The news is full of chatter about Benjamin Netenyahu as he uses the forum the Republican Congress gave him to try to kill a potential deal with Iran that would allow Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. What to make of it?
I am not so foolish as to think I can have an informed opinion on the details. First, I don't believe the actual details of the proposed agreement are all hashed out. Second, I don't have the technical expertise to understand all the ins and outs of verification - whether we can reasonably be sure we will know if Iran violates the terms or spirit of the agreement.
So I am left by judging the credibility of the parties. On the one side we have Fox news and that part of the Republican party that was so influential in our invading Iraq, and Benjamin Netenyahu representing Isreal. On the other side we have President Obama and Secretery of State Kerry.
On the verification issue, I think back to around the turn of the century. The UN folks monitoring Saddam Hussains nucular capabilities were reporting there did not seem to be any immediate problem, but Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush and Fox News became convinced Iraq was building Nuclear weapons, presenting all sorts of allegations they cited as evidence. So we invaded Iraq, beginning the long chain of middle eastern destabilization that has given us the present situation with zealots running ISIS threatening to engulf the whole region in war. And of course, after we took over Iraq we discoverd there was no nuclear weapons program going on, more or less confirming what the UN monitors were telling us.
Now Iran is not Iraq, I think there is little room for doubt Iran is pretty far along toward Nuclear weapons. So the question becomes, if we reach a deal that allows them to enrich uranium can we verify that they do it only for peaceful purposes. Mr Obama and Mr. Kerry believe we can. They could be wroing, but they are pretty sharp guys and have a lot of very smart people to investigate, and they are our elected representatives. So for me I will rely on their decision unless some credible persons can provide credible evidence that their decision is clearly erroneous.
But on credibility, for me, the people making all the objections to the treaty have destroyed their credibility. The hyperventilating Fox news and table thumping Republicans are the same folks that warned us that Iraq was about to start dropping nuclear missles on its neighbors. Going back even further their logic is the same as those who objected to all the missle treaties between the US and Russia that kept the world peaceful for generations. Their view of the world seems to be rooted in stereotypical good guys (us) and bad guys (them). Life is a zero sum game, compete or die. The only way to be safe is to be armed to the teeth and do everything you can to undermine the success of "them".
That world view is correct if enough people subscribe to it. But history has shown that societies that can develop mechanisms for cooperation with others based on verified systems that allow trust are vastly happier, wealthier and more productive.
Over his career Mr. Netenyahu has demonstrated the same worldview. He is against every treaty with any "them". Isreal under his adminstration has been noisily outraged by every perceived slight against Isreal (us) and oblivous to the Palistinians (them) whom Isreal pushes aside and expropriates land.
At this point in my life, with 60 plus years of personally experienced history behind me, that world views credability, and the people who espouse it, are about at the level of a guy trying to sell you on the merits of a used car as he leans against the door to keep it from falling off.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Global Warming - The Downside Upside
One characteristic of cities is over time the older areas decay. Houses get delapidated, infrastructure breaks down over time. If the city is wealthy folks can afford repairs, at least in the areas where the wealthy live. It is a chronic problem that after World War II government began addressing by creating redevelopment agencies. The law gave cities the power to forcibly buy big chunks of land and redevelop the area.
Redevelopment efforts have a checkered history. Some were pretty successful, but over the years redevelopment agencies turned into classic bureacracies heavily influenced by the developers that profited from Redevelopment. The problem became worse as city budgets got tighter so cities relied on developers for more and more of the funding. So small parts of town got fancied up while infrastructure decayed in the rest of town.
Here in California it got so bad that Governor Brown, a former Mayor of Oakland and well versed in the problems of redevelopment, abolished redevelopment agencies.
As a result, here in the Bay area, much of the infrastructure, from the gas and water lines underground, to the roads and wires above ground, are old and decaying. The cost of replacement is far beyond what government In California is willing to spend.
Not to worry, there is a downside upside. Rising sea levels could inundate much of the greater Los Angeles area, much of the Bay area, most of Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, big swaths of San Diego. Much of the state will have the opportunity to build new cities from the ground up. So our lack of will to address global warming will save us from our lack of will to address decaying infrastructure.
