Deductions and Conclusions (from Essays)

***

1. Founding Principles

… American culture grows out of the dual between our great intellectual, legal, and social heritage and our practical desire to overcome real, material dangers and risks.
                                                          The Secrets of American Success 2/12/10

The greatest thing about our great nation is the ideals upon which it was founded. If we are to continue America’s noble traditions and live up to our great mission in the world and in human history, we must do everything in our power to nurture, sustain, and pursue our essential values. Highly concentrated wealth and power threatens all that we hold most dear in the United States of America: peace and prosperity, equality of opportunity, liberty and justice for all.
                    The “Too Big to Fail” Discussion: the National Interest 4/18/10

As issues arise in the public debate, it seems obvious that [the] founding principles [in the Preamble to the Constitution] should be the first considerations in our minds as we attempt to decide where we stand. We should not argue for a proposal, that is, merely because it "seems right" to us at the time. The prohibition against one person's freedom impinging on that of another must be considered as well. What is obviously right from my point of view is not necessarily what seems right from another's perspective; I do not have the right to impose my belief on others, unless my view of what is right also serves the national purpose as described in the Preamble.
                                               Present Implications of the Constitution 5/2/10

A political party that is based on these six freedoms – [freedom] from fear, want, force and violence, injustice, and unequal opportunity – and that actively, proudly, and aggressively pursues them would be one we could enthusiastically support.  Yet somehow, I am inclined to think that the actions of the party [claiming to be “based on freedom”] are not in fact founded on principles of freedom as I understand it, or at least not on freedom for all.
                                    Freedom in America: Who Cares? 5/9/2010

It is much more useful both for ourselves and particularly for our nation, or any nation, to think in terms of right and wrong, rather than in terms of good and evil. Avoiding the temptation to think of public issues as absolutes, like good vs. evil, is not just wordplay …; it is significant … as well as useful and valuable.

Between evil and good, there is no possibility of finding a middle ground, no possible agreement, no peace. If we think of behaviors in the contentious issues that divide us as moral or immoral, we are much more likely to be able to approach them rationally, without dogma, bias, or superstition, and with a practical chance to move toward understanding and accommodation of others’ opposing views and beliefs.
                                                       Beware of Evil (and of Good also) 1/25/10

We need … leaders and newscasters who are bold enough to tell us that the world we have to deal with is not simple and easy, but difficult and complicated. They can flatter our vanity by saying to us, “I know you would prefer to be moved, but it is more important for you to be informed.” But whether they flatter us or not, they need to appeal to our highest ideals and our highest abilities, our abilities to listen and learn, to seek the real truth rather than the “simple truth,” to seek to become fully informed and to think for ourselves.

If we continue to prefer simple platitudes to careful explanations, if we continue to prefer to have our leaders appeal to us through emotion rather than reason, we have little hope of adequately facing up to the hard realities surrounding us.
                                                                The Simple and the Complex 7/24/10

Since so many loud media voices today espouse the views fanatics are known to hold, and identify opponents of these views as enemies to be hated and attacked - though fanatics remain in the minority - they are mobilized to "defend the faith," and they can be unwittingly used to support the policies and actions that their leaders secretly pursue for personal gain and extension of their own power. And since they are convinced it is their duty to impose their views on others, fanatics are willing to use force and violence when necessary to do so, extending their leaders' control or at least influence over others.

Through intimidation and manipulation, fanatics can be led to espouse a cause that more reflective individuals - like the humane and rational Founding Fathers whom we all profess to venerate - would probably see as distinct from the fanatics' own cherished beliefs, seeking to force not only their adherents but all of us to follow their narrow dictates and in so doing to bring us under the control of leaders whose goals they do not accurately perceive.
                                                                          Dealing With Fanatics 6/20/10

Today, we can see honor systems driving unempowered and impoverished peoples, from the Middle East to Los Angeles (and all the other cities with powerful gangs), from Congo to New Guinea. A gang member may murder someone who is considered to have “disrespected” that individual, in other words to have wounded his honor. But such a system – or code – was still strong enough to tie our late eighteenth-century patriots together as they undertook their most treacherous endeavor in 1776.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were proud men seeking to establish a social system of just laws, bound to their cause by a real sense of their sacred honor.
                                                                   Pride, Revenge, and Honor 9/10/10

The cardinal American values are peace and prosperity, equality of opportunity, liberty, and justice for all. These values should be pursued, supported, and honored above all others. Actions that threaten or diminish them should be avoided or prohibited, vilified, or at least highly taxed. Public leaders praising these essential values should be supported; those whose decisions undermine them should be hounded out of their positions of influence.

