"For The People" (poem) >>> The Law, For It Whom?
In my 50 years and 57 countries, there is one thing I've been convinced of beyond all others: That the "thin veneer of civilization" is just that ... thin.
It's been a long haul since Athens. Making the Law has never been a problem. Keeping it .. has.
Human beings are myopic. The most telling lesson of history, is that we don't learn from history. As Mark Twain reputedly said, "History never repeats itself, but it rhymes." We keep making the same mistakes.
The American Constitution
The American Constitution is an astonishing artifice of history. If one examines the historical records, one cannot be but amazed that it came about at all: Here's a Huffington Post account of one of the Founding Fathers' many outings:
In 1787, two days before they signed off on the Constitution, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention partied at a tavern. According to the bill preserved from the evening, they drank 54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, eight of whiskey, 22 of porter, eight of hard cider, 12 of beer and seven bowls of alcoholic punch.
Despite a state of near-constant inebriation, they managed to cobble together the best ideas from millennium of fits and starts, and failed attempts, at Just Law. It wasn't perfect, but it was perfect enough to create the foundation of one of the most consequential countries in history. Of course, there was one imperfection so obvious that it could not, for long, go unaddressed.
To address it, America would eviscerate itself.
On a trip to Washington, D.C., I visited the Lincoln Memorial. On an interior wall is inscribed the words of Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address. I'd read it before, but something about reading it there, in that setting, brought tears to my eyes.
Most people don't know it, but Lincoln was an avid reader of poetry, and an occasional poet as well. Long before I became a poet, I was a soldier. And, perhaps, for that reason, the words of that passage (in bold) hit me on both levels:
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
And the war came.
When I listen to the hyperbole and vitriol of modern political discourse, I feel a sense of foreboding.
57 countries !?! Woah, that's mental, what's the longest you have stayed in one place?
Another great post, I feel the same sense of foreboding you did as I read those words. However to me, it seems that things are very different now, technology has changed us in more ways than scientific advancements and thinner TVs.
In my humble opinion, the invention of the internet, and now the rise and rise of the blockchain, has given a kind of power to the people that has never been seen before.
In times gone by, we just simply accepted war as an inevitable consequence of the human condition. Not so now, and in addition to that, the rhetoric fed to us about our enemies and our allies came from one or two official sources.
Nowadays a 16 year old kid can film a major incident happening, and within moments it will be on Twitter seen by perhaps millions. The nature of the war is changing, and I'm not quite sure yet how to feel about it.
Cg
@cryptogee....
I agree the advent of internet and the rize of blockchain is revolutional...
While the plethora of information flowing around us is good and we have managed to avoid the spoon-fed media, it's also equally confusing. Sometimes its difficult to decide which version and whose version is correct...
@xabi,
I'm equally frustrated with the reliability of information sources. I don't have a solution.
The internet is the ocean. Now we just need to train the sailors better.
I am working on a class called 'how to use the internet'. Here in my rural, developing community, the internet has arrived, on cell phones, and people are happy! They are chatting and connecting and are very aware of facebook and whatsapp.
But it doesn't go much further than that. When they learn about wikipedia, coursera, edx and dozens of other tools and websites available online, they get really excited all over again. Of course everything on the internet needs to be parsed, interpreted and understood through the right filter based on where it comes from and who it is for.
Training and education is the solution.
@ecoinstant,
Great insight.
The Internet has the ability to dramatically impact developing countries. What would be incredible is if coursera, edx, etc. could figure out a way to grant "course credits" so that people could prove they possess the knowledge they claim. That way they could "capitalize" their knowledge.
@cryptogee,
As usual, insightful commentary.
The 57 countries ... I'm counting anything including landing in an airport as part of a non-stop. So, the number of countries with which I've had a meaningful interaction is fewer. When I was in the military, I was part of a unit that got around and that racked up quite a few. When I ran a hedge fund, that bumped up the number quite a bit as well. It always helps if someone else is paying the tab.
With respect to your comments about technology, it's an interesting phenomenon.
As I see it, the problem is not conflict. We've always had, and always will, have conflict because we will, unavoidably, always have conflicts of interest. The issue is conflict resolution.
In pre-Internet days, everyone was subject to localized social sanction. If you believed in a Flat Earth, and articulated your beliefs publicly, you could count on peer pressure ... that is, being treated like a lunatic. Friends, family and co-workers would berate your beliefs. So, either conform with socially- accepted standards of sanity, or be ostracized.
To freedom-of-thought and freedom-of-speech loving people, like you and I, this sounds like anathema. But it served a useful social function ... it put a damper upon radicalism. Change occurred, but only as it could be justified by new information re-formulating the old. Such winnowing effect subjected new ideas to peer review and is what we refer to as the marketplace of ideas.
Now, no matter what knuckle-headed idea you concoct, the Internet can hook you up with a like-minded group of knuckleheads somewhere on planet Earth. Radicals tend to become more radicalized in the company of others. Elon Musk recently provoked the Flat Earthers by publicly decrying, "Why is there no Flat Mars society?"
He was subsequently schooled on the subject. "All the other planets are indeed spherical, as evidenced by countless pictures from NASA probes. Nevertheless, NASA continues to fake information about the Earth's flatness." NASA's motivation for such deception is left un-articulated.
The filters of insanity are gone and everybody's opinion, whether supported by evidence or in direct contradiction to it, are to be given equal weight. If not, out trot the ad hominem attacks and the politics of personal destruction.
"There are an infinite number of genders." Really? And the evidence for the assertion would be? And, of course, reasonable gender-identity classifications should include such things as Otherkin. So, if you, Cryptogee, believe you are a wolf, then go ahead and howl at the moon ... because I'm going to respect your right to be your authentic self. And don't feel constrained by animals that actually exist. Unicorns are OK too. (How being a wolf, or a unicorn, has anything to do with gender is beyond me, but let's not be pedantic.)
No level of delusion seems to great. We are all to elevate our uniqueness and celebrate the ways that others elevate theirs. We are to bathe in self-recrimination so as to empathize and empower the plight of the oppressed.
Math, as you may know, has been identified as a weapon in the arsenal of white male privilege, as evidenced by the ink dedicated to white male mathematicians. The realities of history be damned ... it's crucial that everybody gets Equal Time. So, re-write the textbooks. "Cut out Archimedes' proof of pi and include speculation about his sexual preferences. As there's no mention of him having a wife ... ! Let's discuss."
Apparently, Logic is also a tool of white male privilege, as it is derogating other kinds of truths by insisting upon the restraints of reason. ... "Stop trying to make us PROVE things."
As the driving force behind the Enlightenment (that belief ought be tempered by empiricism) gets eviscerated ... have you noticed that it is facilitating conflict resolution? Are we getting better at settling our differences? To my eye, society is becoming increasingly hyper-polarized, and the overlap in our communal Venn Diagram of Common Belief, is well on its way to zero.
It's hard for me to see how any of this is a step in the right direction.
Don't misunderstand, I'm in no way arguing for constraining ideas or their articulation. I am a Freedom of Speech vigilante. And, I love the Internet and the information exchange it facilitates. I am arguing, however, that we must re-apply some rules of engagement. Technology changes, humans don't. The Internet has opened wide a Pandora's Box of Confirmation Bias and we need to do what we can to close the lid.
As an aside, Cryptogee, this line-of-thought could be the subject of a series of some interesting hyper-linked exchanges, N'est Pas? Let me know if you're interested.
A little surprise for you :-)
https://steemit.com/thegreatsteemgiveaway/@cryptogee/the-great-steem-giveaway-is-back-150-steem-to-be-won
Cg
These are two copy-pastes from @cryptogee's post (I put them in quotes to try to avoid a visit from cheetah-bot ... I don't know if it will work):
https://steemit.com/thegreatsteemgiveaway/@cryptogee/the-great-steem-giveaway-is-back-150-steem-to-be-won
1st Comment
@cryptogee,
Geese!
https://steemit.com/artificialintellegence/@quillfire/ai-and-humans-if-it-s-broke-don-t-fix-it
AND ... the 2nd Comment (in reply to an @old-guy-photos comment on Cryptogee's post)
@old-guy-photos,
https://steemit.com/vlog/@c0ff33a/c0ff33-vlog-24th-february-2018-one-ring-to-rule-them-all
https://steemit.com/whysoserious/@old-guy-photos/of-flowers-and-beards
I study law, but yes everytime i am made to believe that laws are for fools.
Law makes me believe in equality, but i fail to find even equity.
Law tells me that we have freedom, but then why my my freedom is curbed everytime!
If we are equals, then why barriers and discrimination on the name of religion, creed and gender.
Laws were supposed to govern human behavioir, then why do certain people govern the law.
So many whys, yet no answer to them.
@genelia,
Thanks for the reply.
I'm not sure which country you live in and, obviously, laws change from place to place. Given the context of my article, however, I will argue from the perspective of the US.
By their very nature, laws are meant to constrain freedoms. There is an underlying principle in American law: People shall have the Right and Freedom to do anything ... up to the point where their behavior begins to infringe upon the Rights and Freedoms of others.
This, inevitably, creates a gnarly mess. Where to you draw the line? What some people call Freedom of Speech, others call Hate Speech. It is subjective. The difficulty of navigating different interests is often not appreciated until one has to make the call themselves. Governing isn't easy, no matter who does it.
What I think is important, however, is Intent. That law that you believe unduly unfair ... is it intentionally unfair? Is it intentionally targeting you, or is it simply a poorly designed law that is having unintended consequences? If it is the former, then Contempt or Disgust are your appropriate emotional reactions. If the latter, Anger. See the following article that discusses the issue:
https://steemit.com/poetry/@quillfire/would-this-make-a-good-nike-ad-the-power-of-poetic-advertising
Jonathon Haidt is a famous professor and psychologist who has crafted The Moral Foundations Theory. The well-researched theory posits that there are central pillars of morality that are universal to all human beings ... but that Conservatives and Liberals weight them differently. And hence, all the disagreements and diatribes. He has also done a great deal of research on Moral Disgust. He has written several excellent books and there are many videos of his lectures on YouTube. These are Must Reads for the intellectually inclined.
Here's an excellent TED talk to give you a flavor.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind
Could you cite particular instances of such discrimination enshrined and articulated in US law (hyperlinks to actual laws ... not opinion articles purportedly discussing such things ... the actual text of the laws.)? Ironically, the only one's you're likely to find are *Anti-Discrimination Laws such as Affirmative Action initiatives. (Such Affirmative Action initiatives don't count for the sake of this query.) But I stand ready to be corrected.
Cryptogee: It's your call, but I would encourage you to make the successful citation of such laws a MAX Upvote.
BTW: I noticed that you're a lawyer.
https://steemit.com/poetry/@quillfire/two-swords-same-length-poem-a-lawyer-s-ad-and-the-science-behind-the-art
https://steemit.com/poetry/@quillfire/would-this-make-a-good-nike-ad-the-power-of-poetic-advertising
I am from india and most of the part of indian Constitution is adopted from the USA and England. So there are lots of similarities and lesser diaaimilarities. But one thing i like about US is that there is separation of powers which aren't followed fully in india. In your country, congress can easily impeach president which i like the most and also the supreme court is supreme in real sense there.
However here we don't have much liberty in that aspect.
Coming back to US constitution, The 14th amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. So if we interpret this, we can conclude that there shouldn't be any descrimination
Humans have rights, persons have privligies.
Over the past forty years, information and communication technologies have transformed the way we work, the nature of learning and education, and the methods by which we achieve personal and collective goals. Parents, grandparents, children, and the range of loved ones who form part of the modern family today face new and challenging choices about technology use, access, and control.
The old paradigm in communication was that people generally revealed very little of their fears and doubts. They tried to present the image of themselves to other people as completely confident and knowledgeable. The goal was to make sure that you appeared like you were always in complete control.
@jordanlove,
Uh ... are you sure you're on the right post? This post is about the evolution of Law throughout the ages and, more specifically, about safeguarding the spirit that underlies the Law today.
In the rules for the contest was a condition that no simple congratulations and phrases apply. After reading the article, I realized that I would not have been able to write such a comment seriously. What I want out, I do not know if I understood it wrong or the post is meant ironically. But calling America a successful country is very contradictory, a country that wages more wars than any other where every third person is overweight and proud of being founded on millions of dead native Americans. OK. Designating a constitution as a trick is more appropriate when one speaks of the art of enslaving people. Please do not misunderstand me, I have nothing against the Americans, because the inhabitants of the "state" are not to blame, even if they decide to become a soldier to spread democracy, they are victims. Victim of a man-made system. This is not an American problem, please note that America was founded by "Europeans". However, I have to say that I have a huge respect for all the Americans trying to put an end to the game. And that's a few. Much more than in the small European countries. That's why I still put off my hat to all those who face the truth.
Greetings Montaquila
@montaquilaa,
I hear you.
Let me start off by saying that I'm a Canadian, not an American ... although I've lived in the US for 26 years (longer than the other 56 countries combined, including Canada). Canada is the 2nd largest county on Earth. We have every natural resource one could imagine. We've got gold and diamonds. We've got iron and nickel, forests and fresh water. We've got vast farmlands and fisheries ... to say nothing of our oil and natural gas fields (which are MASSIVE).
And ... almost all the world's supply of Maple Syrup.
And yet, the country is inhabited by a mere 35 million people. In some provinces, there are more moose than humans. The city of Beijing alone, has two-thirds of our population.
At what time in history could such a minuscule population hold onto such immense wealth?
Why is it that you think we can?
Yes, we're damned good hockey players, but ...
We live under the protective umbrella of the United States of America (Canada is not alone). The Americans would react to an invasion of Canada in PRECISELY the same way as they would to an invasion of California. Of course, the obvious question is ... why don't the Americans invade Canada?
They could. We couldn't stop them.
Ought it not occur ... That they stop themselves?
I have traveled widely. In ALL of the countries I have traveled to, there is an observation about Americans that is universal.
They are astonishingly self-centric.
As a rule, Americans' grasp of geography, and world history, ought to be an embarrassment bordering upon humiliation. Knowing the capital city of France ought not be a Gotcha Question. Americans see everything through the lens of Americana.
Ask Canadians, "What is the capital city of the United States?" and you'll get a near-universal correct response. Ask Americans, "What is the capital city of Canada?" "Uh ... Quebec." (For you Americans, the correct answer is Ottawa. Quebec is a province more than double the size of Texas. The capital city of the province of Quebec is Quebec City ... arguably the most beautiful city in North America.) Never mind, "Who's the Prime Minister?"
I used to believe that American ignorance was due to the arrogance of being the World's Top Dog.
I have since dismissed that theory.
American self-centric ignorance is a product of its founding (and remember, my family's ancestors were the ones fighting them). The United States is the only country in human history founded not upon the realities of geography or culture or language ... but rather, upon ideas, ideals and insights.
They have struggled to live up to their own creed.
But which nation has not?
Nations are flawed because their inhabitants are flawed. Nations are inhabited by human beings. Flags do not change the reality.
But what nation in history has paid a higher price for their stupidity ... and their sins? If any country was the Top Dog, don't you think their flaws would receive equal billing? The fact that all the other nations of Earth aren't, and don't, ought not make the rest of us sanctimonious.
