Soup Adds One And One, Predictably Gets Two

All the ideologies, with the exception of anarchism, consider law to be a major means of instituting and maintaining the social norms they support. In all forms of democracy, law should come from the people, either directly or through representatives. An area of difference that affects democracy, as well as most of the other ideologies, is how hard law should be to make and change. In the context of the United States, laws can be legal but not necessarily ethical. If we look back into history, laws legalizing slavery and banning women suffrage lasted for a long time. What current laws do you wish for a change? Do you foresee the gay rights (same sex marriage) to eventually become a federal protection? 

Demography makes gay marriage, on a federal level, only a matter of time. Only. Whether churches and other contrarians like it or not. Matter of time.
When I think about how much more productive our democracy could be, how much healthier it could be, I think of the non-participation rates that have weakened the democratic under-structure, if you will, in our United States (though in my view, we are anything but in decline). I understand the conservative desire to not be under the thumb of their government, to take part in their government and not be ruled by it. I also understand the liberal desire to use the power of a strong government to regulate what is otherwise a capitalist system that eats democracies like ours for lunch, creating non-allegiant Multi-National Corporations that abuse their relationships with consumers and labor AND nation-states. I have come up with an idea or two that I believe addresses both concerns AND draws upon the American desire to consume…which will rebuild our economy and bring home some of that 32 trillion stored off-shore…and strengthen, I believe, our democracy:

Here’s my idea, let’s use Election Day here as an example, which ought to be a National Holiday, with paid days off for everyone, fireworks, the whole deal—but that’s a different conversation--: Make it less of a reward to not take part than it is to take part instead of a mandate to vote or a punishment for not voting, or the current no-consequence abandonment we see…example: 10% off of some product or service offered by the state if you do vote, 5% off if you do not...I dunno. But more innovative solutions are necessary, solutions that allow for individual sovereignty while recognizing and protecting state’s and nation’s rights. Count up those who have not voted come census—draft them (or citizens from all tax brackets in the states with the lowest turnout) into another new government program I’ll create while KING for a day…an ombudsman system for monitoring elected officials. Six month terms, with a write-up in the local news reporting back on what YOUR legislator has done over that time.



Also, I am partisan, but you don’t have to be. Vote for who you wanna, please, by all means- I encourage you to vote for incompetence even, should that be your choice. Please, just vote your conscience, exercise your right to vote your choice. PLEASE. No-one can claim they are being ‘dictated to’ when they are casting their vote. And drive someone you like and someone you don’t like with you. Walk with some friends. Find a senior or a veteran, take them. Vote! One caveat:
If you believe man has no authority to govern man, ok. State that. Aloud. To your pastor. In your church. If you believe that Our American Government, with All Of the Checks and Balances in place and review undertaken over the course of a full century…if you believe that Our Shared Institution of United Federal  government is an illegal Authority forcing taxation on you, ok. You have that right. Go to church on Voting Day instead of the voting booth, and register your Concern for the Direction of America by praying for voters. Give to God your honor and Allegiance and Authority to govern you and your Family of Churches and Spiritual Warriors. Cool. And don’t vote. Don’t register as voters, don’t run as candidates, don’t refuse to raise MY taxes---I vote. I give to the Government willingly. I pledge Allegiance to the United States of America. When you make your “secession statement” to your pastor, the “right” to evangelize-“to tell me or my wife what contraception we can use, which Amendments states ought to apply within Civil Law, etc. are not lost, but indeed, Given To your God. Awesome!
 Register this statement with census. Fair enough? By registering your belief that America is an Illegitimate Authority forcing Taxation on You, you have agreed to not vote, as a vote is for where to direct tax dollars. It is tax dollars that provide the essence of Our Ability to Enforce the Constitution as a Social Contract. A zero percent tax rate…nothing is more Un-American. You will, through your pastor, still have to pay taxes, just at the Church Rate, whatever that is decided to be Fair by the Voting, Accepting of America American Public.…say, ten percent of the yearly tithing’s to your Church.
 Such statement, once registered, ought last ten years, and one consequence can be: and because we love our neighbors, we will not take up arms, but-This will mean not allowing you to withhold your taxes to the detriment of the People’s Treasury, for example. “Any exemptions?” No. Not corporate, not personal--nope---no vote, no tax exemptions----there ya go! No new taxes? Awesome!
The Starve the Beast Strategy that the Dominionsts I have written about all semester are using to usurp established and legitimate Presidential and other governmental power is hereby described as executed long-term sedition, which can only be described as a slide Toward Treason. When you choose not to vote, you choose to not take part in the social contract, and so disrespect the rest of Us who do, and when you refuse the Agreed and Codified rights of All in the Name of Individual freedom, you are, in fact, beginning the process of seceding from America.
Americans who love their country support the services and rights that are degraded merely by our births. That’s right; we each scratch the varnish on American Freedom, and are responsible for cleaning up after ourselves---if we do, we are also responsible for turning to our neighbor and discovering how else to be best useful. This is called Humanity. So you still have to pay taxes…you are making sure your God has a record of your “registering your concern.” Let God do the Rest! have Faith!
Those who do not accept these Human Contracts with the American Constitution give up and do not attempt to recover the very basis of their philosophy: if the Constitution is Bible-Based, then the Bible is also merely a document stating the very basic rights given to all Humanity, and under any threat may not be separated by any Human. You, in the name of your god, are doing just this. This is coercion toward faith, a perversion of God’s Love, a version of America that cannot be allowed to exist.

