I was going to write on another topic, but have since changed my mind. We'll hit that one another day, but for now I think we need to open up a dialogue with our Representatives and Senators and let them know that there is a need to slow down this juggernaut, just a bit.
Politics is a social science. And as is the case in any science, radical changes in certain properties can cause a great measure of instability. If you are new to PYY, you may not have read these posts from the earlier days, the Political Yen/Yang Principle and the sequel to it. They explain some things more in detail. But whether you read these posts or not, consider some things with me for a moment, will you?
Think about radical changes that occur in chemistry. Acids, bases, the more radical the ions the more unstable the chemical or compound. The same is true in politics. The Left, the Right, the more radical the agenda the more unstable the political and economic situations can become.
Biologically, it is necessary to maintain a certain pH in the blood, as well as the body in general. Death can occur if this balance cannot be maintained, it matters not which direction the shift goes. Homeostasis cannot occur in either direction from the window of the norm. Once again, the same concept holds true in politics. Shifting too far to either extreme cannot sustain a nation. It cannot keep the body of that nation, stable, healthy, and growing strong.
Think about this for a moment, as we use another scientific metaphor, from the world of oceanography. Think about this political juggernaut as you would, if you were sailing out to sea. The farther you go from shore, the farther you must travel back. That means if you get into trouble (like the NFL players that tragically lost their lives recently off the coast of Florida), it takes you that much longer to get back. If the seas become rough and something bad happens along the way, you may find yourself in very unfamiliar territory very quickly.
No government should have the ability to ram through unread agendas, before an adequate amount of thought and discussion can be put into them. It's apparent that very few in Washington read the Obama stimulus package. It's even more apparent that even if they did, they would have voted for it anyway. I remember many of these same people complaining about a GOP controlled Congress and White House, like they were the fascists out of control. Yet with the current Administration and Congress, we do see some disturbing trends developing on the horizon and they are worthy of our concern.
Using techniques used in the election, we are seeing a call to arms in the Obamanation and a data collection of names that are friendly to Obama's policies and proposals. At the same time, data is also being collected on others who are Libertarians and abortion opponents.
Is it getting clearer, yet? Collecting names of those who support and those who do not. Does this not sound strikingly familiar to Europe in the 1930s? Does this not remind one of the nations that ended up in ruins, before they were able to do anything about it.
Think I am kidding about the indoctrination? Take a look at this:
Hitler had his Brown Shirts. Mussolini had his Black Shirts. And now, Obama has his blue shirts, which are now functioning as an information gathering network. Don't you suppose this is how the base of support was solidified, once these men were legally seated in power?
But what happens later? What happens when the names are known? Take a look at this:
After watching how fast these Marxist Alinksyites have come out of the gate, I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't already on the drawing board. Maybe this is something that has already been planned for, here is something from the campaign:
Folks I can't make this stuff up. You see it, just like I do. Many of you are already sold and I am preaching to the choir. But many that may read this blog may not be picking up up on the signals just yet. If this be the case, I ask you to explain this stuff in a way that makes sense, if you think you can. Because from where I sit, it is crystal clear what is happening.
So have you had enough yet? Did you vote for Obama and now regret it?
Whatever, just know that what's done is done. But if you are wanting to rectify things, you can consider helping to put a stop to this out of control beast, which is an animal that is devouring whatever is put before it. Call your Congressman and Senator, tell them enough is enough. Tell them to put the stops on this, before it devours the very institutions that are rooted in the rule of law, and the liberties they are assigned to protect.
If it continues unabated, the response of the system may not be good and the reaction of the people may be even worse. Remember from history that the natural response of socialism rammed down a society's throat is fascism. Pre-Mussolini Italy will bear this out if you take the time to read up on it.. The harder you allow the pendulum to swing to the left, the farther it will swing back to the right to correct.
Showing posts with label The PYY Principle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The PYY Principle. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Sunday, July 16, 2006
The Political Yen/Yang Principle: The Political pH Scale
Political Science may be a science, but it is not quantitative like chemistry. It, like most social sciences, can be measured to some degree. But Poli-Sci is mostly an abstract discipline, like sociology, psychology, and several others. Research is limited to surveys and other subjective methods, much unlike lab sciences that require more concrete thinking, less opinion, and more finite terminology.
But knowing all of this, means little except to say that any abstract science, will always be subject to much more scrutiny and skepticism, than those sciences that can settle their difference in a laboratory. With that said, let me also say that like other social sciences, Poli-Sci has changed much since I took a couple of classes, 30 years ago.
