Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Why no blogs?
Let's see. Sarah mania. Market collapse, McCain channels Carl Rove, Hurricanes blow away Texas, Canoeing the Wis. River where it's barely a trickle, Van Hollen tries to steal the election in broad daylight. There's lots to blog. Plus reading Chas Darwin is always such a treat. But sometimes your brain just gets clogged up with too much stuff to actually blog. I hope to get back at it soon.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
A thought for 9-11
Reprinted here in full because it's worth reading again on every 9-11
December 9, 2001
Ask Not What . . .
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
News anchor Tom Brokaw tells the story of meeting a young New York City fireman a week after Sept. 11. The fireman had just participated in a memorial service for some of his fallen colleagues and the two of them talked about the tragedy. ''As I said goodbye,'' Mr. Brokaw recalled, ''he grabbed my arm and his expression took on a tone of utter determination as he said, 'Mr. Brokaw, watch my generation now, just watch us.' '' As the author of the acclaimed ''The Greatest Generation,'' the story of the World War II cohort that saved America from Nazism, Mr. Brokaw told me he knew just what the man was saying: '' 'This is our turn to be a greatest generation.' ''
There is a lot of truth to that. I have nothing but respect for the way President Bush has conducted this war. But this moment cannot just be about moving troops and tracking terrorists. There is a deep hunger in America post-Sept. 11 in many people who feel this is their war in their backyard and they would like to be summoned by the president to do something more than go shopping. If you just look at the amount of money spontaneously donated to victims' families, it's clear that there is a deep reservoir of energy out there that could be channeled to become a real force for American renewal and transformation -- and it's not being done. One senses that President Bush is intent on stapling his narrow, hard-right Sept. 10 agenda onto the Sept. 12 world, and that is his and our loss.
Imagine if tomorrow President Bush asked all Americans to turn down their home thermostats to 65 degrees so America would not be so much of a hostage to Middle East oil? Trust me, every American would turn down the thermostat to 65 degrees. Liberating us from the grip of OPEC would be our Victory Garden.
Imagine if the president announced a Manhattan Project to make us energy independent in a decade, on the basis of domestic oil, improved mileage standards and renewable resources, so we Americans, who are 5 percent of the world's population, don't continue hogging 25 percent of the world's energy? Imagine if the president called on every young person to consider enlisting in some form of service -- the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, Peace Corps, Teach For America, AmeriCorps, the F.B.I., the C.I.A.? People would enlist in droves. Imagine if the president called on every corporate chieftain to take a 10 percent pay cut, starting with himself, so fewer employees would have to be laid off? Plenty would do it.
I don't toss these ideas out for some patriotic high. There is a critical strategic point here: If we are going to be stomping around the world wiping out terrorist cells from Kabul to Manila, we'd better make sure that we are the best country, and the best global citizens, we can be. Otherwise, we are going to lose the rest of the world.
That means not just putting a fist in the face of the world's bad guys, but also offering a hand up for the good guys. That means doubling our foreign aid, intensifying our democracy promotion programs, increasing our contributions to world development banks (which do microlending to poor women) and lowering our trade barriers for textile and farm imports from the poorest countries. Imagine if the president called on every U.S. school to raise money to buy solar-powered light bulbs for every village in Africa that didn't have electricity so African kids could read at night? And let every one of those light bulbs carry an America flag decal on it, so when those kids grew up they would remember who lit up their nights?
The world's perception of us and our values matters even more now, and it is not going to be changed by an ad campaign, or by just winning in Afghanistan, as important as that is. It will be changed only by what we do -- at home and abroad. This war can't end with only downtown Kabul on the mend, and not downtown Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles. Remember: the victims on Sept. 11 were a cross section of America -- black, white, Hispanic, rich, poor and middle class -- and that same cross section has to share in the healing. If we've learned anything from Sept. 11, it is that if you don't visit a bad neighborhood, it will visit you.
The first Greatest Generation won its stripes by defending America and its allies. This Greatest Generation has to win its stripes by making sure that the America that was passed onto us, and that now claims for itself the leadership of a global war against evil terrorists, is worthy of that task.
Mr. President, where do we enlist?
December 9, 2001
Ask Not What . . .
