Posts tagged words
canadian cheese
Apr 21st
Figured I would start off on the right foot …
Knock Knock!
Who’s there?
Cheese!
Cheese who?
Cheese a cute girl!
Yup. This one is gonna be that bad. But I couldn’t resist. Oh. And please note the picture to the right … “say cheese” … ah … cheese humor. The best comedians in the world couldn’t make up stuff like this.
And, yes, I am really writing about Canadian cheese.
Well. Actually I am writing about what someone else wrote about Canadian cheese (just wanted to make sure no one thought I had completely lost it).
Anyway.
I was inspired by … uhmmmmmm … Canadian cheese (this isn’t a joke … this is serious shit in the world of cheese … think Vermont cheese … Wisconsin cheese … France and cheese … and … well … Canadian cheese!)
(yup … no shit).
So.
Let’s take a second about how I got inspired to write about Canadian cheese.
I met the person who wrote the ‘pocket guide to Canadian cheese’ while on a Caribbean island.
(oh … the people you can meet if you are sitting alone at a bar …)
Yup (again).
I was fascinated that someone had come to a Caribbean island to write a book about Canadian cheese. Let alone they had actually elected to write about cheese.
Oh.
But not any cheese.
Canadian cheese.
And the book is a pocket guide (sitting right next to “what to do on the island” and the island maps).
Ok.
All that said. Gosh. Where to begin?
Let’s begin at the beginning.
The foreword is titled “cheese and me.”
It is in this section where you are immediately profiled … because it sets the stage with ‘like elite cheesemongers’ (I would hate to meet a non-elite cheesemonger in a back alley) and a reference to the “cheese renaissance.”
First.
I feel compelled to talk about what it takes to be an elite cheesemonger.
I vaguely remember the Mongols were ‘mongers’ of something. But cheese? Well. Oddly enough (and I am too lazy at the moment to research so this is from memory) I believe the Mongols put dairy products under their saddle to ferment it for future … well … eating.
Geez.
No wonder the Mongols kicked the shit out of everyone. They were eating fermented horse saddle cuisine. Tasty stuff I am sure.
Sadly … I am not sure a Canadian has ever been in the Mongol category of mongers, therefore, they created their own segment of mongers … cheesemongers.
Ah. But, to be on the safe side, they become elite cheesemongers (I believe most of them have mansions in upper Newfoundland).
Anyway.
Being a cheesemonger is tougher than you think in Canada (I actually did some research).
This comes from the Cheese Lover blog:
I am amazed how fantastic Canadian cheese is – both the quality and the way chefs use it. This despite the fact that Canada, like the US, bans the production of young raw milk or unpasteurized cheeses. However many of the most interesting cheeses come from Quebec whose government has recently reversed that position to allow the sale of raw milk cheeses under the age of 60 days.
Cheesemakers in Ontario also labour under the additional handicap of not being free to choose the style of cheese they make. If they want to use cows’ milk (the restriction doesn’t apply to sheep and goats’) they must be able to prove to the province’s Dairy Farmers’ Association that no similar cheese is being made. Popular styles are on allocation so you can’t for example make a cheddar if the cheddar quota is already taken up.
Ok.
Seriously.
First … the cheddar quota is taken up ? … quotas on canadian cheese? Oh my. And Americans think their government is too involved?
Anyway. Second <and most importantly>. Someone writes a blog solely on cheese <must be a monger> … and knows about the cheese quota?
(by the way … I am still slightly stunned, and amused, there is a quota on cheddar cheese … not just any cheese … cheddar cheese … what’s up with that).
Anyway.
Once you have gone through mongerer training (lots of gnashing of teeth and multiple meals of plain limburger sandwiches) you become an official cheese mongerer and probably become qualified to monger cheese and wear foam cheese hats and … well … write a pocket guide on cheese.
Next.
Just in case you may have missed it. The Italian renaissance. The French renaissance. The Canadian cheese renaissance.
Eh?
(Its probably because they have the worlds nicest cheese that you didn’t even notice it)
But, no shit, in this pocket guide you are exposed to the Cheese Renaissance <no dates actually provided> and the Mona Lisa of Canadian cheese. Nope. I did not make that up. Apparently this Mona Lisa has some kind of rind (and possibly the hint of a smile).
Moving on <quickly>.
Next.
The ladder of cheese appreciation.
Yup. They have a ladder.
And not a one rung ladder but rather one of those extendable ladders that can reach the roof of a three story house.
You gotta REALLY appreciate cheese to climb this frickin ladder.
Ok.
Next.
The raw milk question.
Ah.
The big question. Can raw milk be made in canada?
Can a woodchuck chuck wood?
Do Canadian geese shit?
Do moose make milk (I don’t know what a female moose is called … Moosette. Meese? … are any of the royal canadian mounties gay?)
Big important questions.
Next.
Soft washed rind cheese.
Ok.
Would anyone want to eat unwashed cheese? (rind or not).
Personally I am hoping canada has good personal hygiene and clean everything (not just their soft rind cheese). But I am pleased that whenever they wash their rind cheese they do it softly.
Next.
Firm Canadian cheese.<note: I am skipping any inappropriate jokes about firm cheese>
A quote from the pocket guide:
“Substantial dependable and honest – just like Canadians, eh?”
I cannot make this stuff up <I am not that good>.
I am not sure I can add to anything beyond this quote. It kind of says it all.
Ok.
Chapter 8.
Blue cheese.
“Don’t think just because you got your cheese to the curing room that the hard work is over. It’s not, you can still make a poxy whores melt of it. Imagine what would happen if even a single blue mould spore got into the Gold room? Total disaster even at that late stage in the proceedings. Blue mould in the right place is a gift from god but in the wrong place it spreads like cancer. “
Cmon. Priceless prose.
First.
example of a poxy whore
Poxy whores melt?
Dickens only dreamed of writing this about old England let alone blue cheese.
In fact. I vaguely remember a line like this in Oliver (or porgy and bess) neither of which is Dickens … but has to count for something.
Second.
And flipping from a ‘gift from god’ to ‘cancer’ is hyperbole at its best (or worst).
Too much good stuff.
And whoda thunk it would be about canadian cheese? (not me)
So.
Having written about cheese, elite cheesmongers, cheese rind … I thought I would end on the challenges cheese creates for leadership:
“How can you govern a country with two hundred and forty six varieties of cheese?” – Charles De Gaulle
Who would have thought cheese, from anywhere, could create so much discussion & thought.
turn your back on what you know
Apr 20th
“To truly learn turn your back on what you know … leave it all behind. 
To truly know the world you must immerse yourself in what is not your knowledge.” – Tibetan thought
Oh my.
Immerse yourself in what is not your knowledge.
That may be one of the most difficult things in the world to do.
It is natural to gravitate to what is most comfortable … that which you know and that which is the easiest for you to do.
I imagine many of us do this just as part of every day life and tell ourselves we are still learning as we bump into others who do something different and watch from afar.
But that is having one foot in what you know and maybe dipping a toe into what you don’t.
