw the woman before in my life. As the women with children stood there in the street the Katy-person said (but somehow didn't speak out loud because her mouth didn't move,) “She would look like this today.” I knew those were her kids and they all look at me as if they knew me but also through me like they were a movie and not really there. Just then a car was coming down the street and drove right through them as if they were a hologram.
The Katy-person pointed out others that then appeared and said things or acted out moments from their lives. Oddly enough they all seemed to know me but I recognized none of them. The moments were like presentations or simulations from a version of now that apparently didn't seem to exist.
Then the Katy character motioned down the road where a storm had suddenly broken free. Lighting was striking the ground and the street was cracking and opening up small little holes that crumbled into larger holes. Holographic people were running around attempting to search for help. Out of the holes climbed these ape-like creatures with enormous heads, with pieces of asphalt matted into their hair. The holographic people were running toward the house, the ape-like creatures were quickly coming up behind them and I retreated back into the house.
Suddenly it became clear that I was fully back into the dream moment again, likely from the moments near to the storms beginning. The ape-like creatures seemed very much like something out of a bad scary movie from the 1970s. The only scary moment from me, however, was the moment when I saw myself and the dream seemed to change for a short time into something other than a typical dream.
So now, completely out of the dream I am left with questions: Why was I back into a version of a childhood home from a reoccurring dream but not in the reoccurring dream itself? Why were my sisters in the dream? What was the significance of the younger version of myself and why did I feel that versions feelings, the fear and excitement? Who was the other person standing by the window in the attic room that told me I was dreaming? Most impacting, why did my head create a character like my sister katy -but not Katy- to show me a picture of a woman with two kids and tell me “she would look like this today,” and was “today” really today or the past or the future? Ah, too many questions.
So is this just a humorous / disturbing / nonsensical dream or something else? Is part of it significant and part of it just a typical dream. Is the broken street struck by lightening with emerging big-headed Apes more to do with the fact that I drank a coke not long before bed, or is my subconscious just in creative overdrive at the moment!? Am I trying to tell myself something? Is God trying to tell me something through my dreams? Maybe I need a reading + movie break, but I don't really read many books like that dream or see many movies like that dream really.... wacky.
I almost never remember my dreams. Most of the time they are a mix of current events warped into something either humorous or disturbing or nonsensical. Once in a while suddenly realize I am dreaming and the dream dissolves away. Other times I question if I am dreaming and the dream just goes extra goofy. But there are these times I have these deeper more complicated dreams that end up being reoccurring. For example, when I was in college I would have these dreams that I was back in either my house in Duluth, MN, or in the house in Neenah, WI, and we would have some reason to be sneaking around the house. In both of those houses my sister Katy's bedroom was located in the Southwest corner of the house, on the second floor, and I would dream that from that room there was a crawl-space that led to a space between the walls and we could get around the house by carefully navigating our way through the walls. I have had a number of reoccurring dreams in my life and I believe this is the last of it's kind in my life at this point. All of the others were younger and more warped.
Last night I had a dream but it was not really a reoccurring dream with regard to the storyline. The location however, the crawl-space, only existed inside that reoccurring dream from my college days. And to establish a bit more history, I haven't had that dream in so many years that I couldn't begin to tell you when I had it last.
In the dream I was hanging out with my two sisters and similar to most of the deeper dreams I sometimes have I seemed to be able to suddenly remember a lot of backstory to our completely fictional dream situation, which makes the dream seem so much more real. As we were standing there Amy and Katy were saying goodbye to me and getting into a car to drive away, presumably back home to Wisconsin (as I live in Arlington, VA across the Potomac from DC.) Amy gave me her cell phone number and as she was leaving I recorded it into my cell phone and I waved goodbye. The weather was sort of gloomy and cloudy with impending rain that refused to fall until it was good and ready. As I walked back into the house my phone began to ring.
