In Other’s Words

Who Speak My Thoughts

Oct 25, 2023

Other people express what I attempt to say. Perhaps better. In this post I will let them speak on issues I frequently comment upon.

Ruth Ben Ghiat

My research shows that every culture is unprepared for an authoritarian assault, and that even when one takes place, and certain groups are targeted, other groups think "they'll never go after me." This was the case with Italian Jews, who thought Mussolini would not target them because he was not like Hitler. So they stayed in Italy and even when the anti-Semitic persecution started in 1938 relatively few left the country at first.

Americans are particularly prone to the "it can't happen here" syndrome. Some feel American democracy can withstand anything; others, for example many immigrants, are attached to the idea that America will always be a refuge for those fleeing persecution elsewhere. It is too upsetting to think that nowhere is safe. But of course America was not safe for almost half the country that had no voting or civil rights until the 1960s; it was not safe for Japanese-Americans during World War Two, and it is not safe for a growing number of groups today who are targets of hate crimes, from Asian Americans to LGBTQ individuals to Jews, immigrants, and Blacks.

Kenneth Danford

Danford didn’t intend to launch a schooling alternative. In an interview, he told me: “I thought I could improve the system from within. I was going to be a reformer. But then I realized, this place doesn’t want to be reformed. It is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, what it was designed to do.”

traditional school changes the way children naturally learn — through hands-on exploration and experimentation — and instead teaches children to be taught.

Children become conditioned in school to be passive learners, to follow commands, to relay right answers, to conform. The creativity and exuberance for learning that is so apparent when we are young, often fades as learning becomes a coercive chore.

Deepa Naravan, IMF

Many poor people define poverty as the inability to exercise control over their lives.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

What makes us want to possess, not only people, but things and ideas? Why this urge to own, with all its struggle and pain? And when once we do possess, it doesn't put an end to the problem, but only awakens other issues. If one may ask, do you know why you want to possess, and what possession means? "To possess property is different from possessing people. As long as our present government lasts, the personal ownership of property will be permitted - not too much, of course, but at least a few acres, a house or two, and so on. You can take measures to safeguard your property, to keep it in your own name. But with people it's different. You can't pin them down, or lock them up. Sooner or later they slip out of your grasp, and then the torture begins."

But why this urge to possess? And what do we mean by possessing? In possessing, in feeling that you own, there is pride, a certain sense of power and prestige, is there not? There is pleasure in knowing that something is yours, be it a house, a piece of cloth or a rare picture. The possession of capacity, talent, the ability to achieve, and the recognition that it brings - these also give you a sense of importance, a secure outlook on life. As far as people are concerned, to possess and to be possessed is often a mutually satisfactory relationship. There is also possession in terms of beliefs, ideas, ideologies, is there not?

"Aren't we entering too wide a field?"

But possession implies all this. You may want to possess people, another may possess a whole series of ideas, while someone else may be satisfied with owning a few acres of land; but however much the objects may vary, all possession is essentially the same, and each will defend what he owns - or in the very yielding of it, will possess something else at another level. Economic revolution may limit or abolish the private ownership of property, but to be free from the psychological ownership of people or ideas is quite another matter. You may get rid of one particular ideology but you will soon find another. At all costs, you must possess.

Now, is there ever a moment when the mind is not possessing or being possessed? And why does one want to possess? "I suppose it is because in owning one feels strong, safe; and of course there's always a gratifying pleasure in ownership, as you say. I want to possess persons for several reasons. For one thing, having power over another gives me a feeling of importance. In possession there's also a sense of well-being; one feels comfortably secure."

Yet with it all there is conflict and sorrow. You want to keep on with the pleasure of possessing, and avoid the pain of it. Can this be done?

It seems impossible with regard to property and ideas; and isn't it much more so in regard to people? property, ideologies and deep-rooted traditions are static, fixed, and they can be defended for long periods of time through legislation and various forms of resistance; but people are not like that. people are alive; like you, they also want to dominate, to possess or be possessed. In spite of codes of morality and the sanctions of society, people do slip out of one pattern of possession into another. There's no such thing as complete possession of anything at any time. Love is never possession or attachment.

Thomas Klevan

I. THE MEANING OF DEMOCRACY Human beings are inherently social animals. From the cave dwellers of prehistoric times to today’s great nation states and burgeoning world community, human beings have always lived in concert. All the benefits of social life are a result of people working together to create those benefits. Our individual well-being and our very survival as a species depend on cooperating with others for our mutual well-being. More so than ever before, our destinies are intertwined.

An equitable sharing of political power is essential to democracy. It is through the political process that we practice self-governance, the process through which we engage as inherent equals in collective selfdetermination. Democracy requires, therefore, a relatively equal distribution of political power. Without that, those with disproportionate political power will have greater influence over society’s destiny and over the destinies of their fellow citizens. Here, I suggest two measures to equalize political power: combatting gerrymandering and mandatory voting. There are examples of societies with the trappings of democracy that in practice are dictatorial, where elections are held but are rigged in various ways to ensure that a ruling elite retains power perpetually, where law makers respond not to the will and best interest of the people as a whole but to the ruling elite to whom they are beholden. While it may not be fair to characterize the political process in the United States as such a total sham, aspects of the process offer grounds for concern. Although the right to vote is now nearly universal in the United States, this has not guaranteed a fair distribution of political power. Money speaks very loudly in politics, and that fact has enabled a moneyed elite possessing enormous wealth to dominate the political process, so much so that a number of studies have concluded that the poor have little political power in their ability to influence who gets elected or in the law-making process.¹⁶ This may help explain why people with less money turn out to vote in lower percentages, because they recognize that in some sense their vote really does not matter much. The moneyed elite may disagree among themselves over the direction the society should take. But they have one interest in common, namely the protection of their privileged status, and they use their disproportionate political power to channel debates over public policy so as to drown out options that might threaten that status.

But the moneyed elite are not all-powerful, and their disproportionate political power can be countered when people are well organized and turn out in large numbers. This helps explain the efforts of those in power to suppress voting in recent years. Despite a lack of evidence of significant voter fraud, a number of states have adopted restrictive voting laws and practices, including, for example: onerous proof of eligibility requirements, the curtailment of early voting, reducing the number of polling sites, improperly purging people from the voting rolls, and impeding mail-in voting.¹⁷ These measures tend to hurt most the less-well-off in our society, who are most in need of government services and most likely to vote against moneyed interests.”

As a second measure to further democratize the electoral process, voting could, and in my opinion should, be made mandatory for all who are eligible. Numerous democratic countries mandate voting and as a result have much higher voter turnout rates than in the United States.²⁷ Two prominent countries, Australia and Belgium, have mandatory voting and turnout exceeds 90%.

Neville Livingston

Woe, di woe, di woe

It's the Armagideon

Taking place in I-ration, in I-ration

Woe, di woe, di woe

It's the Armagideon

Taking place in-a I-ration

[Verse 1]

In the beginning, there was but one concept

And that's the concept of I

Then arose Apaleon

, the Devil

(Satan, Satan)

Claiming that it's you and I

And from that day on, there was trouble

(Trouble in the world and the world gone astray)

From that day on

(Trouble in the world and the world gone astray)

We've got wars, and rumors of wars

(Trouble in the world and the world gone astray)

Nations rising up against nations

(Trouble in the world and the world gone astray)

Mother against daughter, father against son (Trouble in the world and the world gone astray)

Little children having children

(Trouble, trouble)

The UnUtopian Optimist

Discussion about this post