where ideas can change you
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
The slogan “press on” has solved, and always will solve, the problems of the human race.
- Calvin Coolidge.
I submit the videos with a warning. If you are intelligent with a faint-heart, Republican or Democrat, you might be better off, for health reasons, reading the transcript instead, or Fareed Zakaria’s obvious conclusion.
Part 1
Part 2
For the good of the United States and the world, this person should step down from the Vice Presidency, and leave it to someone more qualified. Running a world power is not like running the state of Alaska or a small town in it. It takes a lot more and she doesn’t have it. And NO, being close to Russia DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN EXPERT IN FOREIGN POLICY. Such things are not gained by osmosis. That’s like saying I have experience in physics because my neighbor is Stephen Hawking. So do the Republican party a favor and step down. This would constitute a bipartisan act of compassion by reducing the agonizing pain both Democrats and Republicans feel when watching her interviews, but it would also be religiously considerate: It would keep God less busy by reducing the number of believers who ask God what the Hell was McCain thinking when in times of severe economic crisis Palin was preferred over someone like Mitt Romney. And because people are going to be asking such questions, I think McCain will lose a lot of credibility over his VP choice, as time goes by and people realize just how unsuitable Sarah Palin really is. If McCain did not know she wasn’t qualified for the job - it casts doubt on the quality of his judgment. If he did, then it casts doubt on his motives because it seems he did it out of political expediency in the hopes of providing a surrogate Hillary Clinton (though it’s insulting for Clinton to be compared with Palin) that would woo Clinton voters who don’t want to vote for Obama and in order to excite the Evangelicals who were not that enthusiastic by his relatively tepid religiosity and disagreement on certain issues they consider sacrosanct.
Jack Cafferty said it as it is:
Sarah Palin, be a maverick. Step down…before you’re kicked out.
I was born in Leavenwork, Kansas. I started playing drums at the age of 3, and then owned my first drum set at the age of 4. Over the years, I have worked with many top artists and different bands. I also had my own bands, like “Larry Hunt and the Blue Flame band” in the past, and “New Funk Generation” in the present. In 1960, I had my first show with some big name artists such as Brother Jack MacDuff, and Three Sound. In 1966, I played for Senator of Kansas, Senator Reily on television with Christ Unlimited. In 1974, I met Louis Bellson, at the Starlite Theater in Kansas City. Through 1976-79, I played with “The Drifters”, “The Tam’s”, “Round House Band” and “Little Royal” from Georgia, “Pandall” and “Badge” from North Carolina. In 1979, I worked with Larry Sharp and Gregg Lomt trio. In 1983, I drummed in the Black Star Lite Band. In 1986, I joined Intervission from Oakland. In the years between 1989-2002, I met Cool Papa on television with Bay Area Back Roads. I also played with John Lee Hooker, Deacon Jones, Gregg Allmar, Steve Ganna, Al Von Johnson, Rocken Earl Brown, Ron Steward of Blue Society, Lady Margaret and the Gentlemen, Perry Walker, Survival Band and Steppen Stone.
Here is a video of Larry Hunt playing drums on a real drumset:
For more information you could either call him at: 415-574-8641 or meet him personally when he’s out playing with New Funk Generation at Powell and Geary in San Francisco Thursday through Sunday nights at approximately 8.30 p.m.
Which brings me to another point that was raised by one commentator of my original blog post about Larry. Here’s the comment I’m referring to, with the title “Really?”:
Really? You thought that somebody trying to earn money on the street needs a website? Give him some money. Why is it acceptable to say that in a city with so many web developers he should have a website but not to say in a city with SO MUCH MONEY he should have some money?
