It is my sincere belief that everything, and I do mean everything, is interconnected. I have come to the conclusion that whatever I do, even if I do nothing, it will affect the way the world is, even if it is a very small affect. Still, I think people underestimate the importance of the small things in life. One of my favorite quotes from Gandhi was "It is always the small things that catch your breath." Looking at my life, I can see the wisdom of his statement. There may be a few major things that have affected me, but more often it is the accumulation of small experiences that build into something more. I have hundreds of memories of small things that people did which have had an incredible impact on me and my thinking. I remember someone making this statement expressing sadness over a relative's actions, "The greatest sin is to intentionally hurt someone else." Now, if I was to venture a guess, the person who said this probably completely forgets saying it, and doesn't realize the incredible impact it has had on me. There have also been a few times in my past when I have been walking around, feeling kind of down for whatever reason, and someone I am walking by smiles at me. It is amazing how such a simple act can raise my spirits. I doubt they would remember smiling at a stranger, but I certainly remember their kindness. In fact, these small acts have had a lasting impact on who I am.
If I universalize this principle (i.e. assume that people would react the same way I do when confronted with similar circumstances), then I am struck by the impact that the smallest action can have one others. Doing small, seemingly unimportant things may not give one the sense of accomplishment or appear on the surface to be important , but I think they are actually more important than the large things we do in life. It is, of course, wonderful to make a point of doing something good for others, like volunteering or giving a donation... but I put more stock in how people act towards others on a daily basis. That is a much more effective way to improve the world, since it is, afterall, becoming the change you wish to see. So, don't underestimate the impact your smallest actions can have on the lives of others. I remember one part of the 6th book of Harry Potter, where Dumbledore was trying to explain to Harry why he had the choice to fight Voldemort or not. He was saying that despite the prophecy, it was always his choice. Harry likened it to having the choice between being dragged into a gladiatorial arena to fight, or walking with your head high into the arena. Many people would not believe there was much difference, and that there was no real choice since you have to fight whoever or whatever is in that arena. But, there is a choice. We have a choice about how we confront the obstacles life throws at us, and how we chose to deal with them does, in Harry's words "make all the difference."
I have also noticed that small things have a way of coming back to you. Since they can have such a large impact on others, they can reverberate through social networks like a wave. Making people feel better makes them more likely to make others feel better, and that makes others more likely to make others feel better... which means that you will inevitably be hit by successive waves of small things that make you feel good if you do good things. Of course, anger and hatred work the same way. Being mean to someone can reverberate through the community just as easily, and come back to bite you. Atleast, that has been my experience, and the findings of my countless observations of those around me.
This brings me back to everything being interconnected. It is an inescapable and omnipresent fact of reality... atleast reality as I have observed it. This is not only true of our actions, but our ideas and mindset are just as interconnected. That is one reason that I am not especially fond of single-issue advocacy groups. Social problems are all connected, you can't fight poverty without fighting environmental destruction. You can't fight for democracy without fighting to stop racism, sexism, and other prejudices. You can't fight for peace without fighting for democracy. And so on and so forth.
My excessive amounts of contemplation on these theoretical issues have provided some practical value. I not longer take it for granted that what I do does not matter, and I have tried to become constantly conscious of how my actions can impact others.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The Left and Religion
For anyone who is wondering why the right has come to dominate politics, i would suggest you read "The Left Hand of God" by Rabbi Michael Lerner.
The main point of his book is that the left is failing to appeal to the spiritual needs of the American people. By spiritual needs, I mean people's need to be part of a support community where they are valued for who they are and where they can escape from the often soul-crushing workplace that capitalism has created. Spiritual needs also encompass people's desire to have a meaning in their life, a purpose that they can turn to when they are despairing about the horrors of the world. Unfortunately for the left, the Religious Right has managed to monopolize the political landscape when it comes to appealing to these needs. Of course the left has not helped itself, being anti-religious and demeaning to toward the American public. Having an aversion to religion is destroying the left. And there is no reason for it. Over half the Bible is about poverty and there is no reason why the left should not start appealing to people's moral and religiousness when it comes to fighting for social justice. Religion need not be oppressive, as so many people find it to be. It is just another institution in our society that the left has lost its influence over.
