Occupied on Wall Street

There's a lot of talk out there about "Occupying Wall Street", and talk of it being a revolution of sorts. That's what gets me worried, because revolutions, historically, are a fairly bloody phenomenon. Two revolutions that come to mind were both bloody, one American, one French. But there is a major difference between these two. The former produced a Constitution. The latter produced no less than twelve Constitutions. The difference has to do with the revolters. Why were they revolting?

In the American, though they differed as to why, the revolters all had one goal, which was the overthrow of the English, and this is important... for the sake of governing themselves better. In the French, everyone had a different motive and a different goal. The poor wanted bread, the nobles more influence, the growing middle class trades and craftsman wanted more economic independence. They all united to destroy the king and his infrastructure, because he was the problem for supposedly achieving all of these goals. The former revolt was an organized group under wise leadership, the latter simply a mob. So they "occupied Versailles". Yet they ended up with an emperor instead. 

Revolutions swing the pendulum. Always. And when the pendulum swings back, it swings hard. Sometimes. The French Revolution swung back hard, and everyone should take note that they have had emperor, bloodbath, terror and over a dozen Constitutions, where the American has had just one.

The Wall Street protesters need to be very, very clear about what they set out to do, even while everyone has his or her own reasons for why one should do just that thing. These people need united goals. If they don't their revolution will be a French one, and not an American one.

Here is the crux of the matter: The protest started without a clearly defined goal. The protest, while trying to define a goal (because it knows it cannot succeed without one) is struggling with the fact that determining a goal becomes increasingly difficult as more people arrive, each with a different vision of what the protest should be. Cornel West, a civil rights activist, in an interview at the protest recently pointed out the arrival of many people, with many, many different views of what was taking place, and what ought to take place. But he gave no clear indication, as a leader it would seem, of where the protest should go.

Now the "Occupy Wall Street" effort still hasnt voted on the details it is striving for yet. Not only is the cause being hammered out after the fact of its organization, but knew proposals continue to arrive. You can read the main efforts being proposed for vote here. Don't vote without reading EVERYTHING! It is misleading, but those items one can vote on are placed before those informative aspects like these being demands rather than proposals, that they can be made from anywhere in the world without US citizenship, etc.

That's right, these are not proposals, but demands. In the name of civil disobedience, these protesters write the following:

"We should make the demands below very publicly [sic] at a press conference a few days after arriving in DC. When doing so, we should give a clear deadline of 3 days for a firm written commitment with signatures from at least 60% of members of House and 60% of the members of the Senate to pass these bills by the end of the year. If this commitment on the full slate of demands is not met by midnight on the 3rd day (which it won't be) we should be prepared to non-violently block access to all or part of the Capitol complex the next morning by traditional proven non-violent tactics. The purpose is to bring the leaders of the House and Senate to the negotiating table."

Let's take one of these demands as our example:

"2. USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list."

Here it is assumed from the outset that someone is guilty! At the time I looked, 95% (hence it being #2) had voted to include this in the official demands. There is "consensus" that a clear group of people are guilty of swindling money. The list of who is guilty will be determined by the documentary film "Inside Job" and "other research". Now, once you have this list, are you bringing these people to trial for accusations of fraud? No, the list is already comprised as of their guilt. This is more of the French Revolution and "off with their heads". It reminds me very much of President Obama's recent killing of a U.S. citizen without trial because of his being labeled a terrorist. Guilt by accusation is what Obama did, and what the Occupy Wall Street protesters are seeking.

How can anyone claiming that there are crooks on Wall Street also claim out of the same mouth, and in the name of democracy, that someone is guilty? And based on "pretty broad consensus"? No, no, no. I want innocent until proven guilty. Bring accusations against someone. File a suite. Make a case against an individual or group of individuals. But do not demand to shut down the Capitol unless a list of crooks is made! Based on a documentary! The fact is, this revolt is not to overthrow a government in order to do that very important thing I mentioned at the outset... i.e. "to govern oneself better". Guilty until proven innocent is not a better principle than the one in existence. It is a revolt to meet certain demands, who knows what they are just yet, at all cost. This is not the American sort of revolution.

What is more worrisome is that these lynch mob demands to the American congress are not being made alone by the American people. This isn't local democracy. This isn't grassroots. Everyone in the world is able to vote to determine what will be demanded of congress. I know because I just did it right here from Sweden, without being asked my status as a US citizen. Incidentally, I voted NO on the guilty-until-proven-innocent demand (#2 above) to be sent to congress. It is a demand by the world potentially for the US congress, beholden to the people of the US alone, to enact certain laws. This is a theft of the sovereignty of the American people, in fact. And if that demand, made by the world, isn't met, these protesters are going to attempt to shut down government after 3 days. Let me put it differently, the world voting to make an impossible demand or they shut down the US Capital.

Now don't get me wrong. I am all for protest, and the fight for change, civil disobedience, etc, but I want to, as they say, turn the page not burn the page. This mob has no goal as of yet. And the goals it has are both a motley of mixed emotion of having been wronged, are undemocratic, and are an effort in some cases to tear down infrastructure. They are also not being determined alone by the people who are sovereign over their representatives, but by everyone. Just so we are all clear, if you revolt against the system with too many Indians and not enough chiefs, that is to say, without clearly defined goals, you are likely to end up removing a king, only to find yourself in the hands of an emperor. And if you revolt against the system in ignorance, you won't even realize you're worse off in the new system. 