Redevelopment efforts have a checkered history. Some were pretty successful, but over the years redevelopment agencies turned into classic bureacracies heavily influenced by the developers that profited from Redevelopment. The problem became worse as city budgets got tighter so cities relied on developers for more and more of the funding. So small parts of town got fancied up while infrastructure decayed in the rest of town.
Here in California it got so bad that Governor Brown, a former Mayor of Oakland and well versed in the problems of redevelopment, abolished redevelopment agencies.
As a result, here in the Bay area, much of the infrastructure, from the gas and water lines underground, to the roads and wires above ground, are old and decaying. The cost of replacement is far beyond what government In California is willing to spend.
Not to worry, there is a downside upside. Rising sea levels could inundate much of the greater Los Angeles area, much of the Bay area, most of Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, big swaths of San Diego. Much of the state will have the opportunity to build new cities from the ground up. So our lack of will to address global warming will save us from our lack of will to address decaying infrastructure.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Toward a More Perfect Union
Democracy in the United States can be discouraging. The two dominent political parties have a monopoly on public policy but are so unwieldy they make political change almost impossible. Money buys sophisticated ad campaigns carefully crafted to touch emotional buttons that result in voters often voting against what would be in their self interest.
Frustration periodically boils over in protests from extremes at both ends of ideological spectrum. When the protests can be turned into votes (think Tea Party) they produce tangible results. When the protests do not produce tangible change in voting behavior, they produce only instability that undermines the restraint and respect that inoculates democracy from potential dictators.
Some try to address the disfunction of our two party system by forming smaller minor parties, as is typical in parlimentary systems. In theory a minor party could be beneficial as power brokers - if they limit their activities to developing committed constitutents who will vote as a block for whichever major party buys into their platform. Unfortunately the leaders of minor parties in the United States generally are so full of themselves they run hopeless campaigns to get themselves elected. In the end their efforts usually end up helping the major party whose views are most far removed from their goals get elected.
In the end the path to change in a democracy comes only through wiser voting. Studying issues outside the Washington/Media controlled political dialogue could inoculate most voters from the massive media campaigns that control elections these days, but, as long as life is pretty good most folks are so busy enjoying life they end up having no time to investigate issues. So an election rolls around and either they don't vote, or they fall back on ideas rooted in emotional attachment to what is familiar, and are subject to emotional manipulation by the effective use of the media.
In a burst of idealism I created a web site a couple years ago thinking I would start acting to develop an organization that voters could use for educating one another on issues (http://www.theidp.org/ ). Alas, since that burst of enthusiam I have done nothing further toward bringing the organization into existence - I am to busy enjoying life to find time to act on it.
Frustration periodically boils over in protests from extremes at both ends of ideological spectrum. When the protests can be turned into votes (think Tea Party) they produce tangible results. When the protests do not produce tangible change in voting behavior, they produce only instability that undermines the restraint and respect that inoculates democracy from potential dictators.
Some try to address the disfunction of our two party system by forming smaller minor parties, as is typical in parlimentary systems. In theory a minor party could be beneficial as power brokers - if they limit their activities to developing committed constitutents who will vote as a block for whichever major party buys into their platform. Unfortunately the leaders of minor parties in the United States generally are so full of themselves they run hopeless campaigns to get themselves elected. In the end their efforts usually end up helping the major party whose views are most far removed from their goals get elected.
In the end the path to change in a democracy comes only through wiser voting. Studying issues outside the Washington/Media controlled political dialogue could inoculate most voters from the massive media campaigns that control elections these days, but, as long as life is pretty good most folks are so busy enjoying life they end up having no time to investigate issues. So an election rolls around and either they don't vote, or they fall back on ideas rooted in emotional attachment to what is familiar, and are subject to emotional manipulation by the effective use of the media.
In a burst of idealism I created a web site a couple years ago thinking I would start acting to develop an organization that voters could use for educating one another on issues (http://www.theidp.org/ ). Alas, since that burst of enthusiam I have done nothing further toward bringing the organization into existence - I am to busy enjoying life to find time to act on it.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Do Protests Based in Confrontation Work?
Based on my knowledge of history I think confrontation works in some specific (and rare) circumstances, but not in others. Here is my thesis: Confrontation is counterproductive if the people you need to achieve your goals identify with the people whom you are confronting.