That isn’t truly ‘learning.’
At some point in order to truly learn you must … well … leave it all behind.
And that is difficult. Really difficult.
I know I cheat. How? I use young people. I try and place the situation in their hands, step back and listen. And I don’t judge <or eliminate possibilities>. It is my way of ‘immersing in what is not your knowledge.’ In their inexperience <within my own experience> they share a world of experiences in which I have no knowledge.
Oh.
I may think I do. But I don’t. It is a difficult thing for most of us to do … turn your back on what you know.
But I find it easier as long as I keep this other Tibetan thought in mind:
“Is being an investigator the opposite of being an artist? Maybe it is just that some mysteries require an artist not an investigator. That an artist has different ways to get to the truth.” – Tibetan thought
The path to truth is not just one path. Sure. I may know one ‘truth.’ But in knowing that I know … well … one thing. And I am sure many people are fine with the knowledge of one truth. And I do not begrudge them of that. For one truth is, at its core, a truth. And I believe everyone needs some truth in their life.
Does knowing more than one truth make someone better? Yikes. I don’t believe I could be a good judge of that. Because knowing multiple truths can be confusing … and in confusion someone just may not end up in a better place. I guess I would suggest that if multiple truths put you on more solid ground than go for it.
But the real point to this is that someone without YOUR knowledge is more likely to teach you something completely new than someone who shares your knowledge.
And, ultimately, if you are trying to understand the world, or simply solve a problem, to truly learn the answer … you may have to turn your back on everything you know.
lines
Apr 16th
“Americans believe in straight lines. They believe that all you have to do is get out there and get the job done one step after another. 
If you don’t do that, you are either lazy or incompetent. American people seem to think that life is like a mission. That’s how they approach sports and war and sex – even love. That’s what they think when someone’s credit goes bad or there is an accident on the road. Somebody veered off the straight and narrow. Remember Einstein. He said the connection between A and B was questionable at best and there is no such thing as a straight line.” – Craig Johnson
Life is neither straight nor narrow (although it sure is a lot easier to think that way).
I think we all know this.
But I think we all forget it as we judge others.
Sometimes you can be hard working and extremely competent … and still have a ‘life’ accident. And be hurt. And be hurt bad enough that it becomes difficult to get back on the road.
Sorry folks but that is true.
Also. Because life isn’t always a straight line having an objective & a mission & a goal isn’t always a guarantee of success.
Nor is it always a measurement of success.
And maybe more importantly it isn’t a measurement of failure.
Boy. Thinking about that … it sure does make life tough doesn’t it.
Seems to make a lot of ‘extenuating circumstances’ in measuring life.
Yup.
Sorry folks <again>. But that is life.
Add in the fact that your own straight line you envision just may not be the only line to follow … oops … actually … it is NOT the only line you could follow. Well … what else can I say.
Life isn’t a mission. And it is rarely a straight line.
Nor should we always judge failure, or success, on whether someone hit some goal or objective.
Or whether they fulfilled a mission.
Oh. And not all missions are equal.
And … well … and bad things do happen to good people.
There are no straight lines to success or in life.
Maybe the real thought here is that all those curvy winding roads may be more difficult to navigate … and you obviously cannot go as fast as a straight line … but they can be far more interesting.
Getting from A to B is rarely a straight and narrow line.
If Albert thought that … well … he sure seemed a smart guy.
what will become of us?
Apr 13th
“because of you the days to come will be better than the days before this one.”
So.
I have been participating in another TED discussion with regard to the youth and education and a distressingly pessimistic view of who they will be and what they will become <a post/rant/observation is forthcoming on that soon>. That discussion has certainly made me sit back and think. And much of it has also clearly brought to the forefront why the project global generation web based education initiative has not gained traction.
Anyway. All the pessimism reminded me of something I had read.
Because sometimes you read something that is almost so perfect that you want to store it away and use yourself at some later date.
Thankfully I have a blog where I can write them down and post them so when I want to use it I can just send someone a link.
This is about telling a child what they can expect from life.
What will become of us? (asked the children to her mother) …
—-
“What I imagine is that you will live magnificent lives.
And that you will live lives of quiet disappointment.
You won’t be able to explain why. But there will always be some failure. You will strive for greatness and justice and you will help to make our nation wondrous.
You will be great but you will also fail at many of the things dearest to you.
And people – even ones you love – will disappoint you.
You will know great loves and you will have dear friends and you will be part of something bigger than you.
You will never be alone. And yet some of those you hold dearest will betray you, envy you over things they perceive you have that they do not. At times – even within a crowd and noise – you will feel strangely lost.
You will find gifts that are special to you but you will never understand why such things were thrust upon you.
You may curse the world for always spinning never pausing and yet this motion will be the music to which you dance.
In the end, I hope, you will come to feel that none of the life you lead could have been any different, any better or worse. You will find meaning in accepting many things you cannot understand or change. And if you live a long life you will grow tired and that will be alright because you will have done the best you can do during your lives.
You will take into the future all that has ever been for us. Because of you the days to come will be better than the days before this one.” – Mena Akaran
Can you ever imagine telling a child anything better?
“because of you the days to come will be better than the days before this one.”
Every child should hear this.
And, frankly, I wish more people would feel this way about our youth rather than bitching about what they are not or what they cannot do.
integrity: the 99 or the 1?
Apr 12th
So.
I am fortunate enough to be part of TED (who I respect). And I have been involved in several discussion threads which are going to inspire some posts.
Lately I have been participating in a maddening discussion thread on “Do you think living by values and having integrity is a thing of the past?”
It’s mostly maddening because we sound old. Heck. The question sounds old.
I know every generation as they get older always thinks it was better “before.”
Another maddening part is what I call <as a generalization> the “1 perspective”.
In that the actions of 1% create a perception that they are bigger than they are <note: 1% is a generalization, possibly hyperbole, and absolutely not research-driven>.
By the way … I do not believe values/integrity are a thing of the past. I also do not believe that there is a massive downward spiraling of values/integrity taking place. I also do not believe it is the end of the world as we know it <from a values & integrity standpoint … or any standpoint I may add>.
Anyway. All that said.
I am fairly sure I didn’t make many friends in this thread when I suggested integrity is about accountability and not words (or philosophical thoughts). I said something along these lines.
Ok. The original question specifically asks “are values & integrity of the past.” And this conversation is weaving its way through economics (capitalism/materialism destroys morals/values). Religion (a religious laissez faire attitude undermines traditional values). Generational (kids today are all about “me”). Anthropological (some Rappaille reptilian brain driving actions). A beautiful “ignorance is the enemy” thought (higher knowledge & understanding will develop integrity). Even some ‘crisis’ type thoughts (we have never been through anything like this before).
Here are just some random thoughts given all I have read.
All older people believe younger generations don’t have the same values they have (had). Every generation feels that way. They are correct. Integrity is integrity but each generation will implement it in a different voice.
But that’s not really the point.
Here is what I know (in my heart of hearts).
