January 31, 2010
Impunity and Immunity
Republicans have been slamming Obama for being "too leftist" but I'm mostly worried about him keeping too many right wing people in power who ought to be behind bars and being too "centrist". Even the investigations of the law breaking involved in Torture is mostly an elaborate dance that will likely result in no convictions. The OPR, mostly Bush Appointees held over from the previous administration; is about to clear Yoo and company of wrong doing, despite all the evidence to the contrary. And the same effect is probably going to happen with most of the other few investigations going on. It has already happened with wire-tapping. Meanwhile all the capabilities are still in place, just waiting for an administrator to turn them on again.
- Sources:
- http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/30/holder-under-fire.aspx
- http://www.eff.org/cases/att
The fact is that we can't reign in the executive by expecting the executive to reign in itself. More importantly, we can't curb abuse of power unless we recognize that it comes from giving all our executives judge, jury and executive powers.
Posted by cholte at January 31, 2010 10:21 PM
Elsewhere. I was discussing this kind of thing in regard to NCAA; which pretty much has a monopoly on college sports. Years ago, they stole the name "March Madness" from the IHSA basketball tournament, took out a copyright, then sued the IHSA for using it.
[NCAA = National Collegiate Athletic Association, IHSA = Illinois High School Association]
More recently, they {NCAA} were sued by the NIT for anti-trust 'stuff.' So the NCAA bought the NIT and the suit goes away. Now, the NIT itself is about to go away.
[NIT = National Invitational Tournament]
The average drive by fan only cares about March Madness, some only the Final Four. The NCAA manipulates the press, controls perceptions, and and writes the history. Some power schools cheat in recruiting players with near impunity; others have been bullied into fearing their own shadows. Some get hand slaps for murder; others are hammered for parking tickets.
There is a scent of change in the air. Insiders think the NCAA is about to hammer a west coast football power for blatant violations. Others doubt it. Meanwhile, that college's {University of Southern California --USC} response has been beathtakingly arrogant.
Maybe it is the Internet? If the mainstream press were still the main source of information, I suspect the USC mess would already be swept under the carpet. Or maybe the 'big college sports' PTB suddenly developed a moral compass?
The NCAA runs the market. It is a Government. Doing away with the NCAA doesn't solve the core problem, which is not whether the market will be governed but how to govern it well. That is why all solutions up until now have been failures.
Getting rid of Standard Oil just created a power vacuum which persisted until the Arabs formed their cartel in the 1970's. Turning corporations into Utilities didn't solve the problem because their inherent power was greater than any regulatory commission, and in most States they could buy the commissioners anyway.
The way to resolve this is by practicing various principles;
1. Give the market owners' officers "membership" in the market governance in the form of an upper house type assembly with powers to recommend laws and to pass on laws (but not final say -- which should be reserved for elected legislatures).
2. Enforce the principle of officership for oversight officers and give them legal authority to charge fines and make the regulated pay for their regulation.
Sarbanes Oxley was moving in this direction, but every corporation should have an oversight board composed entirely of outside board members and no executive should have any power to select board members. That is giving them judge jury and executioner powers.
3. The principle of officership also means that people with fiduciary responsibilities should be held financially responsible for outcomes. I think that every officer with fiduciary responsibilities should be bonded and any bonuses, or non-salaried compensation should go into an Offset fund which he wouldn't receive a dime from until at least 5-10 years after he/she retires. Salaried compensation over 10 times what the lowest paid workers get should be treated as part of profits. Capital gains should only be tax free to the degree it is reinvested in actual capital investments (IPO's not repurchases, new capacity, not financial instruments, etc...) I'm still studying this, but the more I study the idea the more it makes sense.
4. Markets have to have consent of the Governed, that means sellers, buyers, transporters, and financiers all should have a say in how the market is run from the legislative, policy, and juridial side.
