Books for the Next Decade

Recommended book for the new decade: Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. An excerpt:

There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning -- the sense and meaning implied when it is used -- that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, sometime or other which wasn't capable of it -- wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only -- not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was, whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.

Who better than the people, through the framework of a sound government, to legislate themselves. To be clear, the narrator is advocating for a republic, as opposed to monarchy or plutocracy. The risks of the United States' plutocracy are little differentiated from those Twain feared in Monarchy. 

The US has for the past two centuries inched from its foundation of Aquinian pre-lapsarian liberalism towards Augustinian moral progressivism. The self-righteous of various tints have claimed a mandate for a strongly moral government, which finds its closest analog in Hobbes' Leviathan and not in later forms of social-contract, like those advocated by James Madison and John Adam's in the Federalist papers. 

The question is not whether to be democratic or hegemonic, but rather if we can return to our roots of a simple, efficient federal vessel of government. If we can, we can also hold out hope that self-government can be revived in local manifestations of community: city, county and state government.

We can govern ourselves peacefully, if we can pry loose the hands of the plutocracy from our throats.

Day 106: Notes on a Country

One of my childhood friends moved when we were teens from Seattle to Muscatine, Iowa. His affection for the home of our youth grew through the years. The longer he was away, the more he found his identity in what he'd left. These days he lives in L.A., but even now he seems to have more zeal for my region than I do.

For perhaps the first time since my friend moved, I can commiserate with him. I'm finding my identity is founded more in what I left behind, than in the reasons why I left. Like the philosopher Hegel said, I'm examining my surroundings to find out which of it is not me. That which I don't reject, that which I affirm, I hold onto as the vague outline of my identity. In Korea I reject a lot. Not much of the culture here resounds with me. Instead, after my years of criticizing my home, I'm surprised to find that the silhouette remaining, my core identity, resembles the US.

I realize now that there's a lot of United Statesian inextricably woven into me. It seems, for all my syncretism, I can't get the American out of me.

Having been out of the US for 9 of the past 11 months, I've very gradually become fond of the hobbling, optimistic people and complex, chaotic, confusing land I left behind. Part of that fondness is fed by the stark contrast Korea presents. Part of it grows from brief moments of hope inspired by small people doing grand things.

I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised. It's the very core of the United States that encourages my criticisms, both in opening a podium for discourse via the first amendment and by enamouring me so I'll come critically to its defense when that podium is threatened.

I love that everyone in the US -- immigrant, CEO, religious, Daughter of the Revolution, bourgeois, ex-con, or student -- is, at least theoretically, allowed a soapbox and equal access to the air that will gladly carry their cries.

Perhaps I'm a bit self-righteous when it comes to our constitution and our incorrigible, polyphonic disagreeability. The same brutish, self-unconscious rudeness I despise in some United Statesians when it occurs in a quiet pub or museum, I love when it heralds fierce patriots parading some cronyist injustice or US-government condoned oppression to the chagrin of the supposedly patriotic.

The US is a noble culture and a fetid culture, but there's room for both. There are plenty of governments-by-the-people-for-the-people doing parts of it better. How I'd love Poland's universal free education all the way through university. How I'd love Canada's extensive support for the arts. How I'd love to see individual states defy the central government more, in the spirit of Ireland, Sweden and Connecticut. I'd love to see more legal equality and social acceptance for minorities.

I love that the US constitution protects both the rights of the majority to dislike the minority and the minority to challenge the majority. At the end of all the name calling, bickering and outright conflict, the constitution prescribes civility and allows enemies to dialogue til they become friends or go to dinner as enemies. It allows universities to explore risque subjects. It's the constitution itself that makes allowances via the court system for resistance, defiance and outright disobedience when such freedoms are threatened.

There's little open discourse in Korea. Friends of mine who teach adults English via topic based conversations complain that in consecutive classes, the same basic opinions are rehashed repetitively. Nor is discourse encouraged. Technically the founding contract of Korea protects freedom of speech, but the government doesn't go in for the whole constitutional law thing much: they're a majority party and they've stacked every piece of government machinery with cronies. Just yesterday a blogger was arrested for speculating Korea's currency, the Won, might collapse.