I could put 12 15 year olds from 15 different countries on a panel and show them a 5 minute video on a variety of corruption, inhumane actions, killing or some relatively despicable bullying-like activity from around the world and I will guarantee you that all will know what is wrong. And while they may not know the right words they will say it is some form of value lacking activity or lack of integrity. In other words they certainly know what “right” behavior is. Inevitably they will ask of us, our generation, “don’t you recognize it is wrong?”
And then … “You do?” Well. “Then why don’t you do something about it?”
Now. Make that panel 22 year olds and it will go exactly the same way with one additional question to our generation … “if you aren’t going to do anything about it get the hell out of the way so we can do something about it.”
Every ‘old’ generation thinks about what is lost.
Every new generation aims toward what is to be gained.
That is the beauty of generations. Maddening at times but beautiful.
Now.
The only thing that has changed over time is transparency. Because of the internet we don’t have more social revolutions or social anything … we just have more transparency. No more or no less values or integrity.
But. The transparency dials up accountability and responsibility.
Because now that 1% (or so), who don’t exhibit the behavior or ‘integrity of actions’ that attitudinally we know is wrong, not only can’t get away with it but their transgressions get communicated over that megaphone called the internet, therefore, those responsible for stopping it are held more accountable than ever.
That means we are responsible for the actions of our peers. And our actions reflect upon what future generation’s think (maybe not what they actually do).
Think about that.
Accountability.
Isn’t it possible that our generation’s integrity will be judged by how we respond and lead toward ‘what is right’?”
Maybe before we wonder about whether it is something of the past (which I think we all know isn’t really true) we should be accountable for our present. And who is going to lead (because while it is absolutely about the individuals even ‘individuals’ need leaders)?
Yeah.
Well.
I now have a small group of passionately pro bruce TED fans.
And a bunch of grumpy old folk who are anti-bruce.
And a bunch of really philosophical mumbo jumbo I had to delete because it made my head hurt.
The funny thing? (or sad I guess). I am an old folk. Ok. Before someone jumps on that … let me say I am “of an older generation.” And I cannot believe I am in such a small minority.
Regardless.
I do feel a growing sense of responsibility toward the actions of my peers in my generation.
<hence the reason I write ad nausea about it>
Anyway.
One comment said ignorance is the enemy. Of course there are multiple levels to that comment. But most importantly to this topic we can’t use ignorance as an excuse anymore.
We see lack of integrity more than ever before – not because there is necessarily more of it just that what there is cannot be hidden as well as it may have been in the past.
We will be judged by what we do, or don’t do, with this transparency.
And we are accountable not only for our generation but also the message, and example, we set for future generations.
But here is the good news.
Young people know what is right. And if we do nothing they will just shove our butts out of the way and deal with it themselves.
I continue to believe we don’t have diminished values or integrity overall. Although I tend to believe some generations have a skewed perspective, or tainted perspectives, yet our youth is still good to go if we adults give them some direction.
And I do believe globally we are going through some issues <crisis?> that makes us question overall value & integrity. Some thoughts just because I have seen what people have been discussing:
- Web. Just my opinion. The web is simply a facilitator. The web doesn’t create anything. People create. The web simply disseminates what people say and think. I could argue that the web hasn’t facilitated any crisis but rather has grinded us down into inaction through information overload. Regardless. That is a different discussion. Let’s just say I don’t believe the web is degrading our values or integrity.
- We have seen all of this before. These aren’t really unprecedented times. The web is new but the world had the same values discussions in the 1920’s (and there was a world wide depression). The world had the same values discussion in 1521 with Martin Luther. And all of these same values discussions went worldwide even without the web. Strauss & Howe have argued we are a historically generation cyclical civilization … doomed to make similar mistakes as generations cycle through and experiences change which affects our ability to solve the problems.
Which leads me to …
- Crisis and facilitating change. A lot of smart people in TED wonder if we are destined to face a crisis if we don’t do ‘something.’ Well. this is a chicken or egg discussion. As a civilization, large populations of people, do we need a crisis to create change or do we facilitate the change to resolve a crisis (which inevitably will need to be resolved).
We people are pretty consistent. It typically takes a pretty big problem <crisis> before we step up to the plate and make the big changes in behavior needed to resolve it. And there is a cycle in that also.
People see crisis looming.
People talk.
Some people do.
There is a lot of angst <and gnashing of teeth>.
A larger group steps up and takes control and solves the crisis.
In the end? The world will not cease to exist. It just may cease to exist as we know it today.
And you know what? That’s okay. The majority of people will still value human life and choice and conduct themselves with integrity. A minority will always do the opposite.
Schumpeter called all this Creative Destruction.
All I know is this. There will be a crisis. There will be a solution. And life will go on <changed or not>.
Next.
The tough majority or minority discussion where values & integrity plays a role.
- Economic inequality. Or Capitalism (or greed).
<note: I am not going to suggest socialism or even economic equality … just fairness>
Any time historically economic equality (or maybe better said … at least a realm of believability between the haves and have nots) has gone out of whack people have:
- Bitched, and
- Did something.
There are so many types of capitalism out there but suffice it to say I think unmanaged capitalism will always lead to inequality. Those who have … want to have more. And those who don’t have … want what they don’t have. That inevitably leads to crisis when it is clearly out of whack. And, once again, history has shown this again and again … on a country by country basis as well as globally.
What is going to happen (no … I do not have a crystal ball).
- Leadership. Ah. Crisis leads to leadership. Inevitably we need someone (or a small group of people) to guide us through the crisis. And maybe that is where his whole values & integrity discussion circles back to. Can we find leaders who are pragmatic enough … with integrity we can hold onto … to guide us through to whatever the next phase is. And that is where I get jammed up. I don’t doubt that there are leaders out there with our best interests in mind … I struggle to see how they can fight their way through the ones who use “values” to forward their own agenda.
But. I have faith … and I have hope. I have the belief that someone who is a shitload smarter than I am who has the same good intentions that I have will step up to the plate and lead.
Anyway.
In the end … this whole thing really is about integrity.
(defintion): Integrity is a concept of consistency (lack of contradiction) of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcomes. In western ethics, integrity is regarded as the quality of having an intuitive sense of honesty and truthfulness in regard to the motivations for one’s actions. The word “integrity” stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete). In this context, integrity is the inner sense of “wholeness” deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character.
99%, by in large, do act with integrity.
That 1% just looks huge.
And, no, I do not think we’ve turned into a nation, or world, based on nothing but greed <or “what’s in it for me”>.
I do believe many of us have gone into a defensive mode … meaning “I need to protect my interests” but that is much much different than “what’s in it for me” mentality.
We may need to take a radically different approach.
But I tend to believe we just need a radically good leader.
The 99% will diminish the 1% if led correctly.
I am not absolving the 99% of doing something … for even in their own actions they can affect what will happen … and even where we end up going.
The road will be long and slow and will take the commitment of everyone not just leaders.
By the way … that last thought is a biggie.
