Police, Racism, and the Role of Community.

Only two months after being appointed the Acting Police Chief of Sunbury, Pennsylvania, Brad Hare shot a man.

He was called to a scene where 22 yr. old, Erick Trometter, had allegedly beat his 67 year old grandmother by hitting and kicking her in the face. Trometter had been jailed two years earlier for a similar incident, stabbing his grandmother in the back with a spoon for not making him lunch.

The officer approached the young man, who was walking away from his grandma's house on a rural road in the northwest corner of the city.

According to Officer Hare, Trometter had a large knife, and approached the officer with it. Chief Hare pulled his taser on the suspect, but the man would not go down. Hare tried tasing the man twice more before shooting him once in the abdomen. Trometter was hospitalized in critical condition, but has since been released.

Trometter is white. He is from a very white community, but the demographics are changing.

Sunbury changed from 95.26% white in 2000 to 88.6% white in 2010. The decrease in the white population is just about equal to the percentage of people who moved out of the area in that decade. Sunbury's total population change from 2000-2010 was negative 6.6%.

The highest demographic increase was in Hispanic populations, which increased almost 4 points points from 3.09 to 6.7%, due mostly to migrant agricultural workers who stayed in the area. The black population increased about 1% from 2.3 to 3.4 percent of the population.

Crime has increased. Officer Hare does not blame race for the increase in crime. He blames poverty.

Dianna Dunn, of Undoing Racism-The People's Institute for Survival and Beyond, agrees. She says people of color have been historically locked out of participating in key community institutions, leading to dependency, instead of empowerment.

She explained that racism is not as much about oppressing some people as it is about favoring others. The police department ends up dealing with problems that result from community institutions, like schools, and workplaces, failing individuals, Dunn says.

For the city of Sunbury the rise in a spanish speaking population was difficult for years, because there was no one in the community that spoke spanish to act as an interpreter when problems arose. Workers travel to Sunbury for agricultural work, and when the season is over, they stay. The city now has access to one interpreter, but he is not always available, says Chief Hare.

The People's Institute has been undoing racism with anti-racism training for 34 years. They are lauded for having the most effective anti-racist analysis. A main focus of The People's Institute training is teaching a history that is not provided in our schools.

"If we take away knowledge about how racism was formed, we cannot undo it," says Dunn.

Training also focuses on power relationships and empowering communities. Dunn says training sessions require many stakeholders in the community to go through the training together, including police, schools, community organizations, and community representatives.

Pennsylvania, the state Officer hare serves, has come under fire for being a racist region. The late Representative John Murtha of PA famously announced that he represented a racist area during the 2008 presidential campaign. Pennsylvania is ranked number 15 on the Top Ten's list of racist states, and an investigative report was released earlier this year calling racism in central PA school sports, Unchecked, Unchallenged and Unabashed.

"Is there racism in Sunbury?" I asked Officer Hare.

"Racism is everywhere," he said,"it will probably never go away. It is hard to control and a shame."

There may always be bigotry and hatred, says Dunn, but that is not how The People's Institute defines racism. She and her organization look for equity in institutions, a situation where institutional outcomes cannot be determined by race. In order to undo racism, Dunn says, institutions must empower people to change their situations by having meaningful, directing roles in the institutions that frame their community.

Officer Hare says that he would be interested in a program such as Dunn's to address racism in his community.

"People live in a bubble," Hare says, "and it is my job to make sure that that bubble stays intact, it is my job to maintain civility."

He says that the cops see the dark side of community and it is rude, edgy and unprofessional. His job is to make sure the citizens don't see that side. "The 21st century isn't so nice. If I can't keep that bubble intact, it's chaos."

In the shadow of the Michael Brown case

 

Officer Hare believes that he is as comfortable facing a black man as a white man in a tense situation. He says he is comfortable with Sunbury's changing demographics because his family is multi-cultural. He feels that diversity in his community will benefit the younger generation.

He doesn't like people playing the 'race card.' "It's a job,' he said, "and we are there because we were called."

His department doesn't receive diversity training, but officers have required annual training from MPOETC, a municipal police training center.