5. A jury of ones peers for doctors should be a committee of jurists selected from medical experts, scientists and doctors. Such juridial organizations should have advisory roles but not final ones. Bottom line is that every professional needs non-professional watch-dogs too. Power doesn't just corrupt politicians. Police, doctors, fire-men, etc... all tend to look out for each other first even at the expense of professionalism. But those juridial "Best Practices" committees would do more for ending abusive malpractice suits than all the stupid laws in Texas. This same principle applies to other non-free-market markets. The military already has a model for this.
6. Finally people need to stop disparaging Democracy, and instead privilege democracy itself by privileging representatives. The solution for high salaries and junkets isn't to do away with them. All that does is drive the bribery underground. You don't get a good police force by cutting salaries. You get it by education, training, and involvement. Democracy doesn't mean elections. The truest expression of democracy is found in juries and militia because in those institutions people participate in governing themselves. We should have and privilege medical militias, first responder militias, etc... by training people for these institutions on the public dime, and running them from bottom up. The cure for bad government is not "no government" -- no government is worse government. It is better government. The cure for bad policing is better policing.
7. And the cure for abusive government is citizen participation. The reason we have a professional political class is that political expression pays. It is worth it for a corporation to pay a billion dollars in advertizing because it can get 10 billion or a trillion dollars in financial benefits. When Europeans take to the streets it is because they've learned the lesson taught by Patrick Henry, "Liberty is at the expense of eternal vigilance." Tyranny can come in through the backdoor or the front door, but a passive and cynical electorate will pretty much guarantee that that is where the ambitious will turn.
I have a couple more thoughts; if that is all right. Buddhism appears to divide the moral & ethical sense or compass into two concepts.
One is trapa 慚 -- Conscience, prudence, moral dread, fear of moral evil.
The other is hri 愧 -- Shame, embarrassment, or social respect.
If I understand correctly, the former relates to how we feel about ourself; while the latter is concern over how others see us. One problem is that we have lived in a western cultural setting in which comments like 'nice guys finish last' pass for wisdom. Slyness, slickness, and craftiness were regarded as admirable skills. Perhaps we could say that we lacked hri; or shame before others?
In Japan, I think the traditional problem has been almost the opposite. Avoidance of shame is more important. That results in 'face saving.'
It might be due to a lack of developing an inner conscience? iirc, Ikeda once made a strange comment; I think it was in "The Creative Family," "Choose Life," or both. It was something to the effect that western morality is guilt based, and I do not think this was a compliment. I think he suggested that a conscience is artificial and oppressive. My feel was that he saw 'shame based' Confucian type ethics as superior to western guilt tripping.
This was odd, since Buddhism lists a lack of an inner conscience, a sense of right & wrong along with a fear of doing wrong, as one of the main afflictions. Shamelessness is also listed; so they seem to be equally important. Both shame and guilt are also listed among the ten mental conditions required for cultivation of goodness: 大善地法 I am presently researching these in connection with Samma Vayama or Right Effort. A part of Right Effort is cultivating goodness; or developing wholesome mental states.
The prerequisites for developing goodness are trust / faith 信, vigor 勤, pliancy or suppleness and ease of mind 輕安, renunciation 捨, moral conscience 漸, shame 愧, non-greed 無貪, non-hatred 無瞋, not harming 不害, vigilance 不放逸. My optimism is rooted in an observation that our culture is moving toward those kind of values.
People are tired of shrewd individuals like Bernie Madoff.
Looking at western history, I think the moral zeal has been more in the direction of making sure others behave themselves; not so much on cultivating goodness within ourselves. Some extremely evil acts were carried out to make others behave; like the Inquisition, reign of terror and the Salem Witch Trials. I guess my fear is that this new moral sense might be tainted by a desire for revenge; and can devolve into figurative witch hunts -- let's get those bad guys.