There was something funny about the way the phone rang. While I knew my sisters just drove away, part of the dream seemed to splinter at that moment. I was suddenly standing in my Duluth home and while I could still see my sisters car heading down the street I knew the phone call was really coming from the second floor of the house even though my phone said it was my sister Amy. In that moment I knew that the car driving away was sort of like a dream but then I wondered if what was upstairs was somehow real. So I headed up the stairs.
I have seen myself in a dream before. Typically seeing myself just means I am seeing the dream from a third-person perspective, a non-participant simply observing the moment. This was different. First, I remembered the outfit I was wearing. In fact I remember the exact moment because my mom took a picture of me that day. I was wearing jeans and a tucked in flannel dress shirt and a lazy beard on my face. I was barely old enough to grow a beard but I think that was the reason I did it. I never saw my bearded face. Second, as the younger version of me darted around the corner I could feel his feelings of fear and excitement and virtually hear his thoughts in my head, which made my heard hurt a little like when you are running a high temperature. That never happened to me in a third-person perspective dream before.
Once I rounded the corner into the new hidden room, the younger version of myself was gone and I was standing in a room much like the attic of a house with exposed wooden beams and small windows. At that point I said aloud, “This is bizarre.” From the northwest corner of the room standing by a small window was a man I couldn't describe who told me, “You are dreaming,” and he motioned with his hand to a balcony. I opened the french doors and stepped out on the balcony. Someone who looked like my sister Katy was standing on the balcony, but it wasn't my sister Katy. She only looked like her for some reason. She pointed out to the street where I saw a 30-something aged woman with two kids. The woman was around my age and one child was very young and sitting on her hip. The other kid was standing beside her holder her other free hand. I never saw the woman before in my life. As the women with children stood there in the street the Katy-person said (but somehow didn't speak out loud because her mouth didn't move,) “She would look like this today.” I knew those were her kids and they all look at me as if they knew me but also through me like they were a movie and not really there. Just then a car was coming down the street and drove right through them as if they were a hologram.
The Katy-person pointed out others that then appeared and said things or acted out moments from their lives. Oddly enough they all seemed to know me but I recognized none of them. The moments were like presentations or simulations from a version of now that apparently didn't seem to exist.
Then the Katy character motioned down the road where a storm had suddenly broken free. Lighting was striking the ground and the street was cracking and opening up small little holes that crumbled into larger holes. Holographic people were running around attempting to search for help. Out of the holes climbed these ape-like creatures with enormous heads, with pieces of asphalt matted into their hair. The holographic people were running toward the house, the ape-like creatures were quickly coming up behind them and I retreated back into the house.
Suddenly it became clear that I was fully back into the dream moment again, likely from the moments near to the storms beginning. The ape-like creatures seemed very much like something out of a bad scary movie from the 1970s. The only scary moment from me, however, was the moment when I saw myself and the dream seemed to change for a short time into something other than a typical dream.
So now, completely out of the dream I am left with questions: Why was I back into a version of a childhood home from a reoccurring dream but not in the reoccurring dream itself? Why were my sisters in the dream? What was the significance of the younger version of myself and why did I feel that versions feelings, the fear and excitement? Who was the other person standing by the window in the attic room that told me I was dreaming? Most impacting, why did my head create a character like my sister katy -but not Katy- to show me a picture of a woman with two kids and tell me “she would look like this today,” and was “today” really today or the past or the future? Ah, too many questions.
So is this just a humorous / disturbing / nonsensical dream or something else? Is part of it significant and part of it just a typical dream. Is the broken street struck by lightening with emerging big-headed Apes more to do with the fact that I drank a coke not long before bed, or is my subconscious just in creative overdrive at the moment!? Am I trying to tell myself something? Is God trying to tell me something through my dreams? Maybe I need a reading + movie break, but I don't really read many books like that dream or see many movies like that dream really.... wacky.