Chief Hare confirmed that training includes reinforcement and practice of using deadly force as a last option. Officers are not supposed to discharge their weapon unless they fear 'imminent danger or death.' "It always comes down to your own judgement," said Hare.

Hare will go to trial for shooting Trometter, but is not at liberty to talk about it.

A police chief from Deluth, Minnesota, went through the Undoing Racism training and commented that the program is, "as important for police to learn as CPR."

"If CPR can save lives, so can this program," says Dunn.

Hare said that apart from funding, which is leaving his department understaffed, he is grateful to have strong support from his community. "Things changed after 9-11, people started to respect cops more. People started coming up to us and saying, thank you. It is still a little shocking."

Hare blames news and social media for eroding respect for the police. "Media over sensitizes people, exaggerating bits and pieces of negative events without context." He said. The best thing the people can do for the police is to be aware of their environment, says Hare.

"If you think something is wrong, don't be afraid to call us."

Individuals are not as much to blame for inequity as the systems we are brought up in, says Dunn, who has been working in her field for almost 40 years. She says, Philip Zimbardo, a renown social psychologist who has written and spoken extensively about how good people can be led into evil actions has a great message for US society:

"Focusing on people as causes of evil then exonerates social structures and political decision making for contributing to underlying conditions that foster evil: poverty, racism, sexism and elitism."

What Could Have Been - What Can Be

Republicans have a majority in the House and Senate now. I am glad. I am hopeful that a Republican controlled congress can get things moving again...

BUT, but, but...why haven't they been moving? We missed some golden opportunities to grow as a country after the Bush years and the financial collapse...

What Could Have Been

STRONGER COMMUNITY

 When President Obama was elected, I thought the first thing he would say was,

"I'm a community organizer at heart, and I know that we can get through this together by helping each other in our own communities. Remember the March of Dimes! A little help from every one is all we ever need to make it through. We have gotten through times like this before, and we do it together, person by person, community by community, state by state, until, at last, our Nation is back on its feet once again!"

Instead he said,

 "In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less.
It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.

Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom."

The first quote would have not only inspired the nation to act, but would have given us a great bridge between the "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" conservatives and the "We must ensure food, shelter and health for all our fellow citizens!" 'liberals.'

Ah! That would have been a great message.

SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE

Then, on the conservative side with healthcare...the individual mandate can be traced all the way back to 1989 in connection with the conservative Heritage Foundation. The individual mandate lines up with conservative rhetoric that everyone should be responsible for themselves and their own healthcare.

Obama compromised his original single payer idea to death, and Obamacare is what we got.

Not only do I not understand why Repubs were against their own ideas of an individual mandate, which they have spent ridiculous amounts of time and money fighting...

But...why wouldn't Republicans support single payer healthcare to begin with? In fact, Republicans have supported it before (click here for another Republican doctor for single payer.) The main reason I can think of for republican support, quoted by Republican Jack Lohman, is to...

 "get health care off the backs of corporations so they can be more competitive with products made overseas.”

Duh! Right? or Left? Hey, we shoulda coulda come together on this.

Think of how much money you pay every month for health insurance through your employer. Your employer pays that much too...for every employee. It's nuts. It inhibits business growth and profits.

REPEAL OF THE PATRIOT ACT

Obama could have vetoed the Patriot Act, and done away with the NSA and homeland security.  I mean, don't we already have the Pentagon, the FBI and the CIA? Doesn't congress have committees for stuff like this? I don't care which ones we cut, but we don't need all these spying orgs.

Dems should have done away with these agencies, created or expanded under the mischievous Bush admin, because of civil rights violations, and Repubs should have wanted to to shrink gov't and stay true to the Bill of Rights. But, no. Obama extended the act for 4 more years, and Repubs relied on extending it to show their strong stance on anti-terrorism.

Why the hell do they call it the 'patriot' act anyway? The whole thing pisses me off to no end.

You know who else it pisses off? *Some* of The Tea Party.

Just imagine a USA, inspired by intrepid leaders to build community together with a reinvigorated sense of  citizenship and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps' can-do attitude. Imagine healthcare for everyone without fines or haggling with insurance companies.