There is a big danger in wanting too much, of asking too much, too fast. This is not in the immediate gratification category.
We often criticize our leaders for not doing enough or for not solving the problems.
We refuse to accept the complexity of the world and the somewhat limited power of leaders to have an immediate effect.
One of the biggest issues we need to face is the simplification of reality and believing that simple solutions will solve the problems.
Yes. Some things can be handled simply. But most are pretty compex issues that need to be untangled.
As one TED commenter said … “
“The reality is that this world is muddling along in the right direction. Of course if 7 billion people are willing to do the right thing it will go a lot faster.”
right brain, left brain, ambidextrous brain
Apr 9th
Ok.
So I thought I had left the whole right brain left brain discussion behind. And it reared its ugly head again one more time just the other day.
And <distressingly> it was in a business environment, with senior people, discussing people’s strengths & weaknesses.
Look.
This whole right brain, left brain thing has to stop.
Now <please>.
The truth? We use our whole brain. Not halves.
And right brain left brain mumbo jumbo is just that … a bunch of mumbo jumbo crap.
Yup. The whole thing is bullshit.
Trust me. If you ever want to drive a psychologist/psychiatrist/neurologist/any ‘ist’ crazy … bring it up.
<just a reminder>
In the right-left mythology … the left brain is logical, ordered, and analytic, and it supports reading, speech, math, and reasoning.
In the same myth … the right brain is more oriented towards feelings and emotions, spatial perception, and the arts, and is said to be more creative.
Interesting myth.
And it is a myth.
It is wrong (wrong & wrong … and maybe even wrong again).
We have known for at least 30 years that this characterization is incorrect.
In fact the guy who probably put us all in this mess originally (Mike Gazzaniga who created the study in the 60’s that some pop psychologist used to write some fantasy business books that became best sellers) who was a pioneer of modern study of brain hemispheric differences immediately tried to put a stop to the craziness as soon as it began with a book chapter titled “Left brain, right brain: A debunking.”
And he did that 25 years ago.
<note: he wrote it because the original crap was begun after he did a brain hemisphere study in the 60’s>
And there is still plenty of bunk to go around.
Its crazy.
I myself have gnashed my teeth (and sometimes growled) against the “left brain / right brain” myth for years (probably not 25 but a bunch).
People are always trying to tell me how “right-brained” I am (or left … I get confused).
Which I always find amusing since whatever I am doing invariably needs whatever the other side of the brain was supposed to be doing.
Plus. I would like to think I am using my whole frickin’ brain.
But.
It mostly aggravates me (and kind of disturbs me) because it is deliberately misleading.
It has been used to support endless management dialogue telling us that we should liberate ourselves from too much left-brain ‘logical’ thinking and enjoy the fruits of our liberated, right-brained creativity <or vice versa depending on your management belief system>.
Look. People may be inherently more visual, aural, spatial, sequential, intuitive, rational <or irrational> talented or non-talented … but it ain’t because of anything to do with left versus right brain.
Ok. If you don’t trust me I pulled this from a medical journal.
A more technical explanation of how the whole thing went haywire:
You’ve probably heard this left/ right brain dichotomy before. It goes something like this: the left hemisphere of the brain is logical, deductive, mathematical, etc., while the right hemisphere is artistic, visual and imaginative. The idea stems at least partly from the classic studies of split brain patients performed by Sperry and Gazzaniga in the 1960s.
There are some functional asymmetries in the brain, and it is true that certain regions of both hemispheres are specialized for particular functions. Speech illustrates this, but also shows that nothing is ever so simple when it comes to the brain: in most right-handed people, speech is processed in both hemispheres, but predominantly in the left. In some left-handers, speech is processed either predominantly in the right hemisphere or on both sides.
So the notion that someone is “left-brained” or “right-brained” is absolute nonsense. All complex behaviours and cognitive functions require the integrated actions of multiple brain regions in both hemispheres of the brain. All types of information are probably processed in both the left and right hemispheres (perhaps in different ways, so that the processing carried out on one side of the brain complements, rather than substitutes, that being carried out on the other).
An article was published this week in the venerable (and reliable) psychology journal Psychological Bulletin, which synthesized 67 brain imaging studies of creativity. Among other things, it showed that creativity is not especially a right-brain function. In fact, two of three broad classes of creative thought that have been studied seem not to depend on a single set of brain structures.
What we call “creativity” is so diverse that it can’t be localized in the brain very well.
One might think that this study would put to rest at least part of the left brain/right brain mythology, namely, that the right hemisphere of the brain is more responsible for creative thought than the left.
One would think so, but I wouldn’t count on it.
My conclusion?
I put the whole right/left brain thing in the same category as reading a horoscope or reading my own tarot cards.
If you give someone a vague positive description in which they can see themselves they will tend to agree with you.
And that is dangerous on a number of levels (if people actually believe it).
Ok.
Here is the main reason I bring this up (beyond the fact it drives me crazy and it is still being seriously discussed in the business world).
It has a detrimental effect on education and how we manage our youth.
It is as bad as social profiling when it comes to kids.
Left brain kid.
Right brain kid.
You carry that label and not only does the child begin to see themselves in that label (it is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy) the adults tag the child with the label. And start treating them that way. And expecting things based on the labeling.
All of a sudden the child is placed on the left, or right, brain treadmill <oops … I meant to say moving sidewalk>.
And then they are left there.
Uh oh.
One day the child wants to jump off the treadmill to hop on the other one for a while … <adults> “whoa … get back on your treadmill … you know that other one is only for the right brainers … and you will be much more successful on the left brain treadmill <sidewalk>.”
That, my friends, reads scary even if it seems just a theory.
And we all know that at some place, at some time, with some children … this is actually happening.
We need to squash this left/right brain myth forever.
Now <please … again>.
We use all of our brain. Brains are ambidextrous. And even if you do not want to believe this at least teach kids that is is so.
unicorns & rainbows
Apr 5th
“The unicorn is a lonely, solitary creature that symbolizes hope.” – Ally McBeal
So. This is about unicorns.
And I guess about people who see unicorns.
Crazy? Sure. Sounds it.
But hopefully it also makes you think about the people who seem to keep a vision of hope … and use it, however they elect to keep that hope at hand, to help them through the days and weeks.
So. This thought all began after watching this Ally McBeal episode the other day. I felt compelled to write about hope and, well, unicorns and how sometimes people go to some extreme, if not bizarre, ways to hold on to some light in seemingly dark days.
And while the episode was about the holidays I thought it was pretty relevant for any day (these days).
What do I mean?
Well.
I was going to try and right some whizbang words but instead I found something that someone wrote on their blog (sorry .. forgot who) that seemed to create the perfect reason for why seeing unicorns is perfectly acceptable …
What has made it challenging for me to write this is the darkness that I experience through the world’s anguish at this time. I am not living in days of light—I am living in days in need of light. I need to remember in this time of darkness that there are many who are seeking light.