Crazy Dream
When the phone rang, somehow I knew the call was coming from upstairs so I rounded the corner and silently leaped up the stairs to find the source of the call. As I quietly but quickly stepped into my sisters bedroom I slipped into the secret cubbyhole that we often used to sneak around the house inside the walls. The caller was just ahead of me. But once I was inside the hidden space I found I was chasing myself, but not just myself, a version of myself from 1992. It didn't look like me, it was me and my heart was racing. I could feel my surprise. Not my surprise but the surprise of the younger version of myself, and I could literally feel it. It was like we were occupying the same time and our consciousness was merging. My younger self dashed into a room off of the secret space I had never in all of my dreams been into. My heart was racing. What could be around that corner? I was about to find out.
I almost never remember my dreams. Most of the time they are a mix of current events warped into something either humorous or disturbing or nonsensical. Once in a while suddenly realize I am dreaming and the dream dissolves away. Other times I question if I am dreaming and the dream just goes extra goofy. But there are these times I have these deeper more complicated dreams that end up being reoccurring. For example, when I was in college I would have these dreams that I was back in either my house in Duluth, MN, or in the house in Neenah, WI, and we would have some reason to be sneaking around the house. In both of those houses my sister Katy's bedroom was located in the Southwest corner of the house, on the second floor, and I would dream that from that room there was a crawl-space that led to a space between the walls and we could get around the house by carefully navigating our way through the walls. I have had a number of reoccurring dreams in my life and I believe this is the last of it's kind in my life at this point. All of the others were younger and more warped.
Last night I had a dream but it was not really a reoccurring dream with regard to the storyline. The location however, the crawl-space, only existed inside that reoccurring dream from my college days. And to establish a bit more history, I haven't had that dream in so many years that I couldn't begin to tell you when I had it last.
In the dream I was hanging out with my two sisters and similar to most of the deeper dreams I sometimes have I seemed to be able to suddenly remember a lot of backstory to our completely fictional dream situation, which makes the dream seem so much more real. As we were standing there Amy and Katy were saying goodbye to me and getting into a car to drive away, presumably back home to Wisconsin (as I live in Arlington, VA across the Potomac from DC.) Amy gave me her cell phone number and as she was leaving I recorded it into my cell phone and I waved goodbye. The weather was sort of gloomy and cloudy with impending rain that refused to fall until it was good and ready. As I walked back into the house my phone began to ring.
There was something funny about the way the phone rang. While I knew my sisters just drove away, part of the dream seemed to splinter at that moment. I was suddenly standing in my Duluth home and while I could still see my sisters car heading down the street I knew the phone call was really coming from the second floor of the house even though my phone said it was my sister Amy. In that moment I knew that the car driving away was sort of like a dream but then I wondered if what was upstairs was somehow real. So I headed up the stairs.
I have seen myself in a dream before. Typically seeing myself just means I am seeing the dream from a third-person perspective, a non-participant simply observing the moment. This was different. First, I remembered the outfit I was wearing. In fact I remember the exact moment because my mom took a picture of me that day. I was wearing jeans and a tucked in flannel dress shirt and a lazy beard on my face. I was barely old enough to grow a beard but I think that was the reason I did it. I never saw my bearded face. The younger version of me darted around the corner but I could feel his feelings of fear and excitement and virtually hear his thoughts in my head, which made my heard hurt a little like when you are running a high temperature.
Once I rounded the corner into the new hidden room, the younger version of myself was gone and I was standing in a room much like the attic of a house with exposed wooden beams and small windows. At that point I said aloud, “This is bizarre.” From the northwest corner of the room standing by a small window was a man I couldn't describe who told me, “You are dreaming,” and he motioned with his hand to a balcony. I opened the french doors and stepped out on the balcony. Someone who looked like my sister Katy was standing on the balcony, but it wasn't my sister Katy. She only looked like her for some reason. She pointed out to the street where I saw a 30 something woman with two kids. The woman was around my age and one child was very young and sitting on her hip. The other kids was standing beside her holder her other free hand. I never saw the woman before in my life. As the women with children stood there in the street the Katy-person said (but somehow didn't speak out loud because her mouth didn't move,) “She would look like this today.” I knew those were her kids and they all look at me as if they knew me but also through me like they were a movie and not really there. Just then a car was coming down the street and drove right through them as if they were a hologram.