BTW, apparently Ikeda has said that traditional Buddhism puts too much weight on compassion and tolerance. Scary thought, though there is context; he thinks that made it easier for Buddhist clerics to work with corrupt officials. I disagree, I think it was about greed, not compassion. How do we forgive or forbear the deeds of the Bernie Madoffs of the world, and show them compassion; without letting them walk all over us? Maybe moral goodness is only part of the solution; we also need discerning wisdom. Besides, Madoff preyed on the greed of others; as much as their foolishness.
Dang, I did not intend to compose a whole blog.
Buddhism itself does not lack for anything with regard to morality. Both Trapa and hri relate to emotions; Guilt and Shame. However, these feelings are not intrinsically accurate.
For example the former President of South Africa, Mandela, feels considerable guilt and shame at not having been a better father and grandfather to his children and grandchildren. Apparently some of them feel that way as well. Yet, outsider observers can only say "WTF" when they hear him talking about it.
On the other hand Andrew Jackson's proudest accomplishments were destroying the National Bank (causing a great depression in the process which ultimately was a cause for the Civil War), a holocaust against American Indians, and one other thing (slips my mind). He had no bad conscience and was utterly shameless about the impact of his decisions. The emotions tend to be inaccurate on what is right and what is wrong.
On the other hand when Buddhism talks about right conduct, right thought, etc... it is talking about a morality, an ethics, that is accurate. Enlightenment can be thought of as an end goal, but reaching enlightenment is also about reaching accuracy in understandings.
However, even accuracy in understanding the material and psychological worlds is perilous because one can understand immediate cause and effect without really grasping the big picture. Once one grasps the big picture one can be deluded into thinking that the end justifies the means. There are delusions and illusions at all levels of consciousness ultimately even including Buddhahood, at least within the Saha World.
However, right conduct is probably more akin to the spanish word Derecho than "left" or "right"; it is a matter of going straight when the left or right present perils. A matter of going the correct way.
That is also why practitioners must learn some kind of moral discipline. At some point they begin to learn things that seem to indicate that moral discipline is not necessary, and if a practitioner hasn't developed moral and ethical habits he or she could stray from the path of enlightenment and into degraded paths.
Once one passes the stage of criticism, deconstruction and seeing "through" illusions one starts to see that the temporal is really a construction, a creative thing. Then honest and simple morality/ethics becomes a natural thing and no longer a matter of fear/guilt, fear/shame. And compassion starts to come naturally.
The prerequisites for developing goodness are trust / faith 信, vigor 勤, pliancy or suppleness and ease of mind 輕安, renunciation 捨, moral conscience 漸, shame 愧, non-greed 無貪, non-hatred 無瞋, not harming 不害, vigilance 不放逸. My optimism is rooted in an observation that our culture is moving toward those kind of values.
People are tired of shrewd individuals like Bernie Madoff.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I think I understand now what you mean about things getting better.
You can certainly see that movement more easily if you look back a little further. When I was a kid it was normal for most people to feel pride in the British Empire. We were more evolved than the foreigners, Africans lived like animals until we went over and built them railways and taught them to read and wear clothes, etc. More than that even, we felt that if you were stronger then it was appropriate for you to take stuff. Within the country we didn't feel that way, but it was fine when it came to foreigners.
I don't think most people feel that way in the west any more.
How far will it go? We might subsidise the production of coffee and sugar, with the result that whole countries sink into poverty and civil war when prices fall. We buy diamonds and cobalt knowing that our money goes to finance some of the worst brutality happening anywhere in the world.
Sometimes it's hard to see progress, especially as we sometimes go backwards a bit.
Mick
That is also why practitioners must learn some kind of moral discipline. At some point they begin to learn things that seem to indicate that moral discipline is not necessary, and if a practitioner hasn't developed moral and ethical habits he or she could stray from the path of enlightenment and into degraded paths.
################
Sometimes religions seem to work out spin type arguments which justify various types of selfish behavior.
There are the justifications for attaining wealth which happen in the SGI, and in various brands of fundamentalist Christian sects. Not that I see anything wrong with working hard so you can have a nice house and a car, but I think it's a bit dodgy to develop arguments which say it's a religious duty to become rich and successful.
