Tag: Politics

How Well Can You Read, Comprehend, Analyze, and Summarize an Essay?

by James Wallace Harris, 12/11/24

I recently read An Unfinished Love Story by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It’s about how Doris and her husband Richard went through dozens of boxes containing papers that Richard saved from his time as a speechwriter for John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Eugene McCarthy, and Robert Kennedy. Richard was in his eighties and wanted to write a memoir about those times. Doris agreed to help him.

The book is subtitled “A Personal History of the 1960s.” An Unfinished Love Story resonates with me because I lived through that decade too. I’m now rereading their book closely. I want to comprehend what happened in the 1960s and reconcile it with my memories. I do that by looking up original sources mentioned and studying them.

However, I’ve hit a cognitive barrier. I’ve never been a great student, much less a scholar. I have trouble focusing. I can’t stick to any subject long enough to comprehend it. These failings are getting worse as I age.

I’ve discovered a tool that helps me understand my limitations. Maybe it will help me overcome them. That tool is Google NotebookLM. It’s an AI tool that digests information. You link to web pages or upload your documents, and it will analyze that content and then create several kinds of summaries.

I tested Google NotebookLM with a speech that Richard Goodwin helped write for John F. Kennedy when he was campaigning for president in 1960. It was given at the National Press Club on January 14, 1960. You can read it here. I also gave it this article about that speech. NotebookLM then generated several files that summarized the content of those two documents. The most startling was an AI-generated podcast. You can listen to it here. (You’ll need a free Google account, but anyone using Google email should already be logged in.)

That podcast sounds like an NPR segment. It’s spooky how real the two people sound. But the technology to produce this artificial conversation isn’t what I want to showcase. It’s how NotebookLM understood the speech. It’s a level of reading comprehension that I envy. If I spent a week studying that speech I don’t think I could reach that level of understanding.

Damn, damn, damn!

First of all, Kennedy’s speech was a distillation of extensive knowledge of American political history by Kennedy, Richard Goodwin, and Ted Sorensen. Kennedy expected his audience to decode that knowledge, and to understand his plan for the coming decade. I doubt few did, especially at the level that NotebookLM did.

From reading An Unfinished Love Story, I believe Richard Goodwin could process knowledge like NotebookLM, which is why he was such a brilliant speechwriter. I can’t do anything like that. From this experience, I want to study the results produced by NotebookLM to see if I can learn from it.

Even when I think I understand what I read, I doubt I comprehend even ten percent. I’m quite sure a scholar could write a five-hundred-page book just about that one speech.

NotebookLM created several results. I want to study what it does and see if I can learn to use its techniques.

Here is the summary version.

Briefing Doc: John F. Kennedy's Vision of the Presidency
Sources:

"All notes 12/11/2024" (Study Guide and FAQ on Kennedy's Speech)
"Pasted Text" (Full Text of Kennedy's Speech at the National Press Club, January 14, 1960)
Excerpts from "The Presidency in 1960 (Remarks at the National Press Club) | Teaching American History"
Main Themes:

Active and Engaged Presidency: Kennedy argues for a strong, proactive president who actively shapes policy and drives the national agenda. He rejects a "detached, limited concept of the Presidency" in favor of a leader willing to "place himself in the very thick of the fight."
Legislative Leadership: The president must be an active participant in the legislative process, not simply a "casual bystander." This includes initiating legislation, collaborating with Congress, and using his influence to ensure passage of vital bills.
Party Leadership: Kennedy believes the president must be an active leader of his political party, utilizing its resources and working closely with party leadership to advance his agenda and strengthen the democratic process.
Moral Leadership: The president must not only represent prevailing sentiment but also inspire the nation, set a high ethical standard, and mobilize the public to address challenges and seize opportunities.
Key Ideas and Facts:

Critique of Eisenhower: Kennedy contrasts his vision with Eisenhower's perceived passivity, arguing that the nation needs a more engaged leader for the challenges of the 1960s. He criticizes Eisenhower's preference to remain above politics, stating, "no President, it seems to me, can escape politics."
Historical Examples: Kennedy invokes presidents like Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Wilson as exemplars of his ideal. He highlights their willingness to use presidential power, exert legislative leadership, and champion moral causes.
Constitutional Vision: While acknowledging the importance of Congress and cautioning against executive overreach, Kennedy views the presidency as the driving force in the American system. He stresses the president's unique role in foreign policy and domestic policy initiation.
Four Key Roles: Kennedy outlines four essential roles for the modern president: Chief Executive, Legislative Leader, Party Leader, and Moral Leader. Each role requires active engagement and a willingness to utilize the full resources of the office.
The Lincoln Anecdote: Kennedy uses the story of Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation to illustrate the kind of decisive and resolute leadership he believes is essential for the presidency. "Lincoln's hand did not tremble. He did not hesitate. He did not equivocate. For he was the President of the United States."
Important Quotes:

On the need for an active president: "The American Presidency will demand more than ringing manifestoes issued from the rear of the battle. It will demand that the President place himself in the very thick of the fight."
On the president's role as Chief Executive: "He must be prepared to exercise the fullest powers of his office – all that are specified and some that are not."
On the importance of legislative leadership: "The President must initiate policies and devise laws to meet the needs of the nation. And he must be prepared to use all the resources of his office to ensure the enactment of that legislation – even when conflict is the result."
On the president's responsibility as party leader: "If he neglects the party machinery and avoids his party's leadership – then he has not only weakened the political party as an instrument of the democratic process – he has dealt a blow to the democratic process itself."
On the importance of moral leadership: "We will need in the sixties a President who is willing and able to summon his national constituency to its finest hour."
Discussion Points:

To what extent does Kennedy's vision of the presidency align with the principles of a constitutional republic?
Does Kennedy sufficiently address the potential risks of an overly powerful executive branch?
How does Kennedy's vision compare to the presidencies that followed him?
This briefing document summarizes the main themes and key ideas of John F. Kennedy's vision for the presidency. It is important to note that this is just one interpretation of his speech, and further analysis and discussion are encouraged.

Here is a FAQ it generated:

FAQ: John F. Kennedy's Vision of the Presidency
1. What is the central theme of John F. Kennedy's speech at the National Press Club?
This speech, delivered in January 1960 during his presidential campaign, focuses on Kennedy's vision for the modern presidency. He argues that the American people deserve to understand a candidate's philosophy regarding the presidency because it shapes their approach to all other issues.

2. How does Kennedy differentiate his view of the presidency from President Eisenhower's?
Kennedy critiques the "detached, limited concept of the Presidency" he observed during the Eisenhower administration. He advocates for a more active and engaged president who proactively addresses pressing issues and drives the national agenda. He contrasts this with Eisenhower's perceived passivity and delegation of responsibilities.

3. What historical examples does Kennedy use to illustrate his preferred presidential model?
Kennedy invokes figures like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson as exemplars of strong, effective presidents. He highlights their willingness to utilize the full extent of presidential power, exert legislative leadership, and champion moral causes, even at the risk of political unpopularity.

4. According to Kennedy, what are the essential roles of a modern president?
Kennedy outlines several key roles:

Chief Executive: A hands-on leader who actively manages government departments, resolves conflicts, and makes crucial decisions, particularly in foreign policy.
Legislative Leader: A president who proactively shapes legislation, collaborates with Congress, and uses their influence to ensure the passage of vital bills.
Party Leader: A president who actively engages with their political party, utilizing its machinery and leadership to advance their agenda and strengthen the democratic process.
Moral Leader: A president who inspires the nation, sets a high ethical standard, and mobilizes the public to address critical challenges and seize opportunities.
5. How does Kennedy view the relationship between the president and Congress?
While acknowledging the importance of Congress's legislative role and cautioning against executive overreach, Kennedy believes the president should actively lead and collaborate with Congress. He emphasizes that the president must be prepared to use all available resources to secure the enactment of crucial legislation.

6. What is Kennedy's stance on the president's role as a party leader?
Kennedy rejects the notion that a president should remain aloof from politics. He believes the president must embrace their role as party leader, engaging with the party machinery and working closely with party leadership to advance their agenda and strengthen the democratic process.

7. What is the significance of the Abraham Lincoln anecdote in Kennedy's speech?
Kennedy concludes by recounting Lincoln's unwavering commitment to the Emancipation Proclamation, even when facing internal opposition. He uses this story to illustrate the decisive and resolute leadership he aspires to embody as president.

8. What message does Kennedy aim to convey to the American people through this speech?
Kennedy seeks to persuade the public that the nation needs a strong, proactive president who will actively engage in solving national and international problems. He aims to differentiate himself from Eisenhower's approach and assure voters that he is the leader the times demand.

Here is a quiz it created:

The Presidency in 1960: A Study Guide
Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each.

According to John F. Kennedy, what is the central issue that should be addressed in the 1960 presidential campaign?
Why does Kennedy argue that good intentions are not enough to make a successful president?
What is the "restricted concept of the Presidency" that Kennedy critiques?
What does Kennedy mean when he says that the next president must be the "Chief Executive in every sense of the word"?
Why does Kennedy believe that the president must be an active legislative leader?
How does Kennedy contrast the legislative leadership styles of Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge?
What criticism does Kennedy offer of President Eisenhower's approach to party leadership?
Why does Kennedy believe that Abraham Lincoln is a good example of party leadership?
How does Kennedy define the president's role as a moral leader?
What specific historical example does Kennedy use to illustrate the kind of decisive leadership he advocates for?
Answer Key