I listen to the rantings of politicians who seem far more caught up in ideology and party positioning than they do in honestly meeting the deep challenges of our economy, the needs of our people, and caring for our planet. I witness the kindest of people being too busy to adequately separate their own food waste and recycling from their trash to reduce the build-up of what is becoming our planetary garbage dump. I witness fires and weather destroying lives and property and then reflect on the consequence of our priorities when we are unable to respond adequately. In this season of cold, I see the homeless in our own community seeking shelter from the wet and the winter.
And even, perhaps, more sharply, I returned from Israel more aware than ever of the incredibly wide divide between the humanity we perceive and the inhumanity shown by the actions of the leaders in that troubled region.
Right here at home, I am troubled by the inaction of so many of us who speak words of reconciliation, words of peace, words of promise, yet continue to find enemies who need to be stopped rather than people who need to be invited into the dialogue.
Yes, all that is true, yet I need to remember in this time of darkness that there are many who are seeking light.
Look. That sounds … well … dark. But I elect to focus on the ‘light’ or the refusal to give up on hope portion.
I don’t know if it’s the economy or the news or a general feeling of unrest but I do believe a lot of people just seem to be more empty these days. Well. Certainly less full of hope if they aren’t completely empty.
And in this Ally McBeal episode someone was fired for saying he saw a unicorn.
Well. I would imagine all of us would take this with a grain of salt (if not believe the person had completely lost their mind).
Yet the judge in the episode suggests “there are a lot of lonely people out there, looking for hope in strange places.”
In the end the judge decides that those people can keep their unicorns.
You know? It sounds a little crazy … and Whipper (the judge on Ally McBeal) was a quasi-nutcase on a show full of nutcases … but … you know what? I agree.
Some people need to believe that they have seen a unicorn. It doesn’t mean they are nuts … people need to find hope however they can … some people just see the unicorn as hope.
And, frankly, (and one of the characters says this also) … why should anyone have any say in where a person may look for that hope?
For god’s sake … all people want to be happy … and different people just get there in different ways. And if someone elects to use a unicorn? Well, geez, it could be worse, couldn’t it?
One of the characters in the episode says … “who’s to say the ones who dream of unicorns aren’t the lucky ones these days.”
I know … I know … this sounds nuts … but think about it.
Supposedly people who see them share some of the unicorn’s traits … they may be lonely but with virtuous hearts.
Mythology also suggests that only pure spirits can approach the unicorn.
In the Ally McBeal episode Ally recalls one time when she touched a unicorn and the character who saw it said he didn’t get close to the unicorn … but (here is the part that maybe makes you think a little) … “but he won’t have another chance if he stops believing in the unicorn.”
Ok. That is a bigger thought than just a wacky tv show.
If we ask all people to stop “believing in unicorns” do people lose any chance of reaching what they hope for?
Whew.
C’mon.
The unicorn is a symbol of innocence and purity.
I know all of this sounds crazy (and it even looks crazy as I type it) … but … don’t we really want more of these people in today’s world?
In fact … chinese mythology says the fact that a unicorn has not been seen in many centuries suggests that we are living in “bad” times. It will appear once again when the time is right and when goodness reigns.
So maybe the people who see unicorns are actually the hope for the rest of us. Maybe they are the ones “where goodness reigns.”
Regardless.
If it isn’t that “big” … maybe someone who sees a unicorn somehow just feels safer. And I have no right to not allow someone that right in today’s world.
Also (and … boy … coming from a realist like me … this is gonna sound really odd) … I don’t know if I can explain it, but knowing that maybe someone out there can actually see a unicorn … well … maybe in a weird way they give me hope.
Now that I have typed that … it reminds me of something else another character said …
And, I’m afraid say it out loud because maybe if life finds out it’ll try to beat it out of them and that will be a shame.
Because, we all can use a little hope sometimes, you know. That feeling that everything’s going to be okay and that there’s going to be someone there to help make sure of that.
There are people who can make you believe in things you can’t see. and I think we miss that these days.
Look.
It’s a hard time for everyone these days but it is a particularly hard time for dreamers these days.
We all tend to think of dreams as a big, fluffy cloud that is surrounded by rainbows and unicorns.
So instead of ‘unicorns & rainbows’ we tend to focus on a mission … that everything in our lives would instantly be perfect if only we could have ABC, or do XYZ.
Well.
Maybe that the mission is really the fantasy … or, at minimum, part of the problem.
Maybe all those ‘missions’ are cramming up all our space that would have held dreams. And, really, this isn’t about going after your dreams but rather dreaming … and having hope … for something good and big and … well … maybe something that isn’t always tangible but intangible that lifts the heart and spirit.
I say all of this knowing that some readers will think this is wacky … but I also hope that people realize there is no right or wrong answer.
Being in the hope business is tricky these days and, as I said earlier, it’s tough being a dreamer these days.
But.
In fact I almost wish I was in the used rainbow business. I think people would be willing to buy discount dreams and discounted rainbows. What I mean by that is people would be willing to set aside the ‘big’ dreams and maybe pick up someone else’s that have been discarded … and they still look pretty good to reality.
In the meantime … maybe I should look for some people who make wishes on rainbows and see unicorns.
Cause I know it’s not really in my personal DNA to see unicorns.
And maybe that means I am not one of the lucky ones.
Maybe we need more rainbows (used or not).
Maybe we need more people who can see unicorns.
Here is what I am absolutely sure we need.
I do know is that hope is a must.
If you don’t have it, you’ve got to find it … lapses in hope happen and are okay … but you have to find it however you must … and maybe that is why I agree with the judge in Ally McBeal … let those people have their unicorns … who am I to judge on how someone holds on to hope.
Regardless.
Ally McBeal was an odd tv show.
But several episodes are must see for everyone.
This is one.
It may just remind you that seeing unicorns isn’t as wacky as you thought it was.
manifesto book end thinking (a series of two)
Apr 4th
Ok.
This is going to be a 2 part series discussing 2 incredibly well written and often misunderstood documents. These two documents are a reflection of two of the most important and influential political theories ever created. Both documents continue to influence and provoke discussion on ideology, capitalism and government. And mostly I wanted to write about the documents because if you have ever doubted the power of the written word … and how words can impact how people think & act … read these documents and your doubt will cease to exist.
I, being me, will highlight 2 seemingly opposite manifestos in the series (hence the reason I call this idea ‘bookends’).
The 2 documents? The American Constitution and the Communist Manifesto.
Yup. They are bookends to me.
And two bookends everyone should have on their shelf. I don’t care where you live or what ideology floats your boat or what, culturally, your manifesto may be … well … manifested in. If you believe in enlightened conflict and having an enlightened point of view both documents should be at your fingertips.
And bookends because the creators thought about similar things and evolved into extremely well articulated documents. In 1843 (the communist manifesto was actually completed in 1848) Marx was a young student and more committed to a more democratic form of republicanism. Eventually evolving into what he formed as a communist for of ideology. In the 1780′s America’s founding fathers sought an environment of a combination of pluralism, socialism and democracy ultimately ending up with what America is today – a republic. They didnt trust an unfettered democracy and therefore set up a relatively unique (components had been utilized in Rome, Scotland and Latvia in years past) system of democratic checks & balances within a Republic concept.