The Katy-person pointed out others that then appeared and said things or acted out moments from their lives. Oddly enough they all seemed to know me but I recognized none of them. The moments were like presentations or simulations from a version of now that apparently didn't seem to exist.
Then the Katy character motioned down the road where a storm had suddenly broken free. Lighting was striking the ground and the street was cracking and opening up small little holes that crumbled into larger holes. Holographic people were running around attempting to search for help. Out of the holes climbed these ape-like creatures with enormous heads, with pieces of asphalt matted into their hair. The holographic people were running toward the house, the ape-like creatures were quickly coming up behind them and I retreated back into the house.
Suddenly it became clear that I was fully back into the dream moment again, likely from the moments near to the storms beginning. The ape-like creatures seemed very much like something out of a bad scary movie from the 1970s. The only scary moment from me, however, was the moment when I saw myself and the dream seemed to change for a short time into something other than a typical dream.
So now, completely out of the dream I am left with questions: Why was I back into a version of a childhood home from a reoccurring dream but not in the reoccurring dream itself? Why were my sisters in the dream? What was the significance of the younger version of myself and why did I feel that versions feelings, the fear and excitement? Who was the other person standing by the window in the attic room that told me I was dreaming? Most impacting, why did my head create a character like my sister katy -but not Katy- to show me a picture of a woman with two kids and tell me “she would look like this today,” and was “today” really today or the past or the future? Ah, too many questions.
So is this just a humorous / disturbing / nonsensical dream or something else? Is part of it significant and part of it just a typical dream. Is the broken street struck by lightening with emerging big-headed Apes more to do with the fact that I drank a coke not long before bed, or is my subconscious just in creative overdrive at the moment!? Am I trying to tell myself something? Is God trying to tell me something through my dreams? Maybe I need a reading + movie break, but I don't really read many books like that dream or see many movies like that dream really.... wacky.
I almost never remember my dreams. Most of the time they are a mix of current events warped into something either humorous or disturbing or nonsensical. Once in a while suddenly realize I am dreaming and the dream dissolves away. Other times I question if I am dreaming and the dream just goes extra goofy. But there are these times I have these deeper more complicated dreams that end up being reoccurring. For example, when I was in college I would have these dreams that I was back in either my house in Duluth, MN, or in the house in Neenah, WI, and we would have some reason to be sneaking around the house. In both of those houses my sister Katy's bedroom was located in the Southwest corner of the house, on the second floor, and I would dream that from that room there was a crawl-space that led to a space between the walls and we could get around the house by carefully navigating our way through the walls. I have had a number of reoccurring dreams in my life and I believe this is the last of it's kind in my life at this point. All of the others were younger and more warped.
Last night I had a dream but it was not really a reoccurring dream with regard to the storyline. The location however, the crawl-space, only existed inside that reoccurring dream from my college days. And to establish a bit more history, I haven't had that dream in so many years that I couldn't begin to tell you when I had it last.
In the dream I was hanging out with my two sisters and similar to most of the deeper dreams I sometimes have I seemed to be able to suddenly remember a lot of backstory to our completely fictional dream situation, which makes the dream seem so much more real. As we were standing there Amy and Katy were saying goodbye to me and getting into a car to drive away, presumably back home to Wisconsin (as I live in Arlington, VA across the Potomac from DC.) Amy gave me her cell phone number and as she was leaving I recorded it into my cell phone and I waved goodbye. The weather was sort of gloomy and cloudy with impending rain that refused to fall until it was good and ready. As I walked back into the house my phone began to ring.