In fact, it seems that the left has been unable to even admit to itself that most of its members are indeed motivated by loving, caring, generosity, and other values that are spiritually based. No, they delude themselves into believing their altruistic and spiritual tendencies exist because they are simply in their own self-interest. I am guilty of this myself, looking for my own self-interest in my altruistic nature. If we put ourselves out there and stopped trying to rationalize our motivations as self-interest, we would probably see a massive upsurge in the left.
I hope one day the left will stop being so anti-religious. Certainly religion has been used to do alot of evil in this world... but so has every other belief system. The left itself has its Stalins and Maos who murdered and corrupted society. But, those atrocities are not representative of the average person who is a member of that belief system. Most people are inherently good, intelligent and human. To assume that one group of people is stupid, evil, or somehow less than equal to oneself is a VERY slippery slope, and will only bring woe and contempt. I always seem to find myself trying to convince people of that. They tell me I am not realistic. Well, I think I am the one who is being realistic. It is unrealistic to think people are not inherently good. For one thing, you will always end up alienating them if you see them that way. On the other hand, if you believe people to be good, then they will often (not always, but often) try to live up to that belief. It is both morally right and practical to see people as inherently good. And, this extend to the institutions they are a part of. Certainly those institutions can be used for ill. But, at their core, there is good. We must search for and embrace that goodness. There is no reason why the left should continue to be anti-religious... it is a stereotyping that has similar negative social consequences to racism and sexism (although currently less severe than those).
I say this with full knowledge that some people may be religious themselves, but find evangelicalism to be offensive. I encourage such individuals to purge those feelings, because if you get to know evangelicals you will find that prejudice against them is socially and personally destructive.
The main point of his book is that the left is failing to appeal to the spiritual needs of the American people. By spiritual needs, I mean people's need to be part of a support community where they are valued for who they are and where they can escape from the often soul-crushing workplace that capitalism has created. Spiritual needs also encompass people's desire to have a meaning in their life, a purpose that they can turn to when they are despairing about the horrors of the world. Unfortunately for the left, the Religious Right has managed to monopolize the political landscape when it comes to appealing to these needs. Of course the left has not helped itself, being anti-religious and demeaning to toward the American public. Having an aversion to religion is destroying the left. And there is no reason for it. Over half the Bible is about poverty and there is no reason why the left should not start appealing to people's moral and religiousness when it comes to fighting for social justice. Religion need not be oppressive, as so many people find it to be. It is just another institution in our society that the left has lost its influence over.
In fact, it seems that the left has been unable to even admit to itself that most of its members are indeed motivated by loving, caring, generosity, and other values that are spiritually based. No, they delude themselves into believing their altruistic and spiritual tendencies exist because they are simply in their own self-interest. I am guilty of this myself, looking for my own self-interest in my altruistic nature. If we put ourselves out there and stopped trying to rationalize our motivations as self-interest, we would probably see a massive upsurge in the left.
I hope one day the left will stop being so anti-religious. Certainly religion has been used to do alot of evil in this world... but so has every other belief system. The left itself has its Stalins and Maos who murdered and corrupted society. But, those atrocities are not representative of the average person who is a member of that belief system. Most people are inherently good, intelligent and human. To assume that one group of people is stupid, evil, or somehow less than equal to oneself is a VERY slippery slope, and will only bring woe and contempt. I always seem to find myself trying to convince people of that. They tell me I am not realistic. Well, I think I am the one who is being realistic. It is unrealistic to think people are not inherently good. For one thing, you will always end up alienating them if you see them that way. On the other hand, if you believe people to be good, then they will often (not always, but often) try to live up to that belief. It is both morally right and practical to see people as inherently good. And, this extend to the institutions they are a part of. Certainly those institutions can be used for ill. But, at their core, there is good. We must search for and embrace that goodness. There is no reason why the left should continue to be anti-religious... it is a stereotyping that has similar negative social consequences to racism and sexism (although currently less severe than those).
I say this with full knowledge that some people may be religious themselves, but find evangelicalism to be offensive. I encourage such individuals to purge those feelings, because if you get to know evangelicals you will find that prejudice against them is socially and personally destructive.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Iowa Caucus Aftermath
The iowa caucus turned out exactly the way I wanted it to. Obama won by a large margin, and Edwards came in second. I hope things go well in New Hampshire. I have a good feeling about this race, I think Obama can go all the way, and I think it is his style of politics that is driving the large democratic turn-out (that and the fact that everyone is upset about the direction Bush has taken the country). But Obama is giving them an outlet for that feeling of frustration, and giving them a meaningful vision that they can believe in. Overall, I am very skeptical of politicians, and their ability to affect change (even well-meaning ones), but Obama has sparked hope in me.