Beneath the government level, the culture itself discourages dissent. At my school, often horrible ideas proceed without questioning, refinement or improvement. For example, a 4th grader was hit by a car when walking across the street. The next day the school banned 3rd graders and younger from riding bikes to school. I was the only one who pointed out the non-sequitur nature of the mandate. Other teachers said, "It's ok, it's ok!" and "Don't you think this makes sense?" giving me a chance to come to their side. No one is expected to embarrass a leader by questioning their wisdom.

Young people are constantly coerced to do as their elders deign, even when decisions are completely non-sensical. For example, in Korea, boys are circumcised when they're in the 5th and 6th grade. Leading doctors here acknowledge the surgery is pointless at that age, as sanitation is no longer an issue for a 12 or 13 year old.

However, according to a friend who's been advocating against circumcision in Korea for the past 4 years, the majority of doctors know little about the procedure beyond how to actually sever the foreskin. Fathers are too busy at work to take their sons' side, and too harried to be approached. Mothers aren't informed on the details of the operation and so mandate their children undertake it. The boys of course understand the ramifications: weeks bedridden, the embarrassment of bloody pants and the effects of heavy painkillers taken for up to a month. Ignorance and corrupted doctrines of Confucianism perpetuate genital mutilation, which is certainly child abuse.

It's the freedom to dissent and the equality of all humans that I identify most with the in US. Children and adults, principals and teachers are equally defended under the law. There's an ingrained, fierce defence of humanity with all its forms, creeds, lifestyles and ideas. It's this aspect more than others that differentiates the US from Korea. Korea often seems juvenile and uniform. It feels like middle school, whereas the US feels like a university full of disagreement and discourse. That aspect alone makes the US rare and worthy of preservation.

Maybe I only feel this idealism at a distance. I have a feeling one day back in the US would dampen my affections. Yet, many of my cricitisms rose in reaction to Bush administration gaffs and big corporate handouts due to traditional politics. Perhaps later this month, that will begin to change. Maybe, maybe not: new ways and old ways have equal opportunity in the US.

I'll end with a summary statement that concisely conveys my current perspective. It rose from the mind of a British man during a similarly convoluted time in US history: the Vietnam War era. Aptly enough, I discovered the statement through another foreigner, a fellow blogger and traveler from Singapore and Malaysia, when she summed up her study abroad experience in the US. She wrote:

After only 4 months [in the US], I am ill-equipped to form a conclusion on America and I suspect that it'll be a nation that will perpetually baffle me.

One man can, though. And that man is Alistair Cooke, a BBC correspondent who had a weekly radio show about America, Letter from America. Never before have I heard such an articulate and moving description of the country, and a timeless one at that- for it holds true almost 40 years later:

In a self-governing Republic - good government in some places, dubious in others...with two hundred million people drawn from scores of nations, what is remarkable is not the conflict between them but the truce. Enough is happening in America at any one time - enough that is exciting, frightening, funny, brutal, brave, intolerable, bizarre, dull, slavish, eccentric, inspiring and disastrous - that almost anything you care to say about the United States is true.

- From Cooke's broadcast, 19 October 1969 -

America, I have learned, is what you make of it. The freedom to do so is the most beautiful sort of freedom that I have ever encountered.
--------------

Yes. What is remarkable is not the conflict, but the truce. And yes, almost anything you care to say about the United States is true. One country of many nations, with liberty, opportunity, and at least half a chance at justice for all.

Love and peace to you all, and if you're experiencing extreme weather, stock up, hunker down, bundle up and don't forget to enjoy the novelty of the storm.

Galen

PS. Especially to those who disagree with or don't like the next President of the US: As Mr. Obama becomes President, keep in mind his understanding of the country. He sees space for your dissent, whatever your creed, beliefs or lifestyle. I hope this statement lifts your spirits and invites you into discourse: "During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that's how it should be, because that's what America is about. That's part of the magic of this country is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated." - President-Elect Obama

An update, two weeks late

This is an email I sent on December 26. I didn't have time to post it here as I spent the next week traveling. Then I forgot it. Now, finally, an update, two weeks post. It's still fairly pertinent.

