History, Context, Religion, "The More Things Change..."

I've been reading Zealot, a book that tries to get at the historical Jesus.  I like books like this - I feel like we miss so much of the context of the time when we try reading our modern, English language Bibles.

Particularly since the original Bible was written in an entirely different languge, in an entirely different period of time, where people had no reason to care about or insist on historical accuracy.

Truth is, I think such writing offers a richer and more nuanced understanding of God.  It's less...

Close-minded. 

And in many ways, more miraculous.  It's not hard to see and understand what draws people to a leader.  Conventionally.  Just look at our rock stars and pundits.  You need someone charismatic.  Someone who looks good, and presents well.  Someone who makes everyone feel like they're your friend. 

Someone who gives the impression that they can come in on a white horse, and save the day.  Someone who is larger than life, greater than everyone around them.

Which fits in rather well with our modern world.  Cowboys, superheroes.  The people who seem to get ahead are the ones who successfully fit the mold.  And they cater to what we want to hear, present what we want to be told. (Even if they are actually worse at leading, worse at saving the day.  In Jim Collins' research, having a CEO get hired in order to save the business was often a sign that things were about to get even worse.  He described a type of leader completely at odds with the cowboys and saviors that make so many headlines...and yet company boards of directors, financial news reporters, headhunters, and those who decide who gets promoted all still seem to fall for the narrative of someone larger than life who comes in to save the day.)

So how interesting, that in the Bible Moses is not a good speaker.  Some say he stuttered, or had a speech impediment, but it looks like the exact quote was "But my Lord, never in my life have I been a man of eloquence, either before or since you have spoken to your servant. I am a slow speaker and not able to speak well" (Exodus 4:10)

And even more interesting that God kept insisting Israel worship Him and Him alone, when the Israelites clearly kept wanting to worship a god the way everyone else all around them did.  Why give such a strange and unusual rule?  Something so different?  Novel, even?

But I digress.  I am reading Zealot, and it's interesting how much the events of that time can be reflected in the world today.

I'm having a hard time saying where, and how, other than that it's a time of turmoil in which the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.  Certain sentences and phrases keep resonating, as I think "that's true of the world today."

Some of the contextual history makes me think of the jihadists of today, and I'm not sure what I think about that.  This idea that the Zealots (not Jesus, but the movement shortly after his ministry) are so remarkably similar to the jihadists of today.  From the insistence that everyone must worship God the way they say is required, to their willingness to assassinate, to the divisions and fault lines as certain zealots claimed others weren't right-minded, or were in it for themselves.

In that time and place, the movement was squelched when Rome came in and burned it all down.

Yet that was then, and that was Rome.  

Evil, Justice, Hitler, Etc

I should be asleep.  Given that I've been waking up at 4am for work, I've been trying to go to bed by 8pm.  But I started a good book today - In the Garden of Beasts, and I realized that if I didn't type this out I would be composing it in my head instead of sleeping.

In the Garden of Beasts is written by the same guy who did The Devil in the White City, which I definitely recommend.  This time, he is writing about what the American Ambassador to Germany and his daughter witnessed during Hitler's consolidation of power. 

It's fascinating, because instead of using what we now know happened with Hitler, Erik Larson is using the letters and notes of these individuals at the time they were there.  In other words, you get a better sense of why the things we know in hindsight weren't so obvious at the time.

What's fascinating is that something normally a good trait (i.e. our willingness to suspend judgement, to assume that there are mitigating factors, etc) can be used to fool us. 

There are people who are trying to warn everyone - the Ambassador, his daughter, the world - that Nazi Germany is rearming, is intent on starting a war, and is serious about coming up with a 'Final Solution' i.e. killing off all the Jews.  And yet so many people didn't want to believe it, or didn't see it, or were able to dismiss certain rumors and stories because things looked so normal and they didn't see it themselves.

And yet we don't normally want people to accept rumors and hearsay.  Don't really want people to assume the worst and act on it.  That can create dangers all their own.

In a way, it reminds me of other things.  Of the unwillingness to believe someone would sexually harrass another.  The unwillingness to believe the police have a history of acting badly towards minorities.