Kennedy argues that the central issue of the 1960 campaign is the Presidency itself. He believes the public needs to understand how a candidate views the role, powers, and limitations of the office.
Kennedy uses the examples of Woodrow Wilson and Warren G. Harding, both considered good men, to illustrate that good intentions alone are insufficient for presidential success. Different conceptions of the Presidency can lead to vastly different outcomes.
The "restricted concept of the Presidency" refers to a passive approach where the President primarily reacts to events rather than actively shaping them. Kennedy argues this approach is inadequate to address the challenges of the 1960s.
Kennedy believes that being "Chief Executive in every sense of the word" means actively engaging with complex problems, initiating action, and taking responsibility for the outcomes of his administration.
Kennedy argues that the President must be an active legislative leader to ensure the enactment of policies that meet the nation's needs. He contends that Congress should not dominate the executive branch nor should the President shy away from conflict with Congress.
Kennedy contrasts Theodore Roosevelt, who actively fought for his legislative agenda even at the cost of Congressional popularity, with Calvin Coolidge, who took a more passive approach and ultimately failed to advance key initiatives.
Kennedy criticizes Eisenhower's preference to remain above politics, arguing that a president cannot avoid politics and must actively engage with his party to advance his agenda and the democratic process itself.
Kennedy cites Lincoln's passionate engagement in politics, even closely following the results of state elections, as a model for how a president should actively lead his party.
Kennedy defines the president's role as a moral leader as one who goes beyond representing current sentiment and instead inspires the nation to meet challenges and achieve great ideals.
Kennedy uses the example of Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation, despite potential backlash, to highlight the kind of resolute and decisive leadership he believes is essential for the presidency.
Essay Questions

Analyze Kennedy's vision of the modern presidency. What are its key characteristics? How does it differ from the "restricted concept of the Presidency" he criticizes?
Evaluate Kennedy's assessment of the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge. How do their approaches to legislative leadership exemplify his broader arguments about the office?
To what extent does Kennedy's call for a "moral leader" in the White House align with the principles of a constitutional republic? Discuss the potential benefits and risks of such leadership.
Kennedy claims that "legislative leadership is not possible without party leadership." Analyze this statement, considering the relationship between the president, Congress, and political parties.
Compare and contrast Kennedy's conception of the presidency with another president or political thinker of your choice. How do their views converge and diverge? What might account for these differences?
Glossary of Key Terms

Chief Executive: The role of the President as head of the executive branch of government, responsible for enforcing laws and overseeing the administration of government agencies.
Legislative Leadership: The President's role in influencing the legislative process, proposing legislation, working with members of Congress, and advocating for the passage of bills.
Party Leadership: The President's role as leader of his political party, setting the agenda, mobilizing support, and working to elect party members to office.
Moral Leadership: The President's role as a national figurehead who sets a moral tone for the country, inspires citizens, and advocates for ethical principles.
Restricted Concept of the Presidency: A passive approach to the presidency where the president primarily reacts to events and defers to Congress or other actors.
Bully Pulpit: A term coined by Theodore Roosevelt to describe the presidency as a platform from which to advocate for policies and ideas.
Grand Alliance: A reference to the alliance of nations that fought against the Axis powers in World War II, emphasizing the president's role as a global leader.
Divided Government: A situation in which the presidency and Congress are controlled by different political parties.
Emancipation Proclamation: A presidential proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 that declared the freedom of slaves in Confederate-held territory.

Here is an outline of sources:

John F. Kennedy's Vision of the Presidency: A Table of Contents
Source 1: Excerpts from "All notes 12/11/2024"

The Presidency in 1960: A Study Guide
Quiz: A series of 10 short-answer questions designed to test comprehension of John F. Kennedy's vision of the presidency as articulated in his 1960 National Press Club speech.
Answer Key: Provides concise answers to the quiz questions, summarizing Kennedy's arguments regarding the importance of presidential leadership, the limitations of a passive approach, and the need for active engagement in legislative, party, and moral matters.
Essay Questions: Poses 5 in-depth essay prompts that encourage critical analysis of Kennedy's vision of the presidency, his assessment of historical presidencies, the role of moral leadership, and the relationship between the president, Congress, and political parties.
Glossary of Key Terms: Defines 10 essential terms related to presidential powers and roles, including "Chief Executive," "Legislative Leadership," "Party Leadership," "Moral Leadership," and "Restricted Concept of the Presidency," providing a conceptual framework for understanding Kennedy's arguments.
FAQ: John F. Kennedy's Vision of the Presidency
8 Frequently Asked Questions and Answers: Addresses key aspects of Kennedy's National Press Club speech, including his central theme, critiques of Eisenhower's approach, historical examples used, essential roles of a modern president, and the relationship between the president and Congress. This section provides a concise overview of Kennedy's arguments.
Source 2: Excerpts from "January 14, 1960 - Senator John F. Kennedy speaks at National Press Club, Washington, DC."