The advent of social networks like Google+, Twitter, and Facebook in combination with social media like Youtube, Flickr and cellphone cameras, have put everyone in touch. This new and revolutionary technology is, however, a double edged sword. Public opinion is not always right! And the tyranny of public opinion is at hand. We all know this is true. Read your new testament. Mobs tend to sing Hosannas for the guy who rides in on mule of peace one day, but shout "crucify him!" only days later. It's a sad story, and it is about to repeat itself.

Taken as a whole, this little protest is more dangerous than anyone is really yet ready to admit. It's going to get big, and then it's going to get unwieldy. It is looking more and more like a French Revolution than an American one every day. In reference to the Arab Srping, Cornel West likened the occupation to a "US Autumn". My concern is a winter of our disillusionment will be the result.

On Grade Inflation, Hype, and Financial Bubbles

I'm no economist, but I couldn't help but notice after reading a recent article on what teachers really want to tell parents, that all of the social mechanisms supporting one's child in misbehavior, for viewing the teacher as a problem in the way of a child's progress, and for pressuring teachers into increasing the child's grade - I couldn't help but notice that the grade inflation looks very much like the economic bubble that is ready to pop. Like anything arbitrary. such as the recent hype about how Facebook's new changes (as a result of competition with Google+) are going to reinvent the way we experience emotion, we build a castle on air and watch its glory fade in the wind. Or worse, burst and crash in disaster.

“The changes Facebook will roll out on Thursday are designed to enhance the emotional connection its users have to each other through Facebook. These changes will make Facebook a place where nearly everything in your life is enhanced by your social graph. These changes will make it so you know your friends better than you ever thought you could.”

There’s a simple curve to all of this. In the image to the right, there is a natural and smooth development of events over time. The horizontal dimension is time, the vertical, the degree of establishment. This is roughly the curve one goes through in establishing oneself in life. One could even describe that the space below that curve is a measure the volume of earned events, a form of experiential authority. 

Take a new company for example. That company has no clout, but it has what it thinks is a good product. But no one else believes this. What does it do? It gets endorsements from people who already do have authority. I (famous person) use this product nobody has heard of yet. Want to be like me? Want to have something so exclusive even I use it? In the case of a human being earning experience through life, we begin, hopefully, with the “endorsement”, i.e., the support, of our parents, that the attempts we make at establishing ourselves as self-sufficient and independent, stable individuals is a positive thing, well worth earning.

Back to the company analogy. At some point, the company gains a reputation for a good product. It gains authority because of the product itself, not the endorsements given it. The fact that more people use it, that it has become something of a norm, speaks for itself. At that point, perhaps those expensive celebrities can be done away with. It’s enough to make T-shirts and let the customers themselves endorse the product.

Wait, what’s that other curve there? The not so smooth curve? Well, right there where that curve jumps up by leaps and bounds at point X, somebody is boasting! And doing so without having gotten to that height of establishment yet. Somehow, a claim was made to unearned authority. What this is is an attempt to reach the high established ends of the graph without having earned it. It is groundless, and it is typical of many a phenomenon in the world. It is revolution vs. evolution. It’s the Zuckerbergs of the world saying “we are going to change the way you experience emotion. Sitting on your computers, you are going to learn more about your friends than you ever thought possible”. And then comes the reality. Well, it was a little better than before, maybe, but not like you stated it.

The curve of establishment falls again, and with the negative consequence of a loss of trust at point Y, the revelation of an empty boast, we find ourselves with a little less clout than we would have had without the hype. Never cry wolf, goes the saying.

So how does all this relate to financial bubbles, parents and student grade inflation? Simple. Student grades, if they are not earned, are castles built out of cloud-stuff. Vapor. And while it may satisfy the pride of the parents for a day that their son or daughter got that better score, the day of the fall will come. What happens next on that curve is pretty clear. More, and further arbitrary means of reinforcing the child will be made. More revolution. More wind. More baseless and groundless getting by. Affectation is rough. It is even habit forming.

The child will not only fail to earn the grades he or she received, but will learn that this is how to behave in life. That getting what you want is not a matter of slow, hard-earned and disciplined effort, but one of quick fixes and shiney promising solutions. How very sad. When the pendulum swings back the other way, though, it swings hard.

There is hope however. Some, but not all, revolutions have a learning curve as well. Take that path and life will be, as the image illustrates, a roller coaster. But it can settle down. Endless revolutions can also act as earned experience of what not to do. Life begins to settle down at point Z.

That is the student-child we are speaking of. The teacher has lost some establishment in the process of that revolution. And every successive parent who comes along supporting that sort of behavior in the student will remove from the teacher, and from the profession, this establishment. Don’t get me wrong, some teachers have no establishment, and to an extent justify the opinion. But on the whole, teachers are those who have to know the law, work within the curriculum, act as both nanny (though they shouldn’t) and psychiatrist not just to one patient, but to 20, and these days 30 puberty-stricken patients at a time(!), all while fending off the stratagems of parents who feel the cloud-castle entitlement of their children to succeed in this competitive world. No wonder qualified teachers go elsewhere, where qualification brings more money and more respect.

Parents, make this assumption. Teachers WANT to give your child a good grade. But their hands are tied. They measure, and shame on them if they cave in and don’t!, the earned effort and achievement of your child. If you find your student’s grades rising substantially after you have a hard talk with the teacher, as opposed to one with your child, expect that hard times are ahead. The bubble is going to pop. But hey, you earned it!