Yes, there's a danger in assuming someone is guilty without a real investigation.  There's a danger in publicly shaming or harming the innocent, simply because people believe things they hear.

And yet there's also a danger in assuming people couldn't possibly fill in the blank.

Which kind of brings me to the notion of justice.  Difficult though it is to be unbiased, and to get true justice, the attempt to get the facts and truly figure out what happened or is happening is necessary.  Critical, even.

Otherwise, its just a matter of who has the power to get what they want.

Democracy, Biases, Self-Interest

I think the Founding Fathers had a pretty good read on human nature, so they set a system up that tried to take our own foibles into account.

I am not so sure it works, in the long run.  It's amazing how we can laud democracy in the abstract sense, talk about how wise the public is in choosing who they do...

and in the more specific sense, there are a lot of people who don't seem to know what they are talking about, or are poorly informed, and it seems amazing that we get anywhere at all.

But I didn't start writing this post to go into all of the curious blend of optimism and pessimism I have when watching our political process in action.

I brought it up because I wanted to talk more about self-interest, and biases, and what makes our system work.

We have this whole separation of powers thing, all these different competing groups, because the whole idea was that the competition between these groups would prevent any one faction or branch from dominating.  Worried about the power of the presidency?  Let's appoint a Supreme Court justice for life.  And insist that Congress approve.  Worried about a legislature that's out of control? Give the president veto power.  Worried that public opinion will be easily swayed by emotions and poorly thought out yet popular programs?  Add in an electoral college, and a Senate that (originally at least) was appointed by state governments rather than popular vote.  Worried that your less populated states will dominate politics unfairly?  Make half your legislature based off population.

Worried that the effect of that will crowd out less populated states?  Give each state two senators in the other chamber of legislature.

This whole intricate system is supposed to keep government working, not because it's necessarily perfect (it can be messy, and slow), but because the self-interests of each different group should help balance out the growth in power in another group.

Students of American history apply this concept to all sorts of things.  They may decry the rise of presidential power, because they think we are losing that balance.  Or discuss the freedom of the press as yet another balancing force.  One not created in the Constitution, but one that plays its role.

We have a system where individuals can have a say, which is pretty amazing.  Yet more and more people feel like it's broken.  (Though many feel it's broken in different ways...so it's not like there's unity on which way we should be going)

How can a democracy work when people don't participate, and don't vote?  When political parties get a stranglehold on the system, making it harder for third parties to rise?  When parties seem to be more and more polarized, and cater to the extremes of each side?

I'm not even talking about the role of money here, though any internet search will find plenty of articles on it.

And how do we come to a consensus on good policy, when self-interest dictates certain policies even at the expense of the whole?

That's a problem that's been with us throughout all of human history...

It's too easy to get cynical and depressed, to think everyone is always out for themselves and that it's unrealistic to expect anyone to think of the greater good.  Especially when we can be so subtly biased. 

Take any class on human cognition, or logic, and you'll discover how horribly illogical we all are.  How easy it is to get biased, to jump to conclusions.  To only listen to those who agree with and confirm our existing beliefs, and to shut out and deny the ones who challenge what we think.

And yet somehow, history shows that this isn't always what happens.  That sometimes people do listen to evidence, and change their minds for clear and logical reasons.  That sometimes leaders do act for the greater good.

How did we ever come to value logic, and the role of the devil's advocate, and all these other things if human nature is so determined to be self-centered, illogical, and biased?

Foundation

Like so many Americans today, I am not happy with either Republicans or Democrats.  More than that, I am unhappy with political discourse, and the way complicated issues get oversimplified.  I decided to simplify and clarify some of my thinking, so I can see if it forms a coherent whole.

1.  Principles are guidelines, not rules set in stone.  As soon as you "this is the way it is, no exceptions, no discussion" you lose your flexibility and ability to think critically.

2. We are all special snowflakes.  Yes, I know.  You've probably heard this with a note of irony and sarcasm.  If everyone is special, then in the end nobody is special.  We can't possibly all be special.  We can't all have some field or area where we are amazing.  Yet think about what it would mean if you were serious about this one.  What if every. single. person. had this amazing potential to do something awesome? 