There was something funny about the way the phone rang. While I knew my sisters just drove away, part of the dream seemed to splinter at that moment. I was suddenly standing in my Duluth home and while I could still see my sisters car heading down the street I knew the phone call was really coming from the second floor of the house even though my phone said it was my sister Amy. In that moment I knew that the car driving away was sort of like a dream but then I wondered if what was upstairs was somehow real. So I headed up the stairs.
I have seen myself in a dream before. Typically seeing myself just means I am seeing the dream from a third-person perspective, a non-participant simply observing the moment. This was different. First, I remembered the outfit I was wearing. In fact I remember the exact moment because my mom took a picture of me that day. I was wearing jeans and a tucked in flannel dress shirt and a lazy beard on my face. I was barely old enough to grow a beard but I think that was the reason I did it. I never saw my bearded face. The younger version of me darted around the corner but I could feel his feelings of fear and excitement and virtually hear his thoughts in my head, which made my heard hurt a little like when you are running a high temperature.
Once I rounded the corner into the new hidden room, the younger version of myself was gone and I was standing in a room much like the attic of a house with exposed wooden beams and small windows. At that point I said aloud, “This is bizarre.” From the northwest corner of the room standing by a small window was a man I couldn't describe who told me, “You are dreaming,” and he motioned with his hand to a balcony. I opened the french doors and stepped out on the balcony. Someone who looked like my sister Katy was standing on the balcony, but it wasn't my sister Katy. She only looked like her for some reason. She pointed out to the street where I saw a 30 something woman with two kids. The woman was around my age and one child was very young and sitting on her hip. The other kids was standing beside her holder her other free hand. I never saw the woman before in my life. As the women with children stood there in the street the Katy-person said (but somehow didn't speak out loud because her mouth didn't move,) “She would look like this today.” I knew those were her kids and they all look at me as if they knew me but also through me like they were a movie and not really there. Just then a car was coming down the street and drove right through them as if they were a hologram.
The Katy-person pointed out others that then appeared and said things or acted out moments from their lives. Oddly enough they all seemed to know me but I recognized none of them. The moments were like presentations or simulations from a version of now that apparently didn't seem to exist.
Then the Katy character motioned down the road where a storm had suddenly broken free. Lighting was striking the ground and the street was cracking and opening up small little holes that crumbled into larger holes. Holographic people were running around attempting to search for help. Out of the holes climbed these ape-like creatures with enormous heads, with pieces of asphalt matted into their hair. The holographic people were running toward the house, the ape-like creatures were quickly coming up behind them and I retreated back into the house.
Suddenly it became clear that I was fully back into the dream moment again, likely from the moments near to the storms beginning. The ape-like creatures seemed very much like something out of a bad scary movie from the 1970s. The only scary moment from me, however, was the moment when I saw myself and the dream seemed to change for a short time into something other than a typical dream.
So now, completely out of the dream I am left with questions: Why was I back into a version of a childhood home from a reoccurring dream but not in the reoccurring dream itself? Why were my sisters in the dream? What was the significance of the younger version of myself and why did I feel that versions feelings, the fear and excitement? Who was the other person standing by the window in the attic room that told me I was dreaming? Most impacting, why did my head create a character like my sister katy -but not Katy- to show me a picture of a woman with two kids and tell me “she would look like this today,” and was “today” really today or the past or the future? Ah, too many questions.
So is this just a humorous / disturbing / nonsensical dream or something else? Is part of it significant and part of it just a typical dream. Is the broken street struck by lightening with emerging big-headed Apes more to do with the fact that I drank a coke not long before bed, or is my subconscious just in creative overdrive at the moment!? Am I trying to tell myself something? Is God trying to tell me something through my dreams? Maybe I need a reading + movie break, but I don't really read many books like that dream or see many movies like that dream really.... wacky.