As a compliment to Andrew Duff's "Federal Union Now"

Andrew Duff recently published a good work entitled Federal Union Now, on the reforms that the European Union desperately needs, and which would create a "United States of Europe". I could not help but notice the title's resemblance to Clarence Streit's great work on federal union between the leading democracies of the North Atlantic at the time he wrote it in 1939, Union Now. I support that cause. And so I want to complement Mr. Duff's work with my own thoughts on aspects of federalism as they relate to the citizen and the citizen's perspective. How is this relevant to me? What will I gain from it?

Historically, the United States Constitution is the first document (spelling out a principle) that creates peace between separate nations (California and Arizona, New York and New Jersey, for example). It is for my children that I support that Constitution, and any form of it's practical outworking elsewhere in the world. I am not a nationalist, and I only promote the US Constitution to the extent that it helps others in the solution of the problem of mediation. Nationalism would have me celebrate the 4th of July, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, and whatever other self-determinism that the nation demands. But it was just chance however that I was born there. I celebrate instead the 17th of September (the anniversary of 1787), when a Convention produced in less than two days the Constitution. It is my only TRUE obligation as a citizen of that nation of nations to defend the Constitution. It is the only oath I have taken to any state, and the only oath I consider valid. I believe that the best defense of the Constitution is to make it universal.

Though I mention the Constitution, other states (and I'm speaking here of Europe) must ratify their systems in their own ways, and according to the wisdom they find in their own citizenry. Federalism, while it has a historical model in the US, is a principle. I have seen too often the tendency for federalists to argue for what their own nation has done to contribute to federalism. I would avoid that. It is nationalism within our federalist ranks. Let me make it clear that, not only did I happen to be born in the US, but it happened to be the US that discovered the principle of federalism first. It so happens that Europe is also discovering that principle, in their own time and in their own way.

It is ethical to be a federalist. Federalism is good for our nationalisms.

Mr. Duff gives a great outline of the economic problems and the structural changes that are necessary for a successful Europe. While reading his eBook, I asked myself however how much of this the layman might understand. If the federal argument is to succeed it must appeal to and have the support of the people, that much is sure. Therefore, this post, while supporting the economic and legal aspects of Duff's work, and with only respectful criticism and disagreement on some aspects of it, emphasizes federalism from the standpoint of the citizen, philosophically and ethically.

My qualifications to write on the subject? Practically none, I suppose. I'm a guy from L.A. who believes in the federal principle. My qualifications are definitely meager, at best, compared to Duff's. I am neither a political science or economics major education-wise (Education, History and English are my forte) and I lack a great deal of knowledge, admittedly, in the European system of government and law. I have no political experience as Duff does. I am a citizen (originally) of the City of Norwalk (where I was born) and of the County of Los Angeles (of which Norwalk is a part), and I remain a citizen of California, and of the United States. I have residency in Sweden, and so, the fate of Europe affects me and my family.

So what is federal union? Mr. Duff has one answer in the following:

"A more federal union will enjoy only the competences conferred on it in the constitution by its member states[.]"

I agree with this, but while it is good and right that the states, as collective bodies of citizens, should determine aspects of the constitution, competences should also be conferred upon the federal constitution by the citizens of the member states, for that, above all else, is what makes federal union actually federal.

There is a tendency here to see the state as the foundational entity. I've written on this before, that European democracy has evolved through a "Hobbesian" channel of thinking, as opposed to a Lockean paradigm, that causes the State to grant law to the people, rather than that the people restrict the state to certain aspects of law. This mindset above all creates the culture of state rights and state sovereignty, previous to the real and foundational sovereignty of the people. The State determining the law is, however, the state of affairs Europe is in now. It is the current self-determination and meddling mentality. Of nations, by nations, and for nations is the nationalist system of alliances, treaties, handshakes and agreements. None of which is binding. There is no sovereign federal law in such a case, nothing to ensure that such agreements become more than just praiseworthy and sentimental but powerless injunctions of what ought to be. We ought to unite, here it is on paper, but just now Germany is going to do its own thing. I'm in this for me, all over again. But I'll pressure you, and resist pressure from you, when problems arise again. 

Put simply, when there is a decision that involves more than just myself, be it the wider sphere of my children or my wife, personal decision is overridden by collective decision-making. The group, in that case, must supersede the individual. But this does not in any way eliminate the fact that such groups still, and always, at their foundations, consist of individuals. My sovereign right to determine my own fate however is now bound up with another's. And so, I willingly hand over, and hand UP, a portion of my sovereignty, my right to determine my fate, to a higher entity in our family structure. Self-determination at all cost is totalitarian, on any level (whether familial, communal, state, federal, or even global). This "at all cost" self-determination happens every time collective problems are acted upon alone by the individual (or state), without the consent of the collective involved. It happens when a group decides what should be an individual decision as well. To pass off as liberty some supposed right of self-determination when anyone else is directly involved is immoral. On the contrary, it is the highest form of democratic behavior to act federally. It is in fact ethical to be federal.

We practice it every day of our lives, in fact, when we set aside a portion of our own personal will so that collective problems can be deliberated on by the collective. Note that it is only a portion of our sovereignty that we set aside (and in reality shift). I make individual decisions involving me. The family makes decisions involving the family. The state, consisting of the people, makes decisions involving the state. The EU makes decisions involving Europe. I'll come back to that shift further down.

Certainly, when making collective decisions, one or the other viewpoint in any disagreement will prevail, but it is in the participation, and in the belief that even if I lose the argument, that we abide by the winning view, that we practice federalism. Federalism is not for sore losers, in other words. It is not for those who say, "I'll play the game. But if I lose, I will withdraw and go somewhere where I will win." That philosophy is for those who demand to win continuously, and again is self-determination. It is not liberty, but licence. It is selfishness. Federalism says, "What the group decides on this group affair, even if it disfavors my personal view, yet will I abide by it."