The Civil Rights movement in the United States used protest marches, sit-ins and other confrontational tactics and in the end they were very successful, segregation was abolished. The reason the movement was successful was that the marches, sit-ins and other confrontational approaches were directed at the people of the South. The people and local and State governments in the South just got angry and defiant in response to the protests. But the rest of the country, that did not particularly identify with the people of the south because of their segregationist policies, imposed the solution through Federal legislation.
Gandhi used similar tactics in India to achieve independence. The people in England, thousands of miles away, largely unaffected by the protests, imposed the solution.
Confrontational tactics in South Africa made little headway for decades. The white population that dominated government just got more determined to defend Apartheid. The end of Apartheid was the result of press coverage that ultimately caused the uninvolved rest of the world to impose crippling economic sanctions.
On the other hand in my 45 years of adult life I have seen confrontational protests by many groups about many perceived wrongs that in my estimation did not produce positive results. The Vietnam war protests went on for nearly a decade and in my estimation did not shorten the war and may have lengthened it. The lack of success by the Occupy protests of a couple years ago is highlighted by the fact the Republicans whose policies created the inequality economy are about to take over both houses of Congress. The numerous protests that led to the overthrow of dictatorships during the Arab spring have failed miserably because in the end the confrontational tactics undermine the restraint necessary for a functioning democracy and have resulted in a confrontational (as in shooting each other) free for all among different groups striving for influence.
So, I conclude that unless there is some uninvolved greater power that can impose a solution, the emotion confrontation causes in those confronted will undermine both the support of many of the folks needed to create the solution, and to some extent the restraint and respect fundamental to democracy.
The current wave of protests about trigger happy cops in local jurisdictions does not seem to me to lend itself to solution by imposition from some uninvolved greater power, and in fact the confrontational actions are aimed at the citizens and police of the jurisdictions where the change must occur. They are in the face of the people they need to solve the problem. They are more likely to create resentment than cooperation.
Comments?
The Civil Rights movement in the United States used protest marches, sit-ins and other confrontational tactics and in the end they were very successful, segregation was abolished. The reason the movement was successful was that the marches, sit-ins and other confrontational approaches were directed at the people of the South. The people and local and State governments in the South just got angry and defiant in response to the protests. But the rest of the country, that did not particularly identify with the people of the south because of their segregationist policies, imposed the solution through Federal legislation.
Gandhi used similar tactics in India to achieve independence. The people in England, thousands of miles away, largely unaffected by the protests, imposed the solution.
Confrontational tactics in South Africa made little headway for decades. The white population that dominated government just got more determined to defend Apartheid. The end of Apartheid was the result of press coverage that ultimately caused the uninvolved rest of the world to impose crippling economic sanctions.
On the other hand in my 45 years of adult life I have seen confrontational protests by many groups about many perceived wrongs that in my estimation did not produce positive results. The Vietnam war protests went on for nearly a decade and in my estimation did not shorten the war and may have lengthened it. The lack of success by the Occupy protests of a couple years ago is highlighted by the fact the Republicans whose policies created the inequality economy are about to take over both houses of Congress. The numerous protests that led to the overthrow of dictatorships during the Arab spring have failed miserably because in the end the confrontational tactics undermine the restraint necessary for a functioning democracy and have resulted in a confrontational (as in shooting each other) free for all among different groups striving for influence.
So, I conclude that unless there is some uninvolved greater power that can impose a solution, the emotion confrontation causes in those confronted will undermine both the support of many of the folks needed to create the solution, and to some extent the restraint and respect fundamental to democracy.
The current wave of protests about trigger happy cops in local jurisdictions does not seem to me to lend itself to solution by imposition from some uninvolved greater power, and in fact the confrontational actions are aimed at the citizens and police of the jurisdictions where the change must occur. They are in the face of the people they need to solve the problem. They are more likely to create resentment than cooperation.
Comments?
Monday, December 15, 2014
Racism or Apathy?
On Monday, December 8 at about 8:45 pm I was one of those trapped in a car stopped by protesters invading Interstate-80. At one point during the hour or so the protesters were milling around the car they began chanting "This is Democracy in Action".
Wrong. Protests are the tool for disenfranchised populations. Democracy in action is voting.