Fragment 1: This excerpt captures Kennedy's criticism of the Eisenhower administration's "restricted concept of the Presidency," highlighting the need for a more active and engaged approach to address the challenges of the 1960s.
Fragment 2: This segment emphasizes the need for a president who actively engages in the legislative process, contrasting this with a "casual bystander" approach that Kennedy deems insufficient.
Source 3: Excerpts from "Pasted Text"

Introduction: Sets the stage for Kennedy's argument by highlighting the importance of understanding a candidate's vision of the presidency and framing it as the central issue of the 1960 campaign.
Critique of the Eisenhower Administration: Kennedy critiques the "detached, limited concept of the Presidency" he observed during the Eisenhower years, arguing for a more active and engaged presidential role.
The Demands of the Times: Kennedy outlines the challenges facing the nation, both domestic and foreign, and argues that they require a strong, proactive president.
The President as Chief Executive: This section emphasizes the president's role as a hands-on leader who actively manages government, resolves conflicts, and makes crucial decisions, particularly in foreign policy.
The President as Legislative Leader: Kennedy argues for a president who actively shapes legislation, collaborates with Congress, and uses their influence to ensure the passage of vital bills.
The President as Party Leader: Kennedy rejects the notion of a president staying above politics and stresses the importance of engaging with the party machinery to advance an agenda and strengthen the democratic process.
The President as a Moral Leader: This section highlights the president's role as a national figurehead who sets a moral tone for the country, inspires citizens, and mobilizes the public to address critical challenges.
The Example of Abraham Lincoln: Kennedy concludes with a powerful anecdote about Lincoln's unwavering commitment to the Emancipation Proclamation, emphasizing the decisive and resolute leadership he aspires to embody as president.
Source 4: Excerpts from "The Presidency in 1960 (Remarks at the National Press Club) | Teaching American History"

Context and Introduction: Provides historical background and sets the context for Kennedy's speech, emphasizing the significance of his remarks within the broader history of the American presidency.
Kennedy's Speech Excerpts: Features key excerpts from Kennedy's National Press Club address, focusing on his critique of Eisenhower's approach, his vision for the modern presidency, and the importance of active leadership in various roles.
Discussion Questions: Poses thought-provoking questions that encourage readers to analyze Kennedy's conception of the presidency, his use of historical examples, and the relationship between the president and Congress.
Footnotes: Provides explanatory notes on historical figures and events mentioned in Kennedy's speech, enhancing understanding and facilitating further research.
This table of contents provides a detailed overview of John F. Kennedy's vision of the presidency as articulated in his 1960 National Press Club speech and related sources, offering insights into his beliefs about presidential leadership, the role of the president within the constitutional order, and the challenges facing the nation at the dawn of the 1960s.

But the truly dazzling product was the podcast.

Many people will use NotebookLM to help them write, or even let NotebookLM create their content. I watched one YouTuber use NotebookLM to produce a blog and podcast. I don’t want AI doing my work. I want to learn how to work at an AI level.

JWH

Reading History Books About Events I Originally Watched on Television

by James Wallace Harris, 12/8/24

The 1960 U.S. presidential election is the first one I remember, but just barely. I was eight years old. My father was for Nixon and my mother for Kennedy. I decided I liked Kennedy because he was younger, more dynamic and had a good-looking wife. Even at eight, good looking women were often a deciding factor. I remember getting in a fight in the school playground because I was for Kennedy and the other kid was for Nixon. Neither of us got to decide the issue because a teacher pulled us apart.

During the Kennedy years I didn’t watch TV news. I would sometimes stay home from school to watch the Mercury space launches. Back then the TV news departments of each network would take over all broadcasting. In the first half of the 1960s, the space program was about the only real-world activity I paid any attention to.

I did pay some attention during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, mainly because I lived on Homestead Air Force Base, and everyone talked about it constantly. I remember having duck and cover drills at Homestead Air Force Base Elementary, but I was disappointed when there were no real A-bombs dropped. (I was very immature for my age.)

I didn’t become a news watcher until Kennedy’s death. I remember that weekend, my family watched the news constantly, and the following week too. That’s when I started following Walter Cronkite. I turned twelve three days after Kennedy was shot.

The news also became exciting in February of 1964 when The Beatles came to America. It was during 1965 that older boys I knew began worrying about being drafted, and I started paying attention to news about Vietnam.

The CBS Evening News was my main source of information about life beyond my own little world during the 1960s. I sometimes got to see The Today Show on NBC because my mother watched it while making breakfast. I liked that show because I found Barbara Walters hot. (Okay, I’ve already said I was a weird kid.) Sometimes I would watch news specials or documentaries. While in the ninth grade (1965-66) I had a civics course. But for the most part I just wasn’t that aware of what was going on in the world except for Top 40 AM music.

I don’t remember reading the paper, The Miami Herald, until 1968. I did start to read magazines in 1965, but that was haphazard. People would give my parents copies of Life, Time, Newsweek, Look, Saturday Evening Post, and National Geographic from time to time, and I found them fascinating. On my own, after 1965, I would buy Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, and MAD Magazine. During twelfth grade (1968-69) my English teacher got me interested in literary fiction, and I subscribed to Saturday Review with money I made from working in a grocery store. I really didn’t understand it though. In late 1968 or early 1969, I got hooked on Rolling Stone magazine and sometimes bought Creem when it started publishing.