I'm drinking a Coke, High Fructose Corn Syrup and all. I just ate a Skippy peanut butter sandwich on the closest thing to white bread I've had in a decade.

I must be missing home.

I moved to the most Puget Sound-ish city in Korea in an attempt to allay the homesickness. Didn't work. Mountains here are 400 meters tall (I miss the sunset silhouetting the Olympics). Whole wheat bread means they didn't quite turn all the flour white (I miss Franz breads baked the same morning). The only non-Korean food here is quasi-Italian or pizza (I miss Ethiopian, Thai, Moroccan). Korea's homogeneous (I miss walking around Greenlake hearing 10 different languages). It RARELY rains here (and when it does you can't enjoy it for dodging the hordes of umbrellas -- Yesterday in Busan, every Korean I saw had an umbrella, save two who were carrying open wine bottles! :D). Most roads here are tollroads or full of traffic signals (I miss cruising for hours, through multiple climates, without slowing or stopping).

But, as I told my cousin, things are exactly how they should be. I've been sick a lot lately, which comes with new germs and new foods and new stresses, but that hasn't slowed me too much. I've been working on curriculum for a UN sponsored English camp to be held this January and trying not to miss the conveniences of the US too much. Things like warm cookies, aesthetics and carpet.

Korea and I are fighting right now. It's normal culture shock sort of stuff, but it's exasperated by the lack of tolerance I have when I'm tired, stressed and sick. I did find a ticket home for Christmas, a ~$170 round trip non-stop to Vancouver. A short train ride and I'd be home. Only the government taxes on the ticket totaled nearly a thousand dollars. ... So I'm spending Christmas in Tongyeong.

I've more journalistic entries in the works, but progress writing is quite slow as I don't have ready access to a computer. I'm scrounging to afford a computer during post-Christmas sales, but until then I have about 30 uninterrupted minutes a day on my school computer. The PC rooms I used to frequent are now off limits to me -- too much smoke, too little ventilation.

Vacation's just starting up here, and officially began the 24th. I'll have the 24th, 25th, 26th, 31st, 1st and 2nd off. Then I've two weeks of English camps. Following those Lauren and I have tickets to Thailand for two weeks. I'm very excited about the potential for warmth, Thai food and more people to more easily communicate with (from what I hear, there's more English speakers and foreigners in Thailand than Korea).

I've been silent so much here that now, after three months, whenever I get a chance to converse, I talk like a stampeding cow. My head shuts off and I dump a thousand word essay in the lap of the person I'm talking [at]. Then I realize it's been minutes since I inhaled and I relapse into silence. It's not the most effective way to win friends and influence people.

At the moment I'm headed to Busan, the closest metropolitan city (3+million people). Museums, Western food, and a doctor are all on the docket. It being Kwanzaa here, and Christmas where you are.

If you want a good laugh, here's an article about some Korean children, not unlike some children from the US. Politicians vary little, throughout the world.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/18/content_10525584.htm

Gotta go, the bus leaves soon.

Happy Hanukkah to Jews. Happy Kwanzaa to those of African heritage. Merry Christmas to Christians and consumers. And Happy Holidays for everyone who goes in for that sort of thing.

A Korean Opinion on Obama

This is long. Really long. My main point ends in the paragraph after the story of Sai. Feel free to stop there. :)

So Mr. Obama's the President-Elect.

I'm sure some of you are elated. And some of you are hiding your face in your hands, convinced you've witnessed the end of an age.

The reaction among the people I interact with in Korea is favorable to Mr. Obama. My fellow teachers like him, though one mentioned worries about Mr. Obama's negative stance towards Free Trade Agreements (in the end we both agreed Fair Trade is better for everyone).

My students love him. They don't really know much about issues, but they have an interesting insight: When I asked them why they prefer Mr. Obama to Mr. McCain, they universally replied, "Because he's kind."