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
News anchor Tom Brokaw tells the story of meeting a young New York City fireman a week after Sept. 11. The fireman had just participated in a memorial service for some of his fallen colleagues and the two of them talked about the tragedy. ''As I said goodbye,'' Mr. Brokaw recalled, ''he grabbed my arm and his expression took on a tone of utter determination as he said, 'Mr. Brokaw, watch my generation now, just watch us.' '' As the author of the acclaimed ''The Greatest Generation,'' the story of the World War II cohort that saved America from Nazism, Mr. Brokaw told me he knew just what the man was saying: '' 'This is our turn to be a greatest generation.' ''
There is a lot of truth to that. I have nothing but respect for the way President Bush has conducted this war. But this moment cannot just be about moving troops and tracking terrorists. There is a deep hunger in America post-Sept. 11 in many people who feel this is their war in their backyard and they would like to be summoned by the president to do something more than go shopping. If you just look at the amount of money spontaneously donated to victims' families, it's clear that there is a deep reservoir of energy out there that could be channeled to become a real force for American renewal and transformation -- and it's not being done. One senses that President Bush is intent on stapling his narrow, hard-right Sept. 10 agenda onto the Sept. 12 world, and that is his and our loss.
Imagine if tomorrow President Bush asked all Americans to turn down their home thermostats to 65 degrees so America would not be so much of a hostage to Middle East oil? Trust me, every American would turn down the thermostat to 65 degrees. Liberating us from the grip of OPEC would be our Victory Garden.
Imagine if the president announced a Manhattan Project to make us energy independent in a decade, on the basis of domestic oil, improved mileage standards and renewable resources, so we Americans, who are 5 percent of the world's population, don't continue hogging 25 percent of the world's energy? Imagine if the president called on every young person to consider enlisting in some form of service -- the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, Peace Corps, Teach For America, AmeriCorps, the F.B.I., the C.I.A.? People would enlist in droves. Imagine if the president called on every corporate chieftain to take a 10 percent pay cut, starting with himself, so fewer employees would have to be laid off? Plenty would do it.
I don't toss these ideas out for some patriotic high. There is a critical strategic point here: If we are going to be stomping around the world wiping out terrorist cells from Kabul to Manila, we'd better make sure that we are the best country, and the best global citizens, we can be. Otherwise, we are going to lose the rest of the world.
That means not just putting a fist in the face of the world's bad guys, but also offering a hand up for the good guys. That means doubling our foreign aid, intensifying our democracy promotion programs, increasing our contributions to world development banks (which do microlending to poor women) and lowering our trade barriers for textile and farm imports from the poorest countries. Imagine if the president called on every U.S. school to raise money to buy solar-powered light bulbs for every village in Africa that didn't have electricity so African kids could read at night? And let every one of those light bulbs carry an America flag decal on it, so when those kids grew up they would remember who lit up their nights?
The world's perception of us and our values matters even more now, and it is not going to be changed by an ad campaign, or by just winning in Afghanistan, as important as that is. It will be changed only by what we do -- at home and abroad. This war can't end with only downtown Kabul on the mend, and not downtown Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles. Remember: the victims on Sept. 11 were a cross section of America -- black, white, Hispanic, rich, poor and middle class -- and that same cross section has to share in the healing. If we've learned anything from Sept. 11, it is that if you don't visit a bad neighborhood, it will visit you.
The first Greatest Generation won its stripes by defending America and its allies. This Greatest Generation has to win its stripes by making sure that the America that was passed onto us, and that now claims for itself the leadership of a global war against evil terrorists, is worthy of that task.
Mr. President, where do we enlist?
Reading Maraniss; thinking of 9-11
Most people who pick up David Maraniss’ new book, Rome 1960, probably will read it as a stirring saga of sports, or possibly as a time capsule of a more innocent time when TV sports didn’t dominate our lives and our 155 channels, or even as a reminder that Jim Crow and institutional racism are not that far in our past. I am sure Dave meant it to be all of those things; he never writes simple stories.
But for me this book brought back vivid memories of the Cold War – most appropriate memories on this eve of 9-11. For those whose memories have faded – or who are too young to remember – those were times of dread, when the threat of the imminent destruction of “the world as we know it” was never far in the background.
I had a flashback to those times on Sunday when visiting some friends who live in an old commercial building. Their basement ceiling is heavy steel I-beams and the walls are lined with deep shelves, which they now use as a kind of pantry and wine cellar. The thought came to me out of nowhere, “this would be a good bomb shelter.” I was reminded of the days when we had bomb shelters. Some of us did. I just had an outline on the basement floor where I wished my parents would build a regulation bomb shelter. Some friends had the real thing complete with radios and batteries and disaster supplies, and probably a shotgun.