I think part of his appeal is that he addresses what Rabbi Michael Lerner called "the meaning needs." The right has been very adept at appealing to the American people's search for meaning. The religious right has essentially monopolized talking in moral terms and appealing to people's spiritual needs, and the left has been left politically castrated. Atleast, until Obama. His rhetoric and style do appeal to the meaning needs of people. His concentration on hope and unity are very inspiring, and if he can walk the walk as president, I believe he would go down as one of the great presidents. IF he can walk the walk.
Still, it is very inspiring to see an organized and enthusiastic youth movement backing him. WE HAD THE SAME TURNOUT AS SENIORS IN IOWA!!!! How awesome is that. We equalled the numbers of the age group that always has the most turnout. Take that establishment, and chew on it for awhile. The youth are starting to find their political voice, and we will no longer be known as the silent generation. Like our forefathers in the 60s, who were too once know as the silent generation, we are going to stir things up and try to achieve lasting positive change. And Obama could be a huge part of that. It always helps to have a sympathetic person in power.
I am certainly excited to see how the democratic primary will turn out. If Obama receives th nomination, I have no doubt he will win. I have alot of conservative friends who like him enough to vote for him. It is also interesting to see a republican field that resembles the democratic field of 04. There is really no one there that people like. In 2004 I didnt really like anyone but Kucinich. And now so many people are saying they dont like anyone except Ron Paul, the republican equivalent of Kucinich. It is almost like a party will put forward a weak field for elections they do not think they can will. And, of course, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They tend to lose when they put forth a bad field.
It is an exciting time to be politically involved, let me tell you.
I think part of his appeal is that he addresses what Rabbi Michael Lerner called "the meaning needs." The right has been very adept at appealing to the American people's search for meaning. The religious right has essentially monopolized talking in moral terms and appealing to people's spiritual needs, and the left has been left politically castrated. Atleast, until Obama. His rhetoric and style do appeal to the meaning needs of people. His concentration on hope and unity are very inspiring, and if he can walk the walk as president, I believe he would go down as one of the great presidents. IF he can walk the walk.
Still, it is very inspiring to see an organized and enthusiastic youth movement backing him. WE HAD THE SAME TURNOUT AS SENIORS IN IOWA!!!! How awesome is that. We equalled the numbers of the age group that always has the most turnout. Take that establishment, and chew on it for awhile. The youth are starting to find their political voice, and we will no longer be known as the silent generation. Like our forefathers in the 60s, who were too once know as the silent generation, we are going to stir things up and try to achieve lasting positive change. And Obama could be a huge part of that. It always helps to have a sympathetic person in power.
I am certainly excited to see how the democratic primary will turn out. If Obama receives th nomination, I have no doubt he will win. I have alot of conservative friends who like him enough to vote for him. It is also interesting to see a republican field that resembles the democratic field of 04. There is really no one there that people like. In 2004 I didnt really like anyone but Kucinich. And now so many people are saying they dont like anyone except Ron Paul, the republican equivalent of Kucinich. It is almost like a party will put forward a weak field for elections they do not think they can will. And, of course, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They tend to lose when they put forth a bad field.
It is an exciting time to be politically involved, let me tell you.
Monday, December 31, 2007
A Better Way of Electing a President
I have been thinking more about the election process. All the spending on ads seems wasteful to me, even if it is educating the public about the candidates. It seems more important for a candidate to create the impression of being able to be a good president than for them to actually be a good president. It is really similar to the "branding" process that companies use to get people to buy their products. They create an aura of goodness around their product, which (so I have heard) has more of an impact on sales than the quality of the product. Now, I tend to think this is a problem, and not a good way for our society to choose its leaders.
The real question is, what kind of system would work better than this one? Well, giving the discourse over picking candidates more of a direction would help. Something more substantial than those CNN debates, which seem more about talking points than debating the issues and trying to find practical solutions to the problems our society is facing. In fact, I think our leaders should have to prove their organizational and leadership abilities with more than their past. We could create a system of rites that the candidates have to complete to be eligible for the post. These rites would be designed to themselves strengthen our country and make things better. So, it would be a win-win... instead of deciding who rules us based on talking points, we would judge it based on their actions and effectiveness. Plus, all that campaign money would be siphoned into making our country better. The news agencies would be required to give equal coverage to all the candidate's activities, so they need not worry about advertising for their campaigns. They might need to advertise for the rites though, so that could be problematic.