Imagine a citizenry versed on the constitution and filled with pride because they did their part to uphold it- the sense of valor and Americanism that would have gushed after the repeal of the Patriot Act!

Ah! That's nice.

It coulda happened. 

What Can Be

ACTION IN CONGRESS

Here we are again, a fresh new start, a new day! More Tea Party candidates elected to congress and a 'lame duck' session for the Pres.  Now, Obama's term will soon end, but he is far from powerless or needing help. In fact, he has had so little help throughout his Presidency, he is probably all practiced up on governing solo.

Like I said, I am glad Repubs have control of congress. They really should not be able to blame the Pres as much.

They can fully utilize their 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' mentality and try to make something good out of this opportunity.


REPEAL THE PATRIOT ACT and DEFUND NSA SPYING

First, let us, instead of repealing Obamacare, repeal The Patriot Act; instead of defunding Obamacare, let us defund spying on Americans at the NSA.


TORT REFORM

If we are gonna haggle about healthcare, let us start somewhere easy and impactful- Tort Reform.

If we're really lucky, we will somehow get single payer.


STRENGTHEN COMMUNITY

To shrink government and give some relief to local government agencies and municipalities, why not start a campaign championing the role of the citizen? Common good and self-sufficiency starts at home. I think both sides of the aisle can agree on this.

Not only will a campaign for citizen involvement- like taking care of your older neighbors, keeping up parks and streets, feeding our hungry and helping our homeless with jobs, skills and support- take a load off gov't, it will put the people in touch with their leaders, and help to dilute the influence of big business and corporations in policy making.

We can still have an invigorated USA, inspired by intrepid leaders, and held up by active citizens. It will take more than imagination, it will take good 'ol brave American leadership. 

The ball is in your court Republicans, Tea Party. Let's see some good action! 


Make a great day!
-Kathryn  


follow me on twitter
@tweetekat

So, you're not voting: Voting and Civil Disobedience cont.

So, you're not voting.

You don't think your vote will matter.
You don't trust government.
Picking the lesser of two evils is still evil.
You don't like either candidate.
You are an Independent, not a R or a D.


What are you waiting for?

You will leave it to the majority?
Others to "remedy the evil"?
Are you "content to entertain an opinion merely, and enjoy it?"

If you think you are being cheated out of your vote,
are you content to simply say so, and do nothing?

You are not going to vote for anyone?

"How far can private feelings go without affecting public good?"

Voting is a right. It is a vital tool for the people, not a demand from the government.  In fact, some self-interested faction will be more than happy that you don't vote, it gives you less power.


Are we a nation with a conscience?

"The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue."

The public has all but forgotten Public Virtue, and has been plagued with apathy for some decades. 

How damaged is our democratic republic that only about 5% of our population choose our candidates? that barely 40% of people vote in midterm elections, and in general elections we're lucky if 60% of voting age citizens do?

Thoreau scolded those,

 "who were more interested in... (fill in the blank)...than humanity; and those who are not prepared to do justice to... (fill in the blank) ...cost what it may."

Can we justly weigh right and wrong?  

"All voting is a kind of gaming with a moral component," a questioning of right and wrong.

It is not a matter of who you like better, it is a matter of protecting justice.


Can your vote matter?

Thoreau lamented that he could not end slavery with his vote.

He said that, "voting for the right is doing nothing for it."

If there weren't such a huge difference between Repubs and Dems, I may agree more with those who choose not to vote, but there is a HUGE difference between them, and one party is much more likely to protect US citizens equally.

He was asking people, a person, any one to raise their consciousness to defeat slavery saying that one good person can leaven a whole bunch. Citizens in Thoreau's time were two steps ahead of us, because they understood responsibility and respect (which, it seems self-evident, are per-requisites to raising ones consciousness).

We have a responsibility, not to a party or a president, but to each other and for ourselves...to protect, at the very least, our system of governance- the best elected officials available; and at the very most, our collective freedom and safety.