Regardless of what your current ideology both documents are beautifully crafted, most portions remain timeless in their thinking may be two of the shortest most impactful documents of all time. Ok. The two documents I will discuss.
This first will be the constitution.
As I have stated before it is one of the most well written forward thinking “white papers” of all time. It is the standard for democratic (or people government driven) rules of the road of all time.
The second will be the Communist Manifesto.
Now. This document is maybe one of the most concise, and well written, ‘power of the everyday people’ social documents of all time. It resonates today and parts of it are … well … relevant to many topics being discussing everywhere today.
Now.
I am not going to tear apart each document but rather try and take the parts that are being discussed today and … well … be enlightening.
Plus.
I get to discuss two documents I believe everyone should read.
And I get to discuss two documents I never tire of picking up and reviewing.
Some caveats.
I am fairly sure I got all the technical aspects correct. I am absolutely sure I got my opinions correct. And more than sure there are some grammatical and typing errors.
Enjoy.
bookend 1: american constitution
Apr 4th
“We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land – nor, perhaps, the sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution.” – Daniel Webster 
Ok.
I begin the two part series with the American Constitution. With all the dizzying rhetoric wrapped around the constitution these days let’s begin with a fact.
No interpretation.
The American constitution is probably the best written, best though out, best forward thinking practical “ideological white paper” of all time.
Take a look. Read it. Maybe even reread it. The stuff <thoughts, ideas, words> that they had the foresight to build into the document is boggling to the mind if you think about it.
(this link is to the transcript but it also has images of the original document: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html )
Anyway.
I began writing about the constitution because it is being so misused and abused by politicians it is making Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hancock and any forefather you want to name , who actually participated in the tea party, turn over in their grave.
And how it is being discussed (tearing it apart word by word) is frightening … because … well … while the writers were extremely thoughtful with regard to individual words <incredibly so> the document was written with the intent to be taken in its entirety.
As the sum of its parts.
Plus.
I let the people on the Supreme Court figure out any nuances … they get paid the big bucks and, frankly, they have bigger brains. They were given a job and similar to the guy who was given the job to supervise the jack hammer construction workers, who I assume knows jack hammers better than I ever could, they have better skills at their job than I would.
Ok.
With that rant being aired out let me take a minute and share some information about the Constitution.
We the People.
What an opening.
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, inure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And with that opening I interpret some personal responsibility. “Personal” being you & I. And a responsibility to know the Constitution.
Research continues to show that the vast majority of Americans cherish the U.S. Constitution … but do not know much about it. if this isn’t an example of “choiceful ignorance” I don’t know what it. Why do I say that?
The same research indicates that most of us believe that the health of our Constitutional democracy depends on active and informed citizenry.
some facts from a survey done by the National Constitution center:
- 91% of Americans believe that the U.S. Constitution is important to them
- 84% believe that to work as intended, our system of government depends on active and informed citizens
But.
- More than half of Americans don’t know the number of Senators <100 senators … 2 from each of the 50 states regardless of population … and as a bonus … The House of Representatives has 435 members … I think>
- About 1 out of 3 don’t know the number of branches of the Federal Government <ok. I admit. I am embarrassed to say that I didn’t know this off the top of my head … there are three branches of government: The Executive Branch, The Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The Legislative Branch is Congress, Senate & House of Representatives, making laws. The Executive branch executes the laws made by the Legislative. Think the president as the Executive Branch. The Judicial branch big kahuna is the Supreme Court which is made up of nine justices. Each branch functions as a checks & balance for the system. Basically, the Legislative branch creates laws, the Judicial Branch interprets laws, and the Executive branch executes laws>
- 1 out of 6 believe that the Constitution establishes America as a Christian nation <not even close … freedom of religion, including islam, was encouraged and a number of documents from the founding fathers – Washington, Jefferson, Adams – support this belief>
- 20% believe that only lawyers can understand the Constitution <interpret portions maybe … but it is one of the most straightforward documents you will ever read>
- Almost one-quarter cannot name a single right guaranteed to us by the First Amendment <freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly & petition of grievances … I usually miss press, assembly and grievances>
- 84% believe that the U.S. Constitution is the document that states that “all men are created equal” <that is the Declaration of Independence>.
Next.
When asked to describe in their own words what the U.S. Constitution means to them, Americans refer to the Constitution as the bedrock upon which our society and laws are based.
Q.: What Does The U.S. Constitution Mean To You?
- Freedom (34%)
- Basis of our rights (20%)
- Our system of laws (11%)
- Established this country (7%)
- Established our government
- Determines our quality of life (3%)
- Everything (3%)
Yet, more than three quarters (83%) admit that they know only “some” or “very little” about the specifics of the document.
Ok.
So more people need to pay attention to the Constitution.
Reading & interpreting it.
People can generally agree on what the words of the Constitution says. Typically we struggle with interpretation.
Generally speaking, there are two main ways in which court justices, judges, and legal analysts interpret laws and constitutions:
- As living documents that evolve as the culture changes
- As fixed documents whose meaning never changes from the time that they were written until now.
Simplistically most who lean toward a more liberal perspective tend to think of it as a living document and a more conservative perspective thinks of it as a fixed document <note: that is a generalization>.
But I say that to help highlight why so much heated discussion takes place over a variety of issues important to America … and how the constitution is being used, and abused, to further people’s initiatives.
Anyway. If you are interested … there is an excellent paper written by Yale Law Review called “How To Interpret the Constitution (and How Not To) by Michael Stokes Paulsen which provides an excellent perspective with sources, of course, to aim you toward more reading if you would like. (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-8/Paulsen.pdf)
It is interesting to note that he suggests the best book of all time explaining the constitution is actually The Federalist written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. I say interesting because it was written so long ago and yet a contemporary Yale Law Journal contributor believes it to be so.
Ok, moving on.
States, federal & balance
It seems one of the wackiest discussions happening today centers on federal government (or how big and what role it should play).
And the popular rhetoric surrounds states and state’s rights.
Ok. Let’s be clear. I am not a big government guy.
Nor am I a state’s guy.
I am a balance guy. And a guy who believes the balance today will be different from the balance tomorrow.
And actually our forefathers were also <I am not suggesting I am as smart as any of our forefathers>.
Let me discuss “states’ rights” first (then how politicians abuse this issue … how we permit them to abuse it … and then the whole ‘rights of individuals themselves’).
Ok. What about states’ rights. It is the hot topic du jour.
Many people suggest that The Tenth Amendment limits Congress to those areas in which the Constitution explicitly empowers it to act. And all other responsibility resides with the states.
But … well … no. <sorry … couldn’t figure out how else to say it>
The Constitution was actually written to provide balance (10th amendment included).
And the flexibility to provide different balance depending on different situations.
And it also has a variety of checks & balances with it (think of the Supreme Court decision making as the ultimate decision maker on balance).