So ... if the US is so great, why am I not an American (does anyone sense I couldn't pass the Citizenship History and Civics Test)?
I have not become an American ... because I'm a Canadian (perhaps the subject of a future post).
Fact Check:
Disclaimer: Please ... don't anyone construe my attempt to be historically correct as anything other than my attempt to be historically correct. I believe that slavery is The Ultimate Sin of Humanity ... but it is not a sin unique to America. Everyone is guilty. All of our ancestors have dirty hands. We must learn from the past ... but we ought not live there.
With that, I will leave with a quote with which I opened this post:
Actually i guess the slaves was normal for "us Scandinavian vikings"
We brought home africans as servants in the viking ships and called them blue-men.
Wow! What a great and balanced response!
As an American living in Colombia, I often ponder these heavy weights on both sides of the scale. Surely, as @montaquilaa shows, it is easy to blame the United States for much of what it does and has done wrong. Even things that were 'appropriate' in their own time frame (the failed colonization of the philippines for example) leave a sour taste in our mouths now.
But outside of the U.S., and outside the developed world, as the scales fall from our eyes and we realize how useful a local Wal-Mart would be despite their sins, it is hard to hold on to the bitterness of history. That I encounter generally two reactions about myself (that is 'Americans'), you can save us or you have damned us, shows that even far away from the global center, people are struggling with the US legacy.
(Interestingly, having lived in the same small town for 6 years now, I do occasionally get something like, 'Damn Yankees! (but not you Alex)'.)
I have come to believe that the nation state system is problematic, and that (in the US case) 325 million people are too many to meaningfully and purposefully commit to a social contract. I believe more localized unions and more federalized government schemes are needed for the next phase of human existence. Unfortunately, I see only two ways that this will come to fruition, and no third option, that is what I like to call 'the narrow path' or 'the easy way'.
Whether we continue to fight each other or we work together to form more harmonious communities, I suspect that future societies with have renewed respect for local government.
@ecoinstant,
A wonderful comment. Well-written, well-articulated and ... edited!
An interesting perspective. Nothing's simple, is it? It's never just black or white. What is the right size for a country, or more precisely, a community that can find sufficient common cause so as to be united?
I don't know.
I suspect, though, that it's less about the size than it is about the Common Cause.
I see any Human Group, irrespective of scale (from families to nations), as a Venn Diagram ... overlapping circles that share a common center. And it is what's in such Central Common Space that binds the group. If the circles get pulled far enough apart, no overlap ...and hence, no Central Common Space ... and hence, no Common Cause.
Divorce.
Many political theorists believe that the Central Common Space is about shared interests. But I question that assumption. When push comes to shove, human beings seem more than willing to sacrifice their best interests, indeed their lives, for waters that run more deeply.
I believe the Central Common Space is about shared ideas, ideals and insights. These things tend to become Transcendent. They become sacred things about which human beings will circle. Jonathon Haidt (famous professor, psychologist and author) has a number of fascinating videos on YouTube about the phenomenon. I highly recommend them to anyone.
Rather perplexing to the rest of the world is why Americans seem so fervently ideological. Issues that divide America, like the 2nd Amendment, for example ... aren't even issues anywhere else.
I have a theory: The United States was not a country created by the demands of geography, history, culture, language or religion. Indeed, it was a country created in spite of those things. The ONLY thing it has in its Central Common Space are its sacred ideas, ideals and insights.
The American psyche NEEDS to elevate those things more than do other countries who have other ties that bind. The Constitution and the Founding Fathers HAVE to be almost sacrosanct because, if they're not ... what's left?
I'm not greatly concerned when US politicians get into grudge matches worthy of the WWF (fake wrestling in either case) because, historically, Americans have always viewed the politicians of their times with distrust and disdain. Probably a good thing so long as it doesn't become pathological.
What concerns me a great deal more is when that contempt and disgust for one another descends into the body politic.
I wrote a poem about it:
https://steemit.com/poetry/@quillfire/the-day-that-trump-was-sworn-poem-is-he-dividing-the-nation-or-are-we
Very interesting... And quite troubling.
But, do you really believe THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH? I mean, the principles, the ideas, ideals and insights that keep the USA glued together...?
I have not lived there long, so I cannot tell for sure, but... What is seen from abroad, is such a coherent block of Unity and Will! "The will of the people is the will of the people"...!
On the other hand, I'd say you may be wrong about the USA not being founded on historical or cultural (or geographical) reasons; the original Thirteen Colonies, even before the spark of Independence was lit, had in common a single heritage of European descent, of Irish-German-English blood, and in truth, they were more of a "branch" of European races and cultures...
But then again, the ancestry of Rome, the Vikings and the Celts COMBINED may be too war-stained to be reliable... So maybe that is in fact what keeps pushing them apart... Europeans have always waged the most epic ("sad") wars in history, lets not forget that...
Also, the strip of land from Boston and New England to Georgia (Florida was taken from the Spanish, as we all know) was quite coherent geographically; the obvious next-step was to expand west and southwards, into the lands of the Mexican Empire (their Austrian Emperor too far away to do anything about it)... And so they did, and so they did... Taking for themselves the borders with Canada onto the State of Oregon, and everything that led them into and beyond Texas, including Nevada and California...
So if you look at it from the perspective of most human expansions in history, it does make a lot of sense, and it does add to the American "National" feeling, just as it happened to the Roman and Persian Empires, Ancient China, Russia under the Tzars, Napoleonic France... And a long, long et cetera...
"The next phase of human existence"... I read you... Well, in truth we see the fires spreading already: Europe is a mess, in truth, in spite of all the "Unity" they intend to display outside the borders of the European Union... I mean, each of the countries pulls to their own side of the rope! France and Germany (as founders of the EU) each want what is theirs, so does Britain, and even inside each country, "separatists" carry our their own sinister agendas (the cases inside of Spain alone are enough to write a bloody blood-stained novel: Catalunya, the Basque Country, Galicia and even Al-Andaluz, they all would stab Madrid's Central Government in the heart, if they only were capable of quitting the infighting for an instant!)
So yeah, it is all doomed to fall apart... Or is it? Maybe other unions are forming or surviving elsewhere? Well, China is an example; they united a very long time ago, but they were originally distinct tribes and dynasties, and even today as a Chinese friend tells me they have their own differentiated dialects and traditions... Maybe others will follow in this trend? I don't know, it seems rather distant to me... But was that the "narrow path", or the "easy way"? :P
Your words leave me with a sour-sweet taste... Indeed, civilization is just a word, just a tenuous, delicate "balance" attained to keep us from total collapse... From anarchy and the horrors that are spawned from the lack of (yeah) Law...
It is (I guess) the Laws of Men contrasting with the Laws of Nature... Sadly though, "Slavs" being "enslaved" is so much closer to the second set of rules.
It is amazingly true: There is no human group as white (transparent more like!) as the Slavs, the original founders of Slavic Nations such as Russia (including the settlement of all their vast territories to the East), Poland and Yugoslavia, and prominent groups in Turkey and Germany, for instance...
Very sad it is that their fate was shared with natives from the Gulf of Guinea, modern-day Nigeria and most of Subsaharan Africa; and truly without guilt is the fact that the Europeans that landed in both North and South America (for affected were also most populations of Caribs, Mayans, Chibchas, and even more prominent groups such as Aztecs and the Inca) brought with them diseases they were not aware of, but to which Amerindians had no natural immunity, as did they... So they must have witnessed aboriginals perishing in front of their eyes, without knowledge that the plages long-eradicated in Europe were to blame...
..."And the wheels kept spinning", this time sparing the Amerindians from the yokes of slavery... Through the mercy of the grave...
Maybe you are right @quillfire
Hidden within subconscious there is an insatiable desire for conflict...war is inevitable...Its a necessary evil....
Look around you, the world is on fire.
War is not about to begin, It has already started...
From Zoroastrian point of view...
The war between good and evil had always been, ever since the inception of time...
So why avoid war???
Let it be the cleanser....
To grow something new, the field must be set on fire first!
Good points, but can we really say this in a modern context, war is actually becoming less likely as time goes on. Can we imagine France and Germany, or Spain and Portugal going to war? Not so long ago, the answer would have been yes, now it is no.
Cg
It depends, how you define war...
May be your definition is different from those living in Syria, Palestine or Kashmir.
And what about oppressive economic war being waged upon the people ever since the creation of US Federal Reserves. All of us, the crypto believers, are fighting this war.
@xabi,
It is not often one finds reference to Zoroastrian thought in modern political or philosophical discourse. So, thank you for the reference. While I'm familiar with the broad strokes of the Zoroastrian religion, I must plead ignorance of the details.
I am not one to ever encourage war. I've seen it, and would not wish it upon anyone or any place. With respect to your aforementioned comment, you're right ... there are many different kinds of war, figuratively speaking. Perhaps the word, coercion, better captures the intent of this discussion.
My rhetorical focus is not so much upon tank battalions (literally, war), but rather upon the preceding condition of social disharmony to the extent that nations become, essentially, dysfunctional (which, unfortunately, tends to result in tank battalions).
One of the challenges of the 21st Century will not be whether we can change each other's minds (difficult), but rather whether we can live with each other's differences (more difficult).
There's no assurance that we can.
But here's an interesting insight. Cryptogee created this challenge and very specifically instructed people to not only be honest ... but to be honorable. I have long believed that honor is the key to social harmony. He does not require that you agree with him, or me, about anything, but only that you engage in whatever the debate, honorably.
No making up your own facts so as to support your biases (which we all have). No engaging in ad hominem attacks, imputing moral turpitude upon others simply because they disagree with your political or philosophical opinions. Nobody calling others, "Nazis," unless they're actually sporting Swastikas.
If you look at the exchange or articles, comments and replies between Cryptogee and I, that resulted in this challenge, you will see that he and I disagree about some things relating to Artificial Intelligence and it's implications for humanity.
Nevertheless, it ought to be clear, that he and I grant each other enormous mutual respect. There is precisely nothing about our disagreement that would prevent us from being best friends. Quite to the contrary, steel sharpens steel ... it is precisely because neither of us can dominate the other ... that we are influencing each other.
Let that sink in.
I have to agree with you...
Mutual respect for one another is the key...Every body can have his own opinion and should be respected...
That's how civilized world works and there is nothing noble and civilized about war...
Has there ever been a meeting of so many geniuses at one time together, before this?
Or since....
Anyone that doesn't appreciate the beauty, the intelligence, the vision of this work they forged, - either needs to educate themselves...or be aware of their intellectual limitations...
@lucyreloaded,
I would upvote this to the MAX if I had the power. Instead, you've got my 1.5 cents and a Follow. :-)
People need to study history.
Humanity is a nasty business, and the thing that saves us from each other, is subtle.
The American Constitution was a quantum leap forward in the ability of humans to govern themselves. They begged, borrowed and stole from the models that came before. Pride of originality, was not their concern. The balancing of power, such that conflicts would be resolved with words instead of swords, was sublime, and nothing short of genius. Their inability to achieve perfection, and the price to be paid for their short-coming, was the subject of my poem.
Very interesting post! That is a lot to think about.
@bitpizza,
That's all one can ever ask.
Nice quote from the big guy.
The vitriol of anything even vaguely political is at a fever pitch. Even going back to the days before the Revolution, I think men were able to gather in the taverns and heatedly discuss and argue the pros and cons of revolution without as much animosity as felt even between a group of friends discussing politics today. There is zero tolerance for a dissenting opinion. Sadly, in the interest of keeping friendships, all things political must be given a wide berth.
Would you agree that the berth is even wider here than on the legacy platforms like Facebook and YouTube? - The reasons I see now is for friendship sake as you put it. I had assumed it was a profit margin (I am quite a cynic).
@trumanity,
Sir, I would encourage your skepticism ... I would discourage your cynicism.
@old-guy-photos is my Mentor. Without him, it is unlikely I would, after a month, still be on Steemit ... despite a philosophical inclination to "Never Surrender."
@old-guy-photos, (his name is Paul, and so is mine, and I encourage everyone to address me, and him, as so), has spent ridiculous amounts of time explaining to me the most rudimentary aspects of Steemit. If he doesn't think I'm a moron, he ought to.
As you can probably imagine, the length of my comments and replies, to say nothing of my posts, created daily bandwidth-freezes. Often, I could not post or respond until 3 PM in the afternoon. Unbidden, Paul simply delegated me 50 SP ... which solved the problem overnight. He's also the guy who connected me to Cryptogee.
What exactly he gets out of this, is still unclear to me. I wrote a comment to another such fellow, @C0ff33a, who Paul also introduced to me (and who is also a Paul protegee). I think you should read the article ... and my comments to it:
https://steemit.com/vlog/@c0ff33a/c0ff33-vlog-24th-february-2018-one-ring-to-rule-them-all
While you're at it (look for my comments ... this one's fun):
https://steemit.com/whysoserious/@old-guy-photos/of-flowers-and-beards
And this one's serious:
https://steemit.com/mmorpg/@fulltimegeek/steem-quest-1-or-slay-the-cave-troll
There is hope, so long as there are Good Men in the world. THERE ARE ... still Good Men in the world.
I recall this invigorating exchange very well.. When I read this poem again while sifting through the great content submitted for the Daily Doses (180 days of poetsunited) a large green appeared on my face. I am tempted to triple vote your poem (using both my accounts and a vote by poetsunit) but that would be cheating. Way better if we arrange a vote army to go and vote the comment linked to your poem directly - I am writing similar notices to the other writers anyway.
Thanks for paying a visit on my poem recently my friend. Take care.
I think people here are somewhat forced to be civil. I have been active on YT where there is basically anonymity, and therefore anything goes. Of course on FB people are supposed to use their real identity. The prospect of flagging has a way of making people think twice before shooting off with their keyboards lol.
Ha! I never thought about the anonymity - that is probably a large factor. I wasn't thinking about plain youtube rudeness or trolling, just the expression of political opinion, though. It is very hard to find a political blog post trending here.
Master Piece of Poetry :) Awesome Thanks For Sharing. I love your work.
@poetsunit,
Everyone has an ego, myself included. So, I hope you'll forgive me for really, really liking the words ... "Master Piece of Poetry!" :-)
For any poets out there, PoetsUnited (@poetsunit), is THE Group and Discord Channel for you to join. Good people doing good things.
@angelveselinov, @poetrybyjeremy (lives in a Crusader Castle in Malta & has Conquest issues) and @madevi will take care of you.
Whales and Dolphins ... Steemit is about words articulating ideas, ideals & insights. Nevertheless, the term "Starving Poet" is an axiom for a reason.
Even Shakespeare required patrons ... first the Lord Chamberlain, and then the King.
http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/king-james-establishes-kings-men-warrant-under-privy-seal
The Law was made for man, and not man for the law, but looking back, what has the law done for us? In my opinion, more harm than good. Laws are supposed to be made with humanity at heart, but this is no longer the case. Laws are now made out of selfish desires and evil schemes, and to think that a nation at large is supposed to be bound by that, is too sad for words. Now Man shall no longer be a slave to law, for the law has failed man.