A whole lot of what I knew about the counterculture came from Life Magazine.

If you think about it one way, television and magazines offered a fairly diverse view on what was happening in the world, but squinted at it another way, it was a rather limited view.

In December 2024, I’ve been reading three books about the 1960s that explore events I encountered in two minute stories on TV, or read about in a few pages in a magazine when they first happened. Some of those short snippets of current events made huge impressions on me as a kid. They shaped who I thought I was. The history books makes me realize I was mostly uninformed.

The reality of the 1960s is I was a kid going to school every day except for long summer vacations. I started 1960 in New Jersey but moved to Mississippi then to Florida then to South Carolina back to Florida, then Mississippi again, and back to Florida. I went to thirteen different schools during the 1960s. The only newsworthy event I saw live was the launch of Apollo 8. I had a chance to see Kennedy in 1962 when he came to Homestead Air Force Base. They let us out of school to see him, but me and my friends went fishing instead. My sister was at Dinner Key Auditorium when Jim Morrison flashed the crowd. I got to meet an astronaut in 1968, but I’ve forgotten which one. And this is hardly newsworthy. I got to see Cream play during their farewell tour in 1968. Oh, and I attended one SDS rally.

In other words, I experienced the legendary Sixties mostly via AM radio, television, and magazines. I did have long hair sometimes, and I sometimes messed around with drugs, but I was hardly a hippie or a radical. I did get into the counterculture more in the 1970s, but that’s another story.

The point of this long-winded essay is I’m now reading history books about years I lived through. I can contrast my memories to behind the scenes accounts of things I got from soundbites. That’s quite enlightening.

We live with the illusion that we think we understand what is real and true. We delude ourselves that we make decisions on relevant information. But we don’t. If I could have read the history books about the sixties I’m reading in old age when I was young, I could have gotten closer to seeing reality.

Timothy Leary and Aldous Huxley, two heroes of my youth, claimed that LSD opened the doors of perception, and that might be true on a nonverbal level, but a deep reading of history books is far greater at revealing reality that we can comprehend on a verbal level.

Lately, I’ve been reading that reading is going out of fashion with young people. That’s a shame. Even back when I was a teen, and only got superficial understandings about the events around me from superficial news sources, it did make me more aware.

The three books above are filling in details on things happening around me as I was growing up. I’m reminded of Bob Dylan’s “Ballad of the Thin Man.”

I realize I’ve been Mr. Jones my whole life, and I’m still trying to figure out what happened.

JWH

Can Hope Replace Fear?

by James Wallace Harris, Monday, June 25, 2018

Once again I’m writing a political essay that few will read. I do this when I’m disturbed about events in the news that I’m powerless to control. We liberals are horrified by what fears over undocumented immigrants are doing to this country. Trump wants to bypass the rule of law, or apply existing laws like a cold war police state. It seems like an extreme right minority will tear the country apart to stop illegal immigration. That’s very scary. It’s even scarier that tens of millions support them. But liberals have fears that scare conservatives, so I think it’s vital we work to understand their fears if we want them to understand ours. What I realized this morning is unless we can empathize with each other’s fears, we will always have a politically polarized society.

We like to think love and hate are the two primary emotions, but I they aren’t. Hope and fear are more primal. Love grows out of hope, and hate grows out of fear. Think of people you love and hate. Love comes from the hopes you have, and hate comes from the fears. Liberals hate Trump because he causes us to fear, but conservatives love Trump because he gives them hope for their fears. What we need right now is politics of hope for everyone.

Conservatives fear illegal immigration in the same way liberals fear climate change. Each perspective destroys hope for the future. All of us want health, liberty, security, happiness, family, friends, and prosperity. Our fears arise when we feel those hopes are in jeopardy. We think Trump is destroying our future, while conservatives believe he’s protecting theirs.

Liberals fear climate change will devastate the planet. Conservatives fear illegal immigration will destroy our social order. What is the practical reality of these fears? Can we ever be united if everyone fears destruction from two different threats that split us into opposing sides? Can we collectively work to give each other hope?

I use the phrase “illegal immigration” for the want of a better term. Liberals prefer the term “undocumented immigrant.” But to a conservative, that probably feels like what liberals feel when we hear phrases of climate change denial. To use the phrase undocumented immigrant is to deny the reality that undocumented immigrants are doing something illegal.

The only way to find hope is to understand each other’s fears. The only way to heal the division is to cooperate in solving each other’s fears. Liberals need to find a rational way to deal with illegal immigration that will sooth conservative fears, and conservatives need to work on environmental security to reduce liberal fears.

For decades conservatives have told liberals they sound like Chicken Little running around screaming “The sky is falling” when discussing climate change. Well, conservatives are now overreacting to illegal immigration in the same way. We need to calm each other down, discuss the realities of each danger, and decide practical solutions we can implement together. Both problems are exceedingly complex, promise slow but huge changes to society, but can be solved if we work at it collectively. But zero tolerance of illegal immigration is like asking American to give up cars to save the Earth. Extreme solutions are too simple-minded to work.