All that said let’s take a minute to look at how balance between the Federal government and states is organized in the Constitution. The issue of states’ rights was very important to a key author of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson. He was the main arguer for the amendments we know as ‘The Bill of Rights’ where the ‘Tenth Amendment’ strikes a crucial balance between State and Federal power.
- Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People – Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In addition, the powers of the Federal government were limited by design see ‘Section 8 Powers of Congress.’ The Federal government was intended to be the glue to hold the states into a nation.
The Federal government responsibilities?
According to the Constitution the Federal government should only handle things that must go into and between the state and national borders. Settle disputes between states, provide a unified defense, foreign and trade policy. War, immigration, postal system, currency and banking.
Oh. And the “biggie” … “promote the general Welfare.”
All other powers are reserved to the States or to the people.
Ok.
And before we start saying things like “the constitution suggests the government shouldn’t be in the business business (like car manufacturers).
Wrong.
In fact early forefather type governments recognized the government HAD to helps support some businesses until they got on their feet. Thankfully it was that attitude, and actions, that made America the global economic power that it is today.
Anyway.
States and people.
We the people.
Clearly stated. Clearly defined.
States are always stated as “United States” in some document we like to call the Constitution. Oh. And the constitution replaced the articles of confederation (which was basically a states driven government constitution) to strengthen a federal government to balance the states’ rights.
So.
Here’s the deal (number 1): States.
States. States have rights as long as the individual parts strengthen the whole (the United States).
Federal. The federal government has rights as long as it strengthens the whole (the United States).
And they have the ability to step in when they see individual parts harming, or weakening, the whole. Individual parts may not like that and they may shout and stamp their feet and have a temper tantrum but someone (the federal government) has to look at the bigger picture.
Sorry. That’s the <American> gig.
If you don’t like that … well …
Here’s the deal (part 2): politicians (elected officials)
Politicians need to step up to the plate. Because here is where our selected politicians are failing us. They are elected to balance our individual needs (their direct constituents) and the wholes needs (the USA). That means sometimes they need to tell the truth to their local constituents (the ones who voted them in).
Yeah. Something like “wow. It would be good for us but in the scheme of things what would be good for us may not represent the best for the whole (the USA). “
Whew. That doesn’t get you reelected (because it is not selfish enough).
But it is telling the truth.
Ok. Where am I going with this?
Here’s the deal (part 3): Us
We the people. Us. You and I. Because in the end it comes down to us. Seeking the truth and accepting the truth. We the people are not “I the people.”
“The people make the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will.”
John Marshall, Chief Justice of The Supreme Court
Do we care what happens to us as individuals? Surely. As we live eat and breathe.
Do we need to weigh government <national> decisions as we versus I? Surely <as much as it may pain us to do so sometimes>.
We need to remember that ‘We the people’ is the United States. And despite any despicable behavior of elected constituents we need to take responsibility for their behavior.
And seek to encourage the behavior that reflect honesty so we can truly judge what is best not just for I but for we (no matter how painful that may be).
And today more than ever this is truth because we are making important budget decisions that are inevitably going to hurt somewhere at a local level (it would be naïve to suggest budget cuts are cutting ‘big government’ and that isn’t really ‘local jobs/business’).
But truth be told … the decisions will hurt at a minority of the local level.
And these budget decisions help the whole.
Let me go back to the ‘does this hurt a minority’? Yup.
It is really easy to look at things that hurt your own wallet. And your own house. And your own family. And are you wrong? Well. No. And yes.
No in that your first consideration should be your own family and your own immediate needs.
Yes in that there is a bigger picture.
And what may hurt you today (and your family) may actually be okay in the end (several years from now).
And I imagine the reason I wrote about the constitution is that I believe not only has the everyday person (you & i) lost sight of what it meant when it was written but I also believe the politicians have lost sight of why we elect them.
We elect them to not only represent our personal needs but also to explain to us the greater needs. And this is maybe where we fail them.
Because all we seem to focus on is “me” (or I depending on your grammatical preference).
Because, frankly, what is an elected official to do? Tell us the truth or rather fight to do something to benefit us (even if it is not in the nest interest of “us” – we the people.).
And that is where they sometimes elect to bastardize the constitution.
They play us (and shame on us for permitting that to happen).
They play the ‘rights of the state’ card versus the federal government point of view card.
Look.
There is no “pick one side or the other.” It’s balance.
And the politicians who stand up and thump their chests and create some diatribe on one or the other is screwing with you.
It’s balance.
Sometimes the state carries the day and benefits what you need (and is right for the bigger picture). Sometime the federal government sees the bigger picture and it hurts people locally but is really good for the bigger picture.
So we , the people, need to get our heads out of our asses and see the bigger picture and quit shoving something up our local representations ass trying to get something done (so he/she gets re-elected) and let them do what they were elected to do.
And that is what our forefathers desired … fair state representation, all the time, keeping the USA in mind (the bigger picture) … all the time.
Ok.
Another thing (as we read the constitution).
Democracy, Republic, Socalism & Pluralism
We seem to forget some things.
We are a republic … not a democracy.
In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections. Thus, the United States is a republic, not a democracy.
Yup. Our form of government is called a Republic, not a Democracy where a majority rules. Here is a factoid for you.
The Founding fathers kind of disliked the idea of a pure democracy.
Thus they set up a system of limited government that was a federation of states.
In addition.
We need to remember that the Constitution was not written to protect the principles of the majority. James Madison, key writer of the Constitution, understood that in a democratic republic the rights of the majority need no such protection. In fact Madison and his fellow founding fathers believed that the greatest threat to American liberty would be the tyranny of a majority – a tyranny in which “the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker.”
Think about this.
Because it is tricky.
Make sure the majority has the ability to live life to its fullest and yet insure the majority doesn’t ‘oppress the weak’ … oh … and not be a socialist or communist system.
It becomes easy to see how those who opine actually have something to opine about.
All that said.
The constitution is a brilliant document.
And it is brilliantly crafted to enable balance.
And it implies a governing with a lack of selfishness in mind.
Governing with a greater good in mind.
Because the constitution, whether states’ rights believers or federal government believers, clearly has America’s greater good in mind.
Read it.
Interpret it. Discuss it. And hold elected officials accountable to truth.
Ok.
That said.
On to the next post and the next document (and the last in this series).
The next document doesn’t have a country in mind as the ‘greater good.’ It goes completely to the other end of the spectrum and focuses almost solely on a completely different interpretation of ‘we the people.’ It focuses solely on the greater good of people almost in a ‘global community’ frame of reference as nation boundaries
The Communist Manifesto.
Yup.
Speaking of people driven rules of the road you would have to be silly to ignore the communist manifesto. Ignore all the trappings of “communist” and focus on the words.
It represents words of the people.
And it resonates as well today as did it then.
bookend 2: manifesto of the communist party
Apr 4th
This is the last of my “manifesto” series.