Here I have outlined two solutions for helping heal American Democracy; is it law? More public policy, maybe, but laws might actually begin to change even MORE rapidly towards progress if either or both ideas were taken up by or discussed among rational actors.

Soup, Wantonly, And With Consistency

Soup McGee

Professor Wiseone

Intro To Ethics

12/2/2013

                                                Take Home Test on Feminist Ethics Theory

1. How have male philosophers ‘short-changed’ the lives of women? Explain these mistakes.

How? Wantonly (to turn a phrase), and with consistency. That is to say, by historically paying no attention to the ‘rights, feelings, or safety,’ let alone perspectives or experiences of women. There are two ways Landau show this to have been done; making ‘false and damaging claims’ is one traditional avenue (see, Rousseau), while ignoring the perspectives and experiences of female contemporaries is another. Explain? For generations backwards to the nth degree, religion has not implied but implemented patriarchial discrimination, subordination and subjugation. That Aquinas and Kant and Aristotle, et al, are taught without the addition of clearly mentioning their lack of feminist perspective (we cannot let the times ALWAYS be the excuse for misogyny) seems inexcusable.

2. Why does Landau claim that traditionally male and female traits are not innate? What is his explanation regarding these traits?

Landau makes this claim because ‘stereotypes often fail to have any basis in fact.’ While tradition and history have both been written from a distinctly male perspective, no man is immune from emotion and no woman is incapable of competition. He explains that even when there are facts behind stereotypes, this is often the result of a lack in opportunities or incredibly difficult circumstances. Innate implies that nature created a thing in a certain way to be used or treated a certain way…but we know now that schizophrenia (for example) is genetic, not Satan. What I’m saying is, adding feminist perspective to our societies has only made available to humankind to a more genuine existence. Sticking with the old, seemingly ‘innate-to-philosophy’ male-dominated route will serve only old and moneyed interests. Just a thought.

3. What are some ‘distinctly female experiences’?

Landau makes the case that rape, along with pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood, are ‘distinctly female experiences.’ I cannot argue with this; I must point out that more men are raped every year in America’s military than are women…perhaps the use of rape to ‘feminize’ men, whether in war or on our street, is the larger point. That until recently the largest segment of American society looked down with derision on LGBT individuals is indicative of both the old and the new avenues I spoke of earlier. In today’s America, women have picked up the additional burden of being the CFO (Chief Financial Officers) of their families as well as…looking for quality affordable health and day care for the child (this, if done by a man, is assumed a short term task. In my experience.) etc. I want to add that being excluded because of gender from professional license is ‘distinctly female.’