The focus of the protests is the shooting of a young black man in Ferguson Missouri. Ferguson is a town of about 21,000 persons. 67% of the population is black, yet 5 of the 6 city council members are white, 50 of the 53 police officers are white, the city government funds much of its operations from traffic fines that fall disproportionately on blacks. So is the problem racism? Or apathy? Despite 2/3rds of the eligible voters in town being black, in the last city election cycle less than 10% of the eligible black voters cast a ballot.
The shooting in Ferguson, the recent shooting of a black teenager playing in a park with a BB gun, the choking of a black man in Staten Island, the fact that 20 black men are killed by police for every white man, indicate there is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed.
It seems to me these protests are venting, not problem solving. The Ferguson shooting happened last summer. For the next couple months leading up to the congressional elections in November the news all over the country was full of protests, marches, confrontations and pundits pointing at racism, or defending the police. Yet in the election in November voter turnout in Missouri was 32% of eligible voters, and 37% nationwide, the lowest turnout in over 50 years for a mid-term election. Republicans, based on recent history a party that is not going to be particularly concerned with even considering whether there is a problem, swept to victory all over the country, including Missouri. Evidently if the angry protests that filled media headlines fired up anybody it was mostly Republicans. White conservatives control Ferguson and now law and order Republicans are regaining control Congress.
I don't live in Ferguson, so I can't vote in Ferguson. I voted nationally, and my vote got lost in a sea of apathy. It's frustrating to watch people trashing businesses, blocking trains and freeways and costing local taxpayers millions of dollars in extraordinary police expenses in my town when the solution to the problem is in voter registration drives to convince the folks most affected by the problem to register and vote. A politically organized black community in Ferguson could dictate the kind of police department they want, and a democratic Congress would be much more inclined to take steps to address the problem on a national scale.
Wrong. Protests are the tool for disenfranchised populations. Democracy in action is voting.
The focus of the protests is the shooting of a young black man in Ferguson Missouri. Ferguson is a town of about 21,000 persons. 67% of the population is black, yet 5 of the 6 city council members are white, 50 of the 53 police officers are white, the city government funds much of its operations from traffic fines that fall disproportionately on blacks. So is the problem racism? Or apathy? Despite 2/3rds of the eligible voters in town being black, in the last city election cycle less than 10% of the eligible black voters cast a ballot.
The shooting in Ferguson, the recent shooting of a black teenager playing in a park with a BB gun, the choking of a black man in Staten Island, the fact that 20 black men are killed by police for every white man, indicate there is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed.
It seems to me these protests are venting, not problem solving. The Ferguson shooting happened last summer. For the next couple months leading up to the congressional elections in November the news all over the country was full of protests, marches, confrontations and pundits pointing at racism, or defending the police. Yet in the election in November voter turnout in Missouri was 32% of eligible voters, and 37% nationwide, the lowest turnout in over 50 years for a mid-term election. Republicans, based on recent history a party that is not going to be particularly concerned with even considering whether there is a problem, swept to victory all over the country, including Missouri. Evidently if the angry protests that filled media headlines fired up anybody it was mostly Republicans. White conservatives control Ferguson and now law and order Republicans are regaining control Congress.
I don't live in Ferguson, so I can't vote in Ferguson. I voted nationally, and my vote got lost in a sea of apathy. It's frustrating to watch people trashing businesses, blocking trains and freeways and costing local taxpayers millions of dollars in extraordinary police expenses in my town when the solution to the problem is in voter registration drives to convince the folks most affected by the problem to register and vote. A politically organized black community in Ferguson could dictate the kind of police department they want, and a democratic Congress would be much more inclined to take steps to address the problem on a national scale.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Racism - a Red Herring
While the underlying brain and behavioral characteristics that create that capability to be racist are present in all of us, it seems like sometimes the word becomes an excuse rather than a path to a solution.
Scientific evidence seems to document that we are all hardwired to instinctively draw distinctions between "we" and "others" (see discussion in "Syria & Ukraine - Thoughts on Tribalism" published at this site 3-12-14). Everyone is inclined to put themselves and people like them in the "us" category and adopt stereotypical views about everyone else in the "other" category. Does racism, or sexism or religious bigotry exist in America? Unquestionably, and every other country, and it always will. But calling people racist solves nothing, and explains nothing.