@lucentbritex,
If ever you have an opportunity to visit a country without democracy, I suspect you will quickly discover "what the law has done for us." The difference, I promise you, is striking.
Could you be more specific?
There's no doubt about your thesis that history continues to repeat itself. For man is a short-sighted creature at best, and we cannot understand the trouble and triumphs of past generations fully - not having lived through them ourselves.
"Oh, this time it IS different" we love to shout, to whomever will listen, and mostly to those who wish to agree with us. And it IS different, if only because the stage is filled with a different set of actors. Yet the play has already been written and rehearsed, and the final act will remain the same.
While modern political rhetoric is certainly troubling there are other troubles in our republic. The rise to power of those who are meant to entertain us - actors and actresses - adept at the art of pulling at our emotions, through subterfuge and the adoption of a persona meant to achieve their own ends. So too we have the large group of those who have become lulled into sleep by these actors and actresses, who haven't even the slightest idea of the discourse occurring among our lawmakers, and how they have been slowly, silently, but relentlessly gutting the laws made "For the People".
Oh yes, war could come to us, in fact we seem to invite it, but I do not believe our people have the backbone to bring it of themselves. Instead it will more likely come from outside ourselves, and will either cause our country to be reborn from ashes, or to sink into the miasma of history - to be repeated again and added to the list - Athens, Rome, America.
@moneyinfant,
I couldn't agree with you more.
I would stipulate, however, that this ought not be simply a dig at Trump (I'm not inferring that this is what you intended ... I'm riffing). Republicans and Democrats alike need to stop "giving a damn about what celebrities think." Since when was Hollywood notorious for it's brilliance or insight about anything?
I have nothing against actors or musicians becoming politicians, but let them first demonstrate their prowess as Congressmen, Congresswomen, Senators or Governors before taking a shot at the White House.
The country, and the world, requires serious people thinking, and doing, serious things. Politics is not supposed to be entertaining. It's supposed to be about doing those things which make the country more functional ... almost all of which are tedious and boring.
If there is one thing I could wish upon American politics, it would be the banning of monetary contributions to campaigns in excess of $2,500 per person. And, contributions from any source, could only come from human beings. No PAC's or Super-PAC's on either side. No contributions from Fortune 500 companies and no contributions from unions. I would happily support giving both sides $1 billion each of taxpayer money, to run their campaigns, so as to negate the need for politicians to grovel for gratuities.
Money, on both sides, is clearly a corrupting influence.
@nosmas,
Not to quibble, but Mark Twain is one of my literary heroes.
I'm with Mark. :-)
History doesn't actually repeat,
but if you look closely it is repleat
with clear examples from all throughout time
showing how the human condition rhymes.
@ecoinstant,
BRAVO ... Sir! Bravo.
Although, I feel honor-bound to warn you ... this is how it starts.
First a quippy little poem on a post. Then, a few stanzas for your wife on your Anniversary. Your daughter gets straight A's ... well, since she put in the time, so will you.
Girls are suckers for a well-written poem and once you've set a precedent, they'll expect every time. And this is where Mission Creep kicks into over-drive: Now it's not just Anniversaries, but Birthdays, Mother's Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas. Ironically, you will be the only one who never receives a single poem in your entire life.
Before you know it, you'll be driving down the road while scribbling with your free hand, "butt-crack & roof-rack," because you haven't used them before ... and surely you'll be able to use them for something." Gotta stay fresh.
End-of-Year poems for the teachers, eulogies for the deceased ...
You have been warned! :-)
I am already getting sucked in! It's a lot of fun to find someone like you with 15 years of experience making rhymes, I have only been rhyming part-time for a few years, although now with steemit as a place to put them, I have been writing more.
Mission Creep; I never knew it affected poetry, but it does make a lot of sense. Your example about women is particularily apt, although all humans have 'floating' expectations that seem to pop up just above the prevailing water line, it's particularily noticeable when a man wants to keep impressing the same woman.
A job well done. LOL if I was @cryptogee I would reward this comment instantly. I sadly do not have the poetic skills (at least not that I am aware of) displayed here, and thus I will have to resort to other means of procuring myself some ❤️️ ...
@dialsamai,
Thanks mate. Practice makes perfect. It's taken me 15 years so far.
I don't know much about the American Constitution, but from the little I know it's nowhere near perfection not even perfect enough for the Americans.
Well, just like almost every other law book of every other country, it seeks to uphold the honour of America, show off the strong foundation America rests on, it's hospitality towards foreigners, and the rest of it all, while doing the minimal least for the average American.
Laws never really work because they oppose everything the common man stands for, deprives him of everything he feels he deserves. Laws are made for Law, not for man.
@bomaprecious,
Your comment is pretty ... non-specific. Could you clarify your position with examples?
Thanks.
What really got me in this was the fact that these 55 atleast had an idea of what they want for the country maybe in the process of carving it out there were flaws but in third world countries today, like the one i live in, the urge to be free from the colonial master so clouded oir judgements that the foundation was skipped and what we have is trying to build on no foundation, civilisation though has given us a picture of how things are to work and i hope we will get there...
@gjoeohere,
My friend, I spent several years in Africa, and I have a very special place in my heart for the continent and its people.
Your comments strike me as being particularly insightful.
In terms of resources, Africa is an extraordinarily rich continent and its people ought to be among the wealthiest on Earth. But, it is riddled with corruption and poor governance. The result is a cycle of creation and destruction that never ends. There are many reasons for this, not least of which is the remnants of colonialism. But such explanation has been being used as an excuse for too long. Almost all of Africa's current problems are self-inflicted.
From my observations, Africa is besought by tribalism (either ethnic, religious or both). Groups of people within a country are subject to unearned patronage, or precluded from it, based upon their membership in a preferred In-Group. This creates severe dysfunction (and unending war). A meritocracy must be established. A effective system of political checks-and-balances simply does not exist. This limitation of power was the genius of the American Constitution. Central to the beliefs of the Founding Fathers was the idea that Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. And so, they were paranoid about building-in safeguards to ensure accountability. This was an idea they copied from the Romans who, alas, ultimately did not adhere to their own Laws.
I would be interested to hear if you have and ideas about how to go about changing things.
I personally disagree with the narative that nepotism and tribalism is the bane of african politics because if it were so then the people of a particular tribe should enjoy the fruits of democracy when the have the power, say nothern Nigeria for instance that has the presidency should be the ones that benefits the most from the government but far be it because am so sure that they are still the most neglected so i term the problem of Africa as simply "greed" which has degenerated to what we now see as coruption and until we have a value re-orientation where we will have a selfless Nelson mandela, a chaste Desmond Tutu and a nationalist in Obafemi Awolowo who will put the continent above self, another force rising up now is the cry for youth to take over but why and for what purpose when they have all been schooled by the same people that crumbled the continent? It is almost a hopless situation but am sure if we can change one, then we can change all.
I believe we can be the future of the world and which country did you visit again?
@gjoeohere,
I did not 'visit' any country ... I lived there.
I was in the military and was stationed in Djibouti. We got around.
Waoh....thanks for your service!!
I do think it is interesting, all of the hope (around the world) in the young generation. Surely there are wise and insightful young people (perhaps we, the ones passionately discussing on steemit are the ones!), but there are plenty of non-thinking get-alongers in the next generation as well.
Sure just as there is in every generation but the task before us now is, are we going to let them get ahead of us while we just sit and think our lives away? The time for thinkers and actors beckons
@gjoeohere,
The answer is not complicated. Nigeria is not special. Your country is immensely wealthy. What's crippling Nigeria is the same thing that has crippled countless others throughout history ... corruption.
It is not more complicated than that.
When you elect someone who is Yoruba, simply because you're Yoruba .. or Igbo, simply because you're Igbo ... then the problem perpetuates itself.
To compete in the modern world requires a meritocracy. A meritocracy requires that you elect the best man, or woman, for the job. The same logic applies to all jobs.
At present, is Nigeria doing this?
Bad government cannot be overcome. Great government is a pipe dream.
Good government is what any country strives for ... and must settle for.
You are 100% correct.
@gjoehere,
There are numerous comments on THIS post from Nigerians. They seem to disagree with your assessment.
To try to be fair to your comment, I Googled ... Nigeria tribalism ... (without quotation marks). The following hyperlink was the FIRST website article that appeared:
http://www.gamji.com/article6000/news7267.htm
In the second paragraph of that article he listed three probable causes of tribalism and greed was among.
Am not saying coruption or tribalism is not an issue or that they are non existent but something led to that and i feel it is greed, i may be wrong but if there is coruption or tribalism which there are, what led to that?
Thats what think greed is responsible for.
@gjoeohere,
That's fair. Greed, I suppose, is the gasoline in the car of corruption, isn't it?
Affirmative that is why i still think we need a character and value re-orientation because even this week i heard a young man saying if he gets the opportunity he will steal his own lot not minding who it affects because he will just be one among the numerous.
That poem was incredible, a wild trip through history and I had no idea where it was going but there at the end it just grabbed me, God bless America. Damn near brought a tear to my eye.
Well Doctor, what have we got?
I was concerned about resteeming just anything to enter a contest but I would gladly resteem that.
@funbobby51,
That's music to a poet's ear.
A brilliantly apt quote ... Why didn't I think of that?
Thanks, again, for the generous compliments on the poem. It means a lot.
Of course they were drunk. They were signing a document that by all asspects should have been a death sentence. No one had stood up to the might of the british army. Now look at us. We have become the man that we hated. Much like life, we have become our father.
@doomsdaychassis,
A bit non-specific. Care to elaborate?
the first part I was making a refrence / joke about this part of the article about all the alcohol consumed.
In 1787, two days before they signed off on the Constitution, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention partied at a tavern. According to the bill preserved from the evening, they drank 54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, eight of whiskey, 22 of porter, eight of hard cider, 12 of beer and seven bowls of alcoholic punch.
Despite a state of near-constant inebriation, they managed to cobble together the best ideas from millennium of fits and starts, and failed attempts, at Just Law. It wasn't perfect, but it was perfect enough to create the foundation of one of the most consequential countries in history. Of course, there was one imperfection so obvious that it could not, for long, go unaddressed.
the later part about becoming the man we hated is in refrence to how we are now an occupying force on pretty much every part of the globe to some extend much like the british army was at its peak. Though maybe not as much on the colonialization aspect as they were.
@doomsdaychassis,
Respectfully, in which country is the US an "Occupying Force?" Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan.
Yes, the US has many military bases around the world (most quite small) but which government has asked them to leave? And what would happen if they did?
For decades, the United States stationed its largest, and most strategic, overseas military bases (Naval at Subic Bay / Air Force at Clark) in the Philippines. In 1991, negotiations between the two governments broke down over land-leasing fees. And so ... the US left. This does not sound like the actions of an Occupying Force.
If the United States pulled back all the troops it has stationed overseas, what do you think would be the reaction? I suspect the world would be engulfed in wars in short order. Changing the balance of power is always a dangerous business.
What would happen between North and South Korea (the two countries are technically still at war). What about Japan? Would they not have to explode their military spending to counter China? Maybe even go nuclear. And what of Eastern Europe? Do you think Russia might like to regain Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? They're hugely strategic ... just like Crimea. The rest of Ukraine perhaps? Who would stop them? How might the other Eastern European countries react to that? Germany? France? The UK?
And the Middle East? How do you think a power vacuum there might play out?
Is there any possibility, do you think, that all those overseas American military bases and American aircraft carrier fleets are keeping the lid on Pandora's Box?
Given the inter-connectedness of the world's economy, what would be the economic impact of even one such conflict?
To quote my article:
everything you just listed is territory we are occupying space in. Hence occupy. like I said we are not on the collonialization aspect that the red coats did but we are most deffinatly occupying space in a large portion of the world. Is it justifiable by being the "world police"? who knows.
Is there the posibility that all of those overseas assests through out our recent history of nation building have somehow made it worse? I love our military but we have made some bad decisions as a nation going in and topling regiems( yes most of them if not all of them were shitty brutal dictators) but then we always leave the very power vacuums you speak of IE: the rise of ISIS and al-qaeda. Did not al-qaeda come about from our medaling in afganistan building "freedom fighters" against the russians? Maybe we should just try sitting it out for one round and let the rest of the world be forced to put on their big boy pants and deal with their own problems for once. I get tired of seeing and hearing about our boys coming home in body bags. I have lost friends serving over seas to indescrimanant road side bombs and it is just terrible. We are ripping ourselves apart here at home enough right now. In closing i completely agree with your last quote of the "thin veneer of civilization" We are all savage animals, that is human nature and the only thing keeping us from being animals is that veneer of civilization. I ask how long do we have to be the babysitters? How long till the rest of the world becomes civilized and at what cost to us?
@doomsdaychassis,
I agree with almost all your sentiments. It is time for the rest of the world to step up and do more to help solve some of the planet's collective problems, instead of letting it always fall to the US.
I think we may be needlessly quibbling about the word "Occupy." Yes, of course, we are there, occupying territory. But, we are not an "Occupying Power" as that term is defined under International Law. Our remaining troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are there at the behest of those countries respective governments. If they wish the US to leave, they have only to ask.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation
I can agree on that.
OK, I feel like I should chip on this one; as much as I respect your views @quillfire, I must respectfully disagree with you on the points you've made in this reply.
Not now; however those are only recently changed situations. Nobody invited the US into either Iraq or Afghanistan and both of those conflicts were started using lies.
Yes Saddam was a tyrant, however he was a tyrant put their by the CIA in the first place. Afghanistan was bombed back into the stone age for their alleged reluctance to hand over one man. Though if they are to be believed, they tried to hand him over on several occasions.
You surely can not be saying that US interference in those countries have made things better? Iraq is in constant turmoil/civil war, Afghanistan is a terrorist hotbed.
North Korea are still technically at war with the South, though whilst it could be argued at one point that it was American presence stopping it descending back into war, the same cannot be said now.
N Korea, though big on rhetoric and posturing, is in fact a crippled country in crisis. Even their soldiers are starting to take bigger and bigger risks to defect. America could up sticks and leave tomorrow and North Korea would not attack.
War between Japan and China is absolutely unthinkable as both would have too much to lose. China wouldn't invade Japan because that would be an economically suicidal decision, and one which they would not take.
China would have nothing to gain from attacking Japan, there are no natural resources it needs, and strategically it is moot. So the US could pull out of Japan tomorrow and no war would start.
As far as Russia is concerned, you may be right; however American presence does not stop Putin doing what he wants. I don't know if you guys were aware of what happened in Crimea last year?
Again, Russia will not take on countries for the hell of it; as we've seen in Ukraine that whilst they have independence, they have to swear allegiance to the Kremlin, or face the bloody consequences. America or no, that will happen; again I say, the USA could leave that region tomorrow and there will be no difference.
OK, now let's move onto the Middle East, to suggest that US presence is stabilising the area is beyond a joke. In fact, try that statement out on anyone who lives in the region and they will laugh heartily, if not somewhat cynically at that statement.