In those days we had a real enemy. Not an enemy who flew planes into buildings or bombed subway trains. An enemy who could destroy us in 30 minutes. Not just kill some of us, but turn the vast majority or Americans into dust or vapor and make the survivors wish they’d been so lucky. We fought that war partly with military preparedness, partly with surrogate wars (a strategy culminating in its last mad apogee of Viet Nam), and partly – mostly – in a war of words. It was a war for the hearts and minds of the people of the whole world. We were in a war of ideas and it mattered whose idea won. That’s what Dave is writing about in Rome 1960. It mattered who won Gold in the 1960 Olympics because that was a surrogate for the real war going on.
Contrast that with the attitude of the current administration, illustrated by this story in the NYTimes: 9/11 Rumors That Become Conventional Wisdom By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
The arrogance of Bush & Cheney & their gang has allowed our adversaries to wield this most powerful of weapons against us. Rather than seek to use public opinion as a lever to fight extremism, they have thumbed their noses at the moderates, the thoughtful people, the ones who really would like to believe in America. You can almost hear Dick Cheney harrumph at the very notion that the opinion of ordinary people might be considered in the halls of the mighty. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun, he might say, thus joining hands with Chairman Mao in the ultimate left-right gesture of solidarity.
There was a lot wrong with the way the U.S. fought the Cold War. McCarthyism didn’t end with Joe McCarthy; it seeped into every City Council and Legislative race in the country. Rights were violated in the name of national security just as they are violated today. The attack phrase, “Why do liberals hate America?” was born in those days, Rush just revived it.
But the nation also had the courage to not only face down a really scary foe, but to also transform American civil life through the civil rights act, voting rights act, Title IX and other women’s right’s laws, various environmental protection laws, etc. etc.
I wonder if Americans, who face a much less immediate enemy today with vastly less killing power than the old USSR, still have the courage to elect someone like John F. Kennedy, young inexperienced, idealistic and a Catholic at a time when anti-Catholic prejudice ran deep and strong. Do we still have the faith in ourselves to elect someone who can not only lead America, but lead the world? Do we still think the world matters, or have we crawled so deep into our bunkers that we can no longer see the sunrise?
On this eve of 9-11, it might be instructive to revisit the bad old days – by reading Rome 1960 or any other means you choose – to remember what America has lost since those days and what we might regain.
But for me this book brought back vivid memories of the Cold War – most appropriate memories on this eve of 9-11. For those whose memories have faded – or who are too young to remember – those were times of dread, when the threat of the imminent destruction of “the world as we know it” was never far in the background.
I had a flashback to those times on Sunday when visiting some friends who live in an old commercial building. Their basement ceiling is heavy steel I-beams and the walls are lined with deep shelves, which they now use as a kind of pantry and wine cellar. The thought came to me out of nowhere, “this would be a good bomb shelter.” I was reminded of the days when we had bomb shelters. Some of us did. I just had an outline on the basement floor where I wished my parents would build a regulation bomb shelter. Some friends had the real thing complete with radios and batteries and disaster supplies, and probably a shotgun.
In those days we had a real enemy. Not an enemy who flew planes into buildings or bombed subway trains. An enemy who could destroy us in 30 minutes. Not just kill some of us, but turn the vast majority or Americans into dust or vapor and make the survivors wish they’d been so lucky. We fought that war partly with military preparedness, partly with surrogate wars (a strategy culminating in its last mad apogee of Viet Nam), and partly – mostly – in a war of words. It was a war for the hearts and minds of the people of the whole world. We were in a war of ideas and it mattered whose idea won. That’s what Dave is writing about in Rome 1960. It mattered who won Gold in the 1960 Olympics because that was a surrogate for the real war going on.
Contrast that with the attitude of the current administration, illustrated by this story in the NYTimes: 9/11 Rumors That Become Conventional Wisdom By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
CAIRO — Seven years later, it remains conventional wisdom here that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda could not have been solely responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that the United States and Israel had to have been involved in their planning, if not their execution, too.
This is not the conclusion of a scientific survey, but it is what routinely comes up in conversations around the region — in a shopping mall in Dubai, in a park in Algiers, in a cafe in Riyadh and all over Cairo.