First of all to generalize someone out of his individuality by making him just “somebody trying to earn money on the street”, is not only undignified, but also erases Larry’s particular situation. Larry is not just “somebody trying to earn money on the street”, he’s a talented musician and entertainer [1], and in the times we’re living, having a website is essential for a variety of reasons. It keeps you in touch with your fans, makes it easy for people to find you, enables you to sell your music online with literally no cost, and provides unexpected professional opportunities as the Jason Roberts case showed - which, as it was demonstrated, culminated in 1500$. Not bad, for a website it took me a couple of hours to build and cost no money. So in response to this comment I reply: Yes. I do think that a talented musician like Larry “The Bucketman” Hunt needs a website. It’s a vehicle for him to put out something that’s valuable (his music) and give people the chance to reward him for it, and allow him to continue doing it. To me it’s like that Chinese proverb which says: “Give someone a fish and you feed him for one day, teach him how to fish and he can feed on his own for a lifetime.” I’d rather help someone make his own money than give him some cash and walk away. That way he earns the self-respect that comes from being self-sufficient. I even met him a couple of days ago to ask him about the importance of money and the website and here’s what he had to say:
As for the second part of the comment,
Why is it acceptable to say that in a city with so many web developers he should have a website but not to say in a city with SO MUCH MONEY he should have some money?
I don’t see why being in a city that has lots of money automatically entitles you to any of it just because you’re physically in it. Sure, when there’s a lot of something going around, be it money or whatnot, it is good if it’s shared with people that need it. But I don’t think San Francisco has such a bad reputation when it comes to sharing and helping people that it warrants that comment. In fact, it has a solid reputation for the opposite. Also, if you read my original blog you’ll see that the word “should” is not present in it even once. I don’t like forcing people with guilt-trips to do what’s right. In fact, I think such an approach can be counter-productive. Give people an opportunity to be good by doing something constructive and they might surprise you. For example, look at the success of Wikipedia. Nobody paid them.
By the way, there is a PayPal donate button on the original blog post for people to donate money. Nobody has donated any - not even the person who made the comment. But people did volunteer to help in building the website. It gives you a little hint about the merits of the two approaches: Giving people the opportunity to help in constructive ways vs. asking them for money. In the former case they can actively participate, in the latter they are just passive contributors. It doesn’t touch people the same way.
Some additional news:
Larry “The Bucketman” Hunt, appeared in First Sunday.
He also got a job as a teacher of drums at the Miraloma Elementary School (175 Omar Way) every other Friday under the San Francisco Arts Education Program I think that’s a great job for him since children are especially captivated by his music and personality:
On the 23rd of September, he’s going to be appearing on a show about street musicians on channel 11 in CA.
In closing, here’s a video of him playing with his drumsticks on fire on Geary & Powell a couple of days ago:
Notes:
[1] Incidentally, the adjective “entertainer” is not my addition. Larry himself insists on the role of entertainer in addition to that of musician. He doesn’t believe the adjective as denoting something that an artist ought to look down on. He likes entertaining people and he thinks in order for you to be able to do that, you need to put *more* of yourself in your performance rather than less. Which is a view worth thinking about given that it comes in direct opposition with what most artists think, when they think of art as “entertainment”.
Here’s a great video about it:
This is real and it’s happening unless we do something about it.
What is the problem?
A species of non-native moth called the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) has been discovered in California. The moth is potentially harmful to all sort of fruit crops, so people in the agricultural business are afraid the moth is going to damage their business big time citing potentially losses of up to 640 million dollars a per year.
However
“Though the first Light Brown Apple Moth confirmed in California by DNA analysis was found in February 2007, scientists like James Carey, a professor of entomology at the University of California-Davis and associate editor on several journals, believes, based on his previous experience with the Gypsy Moth program, that the Light Brown Apple Moth has likely lived in California for years and possibly decades (in part because it is so widespread, from Los Angeles to north of San Francisco).[1][2] The debate over how long the moth has been in the state has not yet been resolved. Questions about the rationale for the timing of the spray program suggest that it appears be more closely related to agricultural quarantines from Mexico and Canada than other factors.” Source here
In fact there haven’t been any reported damages from the LBAM. Nothing. Zero dollars. Read the enlightening Myth vs Fact sheet by the Hope organization.
So what did they do?
They lobbied the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and obtained an “emergency exemption from registration” from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that allows the USDA to bypass all state rules, such as the production of a state-required environmental impact report, and use the pesticide in aerial sprays over California cities. Because of that exemption, the spraying program isn’t subject to state approval, according to representatives of the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.