We must respect the ideal of freedom and the inherent requirement of equality under the law. At the very least this allows us to fight for our own freedom and equality and at the most it allows us to fight for all others.

Thoreau did not see a pathway to make any difference with his vote...here, we are many steps ahead of Thoreau's time. Since his time, blacks, women and teenagers have all gained the right to vote. More people than ever have an effective tool-our vote- to affect the outcomes of the War on Terror and the growing need for civil equality under the law.

Thoreau says, "don't cast your vote merely..."

and I have the need to say,

"Merely cast a vote!"

Thoreau quotes Confucius in Civil Disobedience, saying,

 "If a state is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a state is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are subjects of shame."

Can we reflect on our nation, our culture, and our leaders?

I will add a quote from Confucius,

“By three methods we may learn wisdom:
first, by reflection which is noblest;
second, by imitation, which is the easiest;
and third, by experience, which is the bitterest.”

The grand opportunity everyone has on Nov. 4th is to:

Do the very least- vote

To ensure the very most -equality and justice for all.

"The progress from tyranny to democracy is the porgress toward true respect for the individual."

We are always working toward a more perfect union, where all men and women are treated justly with respect.

Do not be, "biased by obstinancy," but, "do only what belongs (to you) and to the hour."

Vote!

 

 

"It is truly enough said that a corporation State has no conscience; but a corporation State of conscientious men is a corporation State with a conscience" 

 

 

Make a great day...and get ready to VOTE!

-Kathryn 

Reflecting on Civil Disobedience

I recently posted an article with 50 reasons to vote,

#21-“A wise man will not leave what is right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.” – Thoreau

Boy did I get it for that one.

"# 18. “The ballot is stronger than the bullet.” - Abraham Lincoln"

 They are both pretty ironic.  ...how bout

"# 39. To ensure representatives who are:

“…the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” – James Madison, Federalist #10"

There is a tragic sense of irony when comparing our current state of patriotism and values to that of the people who were high on the sense of accomplishment that came by freeing themselves.

If we had to, could we free ourselves now?

Do you have the constitution to stand up for those who suffer injustice?

Would we have the sense to ponder the right questions and act on the right answers?

Let us take another look at Thoreau's Civil Disobedience and critique it, a bit from his own time, but mainly from our present culture. 

First, Thoreau's objects of political discontent were aimed mainly at slavery and the US/Mexican War, which he saw as an oppressive occupation.

At first glance do we have situations to compare this to?  I argue that we can still see the specter of slavery as racism, and that the specter of imperialism that haunts us can be seen in SAP's (structural adjustment policies attached to IMF and WB loan programs), a pattern of regime change as a foreign policy and our dogmatic loyalty toward the state of Israel.  

His sentiments were this:  

One is a man first, with capabilities of  knowing right from wrong.

People should be made of a sturdy character, able to stand up for 'the right thing.'

If men are moral and just, there is no need for government.

If a government is unjust, it is the duty of people to practice civil disobedience.

Let's take it from the top of Civil Disobedience, by Henry David Thoreau (1849):  


Thoreau starts with a famous saying,

"Gov't is best which governs least" and takes it to the extreme saying,

"Gov't is best which is not at all."

His meaning is not that we should not have a government, but an idealistic belief that ALL men can exercise a sense of moral justice and righteousness, and when ALL men can do this IN UNISON, under the banner of peace and love, people will need no gov't.

Of course, people don't act this way, and it is unrealistic to imagine such a thing happening.

So, Thoreau explains a line over which we should not cross one another- a limit to freedom that is informed by some innate 'knowing' between right and wrong.

Maybe this is the same thing as Justice Ginsberg saying that freedom and justice are knowing where one's arm ends and another's nose begins; or the same line called injustice, talked about by Simone Weil, that starts the moment someone says, "They are hurting me."

Thoreau posits that sometimes there is an immediate need to voice opposition to some unjust action being robotically, methodologically, taken out by a government- a gov't out of control, acting on autopilot as a function of our republic governance.

Thoreau does not blame this mire on leaders not responding to the will of the people, but rather, on their self-interested actions with which they lead the country.