“Look, I don’t believe what your governments and press say. It just can’t be true,” said Ahmed Issab, 26, a Syrian engineer who lives and works in the United Arab Emirates. “Why would they tell the truth? I think the U.S. organized this so that they had an excuse to invade Iraq for the oil.
That such ideas persist represents the first failure in the fight against terrorism —the inability to convince people here that the United States is, indeed, waging a campaign against terrorism, not a crusade against Muslims.
The arrogance of Bush & Cheney & their gang has allowed our adversaries to wield this most powerful of weapons against us. Rather than seek to use public opinion as a lever to fight extremism, they have thumbed their noses at the moderates, the thoughtful people, the ones who really would like to believe in America. You can almost hear Dick Cheney harrumph at the very notion that the opinion of ordinary people might be considered in the halls of the mighty. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun, he might say, thus joining hands with Chairman Mao in the ultimate left-right gesture of solidarity.
There was a lot wrong with the way the U.S. fought the Cold War. McCarthyism didn’t end with Joe McCarthy; it seeped into every City Council and Legislative race in the country. Rights were violated in the name of national security just as they are violated today. The attack phrase, “Why do liberals hate America?” was born in those days, Rush just revived it.
But the nation also had the courage to not only face down a really scary foe, but to also transform American civil life through the civil rights act, voting rights act, Title IX and other women’s right’s laws, various environmental protection laws, etc. etc.
I wonder if Americans, who face a much less immediate enemy today with vastly less killing power than the old USSR, still have the courage to elect someone like John F. Kennedy, young inexperienced, idealistic and a Catholic at a time when anti-Catholic prejudice ran deep and strong. Do we still have the faith in ourselves to elect someone who can not only lead America, but lead the world? Do we still think the world matters, or have we crawled so deep into our bunkers that we can no longer see the sunrise?
On this eve of 9-11, it might be instructive to revisit the bad old days – by reading Rome 1960 or any other means you choose – to remember what America has lost since those days and what we might regain.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Knee-jerk reaction(ary)
Sometimes you have to wonder who’s smoking dope, the dopers or the legislators who nearly jump out of their pants in horror when anyone gets high. Their knee-jerk reaction can be summed up as, if it’s fun, ban it. NYT 9-09-2008 Salvia’s Popularity May Thwart Medical Use http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/09salvia.html
I haven’t gotten high (except naturally on sunshine and fresh air) for so many years I can’t remember. (hmmm . Drug-related memory loss?) And I’m not saying getting high is good. There are obvious dangers both for the drugger and the public. But this evangelical enthusiasm for making everything possible illegal (except alcohol of course) is madness and ultimately causes way more problems that it solves. Here’s a bit of the Times story:
A guy from Waco should know better. Half the economy of Mexico is drug running and half the government there is on the take. In some countries it’s worse. It’s all because the US insists on making drugs illegal and therefore incredibly profitable. Naturally that profit turns up in the hands of government officials and, incidentally, bankrolls terrorist and guerrilla groups all over the world. Which we then spend US tax dollars to fight. The world’s biggest and most lucrative make-work program and we the taxpayers get to pay for it.
DARE to say no to illegal drugs. Make ‘em legal. The Times story concludes:
If you’re a legislator and you’ve got the twitchy knee, you make it illegal.
I haven’t gotten high (except naturally on sunshine and fresh air) for so many years I can’t remember. (hmmm . Drug-related memory loss?) And I’m not saying getting high is good. There are obvious dangers both for the drugger and the public. But this evangelical enthusiasm for making everything possible illegal (except alcohol of course) is madness and ultimately causes way more problems that it solves. Here’s a bit of the Times story:
Pharmacologists who believe salvia could open new frontiers for the treatment of addiction, depression and pain fear that its criminalization would make it burdensome to obtain and store the plant, and difficult to gain government permission for tests on human subjects. In state after state, however, including here in Texas, the YouTube videos have become Exhibit A in legislative efforts to regulate salvia. This year, Florida made possession or sale a felony punishable by 15 years in prison. California took a gentler approach by making it a misdemeanor to sell or distribute to minors.Anderson couldn’t be more wrong. We should be moving the other way – toward making more things legal.
“When you see it, well, it sure makes a believer out of you,” said Representative Charles Anderson of Waco, a Republican state lawmaker who is sponsoring one of several bills to ban salvia in Texas.