4. What are some of the short-comings in traditional ethics theories we studied that attention to women’s experiences points out?

Kant and his imperatives leave out the idea of birth control as a woman’s choice, or the idea of abortion. What is child-rearing…or what has it been historically except the use of another person to reach an end? Think of Margaret Atwood and ‘The Handmaid’s Tale.’ This ancient idea that women are by their nature irrational or otherwise emotionally-bound is just more ‘well-entrenched and long-standing’ prejudice. Irksome and immoral. Paying attention to the rise of women’s participation in politics, both domestic and international, provides example of how TETs lack, at least in a feminist sense, modernity. That Americans can be rallied to a decade or more of war ostensibly on the idea of ‘freeing Afhgani women’ shows the power modern feminist thinking can have. As for Natural Law Theory, which I nearly cannot stand the taste in my mouth to say it aloud: Bull’s Methane. Left out of traditional ethical theory are the four central claims that Landau discusses: women are the moral equals of men; philosophers ignoring the experiences of women are disrespectful, inaccurate, and incomplete; what is traditionally seen as innate to women (‘empathy, sympathy, caring, etc.’) is ‘at least’  the moral equivalent of those seen as traditionally male (justice, readiness to resort to violence, etc);  and the fact that ways seen as ‘traditionally female’ reasoning (cooperation, flexibility) are seen in the modern world as equal if not superior to male ‘reasoning’ ( impartiality, abstraction).

Soup, And 'Not Necessarily Full Of Shit'

I write this because I know that if I just talk about it I will feel as if I have soiled another moment, given sublime meaning to one more meaningless story, but if I write it out, get it down, you may have the rather blissful, I hope, opportunity to enjoy this again, and with deeper context.

     I remember when I first began to realize that parents were not necessarily full of shit. I was at the "warm" group home in the foothills, as opposed to what Steven called the "Cold" place in Auburn where my respite had started shortly after my birthday. Steven was the kid my age (14) who was the real child inhabiting the foster home his parents ran out of their residence. 

     I was sent there while Patrick and Gillian (respite home/foster parents) went to DisneyLand with their foster kids. I never went back. Of course, after re-modeling their freakin front yard, I did think I had earned that meself, at least a trip to DisneyLand, but ah, well. Maybe I blew it the night a few weeks before the trip when Gillian sat me down outside on the front porch to tell me that my parents had died in a car accident on their way to surprise me with a visit. I could tell she was bullshitting, they would never do such a thing, (die?)(have the decency to?) maybe she couldn't tell that I could tell, but since I didn't really care it was easy enough to just shrug my shoulders, upon which she immediately laid the burden of telling me it wasn't true! OOOOOH Buuuuuuurn!!!! Didn't see that coming!! 

     Extra chores until I was moved to the house where Steven lived. So, one home made you do every chore while they lay around smoking cigarettes, and Steven's mom let me shoot a bb gun.Now, you may understand slightly better why I think that parents can be just so full of shit.

    I went to Steven's house shortly before school was to begin. I thought I was enrolled at the middle school in auburn, and since I had discussed coming home to MY parents house at the end of summer with everyone if my behavior improved, I really didn't think that would ever be a reality. I was a ------ Trojan through and through, and wanted to follow my sister to -----------. Again, I re-modeled their entire front yard. Still, I found myself at the local middle school, but I get ahead of myself. That was the school were steven went, so I didn't exactly go alone, and kids there knew that steven's parents did this stuff, so the teasing was gone. all gone. gone.