But it was maybe the first that I thought about. Because as I watch the news and see the pictures in Egypt and Sudan and the middle east <and everything else associated with a populace driven revolution> I thought about the manifesto of the communist party (more commonly known as The Communist Manifesto).
Now. I am not a communist. But all the things happening in the streets of … well … pretty much every city these days started thinking about the power of the common everyday people.
Or ‘every day people unite’ (which is actually the close to the manifesto).
So I plucked my copy of the manifesto off my shelf and reread it.
If you have never read it this comment may seem daunting. But The Communist Manifesto is only 53 pages long.
Less if you skip the Communist Literature section (which was outdated almost at first publishing).
It is an astonishing little read.
And it is also astonishing to think it was written by a 30 and 28 year old (Marx and Engel respectively). It is an amazingly concentrated brief document written with an intellectual stylishly personal perspective.
From its opening “a spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism” to the closing of “the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” the pamphlet is full of simplicity which still rings true today.
There are a couple of “truths” to think about before I get to the Manifesto.
- Truth 1. Communism is better as a theoretical model then as a day to day reality.
- Truth 2. Today’s world actually has nothing to do with the working class/common people … it is actually an uprising of the middle class who is losing what they had.
- Truth 3. Some of the building block thoughts and components of the Communist Manifesto are insightful and truthful and when looked at with vision explain much of what we see around us in today’s world.
Interestingly … in a truly academic point of view … if you look at today’s world … socialism is more a middle class movement and communism a working class movement.
And socialism <or at least aspects of it to those who truly understand what it is> has always been quasi-respectable and communism not.
Marx suggested that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. Communism therefore is the same as that of all proletariat (working class) parties – formation of the workers into a class and ultimately the overthrow of the bourgeois (wealthy elite) supremacy. Therefore … communism is not based on ideas or principles but rather the rights of a “working class” of people.
Gosh.
When I type something like that … and think about today … well … it sure does make you think.
Anyway.
The Manifesto.
- Note: where appropriate I substituted worker/worker class for proletariat and wealthy elite for bourgeoisie.
Capitalism leads to exploitation. The wealthy elite has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage laborers. It has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. – Manifesto
- Capitalism does lead to exploitation. However … capitalism also leads to innovation, improvement, increased standard of living as well as a variety of other positives. If I could have sat good ole Karl down I believe I would have suggested an additional word – “unfettered.” Unfettered (or un-managed) capitalism leads to exploitation. But. I am not as smart as Karl so I think I will leave it as is and suggest this is one of the few flaws in the Communist Manifesto. A big flaw but one of the few.
“The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the working class; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests” – Manifesto
- “They defend their future interests.” Oh my. I believe something we tend to forget is that democracy and communism are both class based ideologies. And both are based on protecting the majority classes. I am not suggesting they are the same just have some basic ideological similarities. If you accept that, you can read the Communist Manifesto not as a communist but rather as someone interested in everyone getting a fair shake.
“soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of wealthy elite society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. – Manifesto
- This is Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction. Schumpeter was not a Marxist, communist nor a Capitalist. He was simply an economist who believed that <simplistically> the new will destroy the old as it evolved into a better place. That destructive crises naturally occurred as a way to replace that which is with what will be.
“In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.” – Manifesto
- Basically Marx outlines a global economy, nation’s interdependent upon each other, as well as intellectual collaboration, before there was ever the world wide web. Go figure.
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. – Manifesto
- Marx did a nice job of providing historical reference for classes and, ultimately, class conflict. Civilization is almost always defined by the struggle between have and have-nots. And the belief by the have nots, realistic or not, that someday they can become a ‘have.’ That being said one of the major flaws in the Communist theory is that it overlooks this basic human attitude (leading to behavior). Have-nots or Have-somes are just fine with the Haves as long as they believe (a) opportunity exists, if they work hard enough, to enter into the Have group and (b) the Haves don’t have disproportionate wealth versus the Have-nots. People inherently like working toward something … even if it is just a dream. Marx designed a utopian ideology where all are equal. In theory it is an interesting concept. In practicality the majority of people don’t desire that.
Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. – Manifesto
- This is interesting to me because ultimately the concept of Communism is dependent upon a society bereft of a real & viable middle class. Just when communism could have taken hold worldwide capitalism permitted the working class to evolve into a viable thriving middle class. Today? The middle class feels threatened … as it is getting dragged down closer & closer to “proletariat” level. Therefore it is revolting (Occupy movement, Red Square protesters, Middle East upheaval, etc.)
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes.” – Manifesto
- While components of this are dead on … where Marx/Engel got it wrong was that the development of industry actually increased the strength of the middle class. That doesn’t make this thinking any less thoughtful, or brilliant. That last sentence … makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes … summarizes exactly what is happening today.
“In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced …” – Manifesto
- Marx recognized the emerging middle class it is just that he never envisioned it gaining such a stronghold in developed societies. But, once again, I would like to point out that those who “had” <once part of the ‘haves’> start the slippery slope of having to ‘not have’ <note: just by ‘not having’ does not mean you become a “have not”> they begin to feel supplementary rather than essential. I imagine my real point here is that the economic situation is almost as much about attitudes as it is about real economic issues.
“Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”- Manifesto
- Well. if there was ever a better written indictment against elitist driven governments I am not sure I have ever read one. The problem with any government in any country is the ability to do what is best for each constituent as well as the whole of the constituents. Unless there is a dictatorship the happiness <derived from some aspect of ‘what is best for me’> of the population dictates the overall success of not only the government but of the nation as a whole. Governments have to be careful they do not become a class in itself.
Ok.
I included this next portion not to really make any point other than many of us have a sense of the underpinnings of communism but they are typically tainted by our view of Communist Soviet Union. Marx/Engel had a vision. A complete vision. And while we may shiver at some aspects (those of us in a social democracy like America) there are other aspects which reflect the fact that Communism was viable on a number of levels:
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
- Once again I say that aspects are too theoretical … and frightening to suggest that such power resides solely within “centralization” … and it is probably within that main flaw that communism was so wrongly implemented … but .. education, public transportation, equal opportunity employment, etc. All are aspects of which create a worthy society and economy. And, once again, I state that this little pamphlet, only 50+ pages, outline an entire ideology and economic and societal state. Pretty amazing stuff.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.
From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property.
- Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … the popular American 1%/99% nomenclature of today … only stated at “the 10% at the expense of the 90%.”
So.
I just selected some passages from this incredibly well written pamphlet. Do I agree with everything in it? Absolutely not. But as far as ideological writing it is on par with the Constitution. Well articulated thoughts conducted in absolute brevity.
And.
One last thought.
“In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.” – Marx
In fairness to Marx, and in deference to the fact I call my site enlightened conflict always seeking to lessen hostility <or conflict> … Marx’s ultimate objective was ‘hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”
So ends my reflection on two of the best written ideological documents of all time. Heck. Two of the best written documents, of any type, of all time.
In this post the Communist Manifesto and the one before the American Constitution.
Depending on where you live you will … well … live by some of these words.
But. Wherever you live you should read these two documents and think.