A guy from Waco should know better. Half the economy of Mexico is drug running and half the government there is on the take. In some countries it’s worse. It’s all because the US insists on making drugs illegal and therefore incredibly profitable. Naturally that profit turns up in the hands of government officials and, incidentally, bankrolls terrorist and guerrilla groups all over the world. Which we then spend US tax dollars to fight. The world’s biggest and most lucrative make-work program and we the taxpayers get to pay for it.
DARE to say no to illegal drugs. Make ‘em legal. The Times story concludes:
Though states are moving quickly, Bertha K. Madras, a deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said federal regulators remained in a quandary. “The risk of any drug that is intoxicating is high,” Dr. Madras said. “You’re one car ride away from an event that could be life-altering. But in terms of really good studies, there is just very little. So what do you do? How do you make policy in the absence of good hard cold information?”
If you’re a legislator and you’ve got the twitchy knee, you make it illegal.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Beautiful blog
It's the nature of blogs to be random thoughts sparked by the events of the day -- or as is often the case of the drinking and reading society -- words on the page. Rarely do we get to see a blog that is just beautiful, not just in the thoughts expressed - some blogs do wax lyrical - but also in the presentation. So trust Linda Brazill, the former features editor at The Capital Times, to create a blog that makes you just want to sigh with peace and pleaure when you open the page. I recommend each_little_world even if you are not a gardener. It even makes the blogosphere a more beautiful place.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Underwhelmed
I was prepared for a smart, tough, appealing and witty Sarah Palin. Instead I heard my 5th grade teacher reading a speech clearly written by a team of highly partisan speechwriters who didn't really know her. In many places it was nothing more than a series of clever attack lines pasted together. I was hoping for more.
Measuring in Iraq-Days
As I have been listening to the Republican convention and hearing about how healthcare reform will cost too much or solving the energy crisis will cost too much, I am reminded of a meeting I was at several months ago where the subject of high speed rail came up as a means of saving on energy costs. As I recall, the estimated cost of a line from Chicago to Minneapolis was about $800 million, and everyone in the room nodded gravely as the presenter explained that such a bucket of money was clearly out of the realm of possibility.
Millions. Billions. Who has any concept of what that means?
But since the subject of Iraq also keeps coming up at the Republican convention (something about keeping America safe, I think), it occurred to me that the two subjects could be better explained by creating a new unit of currency – the Iraq-Day. Estimates of Iraq war expenditure rates range from $8 billion per month by the Congressional Research Service, to $12 billion a month by economist Joseph Stiglitz. So let’s make the math easy and call it $10 billion. So one Iraq-Day = $333 million. (10,000,000,000/30).
That makes it easier to understand the cost of high-speed rail from Chicago to Minneapolis. It’s 2.4 Iraq-Days. Minus the cost of jet fuel or gasoline. I’ll bet you can think of more things that could be measured in Iraq-Days.
Millions. Billions. Who has any concept of what that means?
But since the subject of Iraq also keeps coming up at the Republican convention (something about keeping America safe, I think), it occurred to me that the two subjects could be better explained by creating a new unit of currency – the Iraq-Day. Estimates of Iraq war expenditure rates range from $8 billion per month by the Congressional Research Service, to $12 billion a month by economist Joseph Stiglitz. So let’s make the math easy and call it $10 billion. So one Iraq-Day = $333 million. (10,000,000,000/30).
That makes it easier to understand the cost of high-speed rail from Chicago to Minneapolis. It’s 2.4 Iraq-Days. Minus the cost of jet fuel or gasoline. I’ll bet you can think of more things that could be measured in Iraq-Days.
Monday, September 1, 2008
For Anonymous
Anonymous asked for my opinion of the Dem convention and it has taken me a while to decide what I think. I’m not one of those bloggers who just pukes up whatever is on my mind and throws it on the screen. And I'm just not clever enough to think of just the right thing right away. That’s why this will never be a world famous blog.
Two impressions. The convention and Obama’s speech. The convention was pretty conventional. We heard the expected messages in the expected way from the expected players. Not that the content was bad. I was impressed by the stories of ordinary people and their struggles. Al Gore was thoughtful and serious. But in this age of social networking, 24/7 communications, YouTube, etc., the convention was pretty much a bunch of talking heads, many of them shouting at the crowd like Fighting Bob LaFollette had to do 100 years ago from the bed of a hay wagon. We have microphones now folks.
