Restore Majority Rule in California.

A grassroots movement is beginning to put a measure on the California ballot which consists of one sentence ”All legislative actions on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote." This is the only thing which will make California functional again.

This seems to be the most centralized address for organized work on repealing the 2/3 rule in California. The measure was written by George Lakoff (Professor of Linguistics at Berkeley), and he's one of the main organizers of the campaign.

www.camajorityrule.com

Proposition 13 made it possible to pass Tax cuts with a simple majority and Tax increases require a 2/3rds. This has created a culture of Tax cuts in Boom times that are impossible to replace in Bust times. Treasurer Angelides ran for Governor on a program that would have balanced the budget by raising taxes on incomes over 250K by less than 1 percent for 5 years. Pete Wilson followed a similar formula and it worked. But the days of Sane Republicans are a distant memory, and California decided instead to cut money to the Universities and create a skilled labor shortage that will shrink the tax base even further. These impossibly low tax rates have been hemorrhaging the budget ever since, so it’s probably impossible to fix the budget that easily today. But the real problem in California is too little revenue, not too much spending. Cuts in education create more unemployment, which creates less revenue, which creates more cuts in employment and so on. This is the disastrous Republican "plan" for California's future.

The Republicans have lost the ability to do anything other than Chant the Mantra "NO NEW TAXES". The Majority rule measure will break their stranglehold on the budget, and make it possible to fund essential public services once more. I would urge eveyrone to go to this site and volunteer to help the campaign.The people who say this can't pass are probably also the people that said Obama could never get elected. Let's prove them wrong again

Obama and Gitmo redux

It appears that Obama no longer "rejects as false the dichotomy of our ideals and safety". He's created a special kind of "justice" for some of the Gitmo prisoners that will enable him to detain them without charges. I'm not happy about this, because I think it's wrong, and I think it will compromise our security more than letting those people go. To convict those who can be proven guilty, and let the rest go (preferably with compensations for the damage done to their lives), would have been a powerful blow to the Al Qaeda propaganda machine. But let's get real here, and not pretend that this shows that there is no difference between Obama and Bush. Obama is winding this up at a faster rate than Bush did, and he is also creating a system that will evaluate prisoners on an objective criterion, rather than making their imprisonment a matter of presidential whim. Those are steps in the right direction, although not far enough.

I think Obama has taken this position because he knows that fear of terrorism is the most powerful card the Republicans have, and that doing the right thing in this context could be fatal politically. I think the best thing to do would be to call their bluff, and argue aggressively that we are safer with this issue behind us. But I don't have to agree with Obama to be grateful that he is the best president we have had since Clinton. I think that given time, I will end up saying that he is the best president in my lifetime.

Did Woodstock Matter?

Woodstock was in one important way, a radical counterexample to the basic tenets of Western Christian Morality. The assumption of that morality is that if people relax, follow their desires, and do what they like, there would be chaos. This is why sex and sin have always been linked together. What happened at Woodstock is that people had sex, did drugs, took off their clothes, did no productive work --and things turned out OK. Nobody got hurt, and people exhibited all the most important Christian virtues--kindness, generosity, patience--without being nasty and self righteous. This was scary to some people and exhilarating to others. John Calvin would have turned over in his grave, if he'd known.

Since then, of course, this kind of abandon and license has proved to be unsustainable. But for a few shining moments, it seemed that Rousseau was right--that if people just did what came naturally they would be good, and that traditional moral rules actually got in the way of goodness. Like all half-truths, this idea can be dangerous. But let us not be so sure that we are completely certain which half is true at this point in history.

Meta-dream

All kidding aside, this really happened to me a few nights ago.


I dreamed I was giving a philosophy lecture using two underlined books instead of lecture notes. As the lecture went on, I started having more and more trouble locating the quotes I needed. Soon the lecture was getting more and more confused, and the students were starting to get restless. A couple of my best students came up and complained that they really could have gotten more out of staying at home and studying than they were getting out of this lecture. Roger Bell, the department chair, appeared magically in the back of the room. He looked friendly, as always, but his presence made me feel I better get this lecture on track soon.

Then I got a flash of inspiration. I started telling the students that what I was going through was very similar to what psychologists call an anxiety dream, and that many people have similar dreams. I then began to describe one of my real anxiety dreams, if you'll pardon the oxymoron. (i.e. I didn't dream that I dreamed this, I really did dream it several years ago). In my anxiety dream, I am supposed to be playing drums with the Rock band Jethro Tull in a huge sold out arena, but as in real life, I can't play drums at all. I figure that I will make somewhat less of an idiot of myself if I can at least reach all of the drums and cymbals. I spend the entire dream rearranging the drumset with the band and audience staring at me patiently in dead silence. I tell the class that the one difference between the dream and my current situation is that in the dream I wake up before I have to play the drums. I remark that I wish I could get out of this situation the same way, which gets a good laugh. Great, I think, they're with me now. All I have to do is tie that story back to the subject matter of the lecture, and I'm home free. So I pick up the two books, and once again I get hopelessly lost trying to find the quotes I need.