The pesticide maker has also been a generous political donor to Gov. Schwarzenegger, having given nearly 150,000$ as reported by another SF Chronicle article.
The efficacy of the plan is highly dubious and the adverse health effects real. Read what Richard Fagerlund a pest management specialist has to say about it here.
We who are part of the Web 2.0 community and know so much about viral marketing, this is the time to put it to good use. Let’s show them what we can do by harnessing our knowledge of Web 2.0 technologies and using them to inform public opinion and stop the spraying.
It is absolutely preposterous and morally repugnant to let this outrageous plan to go on. Remember, they are not just going to spray you once, the EPA has authorized the aerial spraying of the Checkmate pesticide every 30 days until 2010.
Act now. Sign the petition. Blog about it. Send it to your friends. Digg and Reddit it too.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke.
Weekend Apps is a full weekend event (taking place from Feb. 22nd to Feb. 24th) to get developers and entrepreneurs together to build and release Facebook applications in one weekend. We want to help you build hugely successful Facebook applications that grow virally and reach millions of users. Our goal is to assist entrepreneurs to reach their potential, launch their startups, and achieve massive success. We will do that by:
- Bringing in entrepreneurs and developers who have built hugely successful applications to share their secrets.
- We will have a team of awesome designers, marketers, usability experts, and lawyers available to you to help you and answer your questions.
- We’re partnering with the great folks at The Enterprise Network to lend their guidance and support to you for free during the weekend.
- We’re planning an ad-exchange network to get applications to promote each other and overcome the initial challenge of reaching the first 10,000 users.
- We’ll have all teams share their experiences so we can learn from each others successes and mistakes.
Think of it as a weekend incubator on steroids. We’ll bring the energy and drive of talented people together to create an unstoppable force. But this is only the start. We except that the partnerships and friendships that form during this weekend will result in a lot of future ventures and successes that we’ll continue to hear about for a long time to come.
Check our web site for more details: http://weekendapps.com/ . And specifically, read these two posts:
Who should attend:
http://blog.weekendapps.com/2008/02/10/who-should-attend/
Ticket Price:
http://blog.weekendapps.com/2008/02/11/the-tickets-are-free-sort-of/
And buy tickets here:
http://weekendapps.eventbrite.com/
I am not saying the particular artists mentioned above are incapable of expressing emotion in their music. I’m sure they are. But that day, they didn’t. You see the kind of musical performance I am looking for is not something that can be reproduced like a commercial product. Because it requires certain psychological presuppositions that cannot simply be summoned by will. In Kierkegaard’s Diapsalmata we read:
What is a poet? An unhappy man who conceals profound anguish in his heart, but whose lips are so fashioned that when sighs and groans pass over them they sound like beautiful music. His fate resembles that of the unhappy men who were slowly roasted by a gentle fire in the tyrant Phalaris’ bull—their shrieks could not reach his ear to terrify him, to him they sounded like sweet music. And people flock about the poet and say to him: do sing again; Which means, would that new sufferings tormented your soul, and: would that your lips stayed fashioned as before, for your cries would only terrify us, but your music is delightful.
It is not possible to reproduce anguish in one’s heart a couple of minutes before every performance. It does not surprise me when I see the second or third album, of a band who had a successful first album, be a complete disappointment, exactly because the conditions (both material & psychological) under which they created the first have subsequently changed exactly because of that original success.
The gap between entertainment and art is that between the display of skill and the expression of emotion. A skilled performance without any emotional expression resembles art as much as an unskilled expression of emotion does - not much. A machine playing with technical perfection a musical piece on a piano is not artistic nor is a crying child an artist.
Yesterday I witnessed once more, gladiators of music, and yet people clapped unfailingly despite the butchering of art. I was wondering what would it take to witness art? Perhaps eavesdrop on a lover singing to his beloved a song he written for her?
The minutes passed at Yoshi’s and yet I was still thinking of the subtle difference between entertainment and art. What were these people moving arms and legs on wood and string, inhaling and exhaling their breaths in brass doing?