I mean, America gave Israel nukes; that one act alone has shifted the balance of power and turned the region into a powder keg, creating an unsolvable situation. Let's not even get onto the F-16s and various other military hardware that they use to subjugate the Palestinians without impunity, or fear of recourse.
The fact is, the nature of war and peace is changing, and having a nation that uses its military might to 'police' the globe is turning from a passive gesture to an aggressive one.
Let us also not forget that America decided to withdraw from the UN Peace Keeping Forces after all that went down in Grenada (Black Hawk Down), add to that fact that there are many, many regions that could do with America's help, but the US decide not to.
It just so happens that the countries that America decides to assist with its military might, tend to have a rich cadre of natural resources. . .
Most of those bases have been set up with huge political concessions and/or money, given to these countries. So even if they wanted to, they can't ask them to leave; so it's not really a fair question.
The question should have been, taking away any kind of political/diplomatic coercion; which of those countries would still happily let the US stay?
The numbers would be very different.
As I said, respectful disagreement; I'd love to hear what you think about what I've said here.
Cheers
Cg
@cryptogee,
That was the only point I was making. The US is no longer an "Occupying Power" of either nation as defined by International Law. I was just trying to be precise.
In my opinion the First Iraq War (to drive Saddam out of Kuwait was justified, the Second Iraq War was not, and constitutes a huge geopolitical error on behalf of the US).
Respecting Afghanistan, it was unavoidable, and hence the wide-spread support the US received for the invasion.
Osama Bin Laden was never the problem per se. One guy does not an army make. The problem was Al Qaeda ... an army. Afghanistan under the Taliban was giving Al Qaeda safe haven. When asked to turn over the leaders, the Taliban did not. Irrespective of whether that was voluntary or involuntary is irrelevant. From the perspective of the United States, it was left with two options: Invade; or tolerate Al Qaeda's continued existence, waiting for the next attack to occur.
The latter scenario was intolerable, and no nation on Earth would have been asked to do so.
9/11 was one of the most clear-cut Acts of War in military history:
That's war in any historical time-frame.
The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, and the damage it has done to the country, is highly regrettable. But war breaks things, which is why I so highly encourage people the remain civil in their discourse so as not to provoke it, at any scale.
Respecting Saddam, the CIA was not responsible for Saddam's rise to power. They were responsible for supporting him during the Iran/Iraq War. They took sides between two unsavory belligerents. One can argue about the wisdom of such decision. I would only say that if America erred, it was not intentional. One can easily understand why the US wouldn't have wanted Iran dominating the Middle East, and such a huge portion of the world's oil supply. Saddam was but a counter-balance to Iran.
I concur that Iraq (2) was a mistake.
The point of invading Afghanistan was not to better the lives of Afghans ... it was to protect America from future attack. The on-going conflict in Afghanistan is less about terrorism as it might effect the world, and more about supporting a fledgling government against the return of the Taliban.
It's a mess because, culturally, power in Afghanistan is decentralized at the tribal level. Now, throw in rampant corruption and the world's largest source of heroine. Like I said, a mess, and I don't have any insight about how better to rectify the situation than what is currently being done.
Respectfully, I beg to differ.
Even if we set aside:
The fact that North Korea has multiple nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them (if not yet realistically against the US, then certainly against South Korea), and
The fact that they've got ten's of thousands of artillery pieces permanently aimed at Seoul (population of 26 million in the metropolitan region and just 35 miles from the DMZ),
You've got extremely concerning incidents, deliberate and unprovoked, occurring EVEN WITH the American presence:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11818005
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking
The South Korean government simply could not allow the balance of power to be so radically changed without responding. And, there's a reasonable chance that that would entail acquiring nuclear weapons .... MAD all over again.
And yes, North Korea is an economic basketcase, but it has been an economic basketcase case for decades. Foreign analysts have been predicting its eminent demise since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And yet, it's still there.
The, "They won't attack because, economically, they'd have too much to lose," argument has been used countless times throughout history ... just prior to the outbreak of war.
It was used to explain why Germany would never attack the Soviet Union, just prior to Germany attacking the USSR in World War Two. More recently, Russia knew that massive economic sanctions would follow its annexation of Crimea, but did it anyway. How many times did Britain and France bankrupt themselves through war against each other over the past few centuries. Globalization is not a new phenomenon. There was massive world trade prior to Worlds War I ... that came to a screeching halt at the outset of hostilities.
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-locked-on-japanese-vessel-diaoyu-senkaku-disputed-islands-2013-2
Despite being called a "Self-Defense Force," Japan maintains a very modern and capable military. As China has been spending a fortune arming, however, the Japanese have been getting very nervous as they are so reliant upon the Americans to defend it.
So much so that, despite enormous domestic political pressure, they've amended their Pacifist Constitution to bring it more in line with the norms other countries. This drew major rebuke from China.
Given the sprawling military expenditures by the Chinese, the Japanese have also been upping their military expenditures, including technologies designed to "project power."
What China wants is Regional Hegemony. What stands in its way is Japan, South Korea and India ... and the presence of the Americans in the former two. From the East China Sea to the South China Sea to its disputed border with India, China has demonstrated both its intention to be dominant, and the fact that it is willing to pay a large political price for it.
The presence makes the "Price for War" too high to even be seriously considered. Remove the US from the calculus ...
Notice that China is spending huge sums on "Area Denial" weapons ... an attempt to deny US Aircraft Carriers access to waters close to its shores. If China is clearly contemplating a potential conflict with the US, and hence the weapons and the strategy, why would you believe that Japan would be safe?
The US had no presence, at little influence, in the Ukraine prior to Crimea and Donbas. Ditto for South Osettia & Abkhazia. It was not a NATO member or even a member of the EU.
This reinforces my earlier point about economic interests not preventing war. Russia has suffered, and is suffering, adverse economic impacts far in excess of anything it could hope to recoup by re-taking these regions.
If America left the region, that would be the de facto end of NATO. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuanian, NATO members, would be extremely strategic acquisitions for Russia and would reconnect Kaliningrad to the rest of Russia.
Look at a map. That leaves Poland as a buffer between Russia and Germany. We've been there before.
Russia's already under heavy economic sanctions. What more have they got to lose if American military might is no longer a potential threat?
The Middle East is a hornets nest, and has been for so long that no one can remember a time when it wasn't. Once you throw in religion, the geo-political complexities go through the roof.
Remove the Americans and the Iranians (Shia) and Saudis (Sunni) will be at it in no time. Even with the Americans in the region, it's a powder keg. Israel (I'll get to that shortly). Oil. The Suez Canal.
Its easy to argue the counterfactual, "If the Americans weren't there" ... but who knows what things would be like in such a circumstance? Do you think it would be peace and harmony?
Cut off the flow of oil from the Middle East and see what happens to the world's economy within one week.
No, the Americans DID NOT give Israel nukes.
Indeed, the Americans were aggressive in trying to prevent the Israelis from getting nukes! The Israelis lied upside down and backwards to the Americans to conceal their intent. The belief that America was complicit in Israel acquiring nuclear weapons is widespread and falsely asserted throughout the Middle East ... and is a source of enmity towards the US.
Following is an in-depth history (derived from declassified US Intelligence files) of what really transpired:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2016-04-21/concerned-about-nuclear-weapons-potential-john-f-kennedy
I think you made a typo: Black Hawk Down was Somali. But your point is taken. America has finite resources and concentrates them according to its interests. But so does every other country on Earth.
When the Philippines kicked out the Americans in the early 90's, it was over leasing fees. They couldn't agree on a price and so the Americans left, losing their largest Naval and Air Force bases outside the US. My original comment about this was again arguing that this was not the actions of an "Occupying Power" and that whatever your view of American Forces abroad, proper terminology ought be used when discussing the subject.
OK, I'm going to come back to this, you've answered this very concisely and I feel I may have got a few things wrong :-)
However I'll just say this before returning:
So why didn't the US attack Saudi Arabia then, they were Saudi nationals.
Anyways, like I say, I'll come back to this; I'm going to reference the CIA and the Mujhadeen, however I'm too tired now, I've been at it all day, and logic thought is coming to a crashing halt! :-)
Cg
@cryptogee,
Thanks for the Contest ... exhausting but incredible!
Holy Smokes ... now that's what I call engagement ... and a lot of good engagement too.
I'm doing a "Thank You" post that lists everybody who participated, and in it, I'm asking them to Resteem it to show appreciation to you for the Contest. We'll see, but I think a lot of them will.
I read your latest post ... about the changing nature of war and peace, derived, as you mentioned, from all the back and forth in the comments section on my post. I find that an intriguing idea ... and that got me thinking.
I have an idea I'd like to discuss with you in private (on Discord). I think it's something down both our alleys. I tried to find you on Discord but couldn't. My knowledge of how any of the tech here works is notoriously limited so I wasn't surprised.
So, if you're interested, could you contact me at QuillFire #7038.
Thank you for your poem, it raised several issues of the fickle nature of our relationship with the 'Law'.
Everyone harks back to Athenian democracy, but I doubt it would be popular today. What it meant in practice, was that every eligible male in Athens could vote, once a year, for one citizen (usually a civic leader or general), to be 'demarcated' - expelled from the city without trial.
I can't see people today going for 'demarcation' - on the other hand...
@nicktravers,
Nice to meet a fellow historian!
Athenian democracy could be pretty rowdy. And, they seemed to have a lot of time on their hands to argue politics ... a circumstance facilitated by their own substantial population of slaves. Plato was not in favor of democracy (at least the kind he was witnessing). I had not heard 'demarcated' used in that context (the processed of getting tossed out of the city is usually called, Ostracism) but I'll take your word for it.
Fun Fact: Plato was also for banishing poets!
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69373/from-the-republic
[@prydefoltz ... did you get that? Pryde ... I think Plato was pooping on free verse!!! He seems to be OK with lyrical poetry, though. :-) :-) :-)]
Nick, all this talk about Athens has inspired my choice of posts for later today.
Ha, ha, sounds like 'free verse' was the 'rock & roll' of Athenian society. Dangerous things, words.
@nicktravers,
Plato was a "thought-experiment" kinda guy, rather concerned about what the definition of "is," is. I'm more partial towards Aristotle, "empiricism"... if your observations don't fit your theory, change your theory.
@prydefoltz, she appears more into Socrates. Indeed, she seems to have something of a crush, and is willing to overlook the whole not bathing thing. :-)
Indeed, my friend. My provoking Pryde, for example, is akin to poking a bear. She is a very good writer and she gives as good as she gets.
Oh, the things we do in the name of sport. :-)
Dystopian steampunk, huh? To be honest, I'm not even sure what that is. I'll have to look into it. I've always wanted to take a crack at a novel. Two things are stopping me: I've got about a dozen different ideas and can't choose between them; and, time.
Some day. Some day.
Thanks by the way for the Resteeem of Behind Great Minds. That wasn't part of the Contest. I have an idea about how to fuse Steemit with my advertising business and so I'm "Keeping My Channel Clean" for those prospective future eyeballs (not Resteeming with the exception of Cryptogee's Contest). So, don't be offended by my not reciprocating your kind gesture ... Fortune 500's are a demanding lot.
That said, I don't forget those to whom I am indebted.
BTW: I'm not sure if it was an oversight, but to qualify for @cryptogee's Contest, you have to Resteem THIS post (I'll go check the rules to see if he's modified them, but as of this writing, I don't think he has).
Definition of law by Merriam-Webster
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed (see prescribe 1a) or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules The courts exist to uphold, interpret, and apply the law. (3) : common law
b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law preserved law and order in the town
Once we where all tribes and the ruler of said tribe handed down "the law" & enforcement of those laws. In this day & age we have a controlling authority which enforces past laws and uses them as a mean to control the masses.
The courts exist to uphold, interpret, and apply the law. This job is presided by a "judge" who sits on the "bench".
Ever notice how only the laws apply to the masses and not the wealthy? Plutocrats consider themselves above "the law".
All of the laws that have been instituted... have been broken time again by the wealthiest of individuals upon the masses yet they aren't punished. One must never forget that the term "bench" where the judge presides, means "bank" & comes from the Italian word for Bench "banco".
http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-word-bank-comes-from-the-italian-word-for-bench/
We can wax philisophical and poetic all we want, but laws are only applied if we are caught.
@mithrilweed,
You have a point.
I recall once telling a friend, "Right or wrong doesn't make the slightest difference. The guy who can pay the lawyers the longest, wins."
While this is a bit hyperbolic for the sake of making a point, it is clear that money is the Achilles Heel of the legal system. But, I might remind everyone, that this is a universal problem in the Affairs of Man. The one thing you can always count on with humans is that "someone will try to game the system."
When you look through the Trending Page here on Steemit, have you not noticed a disconnect between quality and compensation? Look through the list of upvotes on these posts. What do you notice? Look through the comments section and begin counting the number of vote-bots.
Money, even here, where the Central Premise is supposed to be: Content is Compensated Commiserate with its Quality, the system fails.
Damn.... I don't know where to begin. I think I felt just about every emotion reading this post. The poem was so beautifully written and I can tell it is not something that was thrown together in haste.
When I first started reading the article itself I found it humorous how the Founding Fathers spent so much time drinking prior to writing the Constitution. I am going back to school right now and I have found that I perform better on tests when I have had a few drinks. My school papers are a lot more interesting as well. I managed to write my final Ethics and Values paper and get my point across in 1.5 pages when the minimum was 5 and I still ended up getting an A-.
Once I got to the end of the article about you reading Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address, the tone shifted from comical to very heavy hearted for me. I was in the military for 10 years and spent the majority of it deployed away from my family in combat zones. I know the feelings that he felt as he wrote those words. My life has been impacted forever because of my experiences and I truly hope that my children never have to experience any of it.
Thank you for your service and for the amazing post.
@derangedvisions,
This is the kind of post Cryptogee is looking for ... and me too. Beautifully written, perfectly edited and expressing an insight and sincerity that's hard to miss.
There's something about having been in the military, that cannot be explained to those who have not.
My 16-year-old daughter and I spent 5 minutes riffing about your comment. She's been inspired by your technique! "Harvard, here I come! ... Burp!"
I read your post about your layover in Istanbul. You're right about the kids. It's too bad you didn't have longer to explore. Istanbul, if you're into history, has got to be one of the most fascinating cities on Earth. I'll go back and read through the rest of your posts a bit later ( I'm ... a bit busy at the moment!)
Thank you for your service and for the amazing comment.
Let's keep in touch.
I am glad you appreciated my comment. Tell your daughter that she is too young to start employing my techniques. I am actually prepping myself right now for some school work by having a rum and coke while I type this, lol. I have to summarize a script for a documentary and there is no way I would be able to make it through 46 pages without some liquid motivation.
Thank you for taking the time to read through some of my other posts, I really appreciate that. That short time I spent in Istanbul was amazing. The first night we were there was awesome. The hotel the airline put us up in was having a wedding party out in the courtyard and it was filled with a few hundred people, a live band, people dancing, smoking hookah and just having a great time. We were able to just be thrown into the culture headfirst and it was such an amazing experience. Then the next morning, I saw those children and saw a different part of Istanbul that has stuck with me, that I have dubbed, The Forgotten Children.