Every time we enter a courtroom, or ask for someone impartial to mediate between ourselves and another disputant, both parties agree to abide by the decision of the court, the arbiter of our case. And it is exactly this situation that is being proposed on the European level by federalists such as Andrew Duff. He points out rightly that a federal Europe is not the superstate of Union detractors. I will emphasize the fact that a federal court will only be arbiter of interstate and state to federal affairs, such as arbiter between a citizen of Germany of one of France, or a citizen or state disputing with the EU itself. It is not, again, the superstate fear that people envision, but simply an inter-state mechanism for resolving disputes, for instance between the citizen of one state and that of another.

At present, monetary issues that involve the EU are being arbitrated and solved by dominating states, and alliances and treaties of states. Some rules are being imposed (to weaker state frustration) by the current form of the EU, which is dominated by certain strong states, some of which aren't even fully participating in the EU, and are outside the Eurozone. But who would ever agree to go to court with someone over a dispute, if a third party, not involved in the dispute, got to have a say in influencing the decision? And who would go to court over a dispute if one party, because of circumstance, had the judge's ear? That is how things are today, in the EU.

A case in point is a recent article published by Carl Bildt and Anders Borg of Sweden, entitled The dangers of two-speed Europe. The concern is that, with talk of a federalized Euro, that Europe will be split into two separate zones, a federal Euro-region and a European Union with some nations not using the euro. While it pleases me to see Swedish politician's acknowledging the fact that a federal Europe would operate at a faster pace, I disagree with the following sentiment:

"Let us not forget the deep and mutual interdependence between the Euro-zone and the rest of the EU, with large flows of investment, trade, capital, and labor. For instance, the Greek sovereign debt crisis has lead to a crisis of confidence in financial markets across the Union, not only in the Euro-zone. Solutions to Europe's common problems should therefore be discussed, negotiated, and agreed on in fora where all EU-27 states are represented."

I could equally argue that this problem and its resolution also affects the United States or China, and therefore, the US and China should have a say in what transpires. It is an example of nations not using the Euro deciding the fate of the Euro. This is the cause of the problem, not a solution. There is a fine line between solving collective problems collectively, and assuming that because a problem affects a larger group, that it should have a say in the solution. Mr. Bildt and Borg are arguing for meddling. They are arguing for members not fully participating from having a full say. They want the same ol' "negotiations" between sovereign states, and done in "fora" rather than in one forum. This, again, is the situation where we, you and I, go to court to resolve a dispute, and find a third party there saying the decision affects them too because they are our neighbor. "Don't forget about me. Even if I don't participate in the thing that you are disputing over." A federal Europe, with a federal Euro, eliminates the possibility of non-Euro states from interfering in the affairs of the Euro. That is exactly what is needed. It is exactly what Mr. Duff argues for when discussing "the British problem" (see Duff, p. 25), which is also "the Swedish problem". Collective government is weak because there is no clearly defined border between who is in and who is out. Look at the United States as an example. California and Sweden do not decide by pressure how New York shall spend and administer its money. With federalism, the problem is nil. Those who use it, decide upon it.

The problem above becomes more visible if we speak again of shifting, rather than taking away, state responsibility over the Euro. As Mr. Duff writes:

"Enlarging the size of the EU budget on this scale can be achieved by transferring some items of expenditure from the national to the EU level, thereby saving national treasuries money." [emphasis mine]

In the current system, a state's ability to administer the Euro is sovereign, and pressure from other states is the  only real means of getting such states (Greece for example) to administer money in a way that favors those other states. This fosters the mentality of "don't forget about me". In that case, the US and China should be involved, pushing their weight around too. This is precisely how Europe works currently. A federal Europe however means states don't pressure other states at all. They all (all that are fully involved at least) shift their decision-making process and mechanism upward to a federal government. The old mechanism of pressuring other states to act in a certain way is eliminated. 

Just now, a European currency is being administered, not by a united Europe, but by individual states. Imagine a family bank account that was being administered by all members of the family, without that family having any singular mechanism agreeable to everyone for how the money in that account was to be used. Well, you would get the northern-states-bailing-out-the-southern-states situation in the family. You would get one individual telling the others, "It's my money too, and just now, I'm doing my own thing." And you would get in return other family members PRESSURING that wayward member. It is a disregard for interdependence, yet there is nothing in such a situation to guarantee that obligations to others involved in one's own decisions are respected. The British/Swedish problem on the other hand is someone in the family who has a separate income, having nothing to do with the dispute over the bank account, but, because they are still a part of the family, think they should have a say in that account.

So back to government of by and for the people. If states are the determiners of affairs, they will always act in their own interest. Britain and Sweden are not exceptions but standard. Nationalism is the name of every state's game. Always. People even mistakenly give up their rights for the sake of their states, as these encroach upon them! Yet there must be some mechanism or sovereign power that binds the states to the federal system. That sovereign power is, again, the people.

I want to emphasize the necessity of the European federal system being answerable to the people, not only sentimentally, but actually spelled out in the constitution. The nation-states must be held accountable and answer to the people. The federal level as well must be in the hands, ultimately, of the people. The Euro is the European citizen's money (though it isn't the British or Swedish citizen's money!), rather than the individual European State's money, somehow graciously distributed to the people. Now a two chamber parliament ensures that both the states and the citizens are represented. But the Constitution is, and should be, the people's.