     About two weeks before the end of summer, his mom told him to start now with changing his schedule, that he had had the liberty of staying up pretty much as late as he had wanted to all summer, and the easiest way to wake up ready on day one of school was to set that pattern now. In not so many words, but still, he didn't listen. Should've-- he got in mad trouble when he tried to sleep in the first day and in more trouble for falling asleep later. So.

     I can see now the bullshit of we love "you" as much as our own kid. I don't care about anyone EXCEPT my own kid, so why fucking stuff that down my face? and the world would like to go on to tell me that all of the ideals you hold true aren't going to come to pass. How fucking nice of you.

Soup Analyzes An Old Article, For Some Reason

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/28/080728fa_fact_osnos READ

First of all, how do you categorize the Chinese nationalism? Is it civic or traditionalistic? Secondly, what have you learned from this article, things that strike you most? Lastly, what does democracy mean to the Chinese youth and how do they perceive the role played by the United States?

https://www.msu.edu/user/hillrr/161lec16.htm 

Some contrasts between civic & ethnic nationalism

Civic Nationalists                      Ethnic Nationalists

emphasize                         emphasize                         Examples

Law                                                                Common roots ("blood")              Citizenship

Choice                                                          Inheritance                                         "born into"

Rational attachment                               Emotional attachment   supreme court, flag

Unity by consent                                      Unity by ascription                          town hall, tribe

Democratic pluralism                              Ethnic majority rules                       CA, Singapore

Liberty                                                          Fraternity                                            ALCU, homeland

Individual creates nation                      Nation creates individual              founding myths

D. Civic nationalism is the more "realistic” source of belonging

Than ethnic nationalism, Ignatieff believes

1. Common ethnicity helps people unite against ethnic others but

--it doesn't help overcome other divisions

--such as class, gender, and scarce resources-----

Soup McGee

Professor, Seriously?

Political Ideologies 322 Online

11/15/2013

The article ‘Angry Youth’ displays by the aforementioned youth a modernized traditionalistic civic nationalism. Expressed commonly by the subjects of this in-depth work by Evan Osnos is a shared ‘frustration’ with the Westernization of China. This is a feeling that does not revolve around either Mao and his theme of government by Communist Revolution or the theme of National Humiliation following the loss of the Opium Wars that Mao replaced. Instead, this frustration revealed among the Chinese students of today patriotism that quite frankly scares the hell out of many in the West, and concerned Chinese government officials enough that action was taken to tamp down the sentiment.

Nationalism is, especially when compared to the very ancient history of China, a modern European concept that many believe developed around the time Napoleon found his ability to marshal the French people into a unified state. Noteworthy here is the use of two phrases by Tang, the director of the six minute video that excited a new, yet conservative, mood of patriotism among the youth it reached; first, a mantra of former Chairman Mao, the use of which is intended to remind students of a more recent time when China was isolated from the rest of the world and at apparent odds with itself, “Imperialism will never abandon its intention to destroy us.” In this way, Tang reaches out to a traditionalistic nationalism; however, the last phrase (“We will stand up and hold together always as one family in harmony!”) serves to call to mind the former but as well a call to action: Such is the way of civic nationalism, in that it is focused on ‘all who subscribe to the political creed of a nation,’ not on ethnicity.

These are a people who feel ‘strategically contained’ by the ever-burgeoning west, led by America and her capitalistic allies. They make up and belong to, both on the internet and off, a community of equal rights bearing citizens united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of political practices and values, which is how our text defines nationalism. Tang made a video that, in the end, was civic in its pursuit not of ‘liberal democracy but in defense of sovereignty and prosperity.’

Nationalism is, according to Moreno (also captured in our text), the most powerful of all political ideologies, and there is a mention of how the ‘initial rhetoric’ of the Chinese ‘national outcry’ reminded the many and the already skeptical of ‘the rise of the skinheads in Europe.’ But Tang was clear in saying that there truly was no desire for violence, only for someone to hear their anger and their reasons. Many people foreign to China think that people in the age range of the director and his wife, Wu-Tang, are ‘unwise to the distortions of censorship,’ but when you live ‘in a so-called free system you never think about whether you are being brainwashed.’