Crazy Dream
When the phone rang, somehow I knew the call was coming from upstairs so I rounded the corner and silently leaped up the stairs to find the source of the call. As I quietly but quickly stepped into my sisters bedroom I slipped into the secret cubbyhole that we often used to sneak around the house inside the walls. The caller was just ahead of me. But once I was inside the hidden space I found I was chasing myself, but not just myself, a version of myself from 1992. It didn't look like me, it was me and my heart was racing. I could feel my surprise. Not my surprise but the surprise of the younger version of myself, and I could literally feel it. It was like we were occupying the same time and our consciousness was merging. My younger self dashed into a room off of the secret space I had never in all of my dreams been into. My heart was racing. What could be around that corner? I was about to find out.
I almost never remember my dreams. Most of the time they are a mix of current events warped into something either humorous or disturbing or nonsensical. Once in a while suddenly realize I am dreaming and the dream dissolves away. Other times I question if I am dreaming and the dream just goes extra goofy. But there are these times I have these deeper more complicated dreams that end up being reoccurring. For example, when I was in college I would have these dreams that I was back in either my house in Duluth, MN, or in the house in Neenah, WI, and we would have some reason to be sneaking around the house. In both of those houses my sister Katy's bedroom was located in the Southwest corner of the house, on the second floor, and I would dream that from that room there was a crawl-space that led to a space between the walls and we could get around the house by carefully navigating our way through the walls. I have had a number of reoccurring dreams in my life and I believe this is the last of it's kind in my life at this point. All of the others were younger and more warped.
Last night I had a dream but it was not really a reoccurring dream with regard to the storyline. The location however, the crawl-space, only existed inside that reoccurring dream from my college days. And to establish a bit more history, I haven't had that dream in so many years that I couldn't begin to tell you when I had it last.
In the dream I was hanging out with my two sisters and similar to most of the deeper dreams I sometimes have I seemed to be able to suddenly remember a lot of backstory to our completely fictional dream situation, which makes the dream seem so much more real. As we were standing there Amy and Katy were saying goodbye to me and getting into a car to drive away, presumably back home to Wisconsin (as I live in Arlington, VA across the Potomac from DC.) Amy gave me her cell phone number and as she was leaving I recorded it into my cell phone and I waved goodbye. The weather was sort of gloomy and cloudy with impending rain that refused to fall until it was good and ready. As I walked back into the house my phone began to ring.
There was something funny about the way the phone rang. While I knew my sisters just drove away, part of the dream seemed to splinter at that moment. I was suddenly standing in my Duluth home and while I could still see my sisters car heading down the street I knew the phone call was really coming from the second floor of the house even though my phone said it was my sister Amy. In that moment I knew that the car driving away was sort of like a dream but then I wondered if what was upstairs was somehow real. So I headed up the stairs.
I have seen myself in a dream before. Typically seeing myself just means I am seeing the dream from a third-person perspective, a non-participant simply observing the moment. This was different. First, I remembered the outfit I was wearing. In fact I remember the exact moment because my mom took a picture of me that day. I was wearing jeans and a tucked in flannel dress shirt and a lazy beard on my face. I was barely old enough to grow a beard but I think that was the reason I did it. I never saw my bearded face. The younger version of me darted around the corner but I could feel his feelings of fear and excitement and virtually hear his thoughts in my head, which made my heard hurt a little like when you are running a high temperature.
Once I rounded the corner into the new hidden room, the younger version of myself was gone and I was standing in a room much like the attic of a house with exposed wooden beams and small windows. At that point I said aloud, “This is bizarre.” From the northwest corner of the room standing by a small window was a man I couldn't describe who told me, “You are dreaming,” and he motioned with his hand to a balcony. I opened the french doors and stepped out on the balcony. Someone who looked like my sister Katy was standing on the balcony, but it wasn't my sister Katy. She only looked like her for some reason. She pointed out to the street where I saw a 30 something woman with two kids. The woman was around my age and one child was very young and sitting on her hip. The other kids was standing beside her holder her other free hand. I never saw the woman before in my life. As the women with children stood there in the street the Katy-person said (but somehow didn't speak out loud because her mouth didn't move,) “She would look like this today.” I knew those were her kids and they all look at me as if they knew me but also through me like they were a movie and not really there. Just then a car was coming down the street and drove right through them as if they were a hologram.