Then how sad is it, that so few people get the ability to be amazing?  If we all have that ability, how come only 10% (to randomly pick a number that viscerally feels right) get the chance to live up to their full potential?  How much potential is absolutely wasted in the world as it exists today?

Tied in with this is a view of people - as individuals, and as members of society.  We're supposed to be an individualistic culture, so we emphasize individuals choices.  This person chose poorly, and now they're dealing with the consequences.  That person chose well, and now they're successful.  Yet other cultures emphasize the community, or the family.  The group.  This can be bad, in some ways.  What you do reflects on your entire family (or clan, or tribe) and if you behave poorly your family will suffer.  Collective punishment. 

Yet there is an element of truth to this.  Today we see the American Dream withering and dying.  It is harder and harder for someone who doesn't come from a wealthy family to succeed.  Yet there are always individuals who prove the exception to the rule, and who do manage to make it.  Is it because of individual choice?  That they chose well, whereas everyone else around them chose poorly?  Or was there something else going on?

My personal view is that there is an element of truth to both of these.  We have free will.  We can make choices, for good or bad, that will affect our lives.  And yet we are also part of a socio-economic environment that affects what choices are available to us.  (This, btw, is part of why I'm involved with Big Brothers, Big Sisters.  Mentorship matters.  Mentorship makes a difference.  And it is possible to make that difference, because we are not locked into the circumstances we were born into.)

3. Creating the right environment for success is complicated.  People have to try, and fail.  And try again.  People have to be challenged, but not too much.  Plus, people feel rewarded and fulfilled when they are serving something greater than themselves. (Yes, I phrased that as 'success', but success is tied in with happiness and fulfillment.  Most people are not going to succeed where they aren't happy, and the ones who do are not exactly living the kind of life we want.) That's part of why this whole thing about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' only talks about the pursuit of happiness.  You can chase after it all you want, but often what you think will make you happy doesn't.

Too much success, too easily, can actually make it harder for people to be fulfilled.  Too much of a struggle, and too many people become overwhelmed.

Note: Yes, I know.  These last two are not really political viewpoints, per se.  Yet they are some of the basic tests I use for any suggested policy.  Does it create an environment where individuals can develop to their full potential?  Take the liberal and conservative viewpoints on welfare.  Some conservatives see welfare as handouts that make people dependent on the government, and stifles their willingness and ability to do for themselves.  Some liberals focus on the vast majority of people who use welfare as intended.  Many use welfare as a way to help get through a difficult time, especially while job hunting or looking for something more permanent.  Liberals may also focus on the children, and say 'we have to give these children the resources they need to do better in life'...because children who are given a good education, good nutrition, and good mentorship have the chance to do better.

Which matters more?  The potential for welfare abuse?  Or the ability to help Americans get through a rough time?  Is it a matter of degree?  That X many of people who abuse the program are enough to justify ending it?  Or is it about something else entirely?  About whether government should provide support to citizens going through a rough time?  (i.e. does society benefit by providing a safety net like welfare?)
 

Work, Updates, Somewhat Down

I haven't posted much of late.   can make the usual excuses (work, busy, etc) but that's only part of the truth.

A more complete truth is this: I'm somewhat at a loss.  I know that I'm not quite where I want to be in life, yet I'm not entirely sure how to get to where I DO want to be.

Work?  Well...let's see.  I think I've been outmanoeuvred by a co-worker.  Not that I was trying to manoeuvre that much in the first place (just trying to do a good job, you know?) 

I could sort of see it coming.  We had a fairly important discussion some months back about where to put some additional people, and I lost.  Got overruled.  It really annoyed me when it happened, because it felt like I was overruled not because my arguments were weak, but because my boss supported someone else more.  Someone, btw, who wasn't as involved in my area of the facility and therefore did not really know what he was talking about.  (Since he was focusing on the short-term problems we had more recently, he didn't sound exactly ignorant, to be fair.)

And here's the thing - I didn't want to fight it.  Sure, I could see the way the wind was blowing...but did I really want to be that involved in how a distribution center runs?