He blamed the Mexican War on,

"...comparatively few individuals using the standing government as their tool."

Thoreau blames the those who profit from slavery for keeping it alive by abiding by rules that returned slaves to their owners, even if they had escaped to the north.  He blames a self interested faction and the masses who are too easily goaded. 

This point was addressed more than half a century earlier in Madison's Federalist #10, which I quoted in the recent post, On Being a Republic, 

Madison wrote: ...to prevent tyranny of the masses or factions...

"It may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people."

In any case, the prescription for both is enshrined in 'the people' or even 'a person' who is of free will and free mind to make expectations known and stand up against the immoral actions of their own government- whether caused by mass acceptance or a small faction of people.

There were two main instances Thoreau showed his discontent, or disobedience: by refusing the church tax and the poll tax.

Could you imagine being taxed by the Church today?  In fact there is a growing voice of some citizens calling for the Church TO pay a tax, because they are becoming too involved in government.  The church doesn't tax us today, but they are crossing the lines, arm and arm with the Republican party, between a personal sanctuary and a voice raised for a theocracy. 

Should we pay any allegiance to a political authority claiming their G-d comes before the law? or that just laws can only be deciphered by their G-d?  Of course not.

New conservatives are increasingly equating their G-d with a singular morality, and accusing those who do not believe in their G-d as, well, you try and make sense of it.

Listen to Thoreau's argument for why the tyranny of his gov't had reached a critical point of inefficiency, which was great and unendurable:

"...when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.  What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact, that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army."

And he goes on to say,

"There are thousands who are in the opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free-trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both."

 Thoreau delineates the line of resistance again, he says that if a law "requires you to be the agent of injustice to another" then disobey the law, "at once."  His belief being that reform through normal channels is too slow, possibly lasting more than a man's life.

Hear! Hear!

Certainly for those instances in which our government, by habit, or by corruption become the harbinger of injustice, incremental debate CAN take a lifetime, think of the rights of any man or woman, even our country's founders.  How many lifetimes is it taking for minorities to gain the right to vote, or to be treated equally, as our constitution declares is the natural right of men.

In considering the quote from Civil Disobedience, which I included in my 50 reasons to vote,

 #21-“A wise man will not leave what is right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.” 

I argue that, though Thoreau is, in context, lamenting the ineffectiveness of a vote in the face of an injustice not affected by the vote, he is not appealing to the people to NOT VOTE, he instead says,

"Cast your whole vote.  Not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence."

Thoreau talks about a vote against slavery not counting until the one who cannot cast it does...well we have already come a long way since the mid 1800's in that regard...the voting rolls are not only propertied white men anymore.

He also laments,

"No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America." 

...but there was one coming...

Those propertied white men fought their own battle to be free, as did slaves, women, and 'others' afterward, all upon the promise of liberty and equality...and the battle continues still.  

next time:  More on voting and civil disobedience.  

Make a great day! 
Kathryn


extra: a tale of racism from my neck of the woods...


and it just so happens, Israel's Netanyahu pulls some more doublespeak propaganda just today: 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/06/netanyahu-us-criticism-israeli-settlements-against-american-values/



















 

...on parties

What about parties?

Parties are nowhere in the constitution, and the fear Madison had about small factions is what our current two party system brings us.

Madison envisioned a 'variety' of parties,

"Does (the proposed federal constitution) consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority?"  

President Washington, among others, warned of what is happening now, because of the vengence inherit in 'the spirit of parties':

 "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

Ah, the glory of centuries old men...we can't go back, we must go forward.

I think the populace has an inkling of Washington's notion.  Only 25% of the population describe themselves as Republican and only 31% Democrat.  47% of Americans identify themselves as independent.

So, where does this leave our political system, which has been institutionalized within the Republican and Democratic parties?

Parties are set up with local, state and national chapters.  They choose who runs for office, manage and finance campaigns and develop positions and policies that all of the US are forced to choose from.

Why do we use the two party system, even though it is not part of our constitution and even though we were warned of the dangers we now face?

"...because, it works."  Said Ann Lewis, the head of Dems in the 1980s on a panel for Columbia U.  "Because it has been successful." Said another on the panel.