The Katy-person pointed out others that then appeared and said things or acted out moments from their lives. Oddly enough they all seemed to know me but I recognized none of them. The moments were like presentations or simulations from a version of now that apparently didn't seem to exist.
Then the Katy character motioned down the road where a storm had suddenly broken free. Lighting was striking the ground and the street was cracking and opening up small little holes that crumbled into larger holes. Holographic people were running around attempting to search for help. Out of the holes climbed these ape-like creatures with enormous heads, with pieces of asphalt matted into their hair. The holographic people were running toward the house, the ape-like creatures were quickly coming up behind them and I retreated back into the house.
Suddenly it became clear that I was fully back into the dream moment again, likely from the moments near to the storms beginning. The ape-like creatures seemed very much like something out of a bad scary movie from the 1970s. The only scary moment from me, however, was the moment when I saw myself and the dream seemed to change for a short time into something other than a typical dream.
So now, completely out of the dream I am left with questions: Why was I back into a version of a childhood home from a reoccurring dream but not in the reoccurring dream itself? Why were my sisters in the dream? What was the significance of the younger version of myself and why did I feel that versions feelings, the fear and excitement? Who was the other person standing by the window in the attic room that told me I was dreaming? Most impacting, why did my head create a character like my sister katy -but not Katy- to show me a picture of a woman with two kids and tell me “she would look like this today,” and was “today” really today or the past or the future? Ah, too many questions.
So is this just a humorous / disturbing / nonsensical dream or something else? Is part of it significant and part of it just a typical dream. Is the broken street struck by lightening with emerging big-headed Apes more to do with the fact that I drank a coke not long before bed, or is my subconscious just in creative overdrive at the moment!? Am I trying to tell myself something? Is God trying to tell me something through my dreams? Maybe I need a reading + movie break, but I don't really read many books like that dream or see many movies like that dream really.... wacky.
I almost never remember my dreams. Most of the time they are a mix of current events warped into something either humorous or disturbing or nonsensical. Once in a while suddenly realize I am dreaming and the dream dissolves away. Other times I question if I am dreaming and the dream just goes extra goofy. But there are these times I have these deeper more complicated dreams that end up being reoccurring. For example, when I was in college I would have these dreams that I was back in either my house in Duluth, MN, or in the house in Neenah, WI, and we would have some reason to be sneaking around the house. In both of those houses my sister Katy's bedroom was located in the Southwest corner of the house, on the second floor, and I would dream that from that room there was a crawl-space that led to a space between the walls and we could get around the house by carefully navigating our way through the walls. I have had a number of reoccurring dreams in my life and I believe this is the last of it's kind in my life at this point. All of the others were younger and more warped.
Last night I had a dream but it was not really a reoccurring dream with regard to the storyline. The location however, the crawl-space, only existed inside that reoccurring dream from my college days. And to establish a bit more history, I haven't had that dream in so many years that I couldn't begin to tell you when I had it last.
In the dream I was hanging out with my two sisters and similar to most of the deeper dreams I sometimes have I seemed to be able to suddenly remember a lot of backstory to our completely fictional dream situation, which makes the dream seem so much more real. As we were standing there Amy and Katy were saying goodbye to me and getting into a car to drive away, presumably back home to Wisconsin (as I live in Arlington, VA across the Potomac from DC.) Amy gave me her cell phone number and as she was leaving I recorded it into my cell phone and I waved goodbye. The weather was sort of gloomy and cloudy with impending rain that refused to fall until it was good and ready. As I walked back into the house my phone began to ring.