Then I remembered the Greeks. When Pheidippides ran his marathon, he did it to inform the Athenian populace that their army had won the Persians at Marathon. He ran to deliver a message of victory and freedom. And legend has it that he died on the spot after delivering the news. What message do modern marathon runners deliver? Perhaps the same message that musical entertainers do…none. Would they die for it? Hardly; even if they did people wouldn’t find the sacrifice admirable because of the absence of the message. We might admire marathon runners for their stamina and disciplined training, but they do not carry a message, except perhaps from their sponsors…and it just seems to me that in order for the gladiators of music to be doing something other than just entertaining us they would require a noble message [1], expressed either through the lyrics, or if there are none, through the music by delicate interpretation.
Perhaps two examples might illustrate what it means to make the leap from entertainment to art. The first demonstrates how a song, even though not written by the performer, can be sung from the heart. “I Want You”, was written by Elvis Costello, but here it’s sung by Fiona Apple (with Costello on the guitar). Notice her expression at 6:53-6:58…
The second is “Ne Me Quitte Pas” written and sung by Jacques Brel. The emotional expression is undeniable.
(for an English translation go here and scroll down to find the translation by “Aurore”. Despite what she says, I like her translation)
Now, that is art.
———————–
Notes:
[1] Which explains why certain rap songs, even though their beat and words might be well crafted, do not feel like art because their lyrics express nothing more than petty vanities.
Communities around the extremes (bdsm etc.) are easy to find but whenever I browse most of these communities I just don’t feel much affinity to them. Sometimes they are vulgar, other times they are kitsch, or in some cases they are just plain sick.
On the other hand you have boring conventionalism around sexuality (what is broadly called “Vanilla sex”) hitting you in the face everyday. Men should be sweet, accommodating, kind, egalitarian….in other words, boring and castrated. That is because we are reacting to an age where men were all spine and no heart into thinking that we should swing to the opposite: men with all heart but no spine. Which is a recipe for boredom and a yearning for some biker, rockstar or any type of “bad boy” who will make a woman feel alive again! Women had to overcome their own obstacles, being seen as subordinate to men for centuries, while any woman who dared to express her healthy dark side was immediately labeled as a “slut”, “whore” and so on.
The truth of the matter, I believe, lies somewhere in the middle. People have a light and a dark side. Some people have more of the one and less of the other, but one thing seems certain: a healthy and exciting sexual life requires an expression of both. When it comes to the vast majority we are taught to repress the dark side and express only our light side. Even though an amount of repression and difficulty in life is necessary for the healthy development of our personality, a consistent rejection of certain parts of ourselves eventually has harmful effects. A boring sex life is not a healthy one and it occurs exactly because of a failure to cultivate and express both our light and our dark sides. Of course, the worst perversions occur when a complete expression of one’s sexuality is prohibited…an unhealthy predicament which has had considerable support in the past due to an inaccurate understanding of human nature and its needs.
The history of the dark side of sexuality is long. Sigmund Freud was the first modern scientist to explore the dark side of sexuality, and shed light to its relation to aggression and of course the unconscious. But going back further you always find references to a dark side in sexuality. For instance, the mythical Maenads of ancient Greece are a good example. East and West, you will find times, people and places where both sides of sexuality were explored and deemed sacred. The Kama Sutra in India and the whole philosophy of Tantra; the many Chinese texts on sexual techniques and their contribution to a better life (see for example “The Tao of Love and Sex”) all point to the obvious. It is what you do with your sexuality that determines whether it will harm or benefit your growth. There is no point denying it or trying to uproot it. One should cultivate it with care and make it part of the garden of one’s soul.
There are people who express darkness in their sexuality because their soul has no light. A soul without light ultimately ends up in unhealthy behaviors that do not enrich life. But there are those whose souls are filled with so much light that there bound to be shadows…only those belong to the realm of Dark Vanilla.
They enjoy cultivating the erotic as an art…true artists of desire. They aren’t ashamed of enjoying earthly delights nor afraid to reach out for heavenly love. Love so deep where borders between us start to fade away. It’s a realm for women who want to be loved gently and fucked hard (and vice versa)…and men who know how to do that.