At this point I realize that I'm dreaming, and that acknowledging this fact will create a meta-level that really will enable me to tie this story back to the course material. The connection is right on the tip of my tongue, however, so I mark time with a few qualifying clauses, hoping that I will soon be able to explain clearly how all of this meandering relates back to the lecture. Then I realize "Wait a minute! If I'm dreaming I don't have to finish the lecture. All I have to do is wake up." So I do.

Why we need the Humanities

The Sciences teach us how to deal with machines and mechanisms. Even Psychology is primarily interested in what we have in common with Rats and Pigeons. The Humanities, as the name implies, deal with what makes us uniquely human. Any job that requires us to deal with humans as humans is best prepared for by studying the humanities. This is because humans, unlike machines, cannot be understood fully by reducing them to mathematical algorithms. You learn to understand people by hearing stories about them: in History and in Literature. In Philosophy, you learn about the relationship between these different ways of understanding people and the mechanical world. If you don't learn to step back from the assumptions that are made while viewing the world scientifically--something all of the greatest scientists knew how to do--you end up treating everything, including people, as machines that are only there to serve your ends.

Society needs for everyone to be able to take that kind of broader perspective. That is why a college education is designed to teach you not only how to do a job, but to think carefully about what sort of job you ought to do. I think one of the reasons for the present financial and moral collapse is that the richest and most powerful people never took courses--or at least never took them seriously-- that forced them to ask questions of that sort. This produced a group of people who grew up with a value system that no sane person would ever embrace seriously if they took the time to question it: "He who dies with the most toys wins." Unfortunately, that is the value system subconsciously adopted by those who never question their value system. They got their toys and we lost.

Sura 4:89

Both extremist fundamentalists and Islamaphobes like to use this passage to prove that the Koran requires that apostates should be killed.

They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. (4:89)

This is not, however, the only interpretation accepted by orthodox Muslims. Osama Abdallah attacks this interpretation at great length on his website http://www.answering-christianity.com and also cites several orthodox Islamic scholars as rejecting this interpretation. His response is based partly on Dr. Munir Munsey’s translation, which clarifies that the quote refers, not to apostates, but to hypocrites.

The hypocrites wish that you would reject faith just like they have. Then, you will (descend down to their level and) be equal to them. Therefore, do not choose them as friends unless they (emigrate and) leave their homes in the path of Allah. If they revert (to open hostility), then seize and slay them wherever you see them. Do not take them as friends or protectors, nor as helpers. (4:89)

The hypocrites are explicitly mentioned in the previous sura, so there is no question that they are the ones being discussed here. According to Abdallah, the hypocrites referred to in the quote were Jewish and Christian Arabs who pretended to convert to Islam for a while, then left and rejoined their own tribes. This would mean the people being discussed are not people who changed their minds and decided to leave Islam, but rather people who PRETENDED to convert to Islam. At the very least, this means that the injunction cannot apply people who were born Moslems and decided to convert to another religion. But more importantly, it does not refer to anyone who sincerely believes that they should convert to another religion. Consequently, this verse is fully consistent with the famous passage that says “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”

Abdallah says that these Jewish and Christian Arabs pretended to convert to Islam so they could make the religion look bad when they left. But I think a more likely explanation is that they were spies trying to gather military information. It is important to remember that the word ‘Moslem’ in the Koran refers to a small community under constant aggressive military attack. At that time, leaving Islam didn’t mean going down the street to another place of worship. It meant joining another army that was actively trying to kill Muhammad’s people. How would an American general in World War II respond to a soldier in his battalion who had joined the Nazis? Wouldn’t the most likely response be to have him shot?

However, Muhammad’s response was in fact much more lenient that my hypothetical general. The two passages that come immediately after this one show that this quote has been taken radically out of context.


Except for those (hypocrites) who find refuge with a nation with whom you have a treaty! Or unless they come to you such that their hearts cringe and neither allow them to fight you, nor their own people. Had Allah willed, He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. Therefore, if they stay aloof and do not fight you, or if they make overtures of peace, then Allah has given you no reason to commit aggression against them. (4:90) (My Italics)


You will find other hypocrites who seek to stay safe from you, as well as from their people. But, (as soon) as they are tempted with a lure, they plunge headlong into mischief. If they do not stay neutral, and do not make overtures of peace towards you, and do not restrain their hands, then seize and slay them wherever you see them. In their case, we have given you a clear sanction. (4:91)

The first passage gives exceptions to the rule for killing hypocrites, which clearly show that if the hypocrites don’t cause trouble, they should not be hunted down and killed. If they are far away in another non-aggressive country, or if they have surrendered, or if they are not aggressively attacking Muhammad’s community, they should be ignored. The second passage does advise caution in dealing with the hypocrites who are still living within that community. But it also reiterates (in the contrapositive) the previous passage’s admonition that the hypocrites should be killed only if they are actively aiding the community’s enemies.

Thus the so-called “death to apostates” sura does not refer to sincere apostates at all, and does not advocate death except as a response to violent aggression. It’s amazing what taking a quote out of context can do.

What Obama Said

A few posts back I created a paragraph of what I thought Obama should say in response to those who want to continue to compromise our rights in the name of security. Here is what he actually said in his inaugural address. Pretty darn close, actually.


"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."