Liberals need to understand the fears of conservatives, and conservatives need to understand the fears of liberals. It does no good to justify our fears by convincing others to fear them too. What we need to do find ways to spread hope. But I’m not sure if that’s possible if we live in panic mode.

We feel stories about immigrants causing excessive crime are unjustified, and there’s plenty of proof to disprove those stories. We believe you use crime hyperbole to justify circumventing laws. We believe conservatives have genuine fears over illegal immigration that come from three actual threats to your way of life. First, you don’t want to pay more taxes to support immigrants. Two, naturalized citizens tend to vote liberal, so it’s a threat to the Republican party. And three, you want to maintain a white America.

These are hard issues to address. Hard cold mathematics tell us our society is diversifying racially. This is your big fear: “The Next America” – a 2014 report from the Pew Research Center. Here’s the graph that probably scares you most:

Changes in race in America from 1960 to 2060 - Pew Research Center

Zero tolerance for illegal immigration will not change those trends. Those numbers may be conservative if they don’t take into account climate change and economic collapse. If we don’t slow climate change migration numbers will explode. It’s like the physics of gases. If you have two containers, one with low pressure and one with high pressure and you allow a path between, the pressures in the two tanks will equalize. As long as there are good and bad places on this planet, populations will migrate. No wall you build will ever be high enough to stop it. Just remember, if you lived in a bad place, you’d head for a good one too. One solution is to rebuild collapsing countries.

If the Republican party wasn’t so exclusive and strived to serve the entire population they wouldn’t have to fear diversity. By becoming the party of the white holdouts, the Republicans are forced to find solutions that only serve a minority of voters. We need both political parties to offer hope to all citizens.

Finally, illegal immigrants do raise taxes, but to remove them would be even more expensive. And they contribute a giant chunk of change to the economy. We actually benefit economically from both legal and illegal immigration.

But this probably doesn’t alleviate your fears. If you could only let go of your hangups over skin-color your fears could be reduced. Maybe reading “Southern Baptists Call Off the Culture War” might help.

Conservatives need to accept that diversity is already here. Liberals will have to accept that immigration must have limits. Liberals need to accept that capitalism drives the economy. Conservatives must accept that the cost of preserving the environment is essential to healthy capitalism. Conservatives must accept that immigrants are key to future growth. Liberals must accept that too many immigrants can destabilize the economy.

Fear destroys our morals and ethics. Fear makes us do things we wouldn’t do if we were hopeful.

Climate change is going to drastically alter all societies on this planet. Mass movements of people around the world are going to alter all those societies too. In fact, there are many trends that are changing every society on Earth going on simultaneously right now. We can’t stop them. But to keep our hopes we must learn to adapt and control them.

When reading or watching the news, pay attention to its emotional impact. Does the story offer hope or fear? All too often stories provide an extreme example. Not only do we need to become savvy over the fake news, but wary of sensational news. If a story scares you, research it on Google. The more you know the less you’ll fear.

JWH

Genetics Versus Choice in Politics

Charles Gibson, from ABC News, interviewing Sarah Palin asked her about homosexuality, giving her the choice between genetic or learned.  Palin dodged the question, but I got to wondering about the implication of that question.  I assume Gibson was using it as a touchstone question for gauging just how conservative Palin might be.  Conservatives want to believe everything in life is a choice and that we’re morally judged by our behavior.  Liberals consider some behavior genetic and believe that changes how society should be run.

What if some behavior was absolutely proven to be genetic?  How would that affect politics?  Scientists often say they have found a genetic link to various diseases and conditions, but I don’t think all people accept science at this level as being true.  To many people it’s as vague as understanding the theory of evolution.  What would it take for science to convince the majority of people that genetics is a fact of life?  Most people accept the science of aerodynamics even though they don’t understand it because they buy airline tickets.

If the science of genetics evolved to the point with near 100% accuracy to predict future behavior from pre-natal testing would that be convincing?  If all pregnant women got a blood test and one of the factors given was a 75% chance of having a homosexual kid, and studies later showed that 75% of those kids did indeed turn out to be homosexual, would conservatives accept the science of genetics and its implications?

We know that conservatives can radically alter their positions – Sarah Palin is proof of that because accepting her as suitable for commander in chief asserts an acceptance of radical feminist ideals from forty years ago.  If homosexuality is proven to be part of nature, will conservatives accept that and love their gay and lesbian kids?  Or will their loathing of homosexuality change their position on abortion?

What if the science of genetics goes further.  What if genetic testing could predict that children will become atheists, criminals, terrorists or even Democrats or Republicans?  Will fundamentalists be willing to abort Democrats as fetuses, or a family of Yellow Dog Democrats want to abort a young Republican?