Here are a few ideas i came up with while brainstorming. A "rite of development" which would be trying to improve a economically depressed town. A "rite of peace" which would be traveling to an opponent nation to try to increase ties. A "rite of poverty" which would require the candidate to fully live in poverty for a month. A "rite of leadership" which would involve coordinating a group of people to solve a problem. And you can design rites to address some of the major problems of the day, like the environment and inequality.
I think this would generally be a better way of judging the worth of a presidential candidate.
Well, with this and the last post, I think I am back up to the 1 post a week average.
The real question is, what kind of system would work better than this one? Well, giving the discourse over picking candidates more of a direction would help. Something more substantial than those CNN debates, which seem more about talking points than debating the issues and trying to find practical solutions to the problems our society is facing. In fact, I think our leaders should have to prove their organizational and leadership abilities with more than their past. We could create a system of rites that the candidates have to complete to be eligible for the post. These rites would be designed to themselves strengthen our country and make things better. So, it would be a win-win... instead of deciding who rules us based on talking points, we would judge it based on their actions and effectiveness. Plus, all that campaign money would be siphoned into making our country better. The news agencies would be required to give equal coverage to all the candidate's activities, so they need not worry about advertising for their campaigns. They might need to advertise for the rites though, so that could be problematic.
Here are a few ideas i came up with while brainstorming. A "rite of development" which would be trying to improve a economically depressed town. A "rite of peace" which would be traveling to an opponent nation to try to increase ties. A "rite of poverty" which would require the candidate to fully live in poverty for a month. A "rite of leadership" which would involve coordinating a group of people to solve a problem. And you can design rites to address some of the major problems of the day, like the environment and inequality.
I think this would generally be a better way of judging the worth of a presidential candidate.
Well, with this and the last post, I think I am back up to the 1 post a week average.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Protesting Attire
I will try to post a couple times in the next week to keep my average at around 1 a week. I cant let bucky show me up with his posting rate.
I was surfing the internet and found a cool experiment that a couple of people preformed concerning dressing up for protests. Blogger doesnt seem to want to publish my link... the article is called "Protesting in Professional Attire: A Follow-Up." just google that and it will be one of the first few. it is on theseminal.com
Having dressed up for some protests, I believe that it is quite effective. People generally take you more seriously when you play to their stereotypes of serious people. Part of me wishes it wasnt so, and that everyone would be taken equally seriously when they are presenting their concerns. But if I can do something as simple as put on professional attire to make people take me seriously, I will certainly do so. Using symbols like that to one's advantage is an essential component to navigating the treacherous waters of the political and cultural landscape. Symbols have a power all their own, and they can be used to effectively bring certain topics to mind when the public is viewing a political activity.
For example, if I had been organizing the Port of Tacoma blockade, i think it would have worked better to dress up like American Revolutionary soldiers... and have old-timey flags and drums and such. That would evoke a very interesting dynamic in the minds of the viewing public. It would associate the blockade with the American struggle for freedom that most Americans associate with. It would give the impression that the blockaders were opposing something similar to the British tyranny that America rebelled against.
Dressing this way would also throw off the police who are trying to prevent/break-up the blockade. It is much harder for an American police officer to attack a group of people sporting the symbols they grew up associating with the goodness of their country, than it is for them to attack a group of people sporting no particular symbols, or symbols that the officer has associated with trouble (like certain types of clothing, chants, flags, and other typical peace movement symbols).
Anyway. Things have been good with me lately. I had some annoying flying adventures before the holidays, including almost having to spend the night in George H.W. Bush airport. But it has been really nice to see my family. I am preparing for more job application things, and thinking about what my future will hold. I have started reading "The Left Hand of God" by Michael Lerner, which has been a very excellent read so far.
I was surfing the internet and found a cool experiment that a couple of people preformed concerning dressing up for protests. Blogger doesnt seem to want to publish my link... the article is called "Protesting in Professional Attire: A Follow-Up." just google that and it will be one of the first few. it is on theseminal.com
Having dressed up for some protests, I believe that it is quite effective. People generally take you more seriously when you play to their stereotypes of serious people. Part of me wishes it wasnt so, and that everyone would be taken equally seriously when they are presenting their concerns. But if I can do something as simple as put on professional attire to make people take me seriously, I will certainly do so. Using symbols like that to one's advantage is an essential component to navigating the treacherous waters of the political and cultural landscape. Symbols have a power all their own, and they can be used to effectively bring certain topics to mind when the public is viewing a political activity.
