Lux et Veritas

Peace and Stem Cell Research

Tuesday, July 19, 2006

The explosion of a war in the Middle East, highlighted now by the Israeli-Lebanon-Hamas conflict, and the potential veto of a relaxed federally supported stem cell research program by President Bush share the same unfortunate strategy. And that is to prevent the extension and improvement of the human condition. War kills indiscriminately. Opposition to stem cell research continues the suffering and death of people with diseases stem cell research may, hopefully, may cure. In both cases, they are wars against positive change and an unwillingness to deal with very clear and sometimes muddy complex issues.

Every war since the Vietnam War was fought to eliminate and/or frighten to the point of self-defeat our or democracy's opponents. This goal has been supplanted by the Bush doctrine to wage preemptive war in Iraq and Afghanistan or to support a war in the Middle East for the purpose of spreading democracy.  Considering the history of the Middle East of imperialistic motives of the British, French, and, now, the US, it is no surprise that there are groups who, for one motive or another connected to their anger against against foreign occupation and the US motive to "spread democracy" have adopted the tactic of violent and spontaeous suicide or missle attacks. The spread of democracy is in its way imperialistic, because many countries have strong political cultures that will almost certainly  will resist becoming democratic. Similarly, radical Islamic movements that promote this kind of violence keep the whole war mentality going to the point of no resolution.

Meanwhile, the nature of war has changed. A uniformed  modern army, well equipped with modern weapons has not been able to quell violence. Now, spontaneous attacks by armed insurgencies and, in the Middle East, the employ of missles whose launching sites are undectable make it impossible to stop the conflict by traditional war strategies.

This is overlayed by tribalism and religious dissent that have been going on for centuries.  In most of these countries, local economies either don't exist, are primitive, or failing, preventing the growth of strong capitalist urges for wealth from developing that would otherwise mitigate the cultural/political and religious upheavals. Concentrating on eliminating all of the violent and opposing forces by means of armed conflict does not get to the underlying causes of terrorism and blocks the establishment of strong, local economies and the peaceful trade between enemies. China and Vietnam are primary examples of these more positive outcomes. In short, war does not destroy the culprits and does not promote progress toward addressing underlying problems.

Similarly, opposition to stem cell research stands in the way of extending the life of people suffering from all sorts of incurable or chronic, life shortening conditions. And that opposition is built on the views of conservative thinking groups, tribes if you can see that translation, who view stem cell research as an attack on the very beginnings of human life. These beginnings are in reality no more than discarded cells from fertility treatments and abortions and general medical research which would never become full-fledged, living human beings.

The unknowns about stem cell research and cures for many diseases give additional force to groups that are in opposition. Will the cures work across the board? Will the transplantation of human cells cary with them genetic inheritances that cause disease, disfigurment of the child, mental incapacitation, weird behavior, etc.? Noone really knows at this point and won't know until the research moves forward.

However, the belief systems held by many countries that either foment or support the nobility of war as well as international political hegemony are very strong. Equally strong is the power of US conservative religious groups who have used their opposition to abortion and stem cell research to gather a large group of supporters who are threatened by change. The Republican party base is stablilized by keeping these groups happy, which translates into a presidency that makes quick decisions in general and specifically in support of their major issues. Coincidently, the religious right also believe in "smiting their enemies", a phrase lifted from the Bible, which gives credence to Bush's preemptive wars to create the same political atmosphere world wide that these groups and the Bush Administration wish for the United States.

The urge for the resolution of conflicts is far weaker than the urge to commit to war. There are too many variables: seemingly intractable religious conflicts, tribal behavior that stands in the way of modernism, and long held resentments between Middle Eastern countries and, now, against the West, in particular the United States. The West continues to be warlike and imperialistic in its commitments to spread democracy. And the insurgents become even more violent. Neither tactic leads to peaceful resolution.