Am I an atheist because of genetics or choice?  Growing up I thought at age 12 I was making a decision on my own to abandon primitive superstition, but as I’ve grown older I’ve sometimes wondered if atheism isn’t just my nature.  I went to the same schools as my peers, and went to church with them too, so why do 90% of boomers think about God, and us other 10% don’t?  Maybe there’s a constant 10% of skeptics in every generation, no matter what the educational system is like.  Would pro-life fundamentalists accept abortion if they thought they could stomp out atheism in a few generations?

Or would conservatives feel less threatened if they knew that homosexuals and atheists were just weird breeds in the population like Calico cats.  I’m not the kind of atheist that wants to convert religious people.  I believe that genetics makes some people religious and it does no good to try and make them scientific.  To me, atheists who try to convert for their cause are like religious people who try to shanghai people into their belief systems.  I’d like to believe if people read and study enough on a subject they will come to their own conclusions, but I don’t know if that’s a scientific truth.

What I would like is a political system that allows everyone to pursue their on beliefs as long as they don’t interfere or harm other people and their beliefs.  And I think that was what the American founders intended for our American way of life.  The problem we face today is some people think their personal beliefs, maybe genetic in origin, should be how 100% of people should believe and those beliefs should be codified into law.  Some of the extremes of this thinking would like to get rid of homosexuals, atheists, liberals and environmentalists.

To these thinkers, that’s the path to a successful government and a happy population.  But think about this.  If GM and Ford, and the auto unions had supported conservation and environmental recommendations from back in the 70s and 80s instead of seeking to politically change laws to meet their own self interests they wouldn’t be heading down that steep economic decline towards bankruptcy.

I know this illustration might sound like it’s coming out of left field, but hear me out.  What I’m saying is government laws that were meant to protect all people would have been much more beneficial to the special interests of the auto industry if they had not interfered.  The American auto industry inflicted it’s own near mortal wounds by getting laws customized for their way of thinking.  If they had had to compete with world auto makers under the laws that were meant to help everyone, they would still be prosperous today.

Whether our behavior is learned or programmed by genes, it should not matter to our laws.  We need laws designed for the common good that ignore special interests.  We need to accept diversity and account for it in our legal system.  Gays getting married should not affect fundamentalists who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, if we have a system that allow for both.  To me the solution is simple.  Have two kinds of marriages, the first, a basic legal marriage that meets state and federal laws, good for all people, and a second marriage within churches that meet the laws of their gods, for those people that have extra special interests.

My mother-in-law never believe my wife and I were properly married because we weren’t married within the Catholic Church, but the laws of the nation believe we are married.  If I believed like my mother-in-law, I would have converted and gotten married in the Catholic Church.  The law of the land would have no affect on that.

By the special interest beliefs of Catholics, anyone not married in the Catholic Church is not married.  Should that be the law of the land?  See my point.  This world will never know which religion is right so we have to create laws that work for all religions.  We need generalized rules for laws, and let people pick their own specialized beliefs that they keep to themselves.

I don’t know if our behaviors are programmed or created by our free will, but should that affect the political system?  We need a system that works either way, or any combination of the two.  As long as I can be an atheist I don’t care if other people are Christian, Jew, Muslin, Pagan or Hindu.  Governor Palin should have said to Charlie Gibson, “It doesn’t matter if homosexuality is learned or genetic, the American way should protect them to the fullest extent of the law.”  Our only enemies that we should abort are those that threaten us physically or interfere with our ability to pursue happiness through American ideals.  Those are the true terrorists, whether from outside of the country that want to attack our way of life, or criminals that want destroy our system from within.

Jim

Number One on the Runway

I am reminded of that great song title from Timbuk 3, “The Future’s So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades.”  With economic chaos and skyrocketing oil prices, the future is looking a bit overcast – no need for shades now, huh, but what if that’s an illusion?  In China, the future is so bright that a billion people are putting on sunglasses.  I’ve read that there is more peace and prosperity now than anytime in the history of the world.  Global warming may only be the foot that kicks us in the ass and forces humanity to get its shit together.  A new President could clear those dark clouds on our horizon and brighten up U.S. prospects for decades to come.

We’re all on a jet that’s about to take off for the future, but who is in the cockpit, and what’s our destination?  My generation are all thinking about retirement and I’m wondering if we’re all flying down to Florida to play shuffleboard or dominos all day.  I can remember summer of 1968 like it was tomorrow.  We wanted the Vietnam war to end so we could start building a bright future.  We wanted a lot of change.  We lived on great expectations.  Many of the young felt like they were part of a movement, a movement for change.  Barack and all Democrats worked to sell the same sentiments forty years later.  Is this election the last chance for the Baby Boomers to get it right and achieve their dream?

Protestors used to chant “The Whole World is Watching” and I think our generation felt it was true, even though most of the world lived off the radar of mass communication when we were growing up.  During those mythical years of the 1960s our generation always felt we were number one on the runway taking off for the future, but now, we’re seen as being the generation number one on the runway to retire.  Is it now time for us to be quiet?  Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were both Baby Boomer Presidents.  We may get another boomer, with Barack Obama, or the Silent Generation may have its last chance to have their only President, with John McCain.