These basic values must be kept foremost in our minds as we consider any proposed change in government. The size and forms of government as well as methods used to determine the size of each income-earner’s fair share of its funding should be decided not on some abstract or dogmatic principle about either the size of government or about the amount of taxes imposed on everyone; but about making government better and the tax system more just.
                            Too Much Government? Not Enough? Taxes? 7/15/2010

…The Constitution is the supreme law of our land. For us to belittle or deride its provision for equal civil rights to all citizens is unpatriotic and un-American, whether one is referring to the duties of the Judicial branch of the U. S. government or to the way we speak and write about each other.
                             The California Decision and Political Correctness 8/27/10

The question, then, about conservatives who claim they are champions of freedom is, "Who do they want to be free?" Libertines value only their own personal freedom to do as they please. Libertarians certainly value their own freedom, but also seem to think it would be good for everyone else to be free too, although how that could come about is unclear. Everyone with enough money, as produced by the current social order, which is dominated by rich global corporations, are those who conservatives seem to want to be free. Liberals, unlike libertines or libertarians, or even some conservatives, claim to be working to bring a significant degree of freedom to everyone (except perhaps to criminals who threaten both individuals and society).

The socially difficult issue of where the right balance is between the good of the individual and the good of society is exacerbated today by the morally difficult issue of to whom a significant degree of freedom should be extended.
                  Liberals, Libertarians, and Libertines: and Freedom 11/26/10

2. Government

As long as we are at war, in two distant lands, if we are to have good government in the United States of America, our government will need to be better funded than it is today. This would be true even if we had no corruption (such as paying unscrupulous corporations grossly inflated fees or winking at wealthy companies’ or individuals’ unwise or unprincipled actions).

Our government is under-funded. We do not want to take on more debt. Our only remaining alternative is to devise a raise in our taxes that the majority of Americans, despite our distrust and our desire for immediate gratification, can recognize as fair and just to all.

To fail to accept this conclusion, is to prevent our nation from moving forward, as we all want.
                                              Why We Don’t Want Higher Taxes 7/15/2010

Facing the indefinite continuation of both our time of war and our time of recession, our government – if it is responsible – will inevitably raise its expenditures beyond current levels; this is the greater good in our time. To finance this additional spending, we should consider a modest raise in the national debt and a modest increase in the taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations.
                                       In Times of War, Times of Recession 8/3/10

If the House [of Representatives] procedures favor the need for action a bit more than the protection of the minority’s opportunity to voice its views, more than standard parliamentary procedure; then the Senate procedure favors very significantly the minority power over the need for the whole body to take action. The result is that in our Congress, we do not have a proper balance between, on the one hand, the need to hear contrary opinions and on the other, the need (of all citizens) for Congress to take action.
                                                                      Let’s End This Debate! 2/4/10

The question of timing is very important in any form of dispute-resolution. …Also of critical importance is to avoid offering to give up something one desires too early in the process.

Doing so, even if what is given up is less important than what one gains, short-circuits the process which if allowed to take its course might allow limiting the final concession to only a portion of the valuable objective; whereas offering the major concession too early guarantees the loss of that desirable gain and – even worse – causes the negotiations to start with the assumption that the other side will make a minor concession, as a response to the offered bargain, and will go on to seek further concessions from the first party. The key in seeking compromise, as in resolving disputes through agreement or consensus, is to start by asking for everything one hopes to achieve and only then being willing to make compromises – first on minor objectives – only in return for significant concessions from the other side.
                                                          Compromise: Good? Bad? When? 2/4/10

It may not be a Constitutional matter, …but everyone professes to believe that only legal aptitude and experience matter in the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. But the fact is that many Senators – and especially today, most Republican Senators - clearly don’t really believe this. Why lie about it?

Could it be that Senators recognize that a great majority of the electorate believes that neither the nomination nor the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice should be based primarily on partisan politics?
                                 Supreme Court Appointments and Politics 8/15/10

For all these reasons, it is difficult for large media outlets to focus their reports where they should: on what’s at stake in an election really, truly, and accurately, taking upon themselves responsibility for the facts they report.
                                                                     Elections and the Media 10/19/10

So, unless we want to grant corporations the right to vote - by using their resources to guarantee the election of only those who will do their bidding - then, we should push our representatives to pass a federal law saying that the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech applies not to "legal persons" but only to human individuals.
                                           Corporations Are Not People, Are They? 12/17/10
[repeat]
The greatest thing about our great nation is the ideals upon which it was founded. If we are to continue America’s noble traditions and live up to our great mission in the world and in human history, we must do everything in our power to nurture, sustain, and pursue our essential values. Highly concentrated wealth and power threatens all that we hold most dear in the United States of America: peace and prosperity, equality of opportunity, liberty and justice for all.
                    The “Too Big to Fail” Discussion: the National Interest 4/18/10