Hm. Kindness. It is an attractive trait. Unkindness is exactly what dissuaded me from respecting Ms. Palin (and now that McCain's aides are talking, it turns out the unkindness is one among many disagreeable symptoms). Kindness seems a great platform to run on, and a great reason to elect a human as president. Mr. Obama did run the gentler campaign, although Mr. McCain and Lieberman both generally showed themselves to be gentlemen. Ms. Palin was the pitbull chewing on the childs arm, a strong contrast to Mr. Obama who showed himself respectful, even-tempered and, well, kind.

My students and co-teachers have wanted to know what I think. I've told them the same thing every time, and it's not a short answer.

The pundits' extreme approval or abhorrence of the President-Elect reminds me of an old story about hasty conclusions (and it turns out the story has it's own name in Korean, which I can't spell). There are many versions, but here's one:

---------------

An old man named Sai lived near the border of China. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit.

"Such bad luck," they said sympathetically.

"We'll see," Sai replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses.
"How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed.
"We'll see," replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

"We'll see," answered Sai.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated Sai on how well things had turned out.

"We'll see" said Sai.

----------------

Some of you are mourning Mr. Obama's election. Some of you are cheering. I say, wait -- we will see.

He's inherited the toughest set of issues since and perhaps even surpassing FDR's: two wars; a volatile economy; a country with no remaining diplomatic or international political capital; a nation divided into two camps which don't understand each other and won't, because they shun each other; an abused earth full of abused people -- often at the hands of United State's interests; the weight of an immediate 46% disapproval rating.

Mr. Obama can't fix everything. He's not a messiah or anything the conspiracy theorists have accused him of. He's a human who just got hired to the most stressful job available. And just like the rest of us humans, he needs needs people showing up at the game, needs rest and kindness and applause. He faces every emotional need the rest of us do, but he has to do it with 46% of the voting populace telling him they don't like him for various reasons, most of which have nothing to do with him as a person.

The guy's under a lot of pressure, and the problems seem to be growing, at the moment.

Which is where you and everyone you know come in.

This is our country (well, if you live here or can claim citizenship), and it's our responsibility to fix it.

Your opinion of Mr. Obama, or of any of his policies, is irrelevant, completely. Any crumbling of the United States during his administration will be your fault, not his. The president of the United States is not responsible for the health of the United States. The president is the chief diplomat and signatory. The legislature is responsible for the health of the nation. They represent you, the people. The president represents the states. That's why they're chosen through the electoral college, a group of electors chosen by the states. You choose the legislature, and they, not the president, speak for you. You and the States balance the power of the nation, both limited by the courts.

Mr. Obama has been placed in a role that can't legislate. He has executive orders, but most presidents avoid using them (except at the very beginning or end of their terms, to fortify their party's positions or to start with a clean slate). His administration will pass policy ideas to the house and senate, and sometimes even write the laws, but you, via your representatives, pass the laws.

Yes, you. You can influence your congresspeople to vote against policies you don't like, or to vote for policies you do like. If you live in a district controlled by the party you don't belong to, you still have a say in what gets passed.

Voting is not democracy. (Most dictatorships vote too.) Democracy is direct decision making by the people with no intermediary government. Of course, we have representatives, because we're not a democracy. We're a republic. A federation of states. But we hold to democratic ideals, and our congresspeople want to get reelected, so they do what we want them to. Or I should say, they do the will of those who talk the most and loudest.

Your responsibility for your country goes beyond November 4th. You also are in charge of what laws pass, what taxes are levied, what wars are fought. What happens in this country is up to you.

Beyond your responsibility to country, and to yourself, you are responsible to your fellow humans. We are all members of a social contract: wishing to avoid a lonely, exposed and miserable existence, we group with other people and each give up a little freedom so that we can all have a bit of security. Government is one means to that security. Another means to that security, perhaps the one most dependent on you, is altruism.