Recently, I posted a piece called, The Political Yen/ Yang Principle. If you haven't read it, I recommending reading it first. But if you already have or just don't care to, that's fine too. It's not a prerequisite to what I am about to present.
Except for this part:
As I said earlier, Poli-Sci is not easily measured. Like any other science it covers a wide range of topics, sub-topics, and subjects. It is different from country to country, mainly due to the differences in political systems and the ideologies that govern them.
But leave a person alone long enough with a set of subjects that are interesting and fascinating at the same time, and soon, you will come up with all kinds of theories. These theories are debated more intensely than in other fields, because objective data is less prevalent than in those that are more quantified. Much is left open to various interpretations and they are often times, hotly contested and debated.
One widely accepted model developed to helped explain political ideology is the political spectrum. Clicking on the link will better explain it, if you do not understand just how many different models have been developed, over the years. While trying to explain pretty much the same things, each has its own set of attributes and faults, or better yet, its pluses and minuses. Thus, the debate can be endless, with good agruments, both for and against the use of said models.
But the thing to note here is, since this is difficult to quantify, some method has to be used to qualify Poli-Sci as a valid discipline. And this is a simple way of doing it, if you do not get too deep into the technicalities that are so subjective to begin with.
Now look at the pH scale we all learned in chemistry. 0= strong acid, 14=strong base, and 7=pure water, which is perfectly balanced. Note: Pure water does not occur naturally unless it is distilled.
Now, take this model and apply it to the political spectrum, and there you have the Political pH scale. 0=anarchistic left wing militants, 14=anarchistic right wing militants, and 7=perfect centrist, which is probably not an attainable value, in reality. I would say it exists only in theory.
Some believe that a value should be should not be assigned, nor should a label be given to political ideologies and/or their proponents/opponents. But I ask, how else can you describe behavior, beliefs, and/or value systems that exist in the political world? Labels and values are not always a bad thing, they are what they are.
In the future and whenever applicable, I will refer to the Political pH Scale and will assign what I feel is a proper pH value to selected ideologies, ideas, philosophies, and other things that exist in the realm of political science. It is not a perfect model by any means, but it does serve the purposes of these conversations, on the whole. There is no claim to scientific method here. It, like it has always been, is just one man's opinion.
But knowing all of this, means little except to say that any abstract science, will always be subject to much more scrutiny and skepticism, than those sciences that can settle their difference in a laboratory. With that said, let me also say that like other social sciences, Poli-Sci has changed much since I took a couple of classes, 30 years ago.
Recently, I posted a piece called, The Political Yen/ Yang Principle. If you haven't read it, I recommending reading it first. But if you already have or just don't care to, that's fine too. It's not a prerequisite to what I am about to present.
Except for this part:
Yen And Yang In Science
Take chemistry for instance. Remember the pH scale of acids and bases? Too much of one or the other, creates an unstable compound. The more stable the compound the more balance between the two. Here is but one example: Sodium (Na+) and chlorine (Cl-) molecules by themselves are not stable. Yet when they develop a bond with each other, they become one of the more stable compounds, known to mankind, table salt.
Table salt (NaCl), by itself and in its natural form, serves many useful functions today and at one point in history was a valuable trading commodity, with the ancient Romans even using it as money.
As I said earlier, Poli-Sci is not easily measured. Like any other science it covers a wide range of topics, sub-topics, and subjects. It is different from country to country, mainly due to the differences in political systems and the ideologies that govern them.
But leave a person alone long enough with a set of subjects that are interesting and fascinating at the same time, and soon, you will come up with all kinds of theories. These theories are debated more intensely than in other fields, because objective data is less prevalent than in those that are more quantified. Much is left open to various interpretations and they are often times, hotly contested and debated.
One widely accepted model developed to helped explain political ideology is the political spectrum. Clicking on the link will better explain it, if you do not understand just how many different models have been developed, over the years. While trying to explain pretty much the same things, each has its own set of attributes and faults, or better yet, its pluses and minuses. Thus, the debate can be endless, with good agruments, both for and against the use of said models.
But the thing to note here is, since this is difficult to quantify, some method has to be used to qualify Poli-Sci as a valid discipline. And this is a simple way of doing it, if you do not get too deep into the technicalities that are so subjective to begin with.
Now look at the pH scale we all learned in chemistry. 0= strong acid, 14=strong base, and 7=pure water, which is perfectly balanced. Note: Pure water does not occur naturally unless it is distilled.