Parties are not in the constitution, but have evolved out of need, said another.

However, all the panel agree that the electoral college, the seemingly arbitrary delegates and electors, institutionalized within parties are cause for worry.  "A disaster waiting to happen?" they are asked...most agree-Yes.

The threat they point to is the ability of parties to control who is selected as candidates apart from public votes, or to decide the outcome of pres. elections apart from public votes.  The only assurance they wont? ...a sense of good ol justice...the hope and faith that delegates and electors will do the right thing.

Are you laughing or crying?

There are independent candidates and third parties.  However, unless the views or members of these parties are co-opted by Dems or Repubs, they don't go very far.

The power structure of our political system definitively lies within political parties, and the structure systemically keeps non-traditional leaders out.  According to Kira Sambonmatsu, the 'old boys club' keeps outsiders out, because those in power support those in their network (i.e. golfing buddies), and push their friends to the top above others.  This old boys club system is in dire need of retirement.

...and maybe it is on its way.

Parties are no longer a need, but a threat, disenfranchising voters and pitting US citizens against each other.

Parties are no longer successful, as more individuals are empowered with the freedom to vote (minorities and women), but choose not to join a party.


Check out the campaign being run by the Independent Voter Project, who seek to bring top two voting to the US, and end partisan primaries. 

Similar electoral reforms have been successful in CA and will be voted on in Oregon in November.

If one considers that only 25% of US citizens identify as Republican and 31% Dem, and then factor in that less than 20% of eligible voters showed up to vote in 2012 primaries (one of the lowest ever)- about 5% of US citizens choose who we are voting for. 

Outliers have been successful in the past.  Most notably, Vermont's Bernie Sanders, Jesse Ventura of Minnesota, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Angus King from Maine (though I can't say I would support this bunch...I had never heard of King before researching this post, but I would not vote for the other three...no way.)

Keep a lookout this year and in coming years for a shift in the way the US votes, and the persuasion of those who are running.

The most touching reason to vote that I've come across lately is- Hope.

On being a Republic

I have had some people say to me...

"We don't live in a democracy!  We live in a Republic!"  

 Yeah, we live in a Democratic Republic.

"Democratic Republic- a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them." source

But, wouldn't it be better if everyone directly voted on where tax dollars go, new laws, and when to go to war?

No.  No it wouldn't.

Adopting a direct democracy would be akin to governing by polls.  I've ranted about this before. 

Leaders don't lead through polls...or they shouldn't.

The main reason that we have a republic, as framed by James Madison in the Federalist paper #10: ' to prevent instability, injustice and faction'

"A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."

1.) To prevent tyranny of the masses or factions.

"It may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people."

2.) a natural organizational factor of having a democracy with over 300,000,000 people.  It is natural to elect representatives.  The process of funneling individual points of views through an elector is to 'refine and enlarge the public view.'

Madison explains how our bicameral congress balances local community interest with regional community interest:

"By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures."

3.)  Individuals are not often afforded the knowledge to make well informed decisions, so we presumably elect those who can make those decisions for us. 

Americans, notoriously, are under educated in political matters.



There are a few assumptions Madison makes, extreme considerations about the threat of tyranny...that is- if tyranny of the masses or tyranny of factions succeed with their

'vicious,' 'unjust,' 'oppressive,' 'prejudiced,' 'corrupt,' 'sinister,' 'wicked,' 'mischievous,' 'passionate,' 'violent,'

schemes, in "which one party may...disregard(ing) the rights of another or the good of the whole." 

His assumptions may have been true in his day, but are these assumptions true today??

1.)  Representatives, chosen by a large number, are checked by the scrutiny of many people, guarding against, 'unworthy candidates' and the 'vicious arts' of politics.

2.)  'People will choose the most attractive merit and established characters.'

3.)  That representatives will be,

"the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."

4.)  Extending the sphere of representation will lead to more parties.

" Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other."

Next post:  What about Parties?

A Modern Courting Guide

I was going to write about 'Being a Republic' today, but...