For example, if I had been organizing the Port of Tacoma blockade, i think it would have worked better to dress up like American Revolutionary soldiers... and have old-timey flags and drums and such. That would evoke a very interesting dynamic in the minds of the viewing public. It would associate the blockade with the American struggle for freedom that most Americans associate with. It would give the impression that the blockaders were opposing something similar to the British tyranny that America rebelled against.
Dressing this way would also throw off the police who are trying to prevent/break-up the blockade. It is much harder for an American police officer to attack a group of people sporting the symbols they grew up associating with the goodness of their country, than it is for them to attack a group of people sporting no particular symbols, or symbols that the officer has associated with trouble (like certain types of clothing, chants, flags, and other typical peace movement symbols).
Anyway. Things have been good with me lately. I had some annoying flying adventures before the holidays, including almost having to spend the night in George H.W. Bush airport. But it has been really nice to see my family. I am preparing for more job application things, and thinking about what my future will hold. I have started reading "The Left Hand of God" by Michael Lerner, which has been a very excellent read so far.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Random Musings and Organizations Rant
Have you ever noticed how often politicians and other pundits will frame things as "war on" something. Like "war on terror" "war on poverty" "war on the middle class"... even that crazy "war on christmas" that was in the news a few years back. I wish we could frame struggling to do something in other terms than war.
I must say I miss new Daily Shows and Colbert Reports. I wish the media companies would concede that they make money off of internet showings of their tv shows, and give the writers their fair share of the ad revenue. It is the writers that create this media, so I see no reason why they should not get the benefits of their hard work.
I have been thinking more about Republics and Democracies. It is interesting how a Republic will willingly and overtly recognize the power of the people they govern, yet ignore what polls say is the overall belief of the society. They tend to listen to people who make the effort to contact and pressure them (like lobbyists). This power to influence is an inherent human power, and can be exercised by anyone... but it is possible to amplify this power. Organization is the primary method to achieve this. If you have a bunch of people working to push an opinion on any other group, their collective ability to do so is far greater than the sum of their uncoordinated individual abilities.
This means that the policy decisions of a representative in a Republic will always be slanted toward those who have the organizational abilities to amplify their power. This is true now, as it was back in the Roman Republic. Only now, we have large corporations that can mobilize tens of thousands of people... the people under employment in that organization. There is one hitch, however, the decision-making of the organization is what directs the amplified power toward a specific goal. So, if there are a bunch of people working for an organization, who have no ability to affect the general direction of the organization, they have no ability to direct where their power is being aimed.
I think this is why corporations have become so powerful, they are very large organizations with no accountability to those who compose the organization. They invest the power of all those people in a group of stock holders, a governing board, and/or CEO. These small groups are able to wield the power of the thousands working in the organization. However, they cannot wield it just as they please, they MUST, by law, wield it to make money. This means that the leaders in our most powerful organizations are bound, by the government, to make decisions that will only increase profits.
Such a weird system, if you ask me. But this is why lobbying has become such a problem. The government requires the most powerful organizations in our society to lobby it to increase their markets and profits, and for not to lobby it for any other purpose... no matter what the people in those organizations wish. The only solution to this, that I can see, would be to change corporate law to return the corporation back to what it was before the late 1800s... when corporations were only allowed to exist for the public good, as opposed to the profit of stockholders.
I think this is an important connection... and it also makes me wish that there was a large national organization that was supposed to act in the public good. Cause while the government is supposed to fulfill this role, it clearly doesnt, and it needs to be pressured to fulfill its role.
So we need to create a large organization to act for the public good.
I must say I miss new Daily Shows and Colbert Reports. I wish the media companies would concede that they make money off of internet showings of their tv shows, and give the writers their fair share of the ad revenue. It is the writers that create this media, so I see no reason why they should not get the benefits of their hard work.
I have been thinking more about Republics and Democracies. It is interesting how a Republic will willingly and overtly recognize the power of the people they govern, yet ignore what polls say is the overall belief of the society. They tend to listen to people who make the effort to contact and pressure them (like lobbyists). This power to influence is an inherent human power, and can be exercised by anyone... but it is possible to amplify this power. Organization is the primary method to achieve this. If you have a bunch of people working to push an opinion on any other group, their collective ability to do so is far greater than the sum of their uncoordinated individual abilities.
