What's a Thinker to Do?

Based on the comments on my last post, most of the thinkers I know are disheartened by how much easier it is for the dumb but emotionally manipulative stories to gain traction than any amount of rational logical thought.

Experience argues they're right.

So, what's a thinker to do?

It would be nice to say, well, I can try to help people by educating them, encouraging people to think critically, to use their minds and discourage them to follow anyone blindly. And I will do that, even though I know that the ones most likely to listen don't really need me to tell them to think critically. Chances are, if they weren't the sort who did that, they wouldn't be frequenting my blog anyway.

The misinformation crowd has more outlets and more money, have people on staff who are experts in emotional manipulation. My reason and logic are drops in the bucket. Aren't they?

Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.
-Mahatma Gandhi

But then I think back to history and I find some hope. Not comfort, per se, but a light at the end of the tunnel, because those that do bad things, those that convince others to do the wrong thing with their emotional appeals and charisma - their reigns are short (even if the damage is acute). What's more, what's left behind after the smoke clears is smarter and less gullible. Freedoms, once provided, are there for the duration. Not so the oppression.

If there was no hope, we wouldn't understand the significance of Gandhi and King because they wouldn't have made a difference - but they did make a difference. It cost them, but they were successful without compromising their principles. It can happen.

In my opinion, this last (US presidential) election sends this same message. However one feels about the ideology of the two candidates last year, in many ways it was a battle between emotionalism and reason, negativity and hope, fear and hatred vs. compassion. And reason won. Whether Obama can follow through or not remains to be seen. That he's trying is encouraging for folks like me, even if some of what he's fighting involve the politics as usual from dems as much as republicans.

Admittedly, much of the reason we had a small victory is a direct result of who came before and the lessons we learned from that. But we learned. People can learn.

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always.
-Mahatma Gandhi

If you look at society today, for all it's problems, can compare it to the intolerance and disparity of times gone by, the religious persecution and selective freedoms, the opportunities for all, including minorities, the world is a better place.

If we didn't learn, if we couldn't learn, all of us, it wouldn't be.

It's not perfect. We've more growing and learning to do. We may never reach our potential...but we're closer to it than we used to be. That ought to mean something.

If we don't have as many scientists as we should, we have more than we used to. If we don't have as many deep thinkers as we should, we have more than we once did. Education is more widespread in this age than it ever has been before.

Truth alone will endure; all the rest will be swept away before the tide of time.
-Mahatma Gandhi

So, I'll stay here in my quiet corner, preaching to the choir, pointing out the nonsense when I see it, telling people my reasoning when I have it. I won't be silent. I won't be part of the problem.

If, over time, just a few minds open a little more, think a little harder as a result, the world is better off.

I won't believe it's hopeless. People are flawed, but I think they're mostly good, they want happiness for themselves and others. They can be misled, but not indefinitely.

Perhaps I'm wrong. But, if I am, I can't do anything to stop it. And if I'm right, I'm doing the best I can.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-Mahatma Gandhi

Read more...

Interpreting the Constitution

There are any number of legal and historical professionals that have devoted themselves to interpretation of the Constitution, what it's limits are, what the intents were. I'm not one, so I won't.

But I will say we should be cautious about how we react to the wording and what we ascribe to the intent. The right to bear a flintlock in a world where much of the population has wolves, bears and (justifiably) angry natives outside the door, where people had to surreptiously gather weaponry against an oppressor a couple of decades previously is not the same as having a few Uzis in the hall closet and Howitzer on the front lawn. There's no sense predicting what the founding fathers would have said; I doubt such a future complete with C4 and drive-by shootings were ever envisioned by our founding fathers.

That the Constitution has stood up so well with only a handful of amendments is praise indeed. That it foresaw the potential failings of a government with checks and balances was notable (but hardly ground-breaking).

But the matter of armament is not the only way the world has changed and we should be careful when we put absolute faith in the predictive powers of those same forefathers. Take for instance the matter of state's rights (for those of you who think this was settled in 1865, believe me, there are many still out there).

There can be no doubt, looking historically, that this country was originally forged by thirteen separate and disparate colonies who intended not to lose their individuality while banding together. They insisted on final say before the agreement was changed and reserved to themselves those rights they had not provided the federal government.

Many think we've moved too far in allowing the federal government power, given this clear intent. I do not. Why?

Because this isn't the same world that forged that original agreement. In that world, they were all but different countries, different banks and currency, different industries, different backgrounds. They were largely focused on their own business, their own news, their own little worlds. Travel from one state to the next might take days. Communication was very limited. The wonder wasn't the original focus on states, but rather that the farseeing notions like a US Postal Service were implemented.

In today's world, states are completely different beasties. Life in Virginia isn't notably different than it is in New York, with the differences between rural and urban locales (of the same state) more pronounced than state to state. In larger states, the differences in climate and environment vary more than it does through most of the original thirteen colonies (like, say, Texas). Communication is instantaneous not just within the country but all over the world. Depending on the size of the state, one could drive through half a dozen in one day and one can fly from anywhere in the country to anywhere else easily in one day.

People are far less likely to be born and die in the same locale than they were then. Then, having a state deal with education and health and crime made sense. Now criminals can cut a swathe through many states and children of mobile parents might get spotty educations vastly different from one area to the next.

And many federal agencies were not specifically sanctioned by the Constitution, but truthfully couldn't be done any other way: FAA, NASA, NOAA... We're a world now in borders mean less and less.

And we have a choice, I think, to keep building on the strengths of the foundation, using the model they gave us as an inspiration but not a boundary, or to limit ourselves to an outlook that was remarkable in a much smaller world but is dated and restrictive in a world like ours.

In my opinion.

Read more...