There was something funny about the way the phone rang. While I knew my sisters just drove away, part of the dream seemed to splinter at that moment. I was suddenly standing in my Duluth home and while I could still see my sisters car heading down the street I knew the phone call was really coming from the second floor of the house even though my phone said it was my sister Amy. In that moment I knew that the car driving away was sort of like a dream but then I wondered if what was upstairs was somehow real. So I headed up the stairs.
I have seen myself in a dream before. Typically seeing myself just means I am seeing the dream from a third-person perspective, a non-participant simply observing the moment. This was different. First, I remembered the outfit I was wearing. In fact I remember the exact moment because my mom took a picture of me that day. I was wearing jeans and a tucked in flannel dress shirt and a lazy beard on my face. I was barely old enough to grow a beard but I think that was the reason I did it. I never saw my bearded face. The younger version of me darted around the corner but I could feel his feelings of fear and excitement and virtually hear his thoughts in my head, which made my heard hurt a little like when you are running a high temperature.
Once I rounded the corner into the new hidden room, the younger version of myself was gone and I was standing in a room much like the attic of a house with exposed wooden beams and small windows. At that point I said aloud, “This is bizarre.” From the northwest corner of the room standing by a small window was a man I couldn't describe who told me, “You are dreaming,” and he motioned with his hand to a balcony. I opened the french doors and stepped out on the balcony. Someone who looked like my sister Katy was standing on the balcony, but it wasn't my sister Katy. She only looked like her for some reason. She pointed out to the street where I saw a 30 something woman with two kids. The woman was around my age and one child was very young and sitting on her hip. The other kids was standing beside her holder her other free hand. I never saw the woman before in my life. As the women with children stood there in the street the Katy-person said (but somehow didn't speak out loud because her mouth didn't move,) “She would look like this today.” I knew those were her kids and they all look at me as if they knew me but also through me like they were a movie and not really there. Just then a car was coming down the street and drove right through them as if they were a hologram.
The Katy-person pointed out others that then appeared and said things or acted out moments from their lives. Oddly enough they all seemed to know me but I recognized none of them. The moments were like presentations or simulations from a version of now that apparently didn't seem to exist.
Then the Katy character motioned down the road where a storm had suddenly broken free. Lighting was striking the ground and the street was cracking and opening up small little holes that crumbled into larger holes. Holographic people were running around attempting to search for help. Out of the holes climbed these ape-like creatures with enormous heads, with pieces of asphalt matted into their hair. The holographic people were running toward the house, the ape-like creatures were quickly coming up behind them and I retreated back into the house.
Suddenly it became clear that I was fully back into the dream moment again, likely from the moments near to the storms beginning. The ape-like creatures seemed very much like something out of a bad scary movie from the 1970s. The only scary moment from me, however, was the moment when I saw myself and the dream seemed to change for a short time into something other than a typical dream.
So now, completely out of the dream I am left with questions: Why was I back into a version of a childhood home from a reoccurring dream but not in the reoccurring dream itself? Why were my sisters in the dream? What was the significance of the younger version of myself and why did I feel that versions feelings, the fear and excitement? Who was the other person standing by the window in the attic room that told me I was dreaming? Most impacting, why did my head create a character like my sister katy -but not Katy- to show me a picture of a woman with two kids and tell me “she would look like this today,” and was “today” really today or the past or the future? Ah, too many questions.
So is this just a humorous / disturbing / nonsensical dream or something else? Is part of it significant and part of it just a typical dream. Is the broken street struck by lightening with emerging big-headed Apes more to do with the fact that I drank a coke not long before bed, or is my subconscious just in creative overdrive at the moment!? Am I trying to tell myself something? Is God trying to tell me something through my dreams? Maybe I need a reading + movie break, but I don't really read many books like that dream or see many movies like that dream really.... wacky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