After the time I spent in Africa I came home a changed person. Before I left, I was somewhat of a "damaged" person, with a mind tormented from my experiences from war and my time as a law enforcement officer (another time and another post), but when I came home, I had a new purpose and a renewed outlook on life. I had realized that even though I had grown up traveling the world, my wife and kids had never experienced life outside of America, which I felt was a disservice to them, because there is so much more to this world. We are now planning on moving to Thailand when I graduate and helping "The Forgotten Children" of the world. I want to show my kids and my wife the beauty that this world has to offer.
I am hoping that this comment makes some sense to you and anyone else who is taking the time to read it. By now I am starting to feel a little tipsy so the words start to flow freely, which can either be a good or a bad thing depending on how you view it. This may have been how I was able to write my 5 page paper in a page and a half, or this could just be rambling nonsense, but in my mind, it made sense, I'm not sure if my hands cooperated with typing out what my mind was saying though.
@derangedvisions,
I hear you brother.
Africa puts things in perspective, doesn't it? Strangely, despite all the hardship and trauma, I still find it to be the most spiritual place on Earth. I used to say (before having a child), that if I had a terminal illness, I would return to Africa to die. Out on the Savannah. The circle of life. There is something about the rawness of the continent that is ... more honest.
A little piece of advice from one soldier to another, and, I suspect, one poet to another: Don't try to save the whole world, it will crush you. Do your part and have faith that others will do theirs.
Thank you for your advice. Have a great night brother. I never did make it to my script, I drunk blogged a post about my photography and PTSD instead and then had an awesome conversation with some other people on here. This Steemit community is great and I am glad to be a part of it and have met a lot of great people. I'll talk to you later.
You are quite right. I also wonder and ponder,
The law is for who?
Especially in my own country, where the poor are suppressed, the rich are forgiven, the poor takes the blame, the rich takes the victory. And what's more, it has become the norm for the smaller people to suffer.
This really helps in changing my own sense of thinking.
@cypher01,
As mentioned earlier, I'm writing this from the perspective of the United States.
Nigeria, is a bit different circumstance, isn't it? In my reply to @gjoeohere (above somewhere) I talked about how corruption is ruining Africa, a continent that would otherwise be incredibly wealthy. It's hard to know what to say. So much has been tried and yet the same problems persist.
Nation-building is hard, and much easier said than done.
Let me quote what I quote above:
I also asked @gjoeohere whether he had any ideas on how these problems might be fixed. I'll ask the same of you.
Your poem is clever and very well-crafted and tells the story of rule throughout history rather aptly. Some very adroit turns of phrase.
Laws seek to strike a balance. We are forever trying to find a balance between individual freedom and cohesive order, democracy and mass disenfranchisement. Ultimately we get the system we educate for, until the system becomes unbalanced, and then revolution and a new set point is obtained. Currently, we are somewhat will-nilly about the education side of things and give over to media inspired mainly by mercantile interests. Mercantile interests always sow dissatisfaction. Otherwise, we would not be inspired to buy beyond life essentials. Mercantile interests are not about balance. They are about attainment and provoking an imbalance.
Dissatisfaction has become ingrained and pathological. Enlightenment in all its guises, intellectual, spiritual, and psychological, are given a back seat in the nose bleeds, and so we are likely to fall to revolution yet again, revolution being the going around in circles, certainly not the turn Lincoln had envisioned. Perhaps we are well within one already. I know I get rather dizzy at times if I spend too much looking outside myself for contentment.
@prydefoltz,
Pryde, as usual, your writing is ... beautiful.
Steemians, take note, THIS is how one: crafts thoughts into words; words into sentences; sentences into paragraphs; and paragraphs into arguments.
Indeed, this comment is so flawlessly composed, I will refrain from reply other than to refer you to one of Pryde's earlier posts. Again, beautiful writing, displaying a subtle yet sardonic wit worthy of Mark Twain.
https://steemit.com/marketfriday/@prydefoltz/a-frosty-market-friday-a-crazy-canadian-woman-rant-blog-dswigle
For some fun, look through the comments section for an exchange between her and I ... even her comments are witty and beautifully composed.
Ahhh ... so sweet, Quill:):):) I am indeed flattered:)
@quillfire , @cryptogee.
The United States has a Constitution that protects its citizens from abuse in the criminal justice system. The right to a trial, to fair treatment by law enforcement are enshrined. Importantly, the Eighth Amendment also protects those convicted from cruel and unusual punishment.
In spite of all this, the American penal system is broken in many ways. Here are ten human rights crises that are happening right now, as a result of American justice.
1.Three Strikes Laws
Three Strikes laws became popular in the mid-90s, heralded as a way to be tough on crime. The idea was to remove repeat offenders of serious crimes from society. Three strikes laws mandate minimum punishments of usually 25 years for a third “serious” offence.
Many examples of convictions under the law have caused them to be considered disproportionate, if not outright cruel. Stories include people given 25 to life for stealing a pair of socks, or some baby shoes. 2. High Recidivism
Recidivism, or reoffending, is a big issue in the United States. A study in 2006 by the bipartisan Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons found that 52% of former prisoners were re-convicted .
Prison is popularly seen as a means of punishment and isolation from the rest of society. Unfortunately when people get out of prison, they’re back in the same position that led them to commit a crime, but with even less chance of getting a job and resuming their life. After all, who wants to hire a felon? In recent years, programs focused on greater rehabilitation have proven a success in several states.
Internationally, the lowest recidivism rate can be found in Norway . There, the justice system is much more focused on preparing people to re-enter society as useful and productive individuals, rather than punishing them for their misdeeds. Whilst many might be uncomfortable with being “soft” on criminals, Norway’s murder rate is an eighth of that in the US. The choice to be made is between an extremely thorough punishment, or improvement to society as a whole – both don’t work together. 3.Lack of Compassionate Release in Federal Prisons
Prison is not set up to care for people with serious or terminal illness. Keeping people locked up after a stroke, or in the late stages of cancer, can cause suffering that may be considered inhumane or excessive. That is the reason for compassionate release, and it is very much in the spirit of the Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
Yet the compassionate release system in the US, particularly in federal prisons, is shockingly poor.
left . Worse, prisoners cannot challenge the BOP’s decisions in courts, and compassionate release is rarely granted. Many die while waiting for a decision to be made. 4.Placing Children in Solitary Confinement
Solitary confinement is known to present the risk of mental illness, including depression, anxiety, and even psychosis.
5.Prison Healthcare
Prisoners have significantly more risk of health problems than the general population. Infectious disease can spread in the confined environment of a jail. Addiction and mental illness are also obvious risks.
The right to healthcare in prison is protected by the Eighth Amendment, and it’s big business.
Providing adequate healthcare to prisoners is not just important for them, but for the wider community. Proper care in prison reduces the burden on society when prisoners are released, and reduces the risk of disease being spread on the outside. Despite this, the number of prisoners with health complaints that don’t have access to medical care is high. Thousands of prisoners die in custody each year. Many of the deaths are preventable, caused by undiagnosed or untreated problems.
6.Sentencing Children to Life in Prison
The United States is the only country in the world that sentences children to life in prison without parole, sometimes as young as 11 years old . Often these sentences are automatic, and the circumstances of the child aren’t taken into account.
7.Prison Rape
Prison rape is almost a cliché, and normalized in popular culture , but the statistics paint a pretty horrifying picture. Whether in prison or not, rape is rape and is about as horrific a crime as can be committed, short of murder. Estimates of the number of prisoners that have been sexually victimized by fellow inmates or staff put figures at as high as one in ten . In sheer numbers, that’s over 200,000 people that have been the victims of sexual assault in prison.
Men and women are both at risk of assault. Bisexual and gay inmates, male and female, are at highest risk of being raped. In thousands of cases, the perpetrator is a member of prison staff.
8.Placing Children on Sex Offender Registers
The Human Rights Watch recently published
a report that highlights the problem of children being placed on sex-offender registers. The intention of such registers — to protect children from predatory pedophiles — is good. Unfortunately, the laws behind these have proved susceptible to misuse and ineffectiveness.
Some of the crimes described in the report for which children were forced to register.
9.The Death Penalty
The United States is one of only 21 countries to use the death penalty.
@noblekings,
OK, I concede. Your comments are longer than mine!
I've Met My Maker. :-)
Your arguments are well made and well articulated. There is little with which one could take exception.
Unfortunately, doing your points justice would require, quite literally, a book.
I would say this, however. Governance is hard. Making laws that are fair, wise and effective is a tough job. The most gnarly "law" with which lawmakers contend is The Law of Unintended Consequences. I'm not defending the short-comings, I'm trying to get everyone to cut each other some slack. I'm all for fixing what's broken. But we have to be careful, in the process, to refrain from imputing moral turpitude upon those who may not agree with our prescriptions. I see little evidence in America, today, that lawmakers are not trying their best to thread the needle of achieving humane justice.
To be sure, the system is not perfect. But let us not make perfection the enemy of the good. Read some of the comments on this post from other countries. It puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
But the comments section of this post is also an excellent example of how political discourse ought to transpire. Smart people coming together, sharing their thoughts and observations. No one name calling. Ideas, ideals and insights being measured and weighed.
Because your words were measured, I was forced to give them credence. I may, or may not, agree with every point, but I was obligated to listen. This is how we Safeguard the LAW.
Honestly am not a good historian.but I must say that war is inevitable for a desired outcome. It's either being lead or leading for personal interest which we want,those seeing what glory lies ahead wouldn't want to share the spoils equally, wouldn't want to rub shoulders evenly so the law comes into play. To put at bay the strong physically but protect the strong mentally to keep in line with thier interest and keep the strong physically under thier feet. Making their selves stronger and building an impenetrable castle,with the physically strong and yet enslaving them to be at peace when actually they are in the middle of a cold choas war. When I began reading this article it struck my mind that the poor adhere to the law and the richest make the law to suit them from bridging the gap between the poor. The origin of the law I presume was for fairness and equity but I wonder if it lost its taste or its just a cooking pot. Wars will come and go in different forms but who is willing to let go for peace. let's ponder on the tower of Babel of old on this it will never end for all will match for a just course to achieve a sole aim but different languages different culture different races how possible will it be to merge them? Thus the law imperfect but perfect in a way to avert total colossal damage.
@febizle,
Febizle, I was hoping you would show up!
I think you could have won the largest prize simply by copy-pasting "The Exchange" ... now there's a series of comments and replies! It would have had nothing to do with this post ... but still!
I've already addressed several comments from Africa, and Nigeria specifically, so I won't re-hash the same material again. But, I do want to address something specific from your post:
Take a look at you and I:
You're black, I'm white. You live in Africa, I live in the US. You're 23, I'm 50. You use your poetry to try to pick up girls, I've given up. We're pretty different, right? But we're also both poets. We share many of the same ideas, ideals and insights and face the same problems trying to articulate them in words. And, when we do, we both make little to nothing by posting them on Steemit. :-)
Can we not be friends despite our differences? Are not our commonalities more important?
They are to me.
One of the truly disturbing things I see these days, is an increasing tendency to define ourselves by the group/groups to which we belong. Identity politics. This is, most assuredly, a bad idea. Whenever you create an In-Group, you, by definition, exclude anyone not in it. They become part of the Out-Group.
My name is Paul. THAT is who I am. The rest ... is just adjectives. Be careful not to confuse the picture for its frame. We don't need to merge anything. What we need, I would argue, is to start conducting ourselves more honorably.
Honor has no color, gender or creed. It has no religious affiliation or political preference. Even in war, there are rules. We need to start respecting them.
By war, I'm speaking more metaphorically than literally. The famous military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz," once wrote, "War is the continuation of politics by other means." And he was right. Literal war is what happens when we can't solve our problems with words.
The language of dispute has become toxic. It is deliberately insulting and inflammatory. It seeks not to persuade, but to prosecute. It seeks to divide populations into confrontational networks of voting blocks. There is no expectation, nor desire, to listen let alone compromise.
To those with an IQ over 2, I would suggest learning to temper language. And, I would encourage you to temper the language of others. This is NOT advocating for censorship. My asking you to provide evidence for your assertion, as opposed to silent toleration of ideological vitriol, is not restraining speech. It's restraining stupidity.
Speechless...thank you sir.😎
Meaningful poetry. Really this tells like the law was blunted up but very sharp down.
Even in my country it can be felt, the monarchs who have money can buy the law, even if it has been proven wrong he can still enjoy the world with calm, what kind of gold he has until the law was subject to him. Things like this make us angry at the state officials, so easy they sell justice for a little gold. I think every country has a rat like this now, it's like a public secret. Advice of the ancestors was ruled out, who cares that the country will be destroyed if the law does not learn from history, they know how to collect many treasures.
Many things happen on this earth, injustice becomes commonplace for the poor.
I did not know much about the American constitution, but I think historical deception does not only happen in America, but many countries feel it. When reading an article like this I feel completely useless, because it can only be silent.
@putroeal,
Putroeal, look at this post and it's comments and replies. By the end of this week, we may well have set a record for the longest and most numerous exchanges in the history of Steemit.
This is not silence.
We fix the world one piece at a time. It can be frustrating because the problems seem so large. But a large thing, broken into many smaller pieces, makes the burden more manageable, doesn't it?
The American Constitution is an example, despite its historical imperfections, of how countries can govern themselves. It was a stroke of genius, implemented by men unafraid of plagiarizing the past - learning from it, lessons.
Study it. Learn from it. Copy it.
Hopefully we can really fix this. I see if in the america his free society opinion without fear, but in my country it is very difficult, if there are netizens commented on social media offensive officials then the netizen could have in demand for smearing good name and others. I and probably other people have lost their minds with the law.
Sir You Have really Gather Great History For Us Your Line "The most telling lesson of history, is that we don't learn from history. As Mark Twain reputedly said, "History never repeats itself, but it rhymes." We keep making the same mistakes." Really Teaches Us The Lesson Of What We Are Now Today Keep Making Peace Great Work,
@uxmanqaxim,
Thank you sir.
There are two ways to approach this comment - critiquing the poem; discussing the message. Since you did message me with an invitation to critique, I will do both.
Indeed, from Athens towards nowadays, man keeps creating laws, that mainly benefit the rich or powerful. Nowadays, in politics, it is extended - it does not have to be necessarily a direct financial gain; gaining 'popularity' for votes is part of the power game. The rules change but the game is the same. I would like to think that ideally the laws are there to be slaves of men; however, with the inefficiency and rigidity that they are constructed in, men becomes slave to law.
As for the poem, you should take this with a grain of salt; as you say - you are much better poet than I am. You definitely have skill with the rhythm and rhyming; doing both internal rhymes and then applying another rhyme scheme is extremely challenging. However, I do see it as distracting. Yes, it does sound nice and sonically it flows well. Yet, when it comes to grammar, there are many yoda-like lines. It is not necessary bad, it's poetic - but I do find it distracting and at times confusing. Maybe it is too poetic for me, and the message gets lost in trying to sound like a poem. I'm probably inviting you to shred me for saying such things haha - yet I do find that a huge part of poetry is readership. Then again, I am just one person, so my opinion is not as important.