As for straying, after 9/11 I thought we should find out where they lived, drop the special forces on them, and burn them at the stake. It's particularly hard to keep your balance when someone bad is wanting to hurt you and your family. As Robin said, you don't have to let them go on doing it. But you should develop the ability to resist giving in to hatred and revenge. If you think clearly you can see who the real villains are, and even see where you have contributed to the problem yourself. Like we spent decades manipulating their countries and installing dictatorships and so forth in order to loot their oil.
Mick
>>> The emotions tend to be inaccurate on what is right and what is wrong.
Well, lack of moral conscience and shamelessness are considered afflictions. On the hand, dealing guilt and shame is not easy. The emotions can devolve into anxiety and depression; which are considered veils or hindrances to spiritual development.
That is where cultivating kindness, compassion, muditta, and equanimity enter. On one level, those are antidotes for enmity, cruelty, pride-envy, and bigotry. The meditative methods used to cultivate are effective. Controlled studies show that the methods increase empathy. . A big part of that is forgiving oneself, getting past the guilt. Then, patience / forbearance / forgiveness toward others becomes natural.
Back on Conscience and shame; I think both are required. Conscience is the inner fear of making bad causes and regret for bad causes already made. Shame is is more about respecting others; and feeling remorse for disrespecting them. I suspect that if the inner conscience is not developed; then shame can turn into subservience, a kind of reverse arrogant pride. If shame is lacking; then guilt can become hypocrisy.
There are also two main Buddhist words for pride -- mana and mada. The consensus seems to be that mana is an inner egoism, conceit, vanity, or self centered-ness; while mada is arrogance toward others. I might have those backwards. One thing, iirc, arrogance is not just acting haughty and superior to others, but also acting inferior to others. ...
I think that one thing English Speakers and Sanskrit scholars have in common is a tendency to use language in a way that ends up being confusing. But aside from that I agree mostly with most of what has been said.
I think that most emotions are just emotions. When emotions are confused they are problematic. Freud believed that and that is why he pushed his talk therapy. I was listening to a man touting a book he called "In the Land of Hungry Ghosts" about addiction and his experiences seeking to treat it, and he referred to this part of Buddhism as Buddhist psychology. It's probably a fascinating book and I really want to read it at some point,
...but the point is that the "states" that Buddhism talks about are interconnected. The way a person whose life is dominated by empty hunger feels shame or guilt is different from the way a person whose life is dominated by other states would feel it. That is why we have to struggle so hard to elevate our own "life condition" as Ikeda calls it.
The second point is that, once we elevate our life condition we can see a real distinction between necessary tragedy and unnecessary conflict. Hindus do their thesis on the Bhagavit-gita because it is a narrative about pointless conflict and how to deal with it.
But I reject the notion that all conflict is inevitable and that people always have to enter into conflict knowing that they live in a dog eat dog world (animality), a hungry ghost world, or a kill or be killed world.
As Buddhists we have to find a way to transform (even if only for a moment) our peace of the Saha world. But we can't do that if we are angry ashuras, we are hungry-ghosts, or we are in hell. Somehow we have to climb out of thoe perspectives.
>>> one thing English Speakers and Sanskrit scholars have in common is a tendency to use language in a way that ends up being confusing. But aside from that I agree mostly with most of what has been said.
I find it more clarifying than confusing. Buddhist practice works. It makes people smarter. Tests show that. We can understand more than we think can; those grapes are not sour and they are within reach. It is easier than people think; but is certainly is not simplistic. If it were simple; everyone would be Awake.
One of many things that excite me is there is a start on borrowing from the kindness-compassion cultivation to treat criminals that lack empathy.
The theme is even creeping into Television Crime Dramas.
From what I gather, the traditional view is that certain psychopaths simply lack empathy and can not be reformed. I think that is a crock. What I am saying is that there is are genuine ways to reform human beings; to make us more empathetic, smarter, and more mindful. I have no doubts about that.