I wasn’t watching the TV when Obama came on, but from the audio only he seemed nervous and out of synch. He eventually got into the “policy” part of the speech before winding it up with an emotional call for change. He got better as he went along. My initial reaction, however, was that between the specific policy announcements – healthcare, environment, tax cut, war, etc., and the “change coming TO Washington,” Obama failed to paint a picture of the America he would like to see. Yes we should have job security, energy security, healthcare, justice and all that, but how do you achieve such a society and how might it work? I would have liked to hear about that.
But – this is why I didn’t write immediately – that was just one person’s reaction. In the following days I learned that, by leaving the canvas blank in critical places, Obama had invited listeners to fill in their own impressions, desires and goals. Everyone heard something different in the speech. Everyone brought their own ideas and heard them in Obama’s words. So maybe that’s the genius of his approach. If there are enough people with the right dreams.
I was a little disappointed – but probably shouldn’t be – that Obama still didn’t issue a call to action that goes beyond electing him prez. Realistically, the forces of reaction – including Democratic special interests – will still be there after November and will gradually take back whatever they have lost in the tsunami of the election – if there is a tsunami. What will the people on the floor of the convention do about that? How will Obama rally them from complacency and doubt in 12 months, 24 months or more when he needs them to put the heat on Congress? Yes, change has to come from the bottom up, but change needs a bold leader who will ask “what can you do for your country?”
Two impressions. The convention and Obama’s speech. The convention was pretty conventional. We heard the expected messages in the expected way from the expected players. Not that the content was bad. I was impressed by the stories of ordinary people and their struggles. Al Gore was thoughtful and serious. But in this age of social networking, 24/7 communications, YouTube, etc., the convention was pretty much a bunch of talking heads, many of them shouting at the crowd like Fighting Bob LaFollette had to do 100 years ago from the bed of a hay wagon. We have microphones now folks.
I wasn’t watching the TV when Obama came on, but from the audio only he seemed nervous and out of synch. He eventually got into the “policy” part of the speech before winding it up with an emotional call for change. He got better as he went along. My initial reaction, however, was that between the specific policy announcements – healthcare, environment, tax cut, war, etc., and the “change coming TO Washington,” Obama failed to paint a picture of the America he would like to see. Yes we should have job security, energy security, healthcare, justice and all that, but how do you achieve such a society and how might it work? I would have liked to hear about that.
But – this is why I didn’t write immediately – that was just one person’s reaction. In the following days I learned that, by leaving the canvas blank in critical places, Obama had invited listeners to fill in their own impressions, desires and goals. Everyone heard something different in the speech. Everyone brought their own ideas and heard them in Obama’s words. So maybe that’s the genius of his approach. If there are enough people with the right dreams.
I was a little disappointed – but probably shouldn’t be – that Obama still didn’t issue a call to action that goes beyond electing him prez. Realistically, the forces of reaction – including Democratic special interests – will still be there after November and will gradually take back whatever they have lost in the tsunami of the election – if there is a tsunami. What will the people on the floor of the convention do about that? How will Obama rally them from complacency and doubt in 12 months, 24 months or more when he needs them to put the heat on Congress? Yes, change has to come from the bottom up, but change needs a bold leader who will ask “what can you do for your country?”
Heavy blog
There's a lot of lightweight stuff in the blogosphere and a lot of madness, but it's also possible to find some provocative thinking. Here's a new blog called Evolutionary Psychology from Allen MacNeill, who teaches biology at Cornell. Here's a brief sample from one of his recent posts about the role of religion in warfare:
if natural selection acts at the level of individuals, how can natural selection result in a propensity to participate in warfare? Clearly, either the probability that one will be killed must be perceived as low or the potential payoff from such participation must be perceived as high. If natural selection is to operate at the level of individuals, these two circumstances should ideally be obtained simultaneously,The post is quite long and involved, so if you want to follow up, you can go to evolutionarypsychology.blogspot.com
Here is where the capacity for religious experience is crucial. By making possible the belief that a supernatural entity knows the outcome of all actions and can influence such outcomes, that one's "self" (i.e., "soul") is not tied to one's physical body, and that if one is killed in battle, one's essential self (i.e., soul) will go to a better "place" (e.g., heaven, valhalla, etc.) the capacity for religious experience can tip the balance toward participation in warfare. By doing so, the capacity for religious belief not only makes it possible for individuals to do what they might not otherwise be motivated to do, it also tends to tip the balance toward victory on the part of the religiously devout participant. This is because success in battle, and success in war, hinges on commitment: the more committed a military force is in battle, the more likely it is to win, all other things being equal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)