It’s a realm for people who give expression to both their light and dark sides and enjoy the full range of sexual diversity, without being perverts or prudes. In short, sane people with an edge; having enough madness to dare be themselves.
The name of its philosophy should be called Sexistentialism. A succinct definition would be that a sexistentialist is an existentialist in which love and sexuality has replaced nihilism and gloom [1]. Haven’t you noticed how the founders of existentialism had problems with their love lives? Nietzsche might have been a virgin for all we know (let alone his misogynism, which is, however, subtler than most people think) and Kierkegaard pushed away perhaps the only love of his life.
The meaning of a philosopher is “the lover of wisdom”. If you wanted to learn how to love women you would go to those that don’t just love them but are loved back. For wisdom is like a woman. She does not give herself to you simply because you want her. That is something that mere professors of philosophy don’t understand. The difference between professors of philosophy and real philosophers is the difference between lovers who are never loved and lovers who are. A philosopher is someone who not only loves wisdom but wisdom loves him back. Which also explains why professors of philosophy engage in so much intellectual masturbation. In fact, the silence of philosophers throughout history on the topic of masturbation only heightens our suspicion…
—————-
Notes:
[1] And no, I am not implying the way to overcome nihilism and gloom is to freely abandon yourself in bouts of senseless hedonism. What I am saying is that an existence in which love and sexuality are missing tends to become gloomy and nihilistic.
The size and complexity of the problems we face today are literally unprecedented. Never in our long evolutionary history were we called upon to solve such problems. In the past, things were pretty simple. Thus, the thought patterns that are most natural to us were developed in response to simpler times. When confronted with today’s extremely complex situations they tend to simplify our problems and suggest solutions that can have ultimately catastrophic consequences.
In an environment that is relatively stable, organisms soon were able to easily recognize the common threats and benefits in it. The ones with the fastest responses to the regular threats and benefits, survived and flourished. What has changed the last couple of thousands of years are not only the environment but also the threats and benefits in it. In addition, the rate with which these things have changed was much faster in comparison to our ability to harmoniously adapt to them.
Thus, it comes as no surprise, that with people moving into cities, and cities growing larger and more complex, and division of labor and stratification reaching unprecedented levels, we have phenomena that are new, either in kind or in scope. The new forms of violence and conflict between men being a rather prominent example.
Thus, with dramatic changes outside of us (environmental, societal etc.) came accompanying dramatic changes within us. Certain types of human beings were extinguished forever, while new ones took their place. Other times archaic forms were replaced with new ones. For example the shaman who combined knowledge of medicine and religion has since given rise to the professional physician, the priest, the psychologist, and psychiatrist.
With the Industrial revolution and the rise of science and technology, the pace of change has increased exponentially. Yet we as human beings, have changed little in comparison. I’m sure this phenomenon has been described by many others in many ways. One way to summarize it could be that our moral progress has not been as fast as our material progress. I know, being aware of the spirit of the times under which I am living at least when it comes to the West, that the mere presence of the word “moral” serves as anathema to many. Cynicism runs rampant everywhere and whenever one even hints at a common ground everybody shouts “difference!”.
Ironically enough, the mere shouting of difference in fact presupposes a deeper similarity because the concepts are logically interconnected. When you say for instance: “This is a different tree than that one,” you inevitably imply that both these things share enough to be called “trees” but it is just that one of them has enough differences to warrant the assertion that it is a different kind of tree - but nevertheless still a tree. On the same vein, even though human beings are different, they still share a common human nature. In fact, it is those similarities that make common life possible and those differences that make it interesting.
Going back to the observation that our moral progress has been slower than our material one, let me add more detail so as to make it more concrete of a statement. Electric light has spread throughout the globe and lights the darkness of people of all colors. Yet the plain truth that it is not the color of one’s skin that determines the quality of one’s character even though recognized for hundreds of years by eminent human beings before the discovery of electric light has still not penetrated the whole of humanity. In short, electric light is more widespread than moral light even though younger in its discovery.
Yet even though few will doubt the importance of eradicating racism for the future of humanity, billions of dollars are poured for new electrical infrastructure and only thousands are spent for moral infrastructure. With our actions we prove that illuminating moral darkness is not our priority.