Before closing, I would make one crucial objection to Andrew Duff's book. Again, this is a contention placed within the context of praise for the work he has written. My criticism is leveled at his statement that "Others will disagree [with the federal solution], and they must make their own case for less radical solutions." What I disagree with is framing federalism in terms of "radicalism". It is a disservice to the movement, and to a promotion of the principle. As I've stated above, we do this every day. Federalism is an every day phenomenon, only that we have thus far applied it only to a portion of the spheres of our lives, not yet to the inter-national level of the EU. What is radical is the refusal to do so, the refusal to apply it consistently to all levels of our interactions with others, familial  as well as inter-state, to remain in the deadlock of the system of pressuring others into acting in our favor, of acting on our own in matters directly involving others. What could be more insane - and radical - than selfish determination and meddling in others' disputes? Federalism is simply a mechanism of mediation, of solutions on the level of collectivity that problems take place at.

Not only is federalism not radical, it is already proven to work. The 50 nation-states that make up the United States do not pressure one another to manipulate their budgets so that neighbors won't experience crisis. Such pressure is tantamount to war. The states are largely independent of one another. Yet they are intertwined in one another's fate. When one suffers, they all suffer, when one is pressured (from outside the US), they are all pressured (as the US). This isn't radical. It is ethical. It is human beings, and the states they belong to, sticking together. And it is what Europe and Europeans need more than ever.

My Ecological Sermon On The Mount

When I view Jesus' parables, I always ask myself, like any good federalist, where is the sovereignty in the parable? To some extent I am certain Jesus himself understood these relationships of sovereignty. When challenged about paying taxes, he asked whose face was on the coin. In his parables, specifically, who is sovereign? What is sovereign, artificially so called, because it is taken for granted? What is sovereign because it has been lost, and now is found? Now by sovereign, I mean what holds power, sway, influence, gravity, importance, political sovereignty. What is priceless? Looking at his parables in this way, there is a certain joy attached to things that are earned. There is freedom and truth found in what grows, versus what is handed to a person.

Another way to put it is, what is arbitrary? This is the reverse of the viewpoint above. Things appreciated, or accomplished via an unearned method, are arbitrary. Ready made solutions. Makeshift solutions. Things and people taken for granted. Presumption.

The two questions are a counterpoint. One is evolutionary, ethical, natural, organic. The other is revolutionary, arbitrary, summary, and superficial. The whole of Jesus' teachings, as I understand them, used the former and evolutionary method.

One great example, a parable which I recently used in a short story on the dangers of arbitrarily genetically engineering honey bees, found here, is The Parable of the Weeds, as follows:

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man who sowed good seed in his field:

But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

I love this parable immensely. I comment on it here because it is illustrative of a point. This parable is not about the enemy who sows weeds. It is about the householder's rejection of his servant's suggestion that they pull up the weeds. Evil will be evil, sure, but the good servant shall not use revolution to fight the revolution that an enemy imposed upon them all.

In my short story, I modify the parable slightly, not only to bring forward that point above, but to show just how organic (in British English ecological) are Jesus' parables, especially this one.

The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. When the wheat sprouted

and formed heads, the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, do

you want us to go and spread herbicides to kill the weeds?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘for while you

are killing the weeds, you will be damaging the wheat with them. This is an ecological crop. Let

both grow together until the harvest. At that time the harvesters will collect the weeds and the

wheat, sort and sift between them, and then bring the ecological wheat alone into my barn.

I have a garden, and I have four good rows of red Raspberries growing in it. It never fails that when I leave it alone a couple days, up sprout the weeds, all sorts of nettles and thistles. Because I am only concerned with a large portion of berries, I am not at all worried about the few I chance to harm and crush while pulling up the weeds. And so pull them up I do.

The same is true of the non-ecological farmer. Weeds grow, and to minimize these from the start, the farmer sprays out herbicide, killing them. What he also does with that herbicide, and pesticides when there are little creatures eating away at the crop, is damage the crop itself. 

What we are talking about here is 6 billion berries, and concern for every one, so much so that the householder refuses to arbitrarily tend them. The householder allows for weeds, because to summarily cut them down would also harm the grain.

Now I am sure some biblical interpretation may be applied to this. Some sorting and sifting of the wheat from the weeds in the afterlife. That's for somebody else. But me, I'm concerned with the here and now, and this parable is about ethical living. This is not a magical formula where you state "I believe Jesus died for my sins" and arbitrarily all things are better, get out of jail for free. In fact, according to the parable, such a statement is a quick fix that creates more trouble than not. It certainly doesn't improve upon a person's character, and may make the person feel psychologically certain that 

The parable, to me, is about not using arbitrary methods with others. I'll state that positively. It is about using evolutionary, earned methods of achievement with others. How many bosses have you liked that micro-managed what they didn't believe, yet you knew, you yourself were capable of? How many new magazines on the market go out and claim that they are great, rather than borrow somebody else considered great to get the person to vouch for them? Problem very few. They borrow sovereignty from others until they have earned their own. How many times have you turned down good advice because, even though it's exactly what you need, it wasn't asked for, and therefore oversteps some bounds of propriety? How many know-it-alls do you respect? Affectation is an attempt to appear more skillful than what one has actually earned. But I digress a bit.

The parable means going to the individual privately with your problem before going to him or her with a group of mutual friends, and that before going next with the "congregation". Going with the congregation from the outset, first, places the congregation, rather than the individual in question, first. It is arbitrary. It breaks the rule that the Sabbath (or congregation) was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (or congregation). If this is about the individual, then why do the harm of control. In essence, going to the congregation first is a means of controlling, arbitrarily, what you are unable to achieve by evolutionary, ethical means. If you enforce the solution with the congregation, summarily, immediately, arbitrarily, have you really solved it? If you solve things in this way, is it because you having gained the skill of solving it by going to the individual first?