Tang and his like are rightfully angry at bigots like former CNN commentator Jack Cafferty,  rightfully distrusting of outlets like CNN and MSNBC and FOX, etc., and anxious to gather as much information about a subject as they can, be there a ‘firewall’ or no. Decades of suspicion towards China from the West, and no doubt vice versa, has left a bad taste in the mouths of many investors, including those from IBM and 3Com. This separation goes both ways, maybe, but for students like Tang, there is a feeling of victimization that has not calcified into resentment; instead, they believe that they know well enough the history of western government…they know the love they feel for China is a love shared by their neighbor, not a feeling that developed ‘spontaneously.’ That much of the hullaballoo addressed by the video was in response to the way China treated Tibet made even less sense to the Chinese than if Mexico were to abandon the next American Olympics because of the Alamo.

As ‘landmarks of national progress…[like] highways, supermarkets, and internet cafes’ began to spread throughout China, so did a feeling of ‘cultural strangulation.’ Here, the author makes sure to use the word humiliating; this was the clue I needed. Turns out, after the Opium Wars, which China lost to Japan (thus, humiliation), China (in the eyes of many Chinese, at least) signed a series of more than one hundred ‘unfair treaties.’ This set the stage for the Maoist revolution, and may have something to do with why the Chinese government ‘treated the online patriots warily,’ ‘calling for ‘rational patriotism.’ If the Chinese government was in fear that this generation of students would rebel a la Tiananmen Square, they need not have worried- this is a generation that believes the Chinese government was right in putting down, in any way possible, the Student Uprising of 1989.

While Tang feels that his age group in China is acceptant of democracy and recognizes the value in human rights, he speaks for a nation that understands democracy does not mean bread on the table or coffee in your cup. There is a ‘metastasizing’ feeling of ‘strategic containment’, a coming ‘New Cold War, waged by the West, that angers the Chinese nation as a whole; this is a people who understand the promises of democracy but realize that their nation was not, and likely is not, fully ready for a transition away from the communism practiced and preached. Another voice in the article, Liu, expressed what must be a common sentiment, that ‘democracy can really give you the good life, that’s good. But, without democracy, if we can still have the good life, why should we choose democracy?’ Why indeed. This is how democracy is viewed, with suspicion and distrust—why change what clearly works?   

To conclude, there is a rising conservatism in China, a conservatism that requires a cleaving to the ancient while adjusting to current capitalistic reality. This is a movement that, like the conservative re-awakening in America after the success of the civil rights movement, that is not satisfied with the status quo; this is the demand for action part of civic nationalism that convinced me. They know that they are Westernized, and this ‘classical revival’ among the youth to re-visit ‘ancient China’ shows, yes, a modernized traditionalistic civic nationalism. The role of the United States is that of foil, in that America and China contrast, each highlighting particular qualities the other lacks. Democracy is not seen as the all-powerful, omnipotent force that many in the United States believe it to be, but instead a whittling down to nothing of Chinese culture.

What struck me the most was the idea that if my family wanted to have a second child—while news from yesterday is that China is officially abandoning their one child policy- my family could merely pay a fine of rice or other commodities. No one comes and kills the ‘extra’ kid, there is no national shame on the family for the addition…this was news to me. What I have learned is about the period of National Humiliation, how that time came and went, leaving us with an economic partner in China that views western interests as inevitably set to conquer them. I cannot speak to the sense of victimhood both countries feel, and I am no expert in the finer arguments between communism and capitalism, but as both nations move forward, I expect this Chinese nationalism (modernized traditionalistic civic) to continue presenting economic and other (human rights, still, is a major issue) problems to American interests. The question I am left with is: It would seem that capitalism has taken root in China; will it too become ancient?