Let's talk about something more intrinsic to the happiness and freedom of a human being- Love.

Specifically, how will we talk to our children about love, sex and relationships?


Sometimes I remark that 'hippies ruined everything', generally when referencing our hedonistic culture. 

Now, I know, I know- that the hippie generation made much progress- important progress, like environmental legislation, civil rights for minorities and equality for woman.  (Though, I reserve, there may be a distinction between people who were active in the movements, and who were free riders.)

The sexual revolution was a triumph over biology, letting women schedule or even refrain from having babies.  Very important on so many levels. 

Unfortunately, what was also lost were the protections to human relationships that societal structures like courting upheld.

I have two kids, a 4 year old boy and a 2 year old girl.  I will be teaching them abstinence and courting.  Not The Duggers kind of courting, but a more modern kind... a simple, empowering guide. 

Re-introducing a modern tradition of courting in society might result in stronger, longer friendships, a more civil society and an increase in lovers being matched more harmoniously.

So, what is this courting I am talking about?


1.)  Flirt with a purpose.

Showing interest in someone is a very personal, intimate move.  Flirting indicates a first move.  Once it is made, there is expectation, anxiety and questioning.  Flirting can go somewhere, or nowhere, but either way there will be an intimate process involved. 

The human heart is not something to play games with.  Showing interest carries a heavy responsibility
to be respectful and sensitive about the others integrity and emotions.  In fact, showing respect and care should be a top quality of a mate.   

2.)  Test social compatibility

Once one is committed to moving into a more intimate world with another- it's time to test.  Can the two
have fun and respect each others actions in social settings?
 
Specifically, I will be encouraging my kids to spend group time at places that encourage  interaction and
discussion.  

3.)  Test personal compatibility

If the two can get through a group setting with respect and admiration for the other person, the next step
is one on one time.

Again, I will recommend to my kids to have one on one time in a place that
encourages openness and personal interaction.

Step 3 is where the first kiss might take place.  

If two can get through these first three stages- it's off to the races!  Have fun any way that calls...except...

4.) Sensual contact 
 
The more sensual contact a pair has, the more they are under the spell of powerful chemicals meant to bond a couple.

If step four comes before 1-3, a couple may find themselves battling the confusing 'feelings' of
attachment, while 'knowing' that something just isn't right.

Oh well!  The drugs of sex- serotonin, oxytocin and amphetamines will take care of that little unhappiness.  For how long?  ?????

I have no problem talking to my kids about sex.  I prefer them to be well informed, embarrassment be  damned.   It is the mystery of love, the fairy tale of love, the 'not knowing how to do it' that can be the dark space that our kids jump through when they finally make the decision to have sex.  I want to illuminate that moment for them as much as I can, though there will always be a mystery. 

So what of sensual contact?  I don't believe my kids will refrain from sensuality, so I will offer them guidelines.  Kissing is great!  Kiss kiss kiss!  Making out is fine too.

5.)  Multiple partners

I don't want my kids getting stuck in the emotional trappings of some one's obsession.  I want my kids to feel in control of their bodies, their emotions and their love lives. 

If the guidelines are adhered to above, there will be nothing too engaging to prevent a little love adve;nture with many persons in the same time frame. There is no claim being made.  There is no expectation of sex (which itself seems to lend itself as a contract of bondage). 

Courting is the practice of setting boundaries for oneself and for others in reference to ones self.  

A modern tradition of courting can be the foundation for a community of people who understand freedom through respect, love and individual liberty. 

The pros:

More fooling around, more partners (this I think will be a great motivator)

Self-respect, self-knowledge, practicing self-restraint

Engaging those we connect with the most in a respectful inquiry of deepening friendship- without the destructive process of emotionally and physically divorcing the person after casual sex.
 
Possibly better matched couples through a careful search among thousands of options. 

The con:

Less sex

When to have sex

I don't know!  That's a personal decision.  The guide above gives enough practice in self awareness, that if they are carried through, give me the confidence to allow my kids deal with that moment privately, themselves, as it should be.


 Some advice from the oldest sex therapist.  -"we need connection beyond sex."