This means that the policy decisions of a representative in a Republic will always be slanted toward those who have the organizational abilities to amplify their power. This is true now, as it was back in the Roman Republic. Only now, we have large corporations that can mobilize tens of thousands of people... the people under employment in that organization. There is one hitch, however, the decision-making of the organization is what directs the amplified power toward a specific goal. So, if there are a bunch of people working for an organization, who have no ability to affect the general direction of the organization, they have no ability to direct where their power is being aimed.
I think this is why corporations have become so powerful, they are very large organizations with no accountability to those who compose the organization. They invest the power of all those people in a group of stock holders, a governing board, and/or CEO. These small groups are able to wield the power of the thousands working in the organization. However, they cannot wield it just as they please, they MUST, by law, wield it to make money. This means that the leaders in our most powerful organizations are bound, by the government, to make decisions that will only increase profits.
Such a weird system, if you ask me. But this is why lobbying has become such a problem. The government requires the most powerful organizations in our society to lobby it to increase their markets and profits, and for not to lobby it for any other purpose... no matter what the people in those organizations wish. The only solution to this, that I can see, would be to change corporate law to return the corporation back to what it was before the late 1800s... when corporations were only allowed to exist for the public good, as opposed to the profit of stockholders.
I think this is an important connection... and it also makes me wish that there was a large national organization that was supposed to act in the public good. Cause while the government is supposed to fulfill this role, it clearly doesnt, and it needs to be pressured to fulfill its role.
So we need to create a large organization to act for the public good.
Friday, December 7, 2007
What is the government?
I have been thinking about the concept of "the government." It is a tricky idea, because it has mutated into such an odd organization. It used to be, mainly, the forum for the public (or those appointed by the public) to make decisions about what needs to happen for the benefit of the entire public; a tool to enact those decisions; and a social space for conflict resolution. Hence, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. But, it has separated itself from the public and ceases to play this role in its entirety.
I have come to the conclusion that the government should literally be the public. It should not be this conceptual "other" that is has power over you. It should be the place you go to exercise your power. But how would one construct a government that is re-merged with its community?
I do not know the answer to that question, yet. I am certain it would look quite different from the government we have now, which gives off an aura of all-powerfulness and authority. It would embrace participatory democracy, certainly, but I am still trying to figure out the institutional organization. I have managed to narrow it down, though, to some needs and goals. The decision-making arm needs to be directly democratic, and have a vibrant and accessible public forum for the discussion of issues and problems. Every citizen should feel able to engage in these debates and input their opinion, while being able to directly act on their beliefs through regular referendums. I think we should elect ideas instead of people. Of course, necessary in this system would be a culture of participation and consensus. This would be harder to create than anything else.
In other news, I have not heard back from the PIRGs about whether I got the organizing job with them or not. I guess that probably means not. oh well. And sadly, the ac adapter cord for my laptop has stopped working, so I have had to order a new one of those. My laptop will be out of commission for the next week. I have been thinking about starting to look for day laborer jobs until I find a long-term job, so I will atleast be able to make alittle money to support myself. I will probably start that after I get back from Christmas.
I have come to the conclusion that the government should literally be the public. It should not be this conceptual "other" that is has power over you. It should be the place you go to exercise your power. But how would one construct a government that is re-merged with its community?
I do not know the answer to that question, yet. I am certain it would look quite different from the government we have now, which gives off an aura of all-powerfulness and authority. It would embrace participatory democracy, certainly, but I am still trying to figure out the institutional organization. I have managed to narrow it down, though, to some needs and goals. The decision-making arm needs to be directly democratic, and have a vibrant and accessible public forum for the discussion of issues and problems. Every citizen should feel able to engage in these debates and input their opinion, while being able to directly act on their beliefs through regular referendums. I think we should elect ideas instead of people. Of course, necessary in this system would be a culture of participation and consensus. This would be harder to create than anything else.
In other news, I have not heard back from the PIRGs about whether I got the organizing job with them or not. I guess that probably means not. oh well. And sadly, the ac adapter cord for my laptop has stopped working, so I have had to order a new one of those. My laptop will be out of commission for the next week. I have been thinking about starting to look for day laborer jobs until I find a long-term job, so I will atleast be able to make alittle money to support myself. I will probably start that after I get back from Christmas.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)