Morality has a bad reputation. To young people it is usually a collection of seemingly absurd and unjustified restrictions upon their freedoms and desires imposed by others for their own interests. However, there were times and places where morality was of an utmost importance. During Christian times, it was the difference between an eternity in heaven or hell. And in Ancient Greece, your morality, or its synonym and Greek derived word for it, ethics, determined whether you’d live a happy and virtuous life.
The Greeks understood that the best life is not lived in isolation but with others. To live the best life requires thought, effort and imagination. Living well with others was for them an art. They named that art politics.
Politics has a worse reputation than morality. Instead of being considered the art of communal living it is considered the art of manipulation for special interests. Priests and politicians are not trusted anymore, for good reasons. In other words, we do not trust the people who were supposed to save our souls in heaven nor the people who were supposed to help us make heaven on earth.
But science we trust. Because our phones work. So do our cars, most of the time, and our electricity grid. But science cannot tell us how to live. It tells us how to the world is, not how it should be. It has been a recurring dream amongst intellectuals that we use the scientific method to arrive at unshakable conclusions regarding morality as we have done regarding physics. That dream has proven to be a nightmare in most cases, where “science” was used to justify horrible atrocities. If the scientific method aims at the truth, then it cannot but assist us in our search for a better future. But certain scientists tend to overestimate the methods of their own domain, and try to apply the same methods in different domains resulting in absurdities. However, as long as we are cautious in our thinking, the scientific approach will be a useful ally in our quest.
We live in an age where science, technology and the interconnection between nations and industries make our mistakes have serious global consequences. The personal greed of a few individuals can result in the poverty and death of the many. The lessons of history teach us that accumulated injustices create a volatile climate where explosions of blind revenge are not uncommon. Given the havoc that modern weaponry can cause, it becomes all the more necessary to follow the dictates of impartial justice which would undermine any cause for revenge and further an atmosphere of solidarity and trust among nations. Ironically, we also live in an age where the funds and expertise to drastically improve living conditions throughout the planet are available. So common sense begs the question: Why don’t we use our resources and expertise to improve our lives?
The question is not just global. It is local too. Take your city. Why don’t the rich people at the top act as benefactors to the rest of society? Not just in the form of charities that only alleviate urgent problems from time to time. But benefactors in the sense of transforming society to higher levels of general well being. The problem is not the redistribution of wealth, though that could be part of the solution. The problem has to do with how human nature responds to the situation it has found itself in. Lord Acton famously remarked: “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What is it that happens to human beings in power that disables them from acting towards the best interest of the people that entrust them with this power?
The Pharaohs of Egypt wouldn’t have been able to move a single stone if others didn’t assent to their wishes. It is we as a whole that give power to the people who rule us. If soldiers don’t obey their commanders there can be no war. Immense power is based upon consent.
Think of this: Let’s suppose I am strong and skilled enough to beat three to four weak people. I beat them up unless they do as I say. If I beat them all the same, they will eventually conspire against me and assassinate me. If, however, I treat the strongest a bit more fairly and give them certain privileges, they will help me keep my power longer, and even expand it. The more I give to them, the more they trust me and the more they have to lose if I were to be eliminated. This model of social organization (I am not claiming it is the only one) has appeared throughout the centuries. What has changed over time is the amount and kind of privileges trickling down to the rest of the population.
Now think of this: In the distant past the social division of power was pretty obviously demarcated. Everyone in society knew who had the power, where they lived, how they looked like. They even interacted with them, provided you go back enough. Power was usually divided among three groups. The leader at the top had maximum privileges and authority, his minions underneath had less, and the “public” had almost none. If the public was dissatisfied it had to convince the minions that a different social organization ought to be established. However, many times the privileges that the public wanted were already enjoyed by the minions, so the minions had no reason to be motivated to change the existing social organization and risk betraying their leader and losing everything they had. So usually one or more of three things happened. Most of the times, the people within the public pushing for reform were simply killed or put to jail. That “solved” the problem and also acted as a deterrent towards others. If the number of dissenters were bigger and more organized, a prudent leader might recognize that it would be better to give some concessions to the public. That way he would appear gracious and he would avoid conflict. Finally, the first method might have the opposite effect. Instead of acting as a deterrent it would fuel rage and resentment against the leaders and his minions and ultimately lead to a revolution, in which the public simply overthrow the leader and his minions and replace them with a hierarchy that would give them the privileges they wanted.