The Grand Jury decision, and accompanying vandalism and looting, in response to the decision not to prosecute the police officer who shot Micheal Brown in Ferguson Missouri brought this to mind.
I tried to ignore what was going on in Ferguson, because American media are useless when it comes to understanding problems and developing solutions. Facts are boring. But emotions and opinions stir people up, so the media hands the microphone to advocates willing to use strong language and state unequivocal opinions. Little effort goes into developing facts and what few facts are developed get buried in a blizzard of opinion and innuendo. But, I got caught up and have since been stewing about it.
On the one hand were the commentators characterizing the shooting as a regrettable incident, a police investigation into a petty theft that went badly wrong because the very physically imposing young victim became aggressive. The facts that are available provide some support for this view. The victim was a young man 6'4" tall and about 290 pounds. A very big man. Having tussled with other young men a bit when I was that age I have no doubt a man that size could kill me - and most of us - with his bare hands if that was his goal and he caught us in close quarters where we couldn't use greater mobility to stay out reach or reach a weapon. The physical evidence and the Grand Jury testimony seem make it pretty clear the victim was acting aggressively, then trapped the police officer in his car, punched him and tussled with him over the officers gun. So clearly the officer had reason to be afraid. But this view makes one wonder why the officer pulled his car sideways, essentially trapping himself, and why he didn't have a taser or other non-lethal defense option for close quarters. This suggests not racism, but bad police training and equipment.
On the other hand were the commentators characterizing the event as a shooting of an unarmed black teenager sparked by white America's racism toward black America. I don't think I saw or heard a single comment that didn't link "an unarmed black teenager" with the victims name. Technically correct, Micheal Brown did not seem to have a weapon, but the description is a misleading characterization considering the aggressiveness he demonstrated and the threat his size presented
Both views seemed to ignore some part of reality. The November 29th issue of the Economist brought out a number of facts that helped crystallize my thinking about what was bothering me. So here are some facts, largely gleaned from the Economist.
The town of Ferguson is run by white Republicans who seem to follow conservative principles. They evidently don't like taxes, are not keen on spending money for city services. The city council has 5 white members and one black member. The police department has 50 white officers, 3 black officers. The second biggest source of funding for town operations, 20% of the towns revenue, comes from fines and asset confiscations imposed by the criminal justice system. The amount collected averages to $124 in fines paid each year for each of the 21,135 residents of the city. Last year the municipal court in Ferguson issued 32,975 arrest warrants last year, 1.5 times the number of arrest warrants as their are city residents, mostly for traffic violations. 86% of the traffic stops are of blacks.
The Economist cited the story of one woman who was stopped by police because she had "a black looking car". The officer asked whether she had any marijuana, she replied no, perhaps a little to vehemently. She ended up with three tickets, one for car windows tinted too dark, one for slowing down to much at a traffic light, and one for disrespectful behavior towards a police officer. Three tickets carrying, presumably three fines. Paying fines can involve standing in line for hours, if you don't have the money to pay the fine you may incur jail time and more fines. It is hard to avoid the implication much of what police do in Ferguson has more to do with bringing money into the city than protecting and serving the residents.
These are the sorts of facts that cause people to say the problem is the whites being racist.
Here is my problem with citing racism as the problem. It makes the problem a function of white behavior. But 67% of the population of Ferguson is black. Yet turnout for the last election of city officials was 12% of the eligible voters. A Washington Post analysis of the election found that white citizens were three times more likely to vote than black citizens. If we use that figure as accurate it means that significantly less than 5% of the eligible black voters bothered to vote.
That mirrors the recent congressional election across the country where only 37% of the eligible voters voted, the lowest percentage since 1942 when many voters were overseas fighting WW II. California actually had a significantly higher voter turnout, so that means much rest of the country probably had less than 37% of the eligible voters participate. Conservative Republicans (mostly white) almost always vote. Most Blacks, mostly Democrats, apparently are too busy or otherwise engaged to vote. So Conservative whites run Ferguson, and the country.
I recognize that who we each are today is strongly influenced by the ancestors we descend from, from whom we take much of our outlook on the world, and the black population of this country has a legacy of slavery, then second class citizenship in the south, and poverty. I also recognize we all, of every race or creed, have to constantly fight the tendency to lump people we don't know into categories and create expectations based in stereotypes. But in my experience the vast majority of white America see blacks as persons of equal citizenship stature. They may sometimes still engage in black stereotyping, but they also stereotype Muslims, and at times even people from France, or fans of rival football teams.