***

Encounter With The Chinese

***

1

My wife S----- was raised in a mid-sized Midwestern city.  She went to a small religious college there too.  She had met only one person who came directly from a non-English- speaking country in her life, a non-traditionally aged young man from China whom she thought was by now an architect.  He had enrolled in the little liberal arts college primarily, my wife-to-be had speculated, in order to learn English.  His name was Albert Liu (pronounced "loo").

We lived for a number of years where I could find my first professional job, in Washington, D. C.  After a couple of years, I learned of a professional conference in New York City that I could attend, expenses paid.  S----- and I decided we couldn't afford to pass up the opportunity to make our first visit to the big metropolis.  The only unbooked hotel with the conference rates was located rather a distance from the conference... but, after all, the conference was the excuse, not the reason for the whole trip.  (Don't tell my boss.)

2

For weeks we plotted how we would spend every hour of our three-day, two-night visit.  We would take the bus to get there from D. C. and get around the city on the subway.  We expected to do a lot of walking, which we thought would have the advantage of letting us see "the real city."

One of our favorite neighborhood restaurants in the Washington suburb where we lived was "The Golden Buddha" featuring the standard Cantonese fare.  Although both S----- and I had visited New York before we married, neither of us had ever gone down to Chinatown.  We thought now that on our second night, it would be great to have dinner there in an authentic ethnic Chinese restaurant. 

That must have been why I knew about Al Liu in the first place:

"Let's have dinner one night in Chinatown," one of us might have said.

"I knew a Chinaman once..." S----- would have said...

So we studied the subway map to find on our line the most convenient station to Chinatown.  We'd go early so we could wander around a while.  We might eat first, though, in order to avoid the dinner crowd.

3

When we came up from underground, I was a little concerned to see that everything around us was not in Chinese, but Italian.  A quick consult of the pocket map, however, made us think Chinatown was a block uptown, bordering "Little Italy" on the downtown side.

Sure enough, it was just a block or two away.  We sauntered around, ogling the storefronts, fingering the little trinkets at the sidewalk stands, and casually checking out the restaurants.  We wanted to find a backstreet, not pretentious (i.e. pricey) place where "real Chinese" people were going to eat.

And after a bit, we spotted just the right place.  When we peered though the windows, trying not to be boorish tourists, the only folks we could see looked Asian.  No tablecloths, little tables crowded together... We were sure this was the perfect spot.  The only trouble was, they told us inside, that they were full and didn't expect to be sure to have room for us for a couple of hours yet.

It was a Friday, which meant the crowd showed up right after work and would then be heading home after a little while.  But, no problem, we'd come early on purpose so we could look around.  We told the nice Chinese lady we would return.

4

It was still rather crowded when we came back, we thought, but they found a table for us back by the kitchen.  All of us were sort of elbow-to-elbow.  I was facing the kitchen.  S----- was facing the front door some distance away.

When the Asian teenager brought the tea, he provided us with the menus.  Till then, we had just been looking around at all the people.  If we were not the only Anglos present, it was close to that.

As I began to glance at the menu, S----- said brightly, "Hey, there's Al Liu."

I snorted.

"No.  It's really him."

"Where?" I turned around, still thinking there was a punch line coming.

"At the table near the corner," S----- said, "with that gorgeous Chinese woman."

Well, I didn't get the joke, and besides after all that time walking around, I was feeling pretty hungry.

"I'm going over to say Hello," S----- said.

"Oh no, S-----," I said as it dawned on me that she might be serious.  "Don't you remember what everybody says?!"  I know they didn't all look alike, but still...

"I'll just go say Hi," she said and made her way forward.

I buried my head in the menu, already embarrassed.  How could she fall for that?

She didn't come back right away, and I relaxed a little.  She must have thought better of it and gone on to look for the restroom.  That would be a good cover.

Then, over my shoulder came S-----'s voice:  "'Byron'?" and as I turned, "I'd like you to meet Al Liu!"

5 

Yes, it was indeed her college acquaintance.  He was an architect now.  In fact, it turned out he didn't live in New York but was only there for a short visit... because he actually lived in D. C.!

And the pretty woman with him was his girlfriend, the reigning "Miss Chinatown."

... And if it had been me, I would not have gone over to say Hello.

***