@poetrybyjeremy,
Jeremy ... context. I am not a much better poet than anyone, and certainly not you. If you ever say that again, I will fly over to Malta and kick you in the ass. Your honest critique of my poem is something I wish there was more of on Steemit and I would never dream of shredding you for saying such things. We've got more history than that, right?
What you're saying is not a unique insight or observation. Let me insert a comment I made to @prydefoltz a week ago in one of our exchanges:
I don't much care for rap music, but there are rap songs I love (Written in the Stars). I do, generally, love Elvis, but I don't much care for Jailhouse Rock or Blue Suede Shoes. Classical music I generally find a bit sleepy, but I believe Ode To Joy to be one of the finest melodies ever created.
Art is subjective.
My preference for poetry is strongly inclined towards verse. But, there are examples of free verse that I like. I've seem a number on Steemit. Your preference is for free verse, but there are undoubtedly examples of verse that you like. So what in either case?
Rhyming in poetry is a double edge sword. It is the ultimate payoff in terms of dopamine (the anticipation of reward, creation of focus, holding attention and the formation of memory). The reason is that, in English, rhyme is the strongest pattern. And pattern recognition triggers dopamine.
But nothing is free.
Such increased focus magnifies that which underlies ... the meaning. If you get it right, you've got a brilliant poem. If you get it wrong, even slightly ... doggerel. It's Heaven or Hell and there's an extremely fine line in between. It is very easy when reading verse to tell "when the poet got it wrong." Even if you can't articulate why, you can hear that something is off. The pattern doesn't sound like what you were expecting. Moreover, in-artfully chosen, rhymes can sound forced, like the poet just filled in the blank with whatever word completed the rhyme he/she was trying to create.
It's a dangerous game and I play it at my peril.
But how is one to know if one got it right, or not, if no one will be honest? It's hard to edit your own stuff because you fall in love with the words in the process of writing them, and that blinds you. Poets with different tastes and styles need each other, if for no other reason than to keep each other honest. Steel sharpens steel.
Of course, the critic, too, is subject to personal biases. They too, could be right or wrong. So, a wise fellow will happily entertain criticism, but not be governed by it. Accepting some critiques while rejecting others. Again, subjectivity.
I leave you with two examples of poetry clearly gone wrong."
The first is a Verse poem, widely panned as the worst poem in history. It is so bad that many historians believe the poet, William McGonagall, was doing it deliberately. That is, that he was a comedian masquerading as a poet ... that bad poetry was his shtick. If so, he was a comic genius.
The second is a lyric composed by Yoko Ono. As it doesn't rhyme, I'm hanging it around the neck of the Free Verse camp ... probably unfairly, but who cares ... I'm doing it anyway :-).
And now, ladies and gentlemen, Yoko Ono (defiantly refusing to be constrained by the prison of meter, rhythm or rhyme). If you click the link, you are HONOR-BOUND to watch the whole thing! Fair?
Note the cheering and clapping at the end.
That poem does seem like an amateur's try at rhyming on Steemit. Yeah, obviously, your poem is excellent in rhyme - I can't judge meter 'cause I never studied, but yes, you do great to elicit a pattern. A longer line followed by a shorter one. Rhythmically it is executed brilliantly and, especially if spoken out loud, they are more likely to be catchy and get stuck in the brain. However, as we both said, we all have our biases; and, we all have different abilities. Some of us are able to understand poetry much more easily. Others need the sentence to be more grammatically 'proper', so to speak.
Having said that, from all the rhyming poetry I've seen, you're definitely the best. Okay, true, I'm not really exposed to rhyming poetry a lot, but it still is a big compliment. Having said that, I do think you do better in other pieces. This felt like you twisted it a little bit more than usual to fit your rhyme. It could be a wrong perception, obviously.
As for the Yoko Ono piece, I liked it. Maybe not artistically; but it is funny. I've never been with a woman (I'm that kind of homosexual), but I would assume that she might have tried to imitate or be inspired by moaning lol.
@poetrybyjeremy,
Well, I have been with women and can assure you that that IS NOT what it's supposed to sound like. And, if it does, you'd be well-advised to contact a priest to come over and perform an exorcism! :-)
I'll keep thinking that's how it usually sounds like. It's funnier that way
As long as the category of man and the people apply to a chosen few, then I look with suspicion on the ideal of equality. Equality itself doesn't escape a shaky assumption: that divisions are not only necessary but inevitable between classes of people. Those classes are social constructed, yet the laws at best do a weak job of creating a egalitarian playing field, and at worst they seem to write the divisions further into near-permanent existence. South Africa is a valid example of this.. instead of fundamentally altering the economy, the laws have written further into a sort of permanence the racial categories from Apartheid. I am extremely suspicious of law and lawyers for this reason.
@trumanity,
South Africa is an interesting case of the Road to Hell being paved with good intentions.
Like Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) before it, transition from White Power to Black Power resulted in reverse discrimination an an exodus of the white populace ... and with them: their money, knowledge and skills. So who benefited? Poverty and crime has since increased dramatically in both countries, both formerly quite wealthy countries.
This had, and has, nothing to do with whiteness or blackness. It has to do with Power and the inevitability that once obtained, in begins to corrupt. As I've mentioned elsewhere in my replies, the genius of the American Constitution stems from this realization by the American Founding Fathers. Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. And so, not trusting themselves or each other, they built-in an elaborate system of checks-and-balances to ensure that no person, or group of people, could become too powerful. They then empowered The Press so as to ensure that the System Itself would be constantly scrutinized from the outside. They were paranoid.
Democracy, especially American style, is an extremely inefficient form of government. It takes a long time to get anything done. But such inefficiency was a price the American Founding Fathers were willing to pay to achieve the effect... preventing power consolidation. The only exception they made was to grant the President near-complete military command in times of war. This is a lesson they learned from the Romans.
In South Africa, like so many other African countries, one form of tyranny replaced another. Ditto the French Revolution. Ditto every experiment with Communism. Once the revolutionaries were in power, they became as bad, or worse, than that which they had overthrown.
A form of tyranny has replaced the old one, you're right. But you're wrong about there being any experiment with communism in South Africa. Mandela's regime saw to it that an elite would benefit from the same old system, while the government talked social recon-everything under the sun, but none of it happened. The current president Ramaphosa worked closely with Mandela until turning to business. As a shareholder of Lonmin mine, when workers went on strike, he ordered the police to fire on them, killing
close to 10034 and injuring 78 striking miners. Socialism would have addressed the great disparities, but what has emerged is race being used as a football to placate the poor with cosmetic changes and promises that didn't materialise. What is happening now is Mandela's party is caving in to a wave of popular socialist nationalism, in a desperate effort to cling to power and continue it's system of rule by patronage. None of it good.@trumanity,
Excellent comment. Well-written, ideas well-articulated and ... edited. I'm out-of-my-depth respecting the details you articulate about current South African politics, so, I demur.
I quick correction: I did not mean to infer that South Africa had experimented with communism.
I was drawing a comparison with other world revolutions, and the subsequent behavior of the revolutionaries, once they took power. My reference to "communism" was in reference to the Soviet Union, China, East-Bloc countries, etc.
Sir, thank you for your compliment which I think are not due to me for my error in interpreting your initial response - after reading your first response a second time, I realised that I had misread it quite seriously. You were not suggesting South Africa is an example of a communist revolution.
On further consideration, it seems less relevant that a revolution was violent one or bloodless, led by nationalism with or without socialist leanings, with an effort to insert constitutional checks and balances, etc. does it? It may be true that every revolution is led with the best of intentions, but what is it that allows the ideal to go so wrong? I am still pretty much a dialectical materialist when it comes to answering this question. The struggle never ends and if we think it has, it may be then that the greed and corruption starts to set in. Mandela in a few of his statements indicated that people ought to remain vigilant. Having some constitutional framework, a strong independent judiciary, goes some distance hopefully, to shortening that Long walk to freedom. Let's wait and see what happens in South Africa.
@trumanity,
No problem about the misread ... it happens.
Dialectical Materialist, huh? That's the heart of Marxist thought and it has proved pretty unsuccessful at predicting social or political development anywhere.
The problem with Marxism and related philosophies is that they simply can't get good with the realities of humanity. They try to reason their way into utopia using metaphors that simply don't apply to human psychology.
The ancient Greeks talked about the metaphor of the phase transformation of water from liquid to gas. You heat it, heat it, heat it with no change ... but then, PRESTO, at some critical moment, it transforms into a gas, the same molecule but with radically different properties. Marx. and the communist regimes that would adopt his ideas, loved using this metaphor to explain how societies could suddenly transform from "base capitalists" into "socialist utopias."
And yet it never happened. Anywhere.
Humans are humans and they have a stubborn tendency to "revert to the mean" (to biological imperatives) ... that's why "history never repeats, but it rhymes."
There are universal human characteristics that are hard-wired and this limits the degree to which we can change.
Leftists hate this. Their worldview is based upon viewing human beings "as they could be" rather than human beings "as they are."
You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Thanks for the reply - I see we start from diverse points of view. Yours, perhaps idealism and determinism - mine, historical materialism. I don't believe we are born as sows ears, our conditions turn us into that and can equally have us become silk. I have reached this conclusion from seeing how those born into privilege are all-but-guaranteed to live lives of comfort, while those born into poverty are condemned to stay there regardless of how hard they attempt to get out. It is these conditions which lead to revolution - ask the Americans living under British rule about that - it become insufferable, they revolted - Revolution isn't a bad word for me, but each revolution can be judged in terms of history and the gains which were achieved for the society as a whole.
I have really enjoyed the exchanges, SIr - and look I forward to many more.
@trumanity,
I am a Canadian (so still part of the British Commonwealth) and so I learned a different perspective on the causes of the American Revolution ... although to be fair, Americans scholars have become a lot more honest in the past 30 years.
Americans WERE NOT living in intolerable conditions under the British. Even the famous "Tea Tax" that helped spark the Revolution, left Americans paying less for Tea than Londoners.
What drove Americans nuts, and rightly so, was lack of direct political representation in the British Parliament. In this sense, they were "second-class citizens."
To be fair to the British, the logistical nightmare of having direct political representation for colonies 2-3 weeks (in the best-case-scenario) away by sailing ship, would have been insoluble.
Mercantilism also played a big part. By restricting Americans from trading with non-British entities severely inhibited their economy ... leading to dramatically different economic interests and massive law-breaking (smuggling).
With respect to the "cow's ear" thing, let's be careful about making moral inferences based upon singular analogies.
I do not believe humans are born being "sow's ears." I believe human beings are born being human beings ... and that entails a lot of hard-wired biology that cannot be overcome with political platitudes.
People work harder for their own self-interests than they do for some nebulous concept of the State. "Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely." If you accept these premises about human beings, as I do, you design a dramatically different society than that envisioned by Marx.
I once heard the situation in South Africa described thusly:
Imagine you have been part of a football game whereby the other team had been allowed to cheat. It is now half time and you are losing 46-0. It has been announced that the game is now going to be played fairly.
So, do you simply start playing the game fairly; or do you let the team that has been cheated catch up?
At the moment, we are in the catching up phase.
Pretty powerful words in my opinion; and very hard to come up with a fair argument against it.
Over to you gentlemen :-)
Cg
I think the analogy you shared pretty much sums up the 'new dispensation' - it is the unstated roadmap given for a process of change in the 'new South Africa'. I believe South Africans have all-but accepted this dispensation, and that is at the root of our problem. It is based on an unsound analysis of our situation, it is one which was ushered in by compromises.
The ANC has always embraced the idea that our problem was a racial one and that non-racialism (the new jargon for the old idea of 'breaking the colour-bar') was the panacea to our problem. They are in an alliance of convenience with Trade Unions and the Communist Party, but in essence the ANC and it's alliance are hard-core capitalist and Nationalist. Ramaphosa himself, (a former trade unionist/'socialist'/capitalist).
If any person wonders about the South African 'wonder' - how there no bloodshed during the revolution, the answer is 'because there was no revolution'.
You see, @cryptogee - the idea of revolution in our situation is not to end up with two teams, but one team. It is only then that an individual can grow up feeling he or she is part of a nation. The teams I think the analogy makes reference to is black and white. That idea has it that when we see more people of color in the elite group/playing in the match, then we have achieved change and nationhood perhaps. This is non-racialism. It is not going to suffice because the real teams are the 70% of the nation that is landless, poor, and insecure vs the 30% enjoying varying degrees of security which are way better than the 70%. If those are the teams we are examining, the score is still 46-0 after more than 20 years of a new dispensation. The gap is widening, while the security and employment, education, health, etc.
You see, for me, the analogy is accurate but it describes a terrible situation; one where we are accepting an argument which to me is unacceptable viz. that to rectify the wrongs of the past, we should continue doing what the culprits did in the past. The game has to change, not just the players. (my apologies for the lengthy comment).
@trumanity,
An excellent riposte. Strong argument, beautifully articulated.
I think it was Gandhi that said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Philosophically, the temptation is to do what @cryptogee highlights ... "let people catch up." The problem is how? Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia) is an example of what happens when the "tables are turned." All the Whites simply left, with their money and skills, and the country went from being one of the wealthiest sub-Saharan countries, to one of the poorest.
Pyrrhic victory.
Real-politics gets in the way of high-minded idealism.
This is not a problem unique to South Africa. In the US, Affirmative Action initiatives have been attempting to redress the racial inequities for decades. And, they've been successful to an extent.
But they are also perpetuating, and at times exasperating, the very racial animus they were intended to resolve. For example, to get into most universities in the US requires the submission of SAT scores (for non-Americans, SAT's are standardized tests that American high school students take in Grade 11). The whole point of "standardizing" the tests is to equalize disparities in grading biases.
But given the Affirmative Action initiatives at many universities, including the most elite ones, Whites have to score 150 points higher than Blacks to be equal. Asians have to score 250-300 points higher. This is creating racial resentment.
Moreover, it is robbing from Black students, who did make the cut on merit alone, the respect they have earned ... "You only got into Harvard, Yale or Princeton because you're Black."
An additional problem this is creating is that of intellectual mismatch. The Ivy League universities are probably the greatest concentration of Valedictorians on Earth. The competition amongst students for class-rank is ferocious.
As a result, Black student retention rates are much lower than that of Whites or Asians. Did you do that Black student a favor by throwing him/her in to compete with that lot, only to become so depressed that they drop out?
Any Black student capable of getting into the Ivies, even with racial preferences, is an extraordinarily smart person. They would undoubtedly dominate their class if attending a second tier school (which, by the way, includes many highly respected universities).
Any thinking person would want some form of redress in both the South African and American examples. The problem is, as ever, the Law of Unintended Consequences. Solving one problem only to create another.
There are no easy answers to "hard problems" ... for if there were, we wouldn't call them "hard problems," would we?
At some point, though, if you want to eradicate racism ... you are obliged to stop taking note of skin color.
Understandable seeing as there were decades of state sponsored violence towards anyone with a skin colour that wasn't white.
That's probably what black South Africans were saying for years. But then it only becomes a problem when they are in charge.
Let's do a fun thought experiment; imagine for one second that America wasn't the might it is, and got invaded.