Our kind actions towards each other will benefit our country more than legislation, for two reasons: first, we're divided on the proper type of legislation, but likely agree on kindness. Second, legislation is general. It's vague imparticularity prevents it from precisely treating the needs of individuals. Your altruism, on the other hand, can directly address pertinent immediate and perpetual needs. Enough small changes can have huge, exponential effects.

Altruism is a more important democratic action than voting. By doing good you positively alter the course of our country and society. Perhaps you cannot specifically dictate whether or not Mexican immigrants will be offered citizenship, but that likely will be because other people influenced their legislators, or were altruistic enough to eliminate the problem in another manner (for example, ending Free Trade Agreements that devestate Mexican farmers, thus reducing the necesity of their emigration).

But you can make the United States more inhabitable by making it a safer place, a place where people trust each other, support each other and like each other, all by being kind to other people. By improving the environment we live in, we will improve our lives and our country.

What Mr. Obama can do is remind us citizens and sojourners who we are and what principles we agree to live by in our social contract. Principles in which I agree that another human may have liberty to non-violently act however they wish in exchange for my liberty to do the same. In which I agree no one is guilty until they're proved thus univocally. In which I agree we're in this together, and not in this seperately. We rise and fall as one; we are E pluribus unum.

We are the change we need, not Mr. Obama. He's just there to point the way and to tell other countries where we're going and how much they're going to like the way we remodeled and how they're welcome here, all of them, anyone, so long as they're willing to work for the common good.

Love to all of you, and peace, hopefully.

How Palin convinced me to vote for the Democrats

Until a few days ago I remained ambivalent towards the two presidential nominees and their selections for Vice President.

Sarah Palin changed that with her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

She seemed like the sort of normal citizen I've met all over this country. She felt like she's one of us. (I acknowledge, of course, the argument that the figurehead of the US should possess more sense and poise than your average U.S. Citizen.)

Intrigued, I researched some of her more interesting claims to measure her veracity.

For example, she said Barack Obama has not "authored" a "single major law or reform -- not even in the state senate."

The word "major" is open to interpretation, but I found that Mr. Obama has his name on at least two bills -- one to reduce the number of weapons in the world and the other to increase the transparency of government spending and to ban gifts from lobbyists. In the US Senate he has sponsored 136 bills and cosponsored 659 pieces of legislation. If you want to know about his state senate experience, look at this summary at the New York Times.

Ms. Palin does make an interesting point: Mr. Obama cannot claim complete authorship of the two bills bearing his name. My research showed senators don't really "author" legislation: rather, the Senate writes bills collectively.

Here's the process: Senators introduce legislation. Committees then edit and amend it. Senators debate the bill on the floor and modify it further. A vote determines if the bill is rejected, returned to committee for amending or sent to the president for veto or approval. No one senator deserves credit for the passing of a bill.

Next: Ms. Palin said, "Our opponent is against producing [energy]." It didn't take very much digging to identify her exaggeration. It seems Mr. Obama intends to implement immense new renewable energy sources -- 10 percent of our demand by 2012. That's a lot of new energy. And clean energy.

Ms. Palin lauded "clean coal" as part of her energy plan. She meant technology that reduces Co2, sulfur dioxide, and mercury emissions from coal burning power plants.

However, my research showed that however you burn it, coal itself remains dirty. Look up "mountain-top removal" and you'll see what I mean. Further, it seems that mercury from coal burning will still make it into our water supply and our oceans, continuing to poison our food supply.

Clean coal -- what an oxymoron!

Last, I researched Ms. Palin's statement that she "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress." I found an article in the September 2nd Seattle Times stating Ms. Palin had requested 197 million dollars in earmarks from the federal government, just this year. What makes that number remarkable is that on September 4th, the Los Angeles Times reported that next year Alaska's estimate budget surplus will total between $5billion and $9billion.

If you have that much money available, why bother asking taxpayers in other states to pay for your state's projects? And if you want other states' taxpayers to fund your initiatives, why say you're against earmarks?

Ms. Palin almost won my approval tonight. If I hadn't researched her claims she might have convinced me. But I won't vote for a candidate for Vice President who obscures facts, whether due to ignorance or willful deceit.

Now to investigate Senator Biden.