Don't get me wrong as far as the relationship between individual and group. One ought to have devoted loyalty to the congregation, whatever healthy congregation it may be. The universe isn't so centered around the individual that he or she doesn't owe some time, resources and responsibility to the whole. But in the end, however important the group may be, it is always founded on the individual. Anything else is an arbitrary construction, and is doomed to fall to pieces under its own weight. I'll put the primacy of the individual in another light. The difference between Jesus' way of gardening and mine is that I love the bunch of berries, like China loves the Chinese, and so, a few are expendable when pulling up the weeds, spraying herbicide. Jesus on the other hand, loves the bunch of berries because he loves each berry, and therefore, none are expendable. That is the reality that is going to survive. But it requires that, for the sake of the wheat, weeds are allowed their time. Because the individual is sovereign.

And so, last time I looked, the world was full of berries, and also a bunch of weeds. Thank God.

With parables, let everyone interpret it his or her own way (lest it be an arbitrary one, ready made). Here's mine.

On a Real African Union

This afternoon I was following along on Twitter the @_AfricanUnion 's Pledging Conference. I couldn't help but pity the situation that the Union is in, the fact that the Union, or at least the desire for one, has not made African peoples any more prosperous. I'm sure it has done good in some ways, but I still see more or less than same crises, wars, famines, refugee camps and exploitation, day in, day out. So it got me thinking about African Union, a real one, and why there isn't one now.

Like the African Union, the United Nations was an attempt at all or nothing; a union of everyone, despite any conditions on what form of government or freedom from government a people might have. It was better to get all the nations together, it was thought, than it was to unite the democratic nations of the world, as a nucleus to a real world union. What this caused was such a diffusion of law that the nations (and the UN is of the nations, by the nations, and for the nations) got all sorts of maneuverability, veto powers and strategic power brokering, that it made nationalism (the very thing that creates the wars that the UN was trying to prevent) the primary driving force behind participation in the UN. When China and the Soviet Union, to give a good example, boycotted the UN, the western democracies had free hands to go in and launch a counter-offensive against the North Koreans (and through them China and the Soviets). Had they stayed for a vote (and history shows they learned this lesson QUICK), they would have said, no way, we don't want the UN interfering in the war between North and South Korea. Another example is the recent abstaining votes of China and Russia, which led the security council to vote for support of the rebels in Libya. There was no strategic value for these two veto power nations in Libya, a Mediterranean nation. But get closer to their borders, that is to say, Syria, and suddenly they are vetoing anything and everything. They, as nations, make money on arms deals to Syria, so that it is in their best interest to continue using veto powers in the UN again war against Syria.

But that is the price the UN paid for being so all-inclusive.

In this Libyan connection, Qaddafi himself wanted to eventually become President of the African Union. The African Union Constitution was written in Lybia. He was a strong proponent of the idea. This is not to slight the Union. He knew their was power in union, and he wanted it for himself. Though his intentions were less than noble, he wasn't the first to promote union. During my second course in African History, I wrote a short piece on the Fante Confederation. This short-lived union of tribal states in 1868 was to unite roads, armies, taxing and the voting system. These few essentials made it one of the first proto-federal unions of the African continent. It failed when the British (who mostly saw the union as a dangerous political entity, probably because of a former group of colonies that did the same) annexed the territory with the promise of defending the Fante from their enemies.

Simply put, there is strength in unity. So here I have argued for the weakness of all-inclusiveness, yet also state strength in unity. These need some reconciling, because it is here that a real African Union can happen. 

I'll simplify the issue. How can the democratic nations of Africa enter into real union with dictators who wish, ultimately, to maintain their own power over a nation? A union would, in such a case, as it is with China or the U.S. in the UN, use the Union mechanism for the ends of that one nation. That is because the UN is built, not on the people, but on the nation states.

The problem is a fundamental one. Suppose we set aside the African continent for a moment. Could the wild west of Arizona have united with the fledgling United States Government without first tackling its internal problems? Arizona, and especially the ghost town of Jerome, were famously the standard for wild western shootouts and gun-slinging. Arizona was the last territory to be admitted into the Union, I have heard, because of the wild lawlessness. In a real union however, the member states must be up to a certain standard of civility, freedom and self-governance. Unions take place for everyone's sake. That is, the union deals with union problems. This is why California does not have an embassy in France! It is part of a union that takes care of such things. That is why Chicago, a city as populous as Sweden, doesn't need to worry about having a military! It has, not a nation, but a nation of nations, concerned with military, postal, citizenship, monetary, and certain legal matters. Dictators, ruling over their dictatorships, or gun-slingers in wild Arizona for that matter, being largely self-interested, will only use such union mechanisms to further their own ends. And this is not the real union that California has by letting somebody else worry about embassies, that Chicago has by letting somebody else worry about armies.


Let's look at it in another way than civility and stability. The American Civil War was never a war between the North and the South. It was in the sense that people from the north fought people from the south. But it was a war between the South and the entire UNION of North and South. Again, this is self-determination, and the individual state placing itself before that of the whole, and in reality, placing itself before its own citizen.