As conservative Republicans are prone to say, freedom isn't free. As the Bible says, God helps those who help themselves. I have no power to help folks who can't take the time to vote, so I have no patience with folks who still think calling folks racist is solving a problem.
Scientific evidence seems to document that we are all hardwired to instinctively draw distinctions between "we" and "others" (see discussion in "Syria & Ukraine - Thoughts on Tribalism" published at this site 3-12-14). Everyone is inclined to put themselves and people like them in the "us" category and adopt stereotypical views about everyone else in the "other" category. Does racism, or sexism or religious bigotry exist in America? Unquestionably, and every other country, and it always will. But calling people racist solves nothing, and explains nothing.
The Grand Jury decision, and accompanying vandalism and looting, in response to the decision not to prosecute the police officer who shot Micheal Brown in Ferguson Missouri brought this to mind.
I tried to ignore what was going on in Ferguson, because American media are useless when it comes to understanding problems and developing solutions. Facts are boring. But emotions and opinions stir people up, so the media hands the microphone to advocates willing to use strong language and state unequivocal opinions. Little effort goes into developing facts and what few facts are developed get buried in a blizzard of opinion and innuendo. But, I got caught up and have since been stewing about it.
On the one hand were the commentators characterizing the shooting as a regrettable incident, a police investigation into a petty theft that went badly wrong because the very physically imposing young victim became aggressive. The facts that are available provide some support for this view. The victim was a young man 6'4" tall and about 290 pounds. A very big man. Having tussled with other young men a bit when I was that age I have no doubt a man that size could kill me - and most of us - with his bare hands if that was his goal and he caught us in close quarters where we couldn't use greater mobility to stay out reach or reach a weapon. The physical evidence and the Grand Jury testimony seem make it pretty clear the victim was acting aggressively, then trapped the police officer in his car, punched him and tussled with him over the officers gun. So clearly the officer had reason to be afraid. But this view makes one wonder why the officer pulled his car sideways, essentially trapping himself, and why he didn't have a taser or other non-lethal defense option for close quarters. This suggests not racism, but bad police training and equipment.
On the other hand were the commentators characterizing the event as a shooting of an unarmed black teenager sparked by white America's racism toward black America. I don't think I saw or heard a single comment that didn't link "an unarmed black teenager" with the victims name. Technically correct, Micheal Brown did not seem to have a weapon, but the description is a misleading characterization considering the aggressiveness he demonstrated and the threat his size presented
Both views seemed to ignore some part of reality. The November 29th issue of the Economist brought out a number of facts that helped crystallize my thinking about what was bothering me. So here are some facts, largely gleaned from the Economist.
The town of Ferguson is run by white Republicans who seem to follow conservative principles. They evidently don't like taxes, are not keen on spending money for city services. The city council has 5 white members and one black member. The police department has 50 white officers, 3 black officers. The second biggest source of funding for town operations, 20% of the towns revenue, comes from fines and asset confiscations imposed by the criminal justice system. The amount collected averages to $124 in fines paid each year for each of the 21,135 residents of the city. Last year the municipal court in Ferguson issued 32,975 arrest warrants last year, 1.5 times the number of arrest warrants as their are city residents, mostly for traffic violations. 86% of the traffic stops are of blacks.
The Economist cited the story of one woman who was stopped by police because she had "a black looking car". The officer asked whether she had any marijuana, she replied no, perhaps a little to vehemently. She ended up with three tickets, one for car windows tinted too dark, one for slowing down to much at a traffic light, and one for disrespectful behavior towards a police officer. Three tickets carrying, presumably three fines. Paying fines can involve standing in line for hours, if you don't have the money to pay the fine you may incur jail time and more fines. It is hard to avoid the implication much of what police do in Ferguson has more to do with bringing money into the city than protecting and serving the residents.
These are the sorts of facts that cause people to say the problem is the whites being racist.
Here is my problem with citing racism as the problem. It makes the problem a function of white behavior. But 67% of the population of Ferguson is black. Yet turnout for the last election of city officials was 12% of the eligible voters. A Washington Post analysis of the election found that white citizens were three times more likely to vote than black citizens. If we use that figure as accurate it means that significantly less than 5% of the eligible black voters bothered to vote.