Now, take this model and apply it to the political spectrum, and there you have the Political pH scale. 0=anarchistic left wing militants, 14=anarchistic right wing militants, and 7=perfect centrist, which is probably not an attainable value, in reality. I would say it exists only in theory.
Some believe that a value should be should not be assigned, nor should a label be given to political ideologies and/or their proponents/opponents. But I ask, how else can you describe behavior, beliefs, and/or value systems that exist in the political world? Labels and values are not always a bad thing, they are what they are.
In the future and whenever applicable, I will refer to the Political pH Scale and will assign what I feel is a proper pH value to selected ideologies, ideas, philosophies, and other things that exist in the realm of political science. It is not a perfect model by any means, but it does serve the purposes of these conversations, on the whole. There is no claim to scientific method here. It, like it has always been, is just one man's opinion.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
The Political Yen/Yang Principle
Yen and Yang. Together they denote balance. Balance is a key component of stability, in most anything.
Yen And Yang In Science
Take chemistry for instance. Remember the pH scale of acids and bases? Too much of one or the other, creates an unstable compound. The more stable the compound the more balance between the two. Here is but one example: Sodium (Na+) and chlorine (Cl-) molecules by themselves are not stable. Yet when they develop a bond with each other, they become one of the more stable compounds, known to mankind, table salt.
Table salt (NaCl), by itself and in its natural form, serves many useful functions today and at one point in history was a valuable trading commodity, with the ancient Romans even using it as money.
Yen And Yang In Relationships
Marriage is one area, you can draw another such analogy. You've heard the old saying that opposites attract, haven't you? An introverted person with an extroverted person, together will usually have less difficulties than two of the same personality types. The more aggressive of the two, balanced with the more passive, seems to lessen the chances of internal conflicts, because one is easy going the other is more a driving force and usually more difficult to please. One is content to drive and the other is content to let the other do the driving.
Yen And Yang In Psychology
Freud's theory of self, is another illustration. Id, ego, and superego are the primary components of this theory. And without getting too deep into Psych 101 (which I suspect most of my readers have had), I will say that id is the hedonist, superego is the moralist, and ego is the blend between the two. Too much id can increase your chances of getting you to the same destination as John Belushi. Too much superego gets you to the point of Jerry Falwell. But the right balance gets you to the point of being a well rounded individual, capable of being a productive, compassionate human being that understands the nature of objectivity.
Yen And Yang In Politics
Politics aren't much different.
The first area where this is true is in the balancing of the rule of law, with the will of the people.
From the beginning of time there have been rulers and there have been those that have been ruled. As the population of the world increased over the years, it became impossible for rulers to oversee and micromanage all affairs, so they eventually had aides (that became part of a chain of command). Enter the bureaucracy. Enter the corruption and the political back-stabbing that comes with it. Enter, the us vs. them mentality.
But with that, you also have to see that two distinct classes developed, the nobility and the peasantry, the rulers and the ruled. And in no time period since then, has there not been this distinction. The differences come in the methods of selecting rulers and in the debate of how much power those rulers should or should not have.
Monarchs always have believed in a selection process guided by the principle known as, divine right. And why not? They, themselves, benefitted much more from that process, than the people they ruled. Many rulers used a theological basis for maintaining this form of rule, century after century. They exploited the superstitious tendencies that are seemingly inherent with mankind, by saying that this deity here, or that deity there, willed it to be so. Therefore, they must submit themselves or whichever deity was applicable, would be wroth with them and some form of judgement or calamity would befall them.
Not all rulers have been malevolent though, even during the golden ages of divine right. Many were benevolent too. But when the oppressive regimes were too oppressive (people neglected and abused for royal pleasure), there came a time when revolutions were necessary to relieve the oppression. Hunger and severe mistreatment will do that to a people.
This is where the anarchists come into view. With the revolutions, come an element that is rebellious by nature and resists any and all forms of authority; and essentially believe that they should be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want. Anarchists come in all political persuasions. Today, we have both left wing and right wing anarchists that have the same goals and objectives, but with different motives. Mob rule is their ideology and resistance is there forte. There is no room for any kind of authority with anarchists, least of all a monarch.
Now, any stable government that wishes to remain stable, needs to balance the rule of law with the will of the people, to create a more harmonious community and society. In nations that proclaim liberty and democracy as a staple of stability, elections are the voice of the people and the people that are seated by those elections are those that must rule, while hearing that voice. It is then understood that the people must then submit themselves to the laws, made by the rulers. Apart from demonstrations in the most critical situations, the people must wait for election day to choose to keep their rulers or bring in new ones.