The sad truth is - no.  No, I don't.  My interest, my passion, has always been with public policy.  That's why I got the degree I did.  I can feel my interest waning.  Motivation is hard to maintain.

So now I'm left in a quandary.  How do I get to where I want to be?  Do I give up the start I made here, with this company?  Do I try  moving to a new location, even though I really like the house I bought?

Sure, I will transition to another department here shortly.  Something new should keep me distracted for a little bit longer.

There are times I feel frustrated.  Like I don't have the right skillset to get where I want to be.   Not because I'm not smart enough, or capable enough.  But because I just don't feel comfortable promoting myself, or networking. 


More to the point - I think the co-worker who 'won' the argument is going to get my bosses job, and I really don't want to work for him.  Not because he's a bad guy.  I'm sure he'll do fine.  It's more that...

That the way he rose to prominence doesn't really seem right.  I try not to point fingers, but it feels like he got more buddy-buddy with my boss.  I, on the other hand, tend to get annoyed/frustrated with bosses that I don't feel know what they're doing, and tend to avoid them and go all minimalist with behavior.

Not the most helpful response, I know.  It's not even that I'm afraid to argue.  I can and do speak up.  Sometimes.

It's more like...the basic assumptions are so different that I can't even begin to start.  Like the assumption that most of our employees are 'the enemy'.  Not stated out loud, not explicit, of course.  But we don't trust them to do their jobs without having a method of tracking productivity.  And we assume they will try to get away with whatever they can.  (An element of truth to that, yes.  A chicken/egg thing?  Maybe.  Yet you don't build trust, don't change that dynamic, by allowing that attitude to dictate your decisions.)

Anyways.  I feel like my basic assumptions/values don't mesh.  Some days I despair of ever finding a workplace where they do.  I fantasize about having my own organization, running things my way.

Testing out how much of what I believe is unrealistic, and pie-in-the-sky.  And how much of it really does lead to a better place. 

But then the real world comes crashing down on me.  How would I go about doing that?  Getting funding for such a project is right up there in the skillsets I don't feel comfortable with (i.e. networking, at least when it means pretending to like people you really don't.)

Ferguson, Racial America, Hopefully-Never-To-Happen Fears

Note: For some reason this didn't get posted when I thought it would.  I just now realized it has been in draft stage for about week.  I debated posting it now.  I had moved on and wasn't really thinking about it since.  Still, seems a shame to waste all that writing.


I scared myself a bit this morning.  I saw an article on Facebook discussing the news analysis on Ferguson.  Since it touched on my previous concerns (i.e. reporting that can't even agree on basic facts, like whether the cop was injured or not).

I shared it to my friends, and added a few comments on why I found this disturbing.  Aside from the racial issues, the grief of Michael Brown's family, and all the other Ferguson issues.

In addition to the incident itself, the way the news is being handled disturbs me because we're not able to agree on basic facts.

In Iraq, I remember reading a a couple of conflicting accounts of what happened on a street in Baghdad.  I remember thinking to myself "this is a sign of how bad it is.  These reports are clearly contradictory.  Either a fight happened, or it didn't."

When you can't agree on basic facts, there is no middle ground, and someone is lying.

When you can't even agree on the basic facts of the event, all you have is spin and the power to create whatever reality you want.

I thought to myself, 'at least our news has to have SOME basis in reality!!!  Reporters are supposed to investigate, and find credible sources, and check their facts.  We can argue about interpreting the events, argue about how we frame things, but the basic checkable facts should be there.'

And here, today, in 2014, we see a major news agency presenting the facts they want to believe, without truly fact-checking any of it.

That's where I left off.  The scary part was when I remembered a paper I wrote as an undergrad over a decade ago...I don't remember the entire point, but I was looking at our involvement in 'military operations other than war'.  Yugoslavia.  Bosnia.  Somalia.  Haiti.