If Africa wants a union, let it bring together the more stable democracies of the continent. Just a few. Let these four or five  or six stable nations write up on a couple pieces of paper a document that binds them to pool together their respective militaries, their currencies, their citizenship, their postal services into ONE, that promotes absolute free trade between them. And let this combined nation (and I mean, let this UNION do it, not the member states at the outset) write up a document concerning the rights of individuals. Having a singular and united court system, this collective bill of rights would not be the wishful thinking of the UN, but genuine law, enforceable. Fifty sovereign nations means 50 sovereign forms of law, which is lawlessness.

What better incentive for the populace of other African nations to overthrow their dictators, institute laws, checks and balances, and eliminate corruption, than the possibility and opportunity to join this union? That was the incentive that caused the Balkan states to join the EU, weak as it currently is. Individually, these states could never hope to defeat the Soviets, or the Russians, in a war (of bullets or of rubles). Collectively, however, Russia is no longer a threat, though it attempts with oil pipelines every now and then to throw around some muscle.

What a Union of African States would mean is that the citizens of this new union would now vote in their own state elections, as before, but instead of nations (as nations and for nations) manipulating an African Union for their own best but separate interests, this same collective citizenry would also vote in elections concerning the total body. The states would no longer need to concern themselves with currency, military, citizenship. Refugees from neighboring and warring nations, while they would pose practical issues on the ground for individual states, would be a federal level issue as far as solutions. The whole collective would solve such problems, and reduce the instability that such neighborhood conflicts cause.

These separate state economies would become increasingly stable, and without a military budget, could reinforce internal police and court systems, creating more order and freedom for the citizen. 

Objective B of Article 3 of the African Union Constitution states that the Union will work to "defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States." This, and this alone, is why the Union fails. Tribalism prevented nationalism, until the tribes united to overthrow colonial powers. Nationalism prevents the Union I'm talking about, and will continue to do so until the people grow tired of the constant threat of continuous breakdown, war, economic ruin, and personal interests over collective interests.

So the solution is this: start a NUCLEUS union. Let other nations join, so fast as they show themselves democratic and stable enough to do so.

The United States (all 13 of them) resolved this issue in 1787, and 37 other states joined them. The Australians, the Dutch, the British, all united their various territories. Union works. The EU is still quite skeptical of giving its citizens the right to vote on who is in and who is out of parliament. At this point, the nations decide. I would consider it a world of irony if the citizens of some former colonies in Africa beat them to the punch on the matter.

Hobbes and Locke: Two political Thinkers on Two Continents

When Swedes ask me where I am from (because it happens sometimes that my Swedish doesn't betray me), I tell them I am from Amerika, though it isn't my fault. I add the second half of the statement because I am not a nationalist. I had to be born somewhere. I happened to be born there. The chance of birth, thank God, has not shackled me altogether too much in a priori conventions and ideologies. I also add that second half for those sensitive souls who, depending on who is currently in the White House, grant me less social capital because of their own culturally self-evident ideologies.

This view to the chance of birth, while it has given me a margin of distance, has not eradicated my nationalism. It has however refined it some. That, combined with living in socialistic Sweden, has allowed for an honest critique and regular challenge of my political, social, and moral views.

As Nathaniel Hawthorne stated: "Human nature will not flourish, any more than a potato, if it be planted and replanted, for too long a series of generations, in the same worn-out soil. My children have had other birthplaces, and, so far as their fortunes may be within my control, shall strike their roots into unaccustomed earth."


I quote him not alone as part of my own experience, but because it is part of the process called globalization.

So here is a perspective, which has sort of solidified in my mind to date (though not enough that it isn't open to modification and critique) of a basic difference between the nation of North American known as the United States, and the collectivity of nations in the eurozone known as the European Union.


Without question, the ideas of Hobbes and Locke were highly influential in the directions modern political thought would take in both North America and Europe. We can state the obvious, that the United States followed after Locke’s “life, liberty, and property”, but there is a deeper relationship going on here. It might not be obvious―and it might not even be true!―but it seems to be possible to divide the two thinkers roughly between the two continents. That is to say, Europe and its respective states, as well as the EU itself, have followed in the wake of Hobbes, while the United States followed primarily in the path of Locke. One could spend hours explaining how both political thinkers affected both continents. This is a generalization of course, but it wouldn't hurt to explore the idea.

Some context: the historical outworking of ideas does not take place in a vacuum. The idea of a social contract began to emerge around the beginning of the 1600s and finally had its breakthrough mainly through Hobbes’ work Leviathan (1651). The author wrote it during a period of political unrest in England while he was in exile in France. The hypothetical state of nature was no more than a primitive state of anarchy of everyone against everyone, a view that could grapple with and explain for Hobbes the zeitgeist in which he lived. It is an easy connection between the civil strife of England and Hobbes’ “state of nature”, both of which he wished to distance himself from.

Because statecraft had as its goal order and the maintaining of order (and perhaps closer to home for Hobbes, the prevention of civil strife), he gave no room to revolt against authority. There could be no unjust law according to Hobbes because law itself was the codification of right and wrong. The sovereign hands down laws; the people obey them; order is maintained, and that is justice.

On the other side of the idea-ink war stood John Locke. He intentionally got mixed up in a revolution to give support and legitimacy to a certain king’s ascendency to the throne during the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. His version of the state of nature wasn’t as dark as Hobbes’ everyone against everyone. It was a state of difficulty and discomfiture (because rights were so often disregarded) which created the social contract, statecraft to prevent the violation of rights inherent in the human state of nature. Even if he does diverge in some regards from Hobbes in that the state of nature isn’t a state of anarchy or civil war, war would inevitably appear quickly after this hypothetical moment of nature. To avoid this war, the social contract arises. Unlike Hobbes, he attempted to justify certain uprisings and rebellions as necessary. There is here the obvious connection to the American Revolutionary War to free itself from the king.