During the invasion your home is stolen and you are forced to live in a slum.
Then 40 years later the invaders go; however there are still lots of civilians that come from the invaders' homeland.
One of them owns your house, that you'd quite like back so you can give to your grandkids.
Do you shrug your shoulders and say; oh well, it wouldn't be fair now to take it back?
Or do you say; I'd quite like that back now, it was stolen from me and it's only fair it should be returned?
Cg
@cryptogee,
Excellent metaphor. But he's got an excellent rejoinder too.
I must say, this got to me. I have always wanted to be some kind of tourist who would travel the world, but well, here i am stuck in my country.
I once tried illegally sneaking into Europe just for the crave of real civilisation, but truely i think that word is exists only in the books, real life, we all still just some crazy homo sapiens. No one is at peace with his neighbour, some haven't even found their inner peace, how then can they live in peace. War is everywhere and this goes beyond those controlled by the so called governments or leaders, there is a war within our selves, wars in our homes, in our communities, but we only look upon the big inter-country wars. The best way to cut down a tree is from its root,
The law will always be broken, so the earlier we start ruling with love and not just law, the better for everyone.
Hey man. I do love the poem and the whole take on it.
I am not sure how to comment on the political stuff as I think History is quite overrated as it really has been written by the winners so it cannot be trusted much ... On what you said about Canada yes you have resources and huge territories but apparently no one wants to live in there except the Dears :) I think Americans understand that pretty much and they are happy they have someone who explores this territory and gather those resources for them... :) Well all that said I hope I did not offend anyone was not my intention really. I just don't want to get started on America and how "great" it is :)
@angelveselinov,
Hi Angel. Thanks for dropping in.
You're right, history is often distorted by who's telling the tale. Nevertheless, we learn what we can and, if nothing else, history makes pretty good "tourist traps." It's good for the economy.
Talk again soon.
Now I read your piece and it was quite nice... But this line from Lincoln's speech that struck a chord:
Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
Because that's precisely where my country finds itself... Leaders too old and inept to lead who you'll think after being led by the neck in chains and shipped off to suffer would finally alleviate at least a fraction of our problems... But no we the youths are left to our own devices in a country where suddenly snakes and monkeys can run off with sums most of the populace would never see in their lifetimes... And every tribe suddenly wants to have its own country, I don't understand how hard is it to fix your own shortcomings before first looking to lead others, how can hunger suddenly make one bloodthirsty and immune to reason... Well I don't understand politics but good thing I'm a poet would just keep wallowing in hunger writing for a nation that doesn't love itself much less it's people...
@jayo,
Read through some of my other other replies in reply to Nigerian comments:
As I have opined, no country can survive institutional corruption ... and Nigeria has a lot of it.
Tribalism. People are defining themselves by their In-Groups. Not as individuals who have to earn respect through merit. You and I are both poets. What makes a great poem for you, is the same as it is for me, and it has nothing to do with your skin color, religion or tribe.
What makes our poems great, or not, is our respective ability to beautifully craft words that express an idea, ideal or insight ... that someone cares about. Nothing else makes a wit's worth of difference. Poetry is a meritocracy. And so is being an accountant or an architect or an engineer. Anytime someone gets a job or a promotion ... or gets elected ... based upon anything other than merit, it hurts Nigeria as a whole.
Tribal history, and having pride in one's roots, isn't a bad thing. I can trace my family lineage back almost 1,000 years. I am proud of my clan (I posted a poem about it, "From Whence That You Came:"
https://steemit.com/thealliance/@quillfire/thealliance-you-are-not-quite-desirable-for-our-society-my-response-from-whence-that-you-came-poem
to teach my daughter about the standards to which she and I are to hold ourselves. This is little different, in motivation, than the traditions and rituals than many Nigerians practice to celebrate their ancestral history.
But with, 200+ tribes, Nigeria is riven with competing interests that have nothing to do with, "What's best for the country?" Political Correctness stops people from speaking honestly and honorably about the issue as Post-Colonial Guilt has paralyzed White People from criticizing, or even critiquing, anything about Black People. But how do you think outside investors, with the capital Nigeria so desperately needs to develop, view this ever-shifting patchwork of competing alliances? "Instability, unpredictability, uncertainty ... RISK" ... are the words that come first to my mind.
If Nigeria (and many other African countries), wants to survive in the present, it will have to live in the present. And that means "Best Man/Woman for the Job" irrespective of tribal affiliation.
If you don't appreciate what you have please who will do it for you, American love their country so much that we the others looks inferior, am saying a fact here.
Thank you for this fine read. The poem was intricate and complex. I am finding so many amazing, and awakened artists these days here on Steemit. This time thanks to @cryptogee.
Being some one who believes they can see the lies between their (any politician in America these days) teeth, I agree on the sentiment that we are heading again towards a civil war.
And I have been preaching this for years, that there is a divide growing in America, for there are certainly those who would wish to destroy this nation and the great middle class that makes up the majority. And all of it by design.
Since the founding of the evil Rothschild family banking cartel and all the evil that stemmed forth.. the government no longer works for the people. The people work for the government, yet they're mostly too blind to see it.
Thank you again for this post. One easily worth sharing.
Mankind never learn from history. And even the most well-informed laws and constitutions never makes us learn. Every law made has a dent which almost always requires amendment. And laws are usually made with some people in mind. There are always people are mostly affected by such laws. So while in surface value, it always seems as if it was made for the general populace, at the end of the day, the real people for whom such laws were made becomes obvious. And when disagreements arise as a result of making laws with a set of people in mind, the inevitable happens - conflicts, and then wars!
I read thru your post @quillfire, and then was so intrigued, I felt compelled to read through all of the comments as well. I must say that I loved your poem; it is so well written, with extraordinarily appropriate word choice, tone and multi-layered semantics. My brain was going in a million different directions by the time I was finished.
I too, " When I listen to the hyperbole and vitriol of modern political discourse, [ I] feel a sense of foreboding. Often "money" or "greed" become the scapegoats for conflict, but in the end, I think the problem often boils down to intolerance of others...political views, religion, sexuality etc. But I guess not simply intolerance, but the need to expect others to change to coincide with what was at one time, a popular viewpoint. The US has obviously changed over the years, but maybe not so much after all. Sure it was a country where immigrants were welcomed; but was it really? It doesn't take too much searching to find many examples of inequity in history. Like you stated somewhere in these comments, "steel sharpens steel", but that seems to be an ideal at best, and definitely an idea that, for a million reasons, can't or won't be adopted there. And I think in the end, that is a huge disservice to the country as a whole; the idea that two opposing beliefs cannot only coincide, but can together create something new and amazing, or at the very least, simply agree to disagree.
Like you stated in the comments "The United States is the only country in human history founded not upon the realities of geography or culture or language ... but rather, upon ideas, ideals and insights." When the makeup of population as a whole continues to change and be all-inclusive(supposedly), but the expectation of the original "ideas, ideals and insights" remains the same, then conflict naturally occurs, with unfortunately no conclusion or remedy in sight.
Thank you so much for a thought provoking post here; I thoroughly enjoyed it!
@lynncoyle1,
Hi Lynn. My name's Paul.
As you can imagine, these are the kinds of comments I love! Poets have big egos. So thank you for stroking mine. :-)
I agree with you. But here's the problem: Both political extremes do it. Some people obviously still believe in that "once popular viewpoint," or there wouldn't be an ongoing disagreement. So, who gets to decide which viewpoint is valid?
Me? You? Who?
If you want freedom of thought and expression for yourself, then don't you have to let others enjoy their freedom of thought and expression as well? And, if you won't let them have theirs, why should they let you have yours?
Live and let live.
But some people just can't get over the fact that others believe differently than themselves. So, they employ a trick to try to coerce people into proper belief. Since there are laws against Hate Speech, they just label anything they don't like, Hate Speech. Since words are the containers of ideas, banning words bans their underlying idea.
Voila, you've got everyone "thinking right" without the hard work of trying to persuade with facts, evidence and arguments.
1984 by George Orwell.
I'm an immigrant. I've lived in the US for 26 years. I've always felt perfectly welcome. I know many other immigrants from all over the world. Same story. But we're all legal immigrants.
Is it intellectually honest to conflate legal immigrants with foreign nationals illegally living and working in the United States? United States, like every other country on Earth, has Immigration Laws. What's the point of those laws, or any laws, if they're not enforced?
Perhaps they're bad laws and need to be changed? Fair enough. And that's where the hard work of Democracy comes in. Individuals don't get to unilaterally decide which laws they'll comply with and which ones they won't. That would cause chaos and anarchy.
"But what if a majority won't agree to change the law and give me what I want?" Then the law won't change and you won't get what you want. That's how democracy works. The majority rules. There's probably not a single person in the country who's happy with 100% of the laws with which they have to comply.
Respectfully, the evidence is everywhere that people with opposing beliefs can, and do, work together to create new and amazing things. Husbands and wives NEVER agree on everything, and yet they create families. Companies deliberately create project teams with viewpoint diversity so as to increase creativity. Democracies the world over have managed their affairs for centuries despite an enormity of differing opinions.
Hi Paul,
Nice to meet you as well, and you are welcome for the ego-stroking ;)
I taught Orwell's 1984 for years, so I completely understand where you're going with this; throw in a little propaganda, and voila!
And perhaps I didn't word things precisely enough, because I do realise that there are plenty of examples of those with opposing beliefs working together. I was referring to opposing political beliefs, but I guess if either compromised or bent a wee bit, they'd be compromising said beliefs.
Ahh it's a conundrum...one I'm going to leave with you, because a certain someone just suggested I go have a glass of wine and toast all the great teachers in the world, so I think I'm going to do that instead ;)
@lynncoyle1,
Thatta girl!
"Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social and government institutions to regulate behaviour."
But due to corruption law is not what it seems today.
Our leaders have ensured that laws are for the weaklings and the poor.
They always bend the rules to their advantage but the masses suffers at the slightest mistake.
They're entitled to embezzling millions but a citizen caught stealing even as low as $10 is entitled to jail.
"The law shapes politics ,
economics , history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people."
But we all know this is very far from the truth in our present day life.
Most constitutions are borne out of the current happenings at that time without considering the future and leaving some life in jeopardy...
Time changes and new events unfold, it is therefore of important that we review constitution in at certain period and the motive most not for it to favour some set of people.
We have a slogan around...
>The drum of war never stop beating Blood flows on the street like a flowing river... Everyone wants to be the super power... It is an unending war that does not hold water for the victor
War might be the answer to peace because the peace experienced are in pieces..
Thanks for this chosen golden word @quillfire
@fadiji09,
Hi, and thanks for the comment.
I've made several lengthy comments to Nigerian commenters so I'll refrain from opining on those same issues. I would repeat, however, that corruption is the key.
Laws mean nothing if they're not enforced fairly and uniformly. Africa, a continent for which I have great affinity, has got an endemic corruption problem. It doesn't matter how much oil Nigeria has, corruption will forever paralyze progress until the country finds a way to force accountability upon those in power. I know, easier said than done and, unfortunately, I don't have a prescription on how to get there.
I would caution about even uttering such words. War is a terrible thing and the result is usually such utter destruction and estrangement of people that, even after the hostilities cease, it takes generations to rebuild. As a Nigerian, you don't have to look far for examples of countries ripped apart by warfare and the devastation it leaves in its aftermath.
100% of the time, it is better to solve the problems peaceably. Again, I know, easier said than done.
An idea that strikes me as interesting would be the setting up of an Internet News site (perhaps a Steemit account) ... OUTSIDE the country ... who's sole purpose is the exposure of corruption. Name names. Provide details. Provide a place for whistle-blowers to get their information published. WikiLeaks for Nigeria. Always be 100% accurate and never engage in hyperbole or speculation. Check and double-check sources.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
You spoke well about the word corruption has eaten deep into nigeria system.
I think the citizen of the country need to first believe in themselves, in hardworking and in surviving.
Thanks
@fadiji09,
By the quantity and quality of comments from Nigerians, I'd say there exists a widespread desire to fix the underlying problems. Let's hope it happens.
Great work here. I really like what you have put together and you elicit some stirring thoughts. Throughout the whole campaign in 2016 I watched with horror at what was going on between the candidates. There were many times I thought "this, this is what is going to make people realize he shouldn't be President". I knew I could be wrong though because also in the back of my head was this nagging feeling that people are okay with this. There are a lot of people that don't care or are willing to look past it. Then he was elected and all of the uproar began. People talking about how long it would take before he was impeached etc. My thoughts then were "you can't." Although he didn't win the popular vote, he won enough that if he were to be forced out, there would be civil war in our country. I don't have a fix for all of this, I wish I did. I think setting term limits and outlawing corporate lobbying would be a great start though. I think those things could be easily done without changing the heart of the Constitution. That is just my opinion though.
@bozz,
As a political centrist, I watched the unfolding of the 2016 election in something akin to incredulity. "These ... are the two choices?" I can't tell you how many times I heard someone say, "I don't want to vote for either one." In fact, although I wasn't keeping tabs, I'd guess 75% of the comments were in that vein.
My take on the election is that Trump was not chosen per se, nor was Clinton defeated per se.
I think the electorate chose sides in an underlying culture war.
Almost all the same issues that are dividing the US, are dividing the UK, Canada and Australia. They're also effecting much of western and eastern Europe. Despite having lived in the US for 26 years, I'm a Canadian citizen (Green Card) so I couldn't vote. But I talk as much politics as anyone, and more than most.
What I was struck by was the frequency of comments concerning things about which the politicians weren't talking, or at least, not to any great extent. One women called it Millennial Madness:
But here's the thing: Many of the aghast I spoke with were Democrats who voted for Obama both times! Center and center-left moderates. All were university-educated and several held advanced degrees. And, most voted for Trump or abstained from voting.
In my opinion, the inability, or unwillingness, of the far-Left to engage is civil and reasoned discourse is what lost them centrist swing-voters, and hence the election. Clinton and Trump were merely symbolic figureheads of a much deeper divide in the body politic.
I don't disagree with you on some of your points. You will probably be dismayed to know that I really wanted Bernie though. The two options offered were horrible and as much as they try to tell you voting independent is not throwing away your vote I think we all know the reality. Your comment about political correctness is spot on though. A quick glance at the comments on any Yahoo news story will show the divide and the ability of people these days to degrade any subject down to race or bias. I read a great article a while ago called The Wussification of America. I wish I could find it again to reference it. It was pretty telling. Thanks for the reply to my comment!
Technically it wasn't throwing away your (our) votes, because no matter what state you are from, a vote for Hilary would not have won her the election. I voted 3rd party, but my next best option was not voting, so I find it ironic that anyone would blame anything on third party voters. (Any blame must assume what would have been done if that third party vote was not cast, in my case, I would have not paid the postage to mail it in).
I think a little differently about US politics now that I live off continent, but I believe that the implied two-party system is one of the deep (unconstitutional) tap roots of the problems in the US.
@ecoinstant,
You know who was against political parties of any kind: George Washington. And John Adams. And Thomas Jefferson (until he threw in the towel prior to his own Presidency).