I was reminded of my Baby Boomer status when Piers Fawkes at PSFK tagged this site as 1 of 14 blogs he monitors for information about Baby Boomers.  Maybe the whole world is no longer watching us, but at least the marketing people are still keeping an eye on us.  For those who need a generational timeline, see below:

I find it tremendously hard to imagine the mindset of the generations that have come behind us.  First of all, they never demanded to be heard, and as a result of that, they never got the press the Baby Boomers did.  The Greatest Generation are famous for living in historically epic times and their generation was defined by the events they faced.  The Silent Generation made the world for the Baby Boomers and influenced them.  The Baby Boomers embraced rock and roll, but Elvis and the Beatles were from the Silent Generation – an odd nickname, huh?  And as resources such as oil become problematic, will we have a new Greatest Generation that solves those problems?

Signs are everywhere that the young are ready for the boomers to retire, for instance, read “TV Viewers’ Average Age Hits 50” over at Variety, where they whine that the damn people watching TV are too old for their precious 18-49 demographics.  What’s the matter, are the young TV execs afraid their whole industry is a Baby Boomer fad?  The whole world probably didn’t have their eyes on us, but we certainly had our eyes on TV.  Are the newer generations less mass-media oriented?  I’ve read males of certain ages have stopped watching TV altogether.

Is the Baby Boomer’s hour in the spotlight about over.  Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were both born in 1946, making them the two Baby Boomer Presidents.  Strangely, John McCain, born in 1936, a year after Elvis, is from the earlier Silent Generation, so that generation is still hanging in there, and suggests there’s time for the Baby Boomers to cling to the spotlight for another decade or two.  Barrack Obama was born in 1961, making him part of the rear end of the Baby Boomers.  We’ve now had a hippie President and jock President, so it would be great to have a minority President, and hopefully there will even be time for a female Boomer or even a gay Boomer in the White House.  Evidently, our time is not up until the overweight boomer sings.

I’m reading The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria, a tail end boomer himself, born in 1964.  Zakaria’s wise assessment of current world affairs suggests our generation can still have influence for years to come as political pundits.  The Baby Boomers might be moving into their retirement years, but we dominant politics, journalism and opinions, and probably will for awhile.  I can not recommend The Post-American World enough, because Zakaria puts us Baby Boomer Americans in our place by letting us know what the rest of the world was seeing when we thought they were watching.  Our self-centered perspective has blinded us to what was happening with the 95% of the Baby Boomers in the rest of the world.

When you read Variety’s listing of the average age for various TV shows, and see “How I Met Your Mother,” a show about people in their twenties, has an average viewer age of 45, then you start to wonder, where the hell are the young people?  You do see them.  The news is reported by a vast array of beautiful young people.  Movies and television shows are all about the young.  You see them standing behind Obama and McCain, they fight our wars, and they direct movies, write novels, create music, and they fill jobs all around us.  But what do they want?  Where are their spokespeople?

When Generation X taxis out on the runaway where are they going to take us?  When Generation X campaigns for the Presidency, what will be their issues?  You’d think they’d make Global Warming their issue.  Maybe their generation speaks loud and clear and I don’t hear them because I’m insulated by the thickness of my generation.

If Fareed Zakaria and Thomas Friedman are right, not only do we need to hear from Generation X and the Millennials, but we need to hear from their ranks from all over the world.  That old saying, “Think globally, act locally” is more important than ever.

I hate to say this, but maybe the numbers at Variety are more damning than they are suggesting.  If the average age of TV watchers is 50, then television is a has-been media.  What mass media has an average age of 25?  Video games?  Text-messaging?  FaceBook?  I’m sorry, but tuning into Playstation 3 or Xbox 360 seems like checking out of this world in the same way that Timothy Leary advocated dropping out.  Virtual worlds don’t count, only reality.

China and Dubai are growing at speeds and magnitudes that outpace any boom in U.S. history.  The whole world should be watching them instead of “How I Met Your Mother” or whatever equivalent show or video game you’re using to escape from reality at the moment.  Where is this generation’s Bob Dylan that’s writing “Because something is happening here, But you don’t know what it is, Do you, Mr. Jones?” or Buffalo Springfield’s “For What It’s Worth?”

There’s heavy stuff going down, but where are the young protestors?  2008 is going to be an important election.  It is time for change, just like we thought back in 1968, but this time the biggest issues are more pressing than ever, and if we want a future where we need shades, we all need to be watching.  Whether our plane is taking off for retirement city, or the big city to start a new career, we’re all sailing on the same Spaceship Earth.  Whether you’re 15, 35, 55, 75 or 95 there are some shows on TV we should all be watching, but they ain’t escapist shows, but documentaries about what’s going on around the real world.

Jim