Funnily enough, at times the revolutionaries would retain the overall structure of society and merely swap places with the ones in power. Other times the structure itself would change allowing for a different distribution in power. That is why the former types of rebellion should be called revolutions and the latter evolutions. There could be another form of rebellion where the group of rebels that get power in fact implement a societal organization that belongs to the past. In that case it should really be called a devolution.
Today however, the amount of groups that comprise society and the different amounts and kinds of power each group holds is much bigger. To believe that society is divided into three classes: Upper class, middle class and low class is simply naive. That is because there are many types of power. A professor might make a modest income but he commands more respect than a plumber who makes more. So the professor might be objectively poorer, but he has more social power than the plumber. So different people have different types of power to lose with the restructuring of the status quo, regardless of where they stand in the social hierarchy. The more groups there are, and the more complex the kinds and types of power that exist within society, the harder it is for a common vision to be found that would mobilize all those groups in restructuring society in a significant way. By now, most Western societies have supplied their public with enough goods, privileges and freedoms that the majority of the public belongs to the middle classes (or wants to think it does). Thus, most people believe that they have too much to risk from a significant restructuring of society, and tend to be supporters of the status quo. Looked at it from this perspective, ironically enough this would mean that the West at the moment contains perhaps the most conservative societies in the world.
While it is true that it has managed to create mechanisms with which reform can be achieved without conflict (voting etc.) it is also true that getting them to move is far from easy. Strangely enough, political issues that have been at the top of the concerns (e.g. universal health care) for most Americans (to take the US as an example) have consistently failed to come up in the political agendas of the candidates. And when they do, they show up in some ridiculously watered down version that is almost an affront to the American people. Even the road to high administrative positions is very difficult if you don’t already belong to the elite. Even though in principle open for all, in practice the examples of people from the gutters of society to emerge to the highest offices are very rare. A casual glance at the background of the vast majority of US politicians proves the point.
When was the last time you helped a stranger? We don’t do it often, do we? When was the last time you helped someone you knew? We do that very often. Does it come as a surprise then, that Western nations genuinely help distant nations of which they have little affinity much less frequently than they help nations they’ve been friends with?
We care more about our friends. We are literally wired by our evolutionary past to care more about people who are close to us because they have more chances of helping us survive than strangers half-way across the globe. When I say close, I mean it in a broad way. Today the internet has showed that people can care about people half-way across the globe provided they become close friends, even though they are far away in terms of physical proximity.
Now think of this: You grow up with a bunch of friends. You go to the same sports and social clubs. You have common friends. You go to the same colleges together. You marry within the same social circle. Then you end up with this same bunch of old friends in government together. Who do you think you are going to help first? The unknown, faceless farmer in the Midwest? Or your childhood friend who has done so much for you and now needs you to cover his back for some misdeed? Who do you think you’re going to grant favors to? Your college buddy or some annoying lobbyist who fights for rights you’ve enjoyed most of your life and thus have never felt the injustice one feels who is deprived of them?
It is the sum of small and big favors to and from friends against the interests of strangers that eventually result in grave national injustices. Satanic conspiracies orchestrated by evil people are usually a very naive way of looking at big problems. They rest on the psychological hope that given that the problem is caused by a handful of people, getting rid of them will get rid of the problem. So the solution seems easy and within reach. If however, the problem is *not* simply the cause of a handful of people but an outcome of an extremely complicated interaction of causes of which even ourselves are implicated, then the solution becomes almost impossible to grasp in its complexity. Conspiracies in fact offer hope because they make sense out of chaos. The truth, on the other hand, is much more complicated and might lead to desperation - unless you develop your mind and will to rise up to this noble challenge.
The heroes of the future are those who will see our problems for what they are and do something about them, rather than die fighting straw men and ghosts.