That mirrors the recent congressional election across the country where only 37% of the eligible voters voted, the lowest percentage since 1942 when many voters were overseas fighting WW II. California actually had a significantly higher voter turnout, so that means much rest of the country probably had less than 37% of the eligible voters participate. Conservative Republicans (mostly white) almost always vote. Most Blacks, mostly Democrats, apparently are too busy or otherwise engaged to vote. So Conservative whites run Ferguson, and the country.
I recognize that who we each are today is strongly influenced by the ancestors we descend from, from whom we take much of our outlook on the world, and the black population of this country has a legacy of slavery, then second class citizenship in the south, and poverty. I also recognize we all, of every race or creed, have to constantly fight the tendency to lump people we don't know into categories and create expectations based in stereotypes. But in my experience the vast majority of white America see blacks as persons of equal citizenship stature. They may sometimes still engage in black stereotyping, but they also stereotype Muslims, and at times even people from France, or fans of rival football teams.
As conservative Republicans are prone to say, freedom isn't free. As the Bible says, God helps those who help themselves. I have no power to help folks who can't take the time to vote, so I have no patience with folks who still think calling folks racist is solving a problem.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Should Government Pay for Art?
Media stories here in the San Francisco Bay Area lately been covering a movement among artist's (under-employed in their view) for a repeat of the Government subsidies of Art that occurred during the Great Depression.
San Francisco and other older parts of the Bay Area are full of Art from the Great Depression, particularly murals on public buildings. I love them. I could live without them easily, sometimes I stand right by or under a mural oblivious to its existence, but still from time to time I have contemplated a mural and enjoyed it as an emotional expression of the views of a particular time in history.
But in my estimation government sponsorship of Art is generally inappropriate and unwise because of the nature of Government and the nature of Art.
First, Government is inherently coercive. Even in our democracy, you have to pay your taxes. We tolerate this coercive nature of government because for many things only government effectively address needs for the common good. But government is also very susceptible to individual groups of people using political power to bend government to what is in their interests rather than some clearly defined common good.
Second, Art is fundamentally personal expression. Art can be a form of play that is very healthy and necessary, particularly for children, or it can be an expression of deeply rooted emotions, but in either case Art is primarily created to make the artist feel good about himself.
To me, Art that is timeless, is generally created by people for whom self expression is more important than money. They see the world through their emotions and their Art allows them to express those emotions. Many great artists did not achieve much financial success during their lifetimes because they did not cater to the current fads in art, or did so within the context of exploring deep and timeless emotional worlds in their own soul.
But there is another world of Art - Art as a business - filled with intelligent people who have good social skills and are primarily motivated by financial and social success. This world is about our logical brain, not our emotions. It grows out of one of the characteristics of human behavior that becomes more prominent as life gets easier. When we feel secure about basic needs some people become willing to pay inordinate amounts of money to buy designer clothes or handbags as a status symbol to assure themselves they are more special than everyone else around them. When everyone can buy designer jeans, those with more money turn to Art to be special. It is the world where Andy Warhol paints a Campbell's Soup can and sells it for millions, because he is perceived as a little more cool than everyone else. Art as business isn't about exploring deeply held emotions, its about current fads. Its about looking at what everyone else thinks is the latest cool thing in art, then trying to figure out how to do something just different enough to be perceived as clever and cooler.
I used to live in an upper middle class university city. It is a great town, filled with intelligent, highly educated people, I doubt there is a nicer place to live in the world. That city has been buying public art and putting it around the city for years. It is abysmal. I never had any involvement in how the art was chosen, but have talked to a few local politicians about it at social events so I have a suspicion what happens. It is Art as business. Successful politician's generally build their life around figuring out what society thinks is good and supporting it. Art is good so supporting the arts becomes an important goal, particularly in and upper middle class city where meeting basic needs has never been an issue for most people.
Politician generally are not going to encounter a moody starving artist focused on self expression, nor have the background to recognize artistic genius. But they are going to encounter lots of the Art as business people because the Art as business people are going out lobbying for public money. So the art as business folks get the public money. In that city I lived in that has resulted in a town full of public art that to me has no more emotional appeal than a banana peel on the sidewalk, and is often tacky in its efforts to use color to give an installation some meaning. Most of it I find not particularly pleasant to look at nor is it capable of sparking any kind of coherent emotion.