In fact, the religious rights' strong belief in the sanctity of life in practice produces the very opposite of result: war to smite "our enemies" who threaten the security of our version of life, which can be viewed as mass murder; and opposition to medical research into the use of stem cells to improve and extend life of many, many people world-wide. 

The golden rule to treat others as would like to be treated and the religious commitment to the sancticty of life are turned on their head by the means used to achieve both.

The New(old) Masculinity

Thursday, June 23, 2005

There has been a lot of complaining by various political and religious groups about the "loss of masculinity". The association with that word is the convergence of spirit and energies by the American people to win WW II. It has been lost, the complainers complain. 

Before I get to the use of the word "masculine", to what new purpose is this country supposed to focus its energies? Is it waging preemptive war to save the world from terrorism? Is it spreading the American version of democracy world wide in a more evangelical rather the democratic manner? Is it about developing a new collective consciousness about setting things in the right order, according to a very clear moral code that our founding fathers operated under when they wrote the Declaration of Independence? Or is it about maintaining freedom for individuals world wide, regardless of their political philosophy? I doubt it is the last.

Why the word "masculinity". Is its use about men asserting their rights in the natural order of things, in accordance with the socio-economic-cultural backgrounds of our founding fathers? They were white; they were Protestant-Christians; they held property; and they kept slaves. Frequently, the conservative think tanks and religious moralizers make reference to our beginnings as a nation; and they forget that while the drafters of the Declaration of Indepence were "priviliged", they regarded life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the inalienable rights of every individual. They also forget that the Constitution, written by the same privileged class, is so inclusive of everyone's individual rights that we have the kind of open democracy we have today, which says nothing about masculinity or feminity for that matter.

I find ironic the need to reassert masculinity. When was this country ever ruled by other than white, male, land owning, and, with few exceptions, Protestant-Christians? Educated, bright and mostly white men ran the Vietnam War without using their intelligence and without exercising good judgment about its purpose and its impact on 58,000 dead military. When did the exercise of masculinity in other non-Anglo, Protestant-Christian states result in political stability or even long-term political dominance?

The plea for a return to "masculinity" has lead to a throwing out of "politically correct behavior, and has opened the door to bigotry, intolerance of different beliefs and sexual preferences, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion/pro-life and other exercises that lead to an intrusion into invidual rights and privacy. Many feel comfortable with the kind of decisive (masculine) leadership that prevails in the US. But along with it are a whole host of moral certainties that should be adopted to be considered patriotic, loyal, and the beneficiaries of our capitalist economy. Little attention is paid to those less privileged, less successful, who have not pulled themselves "up by their bootstraps" in the American tradition. These citizens make up a very large bulk of our population, and they lack standard medicine, standard housing, and consideration by an American society founded on individuals' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Our brand of "masculinity" is interpreted differently in non-Anglo Saxon, non-Protestant Christian cultures. And the results are dictatorships, corrupt governments, violence to dissenters, and rebellion by the disenfranchised and jihads.

Why keep doing the same thing, reviving "masculinity", when the results are the same as they have been down through recorded history? And what about women? Have they no prominent position in defining the future? And by that, I don't mean the kind of women who act "masculine" and adopt the same kind of harsh belief systems defined by men as the code to success. Stable democracies are not achieved by either sex or only one sex or even heterosexual sex.

Memorial Day and "Bullyism"

Monday, May 30, 2005

Memorial Day is really a celebration of wars' worst outcome, those who gave their lives to protect America. Paranthetically, it should also feature the surviving wounded who are forced to live different futures than what they hoped for, so disabled are they. But memorial day is also about "bullyism".