The Constitution was carefully designed to balance interests and loyalties. There is no provision for the "extra layer of loyalties" afforded to political parties. Indeed, getting away from political parties was one of the driving forces for choosing a Republic-style of democracy over a Parliamentarian one.
Although it won't happen, what I'd like to see is the leadership of the Republicans and Democrats get together and agree to, at the stroke of midnight, simultaneously disavow their respective looney-toon fringe elements. Drive the nutcases out of both parties. This way, both parties would be equally disadvantaged by the votes they'd lose, and hence the balance of power maintained.
We've got to get back to normal political discourse between the Center-Right and Center-Left ... sane Republicans and sane Democrats respectively.
@bozz,
Personally, I think Bernie had a bit of a math problem ... how to pay for all his ideas. (You might be surprised to learn that I, a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, would support a National Healthcare system ... although I'd want some fixes first (Singapore has got an interesting model to study). Nevertheless, Bernie was the most honest and honorable person in the race, and honesty and honor go a long way with me.
The "political correctness police" are using PC as a tool of coercion and it's shutting down honest debate, the lifeblood of any democracy. The explosion of euphemism is an especially pernicious development. Once you control words, you control ideas.
Thanks for the great comment.
It is true we humans are myopic in our thinking, we are often one way and that one way is pointing directly to us
Lincoln's word encompasses it all
@aristokratos,
Thanks for the comment. Lincoln had a talent for cutting to the core of an issue, and then using simple, yet profound language, to articulate it.
That's undoubtedly true
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.... the rest is commentary.
@offgridlife,
Amazingly, or perhaps not, almost every major world religion came up with that aphorism verbatim. An insight so obvious that it is impossible to miss. And yet, so few do it.
Agreed.
Well technically this isn't poetry, it's more like a political article. Still great by the way. Here have a worthless upvote.☺
@eddy2cul,
I'll take it where I can get it. :-)
That was quite a party the founding fathers had two days before the Constitutional Convention. They did leave enough enough time to nurse their hangovers.
All kidding aside though, as long as greed is a part of the equation, we can never have law the way it was designed and meant to govern.
@mellofello,
Good username!
I hope you're wrong as greed seems to be a permanent characteristic of human beings.
Even though I am not an American, or the likes of it, I found this post to be what ever you wish, that I want it to be for you to have an in-joy-able-day.
Also; blockchain technology can be the solution for the challenges of the human specie. Let's make this work.
😍😻🙈
This... This is just pure GOLD! How come you have not best-sellers and famous books all over the World? I mean, America is probably a GREAT place to grow and publish best-sellers-to-be, you should not be the exception! 👑⚜💰
By the context I do conclude you do live in America... Washington, D.C. is perhaps my favourite city in the USA... So rich, so peaceful and solemn, and yet so embattled and full of the writings of posterior history! From Rome and Athens indeed, an echo goes down the ages, and meets its identity replicated so many centuries after... 🏛🏛🏛
Actually yes, what a real rarity the Constitution of the United States is! A monolith from which all Law and Justice henceforth spring from... Forth... Forward... AMAZING! 🌬🌪⚡️
The French Revolution has been called out all throughout time and space (the full geography and "posterior history" of ours, that is) as the cornerstone of "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality" but; were Voltaire and Montesquieu wrong?
⛪️🕍🕌🏰🏯
So, what is Law? What is Legislation? What is it that the Race of Men writes in Tables of Stone for all generations to come...?
I would say, the one that inspired the French one was the American Revolution! Many would! many know it to be so! But we don't hear that too often, do we? WHY? That overcomes me... I do know that to be standing at the feet of the (George) Washington Memorial, to be within the semi-sacred hall of the (Abraham) Lincoln Memorial, to walk through the Arlington National Cemetery, to see and feel what is felt at the shrines of the Founding Fathers... It is without equal. An experience I'd recommend to all lovers of history, democracy, American National pride, or a combination of the three! Probably Napoleon Bonaparte, beyond the waters of the Atlantic (though jealous and confounded), would agree! Or Simon Bolivar to the South, or even his master/teacher and eventual prisoner, Francisco De Miranda (the hero of France, Russia and America ALL COMBINED, no less...) 🇷🇺
🇺🇸🇫🇷🇪🇸
These flags up here, what do they have in common? The 1st and the 2nd ones I already pointed out above, but what about the third one? Well, it may be that "history is written by the victors"... And who won the Wars of Hispanic American Independence? It was not Spain, it were her children abroad... And thus, the "Metrópoli", the "Madre Patria" (or Mother-Motherland, if we are accurate) was left to wonder the pages of history alone and stripped of her former power, her glory and her predominant strength even over Britain, France and the whole wide World... 🇬🇧
The "Invincible" Armada was defeated, the realms of her Emperors and Kings (who once ruled all of Europe except France, Britain and the lands beyond Poland) crumbled into dust and ashes... The Holy Roman/Spanish Empire, a shadow of its former self... Thus, the spoils of war enriched lesser countries and lands, less glorious but far more "opportunistic"...
So what is written in Law and Judicial Systems if not the outcome of history? The victors write the laws, not the defeated...
It sounds as an off-shot, I know, but the deal is, this is the 3rd happening of the American Revolution phenomenon, but the one that is usually overlooked; Simon Bolivar (the "Liberator") had his own selfish interests for, "liberating"... He wanted power, all of it, but because he was a Spaniard born abroad, he had to leave the exercise of power in the hands of "true" Children of Spain... So he plotted against them, against the sons and daughters of "The Planet King" (you read that well, THE PLANET KING! Phillip IV), against Charles IV and his heir Ferdinand VII, whom De Miranda always defended, and whose flags and standards he carried into battle against the French ("FVII" could be read atop them).
🇪🇸🇲🇽🇵🇪🇨🇴🇦🇷
He eventually succeeded, and took advantage of the chaos in the Peninsula (Spain) caused by the Napoleonic Armies sweeping through, the brother of the Emperor (Joseph, "King of Bottles" of wine) now the usurper of the Crown and Throne at Madrid...
So, a lie is what we are told and fed: France was the enemy at first, not Spain; the goal, to "relocate" power from Spain-borne politicians; and LASTLY, one of the biggest lies... A Republic was already in place in Spain (so, in the Hispanic context, the Latin American ones were not the first ones!) and also... A CONSTITUTION! 👁📜🛡
Well I may have gone well over my reach here, but I don't know, I get easily carried by these type of themes, forgive me! I'd like to wrap it up with a more-modern discussion; the sales of fire-arms in the United States of America. Why are they so freely allowed? Well, "Second Amendment!", most Nationals would shout...
But, why? Why was such a thing established in said amendment? As far as I know, "to defend the American people from their enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC"... The USA is probably the ONLY Nation World-wide (or one of the few, with Australia and Canada maybe?) that has not seen tyrants, despots and dictators arise from their loins... Britain has seen them, all of Europe for that matter, East Asia... And let's not mention Latin America and the Near Orient! The USA seems to be the only odd in a list full of evens...
Tyranny may be more afraid of a people "armed to the teeth" and fighting for their own freedoms than we usually realize... Long Live the Law!!!
[Source] ( ...uh... yeah😆😝😄😅 RIGHT HERE!)
@dialsamai,
Well ... if Cryptogee likes emojis, I think you're going to be rich.
Seems he doesn't... And neither do you, do you? I said a lot of stuff, no response to that?
@dialsamai,
For the entire week, I never got more than 3 hours of sleep per night. At some point, you run out of time to write more comments. I commented on some of your comments but had to skip others. I ran out of time. Sorry about that. Your stuff was good.
I want to make sure you understand something ... the "Big Upvotes" on comments was part of a Contest that ran for 7 days. And so, it's now over. While leaving comments post-pay is fine, I still see them and am glad to have them, most people, including Cryptogee, won't. This is the nature of Steemit ... everyone's focused on the first 7 days.
Thanks a lot for your input - it is greatly appreciated.
I read this post hoping I'd get to understand what idea was being portrayed here but I'm sort of at a loss now that I'm through with it.
So I'd like to ask @quillfire to please make his post more concise.
I sort of grabbed the pathos which rang in the final part of this post, how hopeless things are if even when the country was being laid, people had views so divergent it threatened to bring down the nation.
And I sort of know that sort of feeling could be running unchecked in our society today, but I'd have loved to have seen @quillfire expand on this.
He brings a good post to the table. I'm just not so sure he has finished it yet.
@paragon99,
Thanks for the comment. The poem, and accompanying article, is not meant to convey "hopelessness." I certainly don't feel the situation is hopeless. But, I am concerned. The level of vitriol has become pathological. Democracies require free and open debate of ideas and maintaining a spirit of compromise is an imperative.
Ironically, the comments section of this post is exactly what I hoped the poem/article might inspire. Many people expressing intelligent and thoughtful opinions, sometimes conflicting, and yet remaining civil and level-headed. Each arguing their perspective, while being respectful to the perspectives of others.
Hi, here is my two cents. As a nation we have a severe inability to work through conflict. This is exacerbated by two powerful political parties, which is pulling everything apart at the seams. It seems every corporate entity has an alliance with one of the two parties, and toes the party line. Many are just checking out of the news cycle, frustrated with the lack of objectivity. What if we passed a law to level the playing field politically?
I propose that every presidential election would have to involve at least three parties, and that for every dollar a specific candidate spends on election efforts, they would have to give a dollar to each of the other two candidates. In this way, a wealthy Donald Trump would have the same amount of money as Joe the Plumber. There are many worthy people who are not wealthy or connected to the wealthy. As for the conflict, we need to learn to disagree without demonizing each other and ad hominem attacks. I would welcome more debates, but debates where the microphone is CUT at the end of their time, the sound goes dead whether they are "done" or not. Perhaps a graphic on the screen could score the debate based on real debate rules, not just who fires the best insults. For all this the USA is still an amazing place to live. We have a lot to improve on, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
@giddyupngo,
I would watch the debates JUST to see their mics get CUT!
That's the perfect attitude. I'm with you.
Thanks, your reply made me smile!
I don't know much about laws but I do know that their very existence implies two things:
There is an alternative course of action (which they try to prevent)
And they are going to be broken (Else, why would there be punishments?)
I believe in small and simple laws. I remember that in SFL, we always say the law should say what citizens cannot do and what the government can do. These days, it's like the other way round.
The law dictates what people can do and highlights what the government cannot do. So people are restricted while those in the corridor of powers get to enjoy themselves.
Do i have a solution?
No!
@iamthegray,
Neither do I, but that's why philosophize, right? All solutions start with thinking about the problem.
Yeah
You got that part right
This... This is just pure GOLD! How come you have not best-sellers and famous books all over the World? I mean, America is probably a GREAT place to grow and publish best-sellers-to-be, you should not be the exception!
By the context I do conclude you do live in America... Washington, D.C. is perhaps my favourite city in the USA... So rich, so peaceful and solemn, and yet so embattled and full of the writings of posterior history! From Rome and Athens indeed, an echo goes down the ages, and meets its identity replicated so many centuries after...
Actually yes, what a real rarity the Constitution of the United States is! A monolith from which all Law and Justice henceforth spring from... Forth... Forward... AMAZING!
The French Revolution has been called out all throughout time and space (the full geography and "posterior history" of ours, that is) as the cornerstone of "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality" but; were Voltaire and Montesquieu wrong?
So, what is Law? What is Legislation? What is it that the Race of Men writes in Tables of Stone for all generations to come...?
I would say, the one that inspired the French one was the American Revolution! Many would! many know it to be so! But we don't hear that too often, do we? WHY? That overcomes me... I do know that to be standing at the feet of the (George) Washington Memorial, to be within the semi-sacred hall of the (Abraham) Lincoln Memorial, to walk through the Arlington National Cemetery, to see and feel what is felt at the shrines of the Founding Fathers... It is without equal. An experience I'd recommend to all lovers of history, democracy, American National pride, or a combination of the three! Probably Napoleon Bonaparte, beyond the waters of the Atlantic (though jealous and confounded), would agree! Or Simon Bolivar to the South, or even his master/teacher and eventual prisoner, Francisco De Miranda (the hero of France, Russia and America ALL COMBINED, no less...)
These flags up here, what do they have in common? The 1st and the 2nd ones I already pointed out above, but what about the third one? Well, it may be that "history is written by the victors"... And who won the Wars of Hispanic American Independence? It was not Spain, it were her children abroad... And thus, the "Metrópoli", the "Madre Patria" (or Mother-Motherland, if we are accurate) was left to wonder the pages of history alone and stripped of her former power, her glory and her predominant strength even over Britain, France and the whole wide World...
The "Invincible" Armada was defeated, the realms of her Emperors and Kings (who once ruled all of Europe except France, Britain and the lands beyond Poland) crumbled into dust and ashes... The Holy Roman/Spanish Empire, a shadow of its former self... Thus, the spoils of war enriched lesser countries and lands, less glorious but far more "opportunistic"...
So what is written in Law and Judicial Systems if not the outcome of history? The victors write the laws, not the defeated...
It sounds as an off-shot, I know, but the deal is, this is the 3rd happening of the American Revolution phenomenon, but the one that is usually overlooked; Simon Bolivar (the "Liberator") had his own selfish interests for, "liberating"... He wanted power, all of it, but because he was a Spaniard born abroad, he had to leave the exercise of power in the hands of "true" Children of Spain... So he plotted against them, against the sons and daughters of "The Planet King" (you read that well, THE PLANET KING! Phillip IV), against Charles IV and his heir Ferdinand VII, whom De Miranda always defended, and whose flags and standards he carried into battle against the French ("FVII" could be read atop them).
He eventually succeeded, and took advantage of the chaos in the Peninsula (Spain) caused by the Napoleonic Armies sweeping through, the brother of the Emperor (Joseph, "King of Bottles" of wine) now the usurper of the Crown and Throne at Madrid...
So, a lie is what we are told and fed: France was the enemy at first, not Spain; the goal, to "relocate" power from Spain-borne politicians; and LASTLY, one of the biggest lies... A Republic was already in place in Spain (so, in the Hispanic context, the Latin American ones were not the first ones!) and also... A CONSTITUTION!
Well I may have gone well over my reach here, but I don't know, I get easily carried by these type of themes, forgive me! I'd like to wrap it up with a more-modern discussion; the sales of fire-arms in the United States of America. Why are they so freely allowed? Well, "Second Amendment!", most Nationals would shout...
But, why? Why was such a thing established in said amendment? As far as I know, "to defend the American people from their enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC"... The USA is probably the ONLY Nation World-wide (or one of the few, with Australia and Canada maybe?) that has not seen tyrants, despots and dictators arise from their loins... Britain has seen them, all of Europe for that matter, East Asia... And let's not mention Latin America and the Near Orient! The USA seems to be the only odd in a list full of evens...
Tyranny may be more afraid of a people "armed to the teeth" and fighting for their own freedoms than we usually realize... Long Live the Law!!!
Note: Re-post/re-comment for Emoji-haters out there...
@dialsamai,
Wow. Great tour through history!
Great comment.
Well thank you... It does sound sincere and I appreciate it. I WAS expecting a long convo with you like the rest of the commenters here, but oh well... :D