The second area in which balance must occur in politics, is within the selection process, itself.
The politics of left, right, and moderate can be looked at in the same sense as the id, superego, and ego components of Freud's theory and the pH scale's acid-base balance. Too much id or too much superego and you have an imbalanced self. Too much acid or too much base and you have an unstable compound. Likewise, too much left or too much right, you have a government that can run roughshod over the people.
Too much left or too much right can also be unstable because of the change factor. Too much political change at one time without the people's consent can/will create instability. Too much either way will also cause change to occur faster, than the people can bear.
One example of this, is in the area of welfare reform.
Let me first say that there is nobody that believes we desperately need welfare reform more, than me. But after decades of the miserable failure known as LBJ's Great Society, there are way too many people that have become overly dependent on the government. To cut all of them off at once would be disastrous, in that, the masses that would be cut off, would have no idea how to provide for themselves. That is all they have ever known.
Like the son or daughter that learns the family business while growing up and eventually takes it over when the parent retires or dies, the welfare recipient, no doubt, learned this way of life from his/her parents. So, this must be done slowly, by attrition. It must be done in some way, whereby, the people that will be most affected do not turn to crime as a replacement. Kicking people off assistance that have been so dependent for so many generations without a viable alternative is not wise. The only way to do this without creating an unstable environment for the rest of us that work hard to provide for our families, is to create opportunities for them, at the same rate.
How does this relate to my points?
The far right would cut all people off, right now. That's it. Poof. Gone. People would turn desperate and fast. As I stated earlier, crime would rise exponentially, immediately creating instability. By contrast, the left would seek to increase government assistance. And if they had a blank check, they would expand welfare rolls. This would increase the tax burden on those that work for a living, therefore creating instability.
In Summary
In all things we do, moderation is the key. And, balance is the key component to moderation. But make no mistake, all of this must be used by exercising good judgement. Opposition to government policies can be effectively voiced without tearing down that same government. Opposition to the war can be voiced in ways that do not give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Opposition and dissent are healthy things, if they are used wisely. They create that balance that is so utterly necessary to create stability. But it must be done in such a way that it does not destroy the very institutions that have allowed it to exist. It must be done in such a way that it does not destroy, but in such a way that it improves the operations of the institutions that have endured, for over two centuries. Criticism must be given, with alternative solutions and not with constant allegations of wrongdoings.
To do otherwise, creates a form of instability that will eventually threaten the existence of the very liberties that we hold so near and dear, to us.
Coming soon:
More on the Political Yen/Yang Principle. Watch for it
Yen And Yang In Science
Take chemistry for instance. Remember the pH scale of acids and bases? Too much of one or the other, creates an unstable compound. The more stable the compound the more balance between the two. Here is but one example: Sodium (Na+) and chlorine (Cl-) molecules by themselves are not stable. Yet when they develop a bond with each other, they become one of the more stable compounds, known to mankind, table salt.
Table salt (NaCl), by itself and in its natural form, serves many useful functions today and at one point in history was a valuable trading commodity, with the ancient Romans even using it as money.
Yen And Yang In Relationships
Marriage is one area, you can draw another such analogy. You've heard the old saying that opposites attract, haven't you? An introverted person with an extroverted person, together will usually have less difficulties than two of the same personality types. The more aggressive of the two, balanced with the more passive, seems to lessen the chances of internal conflicts, because one is easy going the other is more a driving force and usually more difficult to please. One is content to drive and the other is content to let the other do the driving.
Yen And Yang In Psychology
Freud's theory of self, is another illustration. Id, ego, and superego are the primary components of this theory. And without getting too deep into Psych 101 (which I suspect most of my readers have had), I will say that id is the hedonist, superego is the moralist, and ego is the blend between the two. Too much id can increase your chances of getting you to the same destination as John Belushi. Too much superego gets you to the point of Jerry Falwell. But the right balance gets you to the point of being a well rounded individual, capable of being a productive, compassionate human being that understands the nature of objectivity.
Yen And Yang In Politics
Politics aren't much different.
The first area where this is true is in the balancing of the rule of law, with the will of the people.
From the beginning of time there have been rulers and there have been those that have been ruled. As the population of the world increased over the years, it became impossible for rulers to oversee and micromanage all affairs, so they eventually had aides (that became part of a chain of command). Enter the bureaucracy. Enter the corruption and the political back-stabbing that comes with it. Enter, the us vs. them mentality.