Bullyism is the practice of irrational force on a weak opponent or supposed weak opponent just for the sake of exercising power and, also, protecting one's interests. In WWI, it was Kaiser Whilhelm. In WWII, it was Hitler, Mussolini, and Imperial Japan. In Korea, it was North Korea with the backing of China. In the Cold War it was the Soviet Union, America in particular, and every other country in some way or another, e.g. small or weak countries nuclear bomb development. In the recent Afghan and Iraqi Wars, it was President George Bush. In all instances, they resorted to violence rather than diplomacy, because bullyism was and is a part of their culture and history of emperors, kings, charismatic religious figures, and some misinterpretation of the Bible or Koran or whatever religious text that inbreeds this impulse. I am not talking here about the violent response to having one's life threatened.

An illumination of what bullyism can do to individuals, workers, and an entire town is HBO's original movie, "Empire Falls". The central character, Miles Roby, is victimized by the bullying town patriarch, Francine Whiting, whose family owns the town, owned a plant that employed much of the town before it closed, and who finds joy in paralyzing her suicide husband, her crippled daughter, the minor charcters in the movie, and her main subject, Miles. In turn, Miles is bullied by Francine's soldiers, the town cop, the town bureaurcracy, and his ex-wife. And finally, as a violent reaction to bullyism, in particular that of the town cop's brutal bully son and his violent fixation on the weakest student, a Columbine school shoot-out takes place by the shaky hand, holding a gun, of his victim. The hopeful conclusion of the movie shows one person's, Miles', freedom from bullyism.

There is nothing very mysterious about the origins bullyism. The victims of bullyism become bullies in some form or another. It is the children of unreasonable, angry and, these days, absent parents; the workers in giant, unfeeling, bottom-line fixated corporations; former slaves and indentured servants; and those who have lost their former status. There are others. The masters of bullyism are the frightened and the legally liable, rule driven teachers and school administrators; CEOs and lower level administrators who fear their jobs and income; and just people put in charge of something, sometimes with the support of a gun. It is certainly no mystery why Columbine happened, why Washington assassins roamed the region before capture, and why the public, in general and specifically in DC, is angry and anxious and rude and uncaring of one another.

Strange that few fight back, expose the bullies for what they are, or put in place a more caring mode of parenting, supervising, teaching, and the rule of a country's interests. Aside from the fact that many are fearful of loosing their jobs, their life styles, and, in extreme cases, their actual lives, there is some sort of acceptance of "that's the way it is, always has been, and will continue to be in the future". These days in this country having been freed from the political correctness of liberals, bullyism, masked as a determined, strong, morally and religiously based national leadership, has flourished. The unreasonable, often bigoted, egotistical, iron hand belongs to everyone and is OK. The negative world wide impact on nations and individuals is never considered, because "bullyism" is the right way to lead and rule. It has become a charismatic movement in itself, not unlike the followers of Hitler, Mussolini, the Bolshevist Revolution in Russia, and imperial Japan. They believe or are fooled into believing that this uplifts our economy, the national cause of democracy and individuals' chances to succeed. It gets us back "to the basics": America's moral and religious traditions and public behavior.

My strong feelings on this subject are associated with the words "treason", "weakness", "disloyalty", "whistle blower", "rabble rouser", and the most perjorative term "left-leaning liberal" used by the bullies, in connection with the fighters of bullyism. Isn't the destruction of bullyism the way to personal freedom and individual choice? Isn't that getting back to the basics of our constitutional democracy? Bullyism is the rule of charismatic dictatorship and authoritarianism and the opposite of our American values.

Political Correctness and The Return of Philosoper King Oligarchies

Sunday, May 5,2005

In recent weeks, there has been a slew of commentaries in the Trad-Arch listserv regarding "political correctness" and the return of oligarchies of superior knowledge to "run things" the right way. The underlying theme of those in support of "oligarchies" running things the right way is that "they", mostly white men, are tired of the pretense of "democracy", read inclusiveness, as imbedded in various versions of "political correctness".  "Let's not have any more of this ineffective community participation and pretention of everyone-has-a-role that lead to bad decisions, fuzzy thinking, and the destruction of things we cherish. In this case, that which is cherished is the past when the really bright and accomplished folks ran things for the "others". A good, actually awful, example of smart people running things, is the conduct ofthe Vietnam war by Pres. Johnson, Dean Rusk, Robert MacNamara, McGeorge Bundy, and George Bundy that left 58,000 American dead for a very questionable and foggy cause.