I am sure there are lots of folks who view themselves as artists in that city who think the local public art is great. That's fine, or it would be if they had paid for it. But my tax dollars apparently were used to pay for something that I, and I suspect many other taxpayers, consider inappropriate and/or ugly. I have no problem with the Art as business folks building a whole industry out of selling stuff to people with too much money, but I do have a problem with Art becoming just another lobbying group trying to advance their interests at the public trough.
When all the hungry people have been fed, and all the old folks taken care of, and all those who aspire to be educated have been educated, maybe then I would consider government getting involved in paying for public art.
San Francisco and other older parts of the Bay Area are full of Art from the Great Depression, particularly murals on public buildings. I love them. I could live without them easily, sometimes I stand right by or under a mural oblivious to its existence, but still from time to time I have contemplated a mural and enjoyed it as an emotional expression of the views of a particular time in history.
But in my estimation government sponsorship of Art is generally inappropriate and unwise because of the nature of Government and the nature of Art.
First, Government is inherently coercive. Even in our democracy, you have to pay your taxes. We tolerate this coercive nature of government because for many things only government effectively address needs for the common good. But government is also very susceptible to individual groups of people using political power to bend government to what is in their interests rather than some clearly defined common good.
Second, Art is fundamentally personal expression. Art can be a form of play that is very healthy and necessary, particularly for children, or it can be an expression of deeply rooted emotions, but in either case Art is primarily created to make the artist feel good about himself.
To me, Art that is timeless, is generally created by people for whom self expression is more important than money. They see the world through their emotions and their Art allows them to express those emotions. Many great artists did not achieve much financial success during their lifetimes because they did not cater to the current fads in art, or did so within the context of exploring deep and timeless emotional worlds in their own soul.
But there is another world of Art - Art as a business - filled with intelligent people who have good social skills and are primarily motivated by financial and social success. This world is about our logical brain, not our emotions. It grows out of one of the characteristics of human behavior that becomes more prominent as life gets easier. When we feel secure about basic needs some people become willing to pay inordinate amounts of money to buy designer clothes or handbags as a status symbol to assure themselves they are more special than everyone else around them. When everyone can buy designer jeans, those with more money turn to Art to be special. It is the world where Andy Warhol paints a Campbell's Soup can and sells it for millions, because he is perceived as a little more cool than everyone else. Art as business isn't about exploring deeply held emotions, its about current fads. Its about looking at what everyone else thinks is the latest cool thing in art, then trying to figure out how to do something just different enough to be perceived as clever and cooler.
I used to live in an upper middle class university city. It is a great town, filled with intelligent, highly educated people, I doubt there is a nicer place to live in the world. That city has been buying public art and putting it around the city for years. It is abysmal. I never had any involvement in how the art was chosen, but have talked to a few local politicians about it at social events so I have a suspicion what happens. It is Art as business. Successful politician's generally build their life around figuring out what society thinks is good and supporting it. Art is good so supporting the arts becomes an important goal, particularly in and upper middle class city where meeting basic needs has never been an issue for most people.
Politician generally are not going to encounter a moody starving artist focused on self expression, nor have the background to recognize artistic genius. But they are going to encounter lots of the Art as business people because the Art as business people are going out lobbying for public money. So the art as business folks get the public money. In that city I lived in that has resulted in a town full of public art that to me has no more emotional appeal than a banana peel on the sidewalk, and is often tacky in its efforts to use color to give an installation some meaning. Most of it I find not particularly pleasant to look at nor is it capable of sparking any kind of coherent emotion.
I am sure there are lots of folks who view themselves as artists in that city who think the local public art is great. That's fine, or it would be if they had paid for it. But my tax dollars apparently were used to pay for something that I, and I suspect many other taxpayers, consider inappropriate and/or ugly. I have no problem with the Art as business folks building a whole industry out of selling stuff to people with too much money, but I do have a problem with Art becoming just another lobbying group trying to advance their interests at the public trough.
When all the hungry people have been fed, and all the old folks taken care of, and all those who aspire to be educated have been educated, maybe then I would consider government getting involved in paying for public art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)