With these generalities in mind, the two minds can easily be differentiated when viewed from the standpoint of ethics. There are two great ethical spheres, generally speaking. One school of thought states that there is a right and a wrong, and that what is right or wrong is independent of the whimsical viewpoints of human beings. Like mathematical formula, this school states that right and wrong, being existences outside ourselves, are the discoverable ratios of relationships. This school (called naturalism) had its origins in Plato and Aristotle, as a reaction against the sophists of their day. The other school, positivism (not to be confused with positive, but is related to posit), states that there is no truth, no ethical laws outside ourselves. It is the group that determines right and wrong. In such a case, power, might makes right, is the inevitable conclusion.

According to Aristotle, human beings are “political animals”, meaning that it is in their nature to live among one another, and in some organized way. For Hobbes, the state of nature was previous to the society or the state. Hobbes rejected the Aristotelian view with the notion of the state as a construct. It was a construction to prevent the war of everyone against everyone. Right and wrong were created to maintain and legitimize an established order. Without these relativistic right and wrong construction, chaos would ensue. Locke on the other hand was a naturalist. Life and property were natural rights. The American Revolution would eventually lead to, and be justified in, a political thought of "inalienable rights" that were "self evident", rights that were Platonic ideals, independent from human thought or action.

But how does all this relate to the United States and the European Union? Historically, Europe was continuously dominated and oppressed by a strong and totalitarian church. This had two effects. After the reformation, and especially after the enlightenment, Europe moved increasingly towards secularism, while those persecuted by both the dominant church and eventually secular society, left for the shores of America. This set the direction for the U.S. as well. While the U.S. also moved towards a secularization of society, religious convictions were heavily solidified.

It makes sense then that, being steeped in a Christian religious tradition that was extremely Hellenized, that the United States would follow in the path of Locke. Christian religion held onto something TRUE, in and of itself, something that existed outside our own opinion or view of it. Inalienable rights then were the codification of these platonic and unchanging moral injunctions or self-evident truisms.

Europe on the other hand rejected religion, drifted towards an exclusively secular society. Religion does persist here, but on the whole the society does not claim religiosity. Recall that many left Europe for America because of religious persecution, not alone for failed revolutions. This affected Europe as well as the US. In rejecting the totality of the church, it rejected also the idea the are ethical principles outside, over and above our thoughts about these things. While the populace of the United States can generally be characterized as naturalistic, Europe is definitely relativistic, or positivist. It was only natural then to follow in the path of Hobbes, who stated that, in the state of nature, with everyone against everyone, right was determined by might. Laws were set up by states to ensure what the right was, and revolt (according to Hobbes) was intolerable.

Now before I lose you in these generalizations, let's look at the US Constitution and the EU Constitution. The US Constitution is written in the voice of the people. That is to say, "We the people" are defining what the role of government is and is not. Government is formed within the framework of limitations, is limited in what it can or cannot do. This is based on the Lockean principle that there are principles that are true, that there are rights that exist despite human behavior. Government is prevented from imposing itself upon these natural and inalienable rights.

The EU Constitution on the other is written in the voice of the state, laying down a law that is relative and positivist:

EU Constitution Article II-70 1. states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

Article II-70 2. states: "The right to conscientious objection is recognised" (italics mine).

Compare this with the United States Constitution, Amendments, Article I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

While both Constitutions produced a similar effect, that of law and order, the first is society recognizing rights, granting them to the people, because society, or the state, thinks them good and efficient. The second claims these as inherent in the people and, government being necessary, limits it to having no power over these things.

I don't want to stop here, because I think there is in the outworking a very big difference between these two viewpoints. They are ethical viewpoints, viewpoints of political philosophy. Living in Europe, and in Sweden specifically, I can't help but notice that I've had more social capital with Swedes when it happens that the President was also a democrat. Europeans LOVE American democrats. When Bush was in power, well, that was when I added the phrase about being American, that "it wasn't my fault". It was a buffer to prevent a loss of capital. Guilt by association. I was from a nation dominated by a Republican! You must be evil! I was pretty popular about the time of Obama's election. Wow, what a nation you are from! No joke!

I think this is connected. I think Europe has this paternal view of government that the US doesn't because it really does view government as the determiner of what is not only right and wrong, but what is TRUE and what is FALSE. In rejecting religion (again a generalization), Europe adopted, and heavily, a moral relativism. Multiculturalism under the secular rule of law is the name of the game in Europe. And it is the rejection of Christianity, as an entity of charity and responsibility to the people, that demanded that SOMETHING take over that role. The state is to the people of Europe what the welfare of churches are in the US.

And this is why the populace of Europe is often much more socialistic than the US in its views of the role of government. It is why, in Europe, democrats are more readily accepted US Presidents (because they want to regulate via the government a fairness that Republicans general think is the role of religion).

Now I don't want to take sides here on which is best, what is wiser, etc. I am not so nationalistic to do so. Time and evolution will determine that! I am a swing voter. I think both sides have valid points and have their place and their time. But I think these ideas definitely are based on two completely different ethical, and political, paradigms.

I will make a prediction. When the EU, slowly becoming a federal union, finally decides to unite federally, so the people of each state, rather than the states themselves, vote on who is going to represent them in parliament, at that point, I predict the EU will begin to swing in its paradigm closer to Locke, closer to inalienable rights inherent in the people rather than created and enforced by the state. And that may mean that the European Union might adopt some aspects of politics that look a little more like US Republicans. 


Only if Christianity makes a comeback in Europe though.