The more extreme white male reactions to this "political correctness stuff" have to do with being emasculated by women and others who want to take their place and really don't measure up to their, the white male's, standards. That sounds pretty silly and retro, doesn't it?

None of this protest has to do with cause and effect or conditions and racist and sexist experiences the "others" have had, prior to the rise of women and so-called minority groups assuming leadership or "participation" of one sort or another. It's more a case of male social darwinism.

As applied to the New Urbanist movement this translates into New Urbanism as some kind of ideology that others, in moments of good sense and reflection, must adopt. It makes sense. It creates better places, preserves the environment, brings work closer to residence, is healthier for all (e.g. walking to convenience centers and schools is better than driving far a wide) and enables "affordable neighborhoods" for diverse groups.

There are two outstanding flaws in the protest for a return to the "old oligarchies" and the New Urbanist ideology. And they have little or nothing to do with whether they are democratic, facist, monarchist, or socialist political systems.

What's wrong with oligarchies? I assume that this term applies to well educated, accomplished, balanced thinking people who know the "right" way to action and implementation of good outcomes. The failure of the "brain trust" that conducted the Vietnam war is an extreme example of the weakness of oligarchies. In every day terms, oligarchies are ultimately flawed because, in the end, they exclude other points of view which may seem unsophisticated or oppositional. In the case of Vietnam, many of that brain trust felt in their guts that the war was unwinnable, but continued their prosecution of the war, because they could not relinquish their control over the situation in any way. There is no doubt that the best and the brightest should lead. But to keep that club enriched and protect it from imperial behavior and failures of that kind, it behooves them to let the "other" people in and deliberate and accept new and, in some cases, oppostional beliefs.

New Urbanist ideology. It is a given that New Urbanism is the best thing to happen to planning in the last 50 years. It is a set of goals, professional practice, and detailed standards that is the only hope for economic development to turn the ugly present into something else. In this case, away from its ugly, inefficent, environment wasting, growing traffic congesting present to better, safer, efficient, aesthetically pleasing, community centered places, cities and regions. But this body of code of practice and detailed standards is just that and not ideology.

It cannot become another CIAM that followed the theory of Corbusier, with the result of giant blocks of develpment sitting in a senseless green and parking and the loss of a sense of community that this kind of physical isolation produced. The ruling oligarchies then swore unwavering allegiance to it, and they were wrong.

New Urbanism has described its brand of democracy as bringing others, e.g. the libertarians, environmentalists, traffic engineers, developers, and all kinds of "self and political seeking" interest groups, "under their tent". Again, new urbanism sounds like some exclusive club that has finally let in "the others". When, in fact, what should be going on is to make new urbanism a sensible way of cooperative working together that truly gives "physical space" for all of them and produces a "sustainable environment".

"Sustainable environment" and "smart growth" have turned out to be hopes rather than truly attainable goals. One of the primary reasons for this "failure", if it is to be called that, is that methods and legal buttresses were not truly examined to ascertain limits and ways to overcome them. That includes forming a larger group of New Urbanists who work together to achieve a new planning "paradigm", fact based planning that has examined risks, achievable implementation strategies, and costs and benefits for everyone to examine and evaluate.  There should be a new future where statements like, "My way is the right way" are supplanted by,  "this way satisfies local requirements-a city, a region, a hamlet- for sound development and preservation and aesthetically pleasing outcomes".

This way, another way for New Urbanism to operate, provides a platform to respond to critics, the O'Tooles and other blowhards. The challenge to its opponents should be, "let's examine your system of planning practices and standards, so that we can understand where we disagree and agree". It's no longer one ideology opposing another one. It is a case of your facts and my facts.