But with that, you also have to see that two distinct classes developed, the nobility and the peasantry, the rulers and the ruled. And in no time period since then, has there not been this distinction. The differences come in the methods of selecting rulers and in the debate of how much power those rulers should or should not have.
Monarchs always have believed in a selection process guided by the principle known as, divine right. And why not? They, themselves, benefitted much more from that process, than the people they ruled. Many rulers used a theological basis for maintaining this form of rule, century after century. They exploited the superstitious tendencies that are seemingly inherent with mankind, by saying that this deity here, or that deity there, willed it to be so. Therefore, they must submit themselves or whichever deity was applicable, would be wroth with them and some form of judgement or calamity would befall them.
Not all rulers have been malevolent though, even during the golden ages of divine right. Many were benevolent too. But when the oppressive regimes were too oppressive (people neglected and abused for royal pleasure), there came a time when revolutions were necessary to relieve the oppression. Hunger and severe mistreatment will do that to a people.
This is where the anarchists come into view. With the revolutions, come an element that is rebellious by nature and resists any and all forms of authority; and essentially believe that they should be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want. Anarchists come in all political persuasions. Today, we have both left wing and right wing anarchists that have the same goals and objectives, but with different motives. Mob rule is their ideology and resistance is there forte. There is no room for any kind of authority with anarchists, least of all a monarch.
Now, any stable government that wishes to remain stable, needs to balance the rule of law with the will of the people, to create a more harmonious community and society. In nations that proclaim liberty and democracy as a staple of stability, elections are the voice of the people and the people that are seated by those elections are those that must rule, while hearing that voice. It is then understood that the people must then submit themselves to the laws, made by the rulers. Apart from demonstrations in the most critical situations, the people must wait for election day to choose to keep their rulers or bring in new ones.
The second area in which balance must occur in politics, is within the selection process, itself.
The politics of left, right, and moderate can be looked at in the same sense as the id, superego, and ego components of Freud's theory and the pH scale's acid-base balance. Too much id or too much superego and you have an imbalanced self. Too much acid or too much base and you have an unstable compound. Likewise, too much left or too much right, you have a government that can run roughshod over the people.
Too much left or too much right can also be unstable because of the change factor. Too much political change at one time without the people's consent can/will create instability. Too much either way will also cause change to occur faster, than the people can bear.
One example of this, is in the area of welfare reform.
Let me first say that there is nobody that believes we desperately need welfare reform more, than me. But after decades of the miserable failure known as LBJ's Great Society, there are way too many people that have become overly dependent on the government. To cut all of them off at once would be disastrous, in that, the masses that would be cut off, would have no idea how to provide for themselves. That is all they have ever known.
Like the son or daughter that learns the family business while growing up and eventually takes it over when the parent retires or dies, the welfare recipient, no doubt, learned this way of life from his/her parents. So, this must be done slowly, by attrition. It must be done in some way, whereby, the people that will be most affected do not turn to crime as a replacement. Kicking people off assistance that have been so dependent for so many generations without a viable alternative is not wise. The only way to do this without creating an unstable environment for the rest of us that work hard to provide for our families, is to create opportunities for them, at the same rate.
How does this relate to my points?
The far right would cut all people off, right now. That's it. Poof. Gone. People would turn desperate and fast. As I stated earlier, crime would rise exponentially, immediately creating instability. By contrast, the left would seek to increase government assistance. And if they had a blank check, they would expand welfare rolls. This would increase the tax burden on those that work for a living, therefore creating instability.
In Summary
In all things we do, moderation is the key. And, balance is the key component to moderation. But make no mistake, all of this must be used by exercising good judgement. Opposition to government policies can be effectively voiced without tearing down that same government. Opposition to the war can be voiced in ways that do not give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Opposition and dissent are healthy things, if they are used wisely. They create that balance that is so utterly necessary to create stability. But it must be done in such a way that it does not destroy the very institutions that have allowed it to exist. It must be done in such a way that it does not destroy, but in such a way that it improves the operations of the institutions that have endured, for over two centuries. Criticism must be given, with alternative solutions and not with constant allegations of wrongdoings.
To do otherwise, creates a form of instability that will eventually threaten the existence of the very liberties that we hold so near and dear, to us.
Coming soon:
More on the Political Yen/Yang Principle. Watch for it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)