One quote has always stuck with me - "You Americans would become nationalists and racists too if your media were totally in the hands of the Ku Klux Klan." (I'm not entirely sure if it was from this article, but a lot of what is in here captures what I remembered reading.)  Actually, this whole paragraph is worth quoting in it's entirety:

The breakup of Yugoslavia is a classic example of nationalism from the top down -- a manipulated nationalism in a region where peace has historically prevailed more than war and in which a quarter of the population were in mixed marriages. The manipulators condoned and even provoked local ethnic violence in order to engender animosities that could then be magnified by the press, leading to further violence. Milošević l gave prime television time to fanatic nationalists like Vojislav Šešelj, who once said that the way to deal with the Kosovo Albanians was to kill them all. Tudjman also used his control of the media to sow hate. Nationalist "intellectuals," wrapped in the mantle of august academies of sciences, expounded their pseudo-history of the victimization of Serbs (or Croats) through the ages. One of them seriously asserted to me that Serbs had committed no crimes or moral transgressions at any point in their long history. Worst of all, the media, under the thumb of most republican regimes, spewed an endless daily torrent of violence and enmity. As a reporter for Vreme, one of the few independent magazines left in the former Yugoslavia, said, "You Americans would become nationalists and racists too if your media were totally in the hands of the Ku Klux Klan."

Are we there yet?  No.  Will we ever get there?  I sure hope not.  Five years ago I would have said no.  Al Qaeda supposedly was trying to ignite a race war in the US and assumes that we will eventually have one, and I thought them laughably ignorant about how our nation works.

But when I see the reporting on Ferguson, the increasingly divided news, the way people segregate what they see and hear and only read what they already agree with, it kind of scares me.

What Can We Do?

Ferguson, in a way, brings home to me how emasculated we are as a nation. 

I grew up in the post-boomer era, where it seemed as though our parents had been there and done that.  They did the large protests, they had movements, there were so many organizations you could be involved with that it has since degenerated into a mass of confusion. 

We appeared to reach the limits of mass protests, and even though things aren't perfect it doesn't seem worth it to take a day off work and go to a rally somewhere.  Heck, most people can't afford to do that anyway - that sort of thing is for young and idealistic college students, the sorts of people who have that kind of time.

There are big issues going on in the world today.  In the United States, as well.  Rising inequality, the doors of opportunity slamming in some people's faces.  Technology.  Terrorism.  Degrading infrastructure.  The growth of bureaucracy and the loss of control/influence within the faceless forces of our day. Polarization. Centrifugal and centripetal forces tugging us this way and that.  Multi-culturalism.  Loss of identity.  The war on drugs.  The growth of the prison industry.  Racism, still.  People feeling threatened and scared and afraid.

But what can we do about it?  What rallying force is there?

Most of the movements that try to capitalize on this fall somewhat - flat.  They may start out promising, but eventually lose their way.  Occupy Wall Street.  The Tea Party.  Our news is a joke.  Focusing more on stupid things, irrelevant things.  Things that don't really matter and don't really address these issues.

It's hard to get people fired up enough to do more than click 'Like' on Facebook, or sign some sort of online petition. 

We live in a democracy.  We are able to vote for our leaders.  Yet we have horrible participation rates, and even when we do vote it seems like the game is rigged against us. 

I don't like the cynicism I see today.  Yet it's hard not to feel it myself.  Especially when there is so much good advice out there.  Articles like this, if you want to discuss national security and foreign involvement.

So why does it seem like all the good ideas fail to gain traction?  Why do we consistently seem forced to choose between horrible ideas?

I know, intellectually, some of the reasons why.  I was a political science student.  Got a master's degree in Public Affairs.  I can point to the systemic factors.  The reasons it's so hard for a third party to gain credibility.  The reasons why parties are forced to cater to their (more extreme) base.  The nature of human fallacy, and the insidious way that self-interest can appear justified and in keeping with national interest.  The way people choose information that is in keeping with their worldview, and reject that which isn't.

I know all this.  And I still feel - disappointed.  Sad.  Upset. 

It's a bit like watching the steps that will lead to a train wreck, and not being able to stop it.  I don't know when the train wreck will come.  Heck, given the natural lifespan of nations it's probably inevitable.  Eventually. (Though I'd like to see us make the sorts of choices that will postpone it a few centuries.)

So what can we do to make a difference?  Really?