Listening Is Not The Same As Understanding: Intent Beyond Words

Since the defeat of Hillary Clinton and election of Donald Trump as President in November 2016, things seem to be getting really strange. For instance, there has been a marked increase in the number of violent protests, demands for "safe space" on college campuses and even in the workplace where, mostly, Millennials can retreat from what they find to be "offensive" speech; that is, speech which differs from their narrow echo chamber perspective, Ironically, college campuses are no longer safe for rational discussion or free speech if one side has an opposing position. There have been dozens of individuals, primarily conservative and a few even "controversial" according to the corporate media's definition of the word. Rather than allow these individuals the opportunity to speak in college provided forum, they are boycotted, protested against (usually involving some form violence) or shouted down by bull horns, air horns, or some other disruptive behavior.

The irony is that most universities and college campuses, while generally open institutions for public discussion of ideas, where basically conservative up through the early 1960's. They tended to have a strong, often financial, relationship with state and especially the federal government, corporations, and so forth. To be more specific, these institutions of higher learning received government funds---in the hundreds of thousands of dollars---to conduct tests, research, and experiments for the Department of Transportation, NASA, the Food and Drug Administration, and especially the US military and the alphabet soup network of national security agencies. In fact, the US military was (and remains) the largest provider of grant money to the colleges and universities. Corporate businesses such as IBM, AT&T, General Electric, Shell, Exxon, dozens of other oil and gas companies among many others would do so as well. In fact, for a few lucky schools, one of these multi-billion companies would pick up the tab for an entire department and/or underwrite scholarships, institutional improvements, and so on. Obviously, there was quite the symbiotic relationship government, business, and academia. Of course, today, we can add numerous high technology companies like Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Motorola, and Raytheon.

However, while this relationship have remained largely the same down through the decades, academia began to open up starting in the mid 1960's. Students took a more active interest in world affairs and our role in it. Students protested, held sit-ins, started petition drives, occupied administrative offices, etc over various social issues such as Civil Rights, the Vietnam War, the draft, gender equality, as well as the universities role in these issues; and occasionally forcing the school to divest themselves from certain weapons research programs or from companies which fragrantly polluted or engaged in animal testing for instance. In a few cases, during the Vietnam War, they forced military and CIA recruiters off school campuses while demanding the addition of courses in, for example, African, environmental or women studies, community organizing, and a more well-rounded explanation of historical events and individuals devoid of popular social mythology. They went even further by demanding that individuals the institutions found "offensive" be allowed to come and speak. Nowadays, this demand to hear and understand both sides of the story are being drowned out by individuals who are ill-equipped to handle the reality of the world. Let's take a brief look at some of these individuals.

Perhaps the most infamous has been Milo Yiannopoulos of (formerly) Breitbart News, a conservative internet news site. Milo describes himself as a conservative gay man and he is known to bask in controversy. I guess you might call that his stock-in-trade. He's encouraged his followers to harass or ridicule various individuals or issues on the political Left. However, tables were turned recently when Mr. Yiannopoulos found himself uninvited from several speaking engagements over security or content on some occasions. However, most has been due to threats of protests and possible violence if he was allowed to speak. To be honest, I'm not that familiar with Milo or his "act". I suppose he's a lot like the radio "shock jocks" of the 1980's like Howard Stern (I didn't care for them either). Given all the recent cancellations, Mr. Yiannopoulos has found that his stock has declined. Not so much because he's a self described conservative gay man as to the fact that mainstream America has had an opportunity to hear the content of his past talks and didn't like what they heard. Regardless though, if he's invited, he should be allowed to speak. If you don't want to hear what he has to say, don't attend. It's like not liking a particular TV show. Instead of demanding that the network take it off the air, which would deny others who do like the show the opportunity to watch it, why not just flip the channel or go for a walk or something?

Another individual is Conservative writer Ann Coulter. Ann has been invited to speak at several universities only to find herself uninvited at the last minute for pretty much the same reasons. Again, Ann Coulter is not one of my favorite people. To be honest, I can't stand the sound of her voice or even to look at her, but that's just me. I know a lot of people---mostly guys---who simply adore Coulter. Good for them. However, I have no interest in listening to her speak, either in person or on one of those "talking head" shows, nor do I care to listen to conservative author Ben Shapiro, TV host Glenn Beck and others. But that doesn't give me the right to deny others the opportunity to hear them. I simply either mute their segment, turn the channel, or go brush my teeth. Of course, there are those on the Left I feel the same way about (such as everyone on The View or Keith Olbermann---blah). The point is that we are willfully losing the common decency of free speech, particularly free political speech.

Free and open political dialogue is key to the survival and growth of any democracy. It's only under totalitarian governments do we see political speech curtailed or denied all together. Our Founding Fathers depended on the open discussion of ideas in order to bring about this nation. In fact, it was the acceptance of differing opinion that enabled the City-state of Athens to become the world's first sustained democracy. Listening to what people say doesn't obligate you to accept their point of view. However, it does require that you maintain an open mind and that you are in position of critical thinking skills; to be able to listen objectively to an argument and balance what is being said with your own values. This doesn't mean shouting them down because they're the "bad guy" and might say something you actually agree with (Heaven forbid!). It means having a civil and rational exchange of ideas and of opinions. It's through this dialogue that intellectual growth occurs; where solutions happen. Unfortunately, whenever we watch politicians we often see them trying to talk each other down. On talk news shows, everyone seems to try and talk over one another (in fact, it seems to be encouraged). In the movies, on TV, and especially in video games, the person who talks the loudest seems to "win", and when that fails, it's the person who acts like the biggest bully and successfully intimidates the other person. Of course, should that fail, out come the weapons, and again, it's usually whoever has the biggest baddest gun that gets the booty (take that in whatever context you want. They all apply).

There's plenty of blame to go around. We have the dumbing down of the schools in general critical thinking skills in particular. We, as a society, have stopped teaching civility; common manners and respect. Kids somehow have to think that they can "demand" respect through a gun or other weapon. Bull crap. Respect is earned. It's based on individual integrity and to get respect, you have to give respect. As a society, we've been told that we don't have to be responsible for your actions. Somehow, perhaps magically, the State will assume any blame. After all, we are a nation of victims right? The State even steps in to absolve you of your responsibility to and for your children. Next, we've created a society where we should be protected from whatever we don't like it, which, I suppose, is part of the dumbing down process.

We've created a society where mediocrity is rewarded (have any doubts? Who gets paid more---athletes or teachers?). We're told that if we succeed, it was a collective effort that made it happen, therefore, everyone is "entitled" to a piece of your success. The group is more important than the individual. I hate to break it to you, but you come into this world an individual and you go of this world as an individual. What you do in between is learn how to cooperate with others, and you do this by learning to listen, take personal responsibility, and treat others with dignity and respect. The great 1st century Jewish Philosopher, Hillel was asked once to describe the whole of the Torah while standing on one leg. His response was brilliant. Hillel said, "What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor. All else is commentary". We would do well as a society to remember this.



Inflammatory and Turned Away


A conservative speaker was uninvited from campus. And then re-invited.

A Texas University Just Cancelled Its Commencement Speaker

Ann Coulter's Berkeley speech off; police still plan for protesters

Getting Pumped at the Pump

On the way to work last Wednesday, I stopped to buy gas, at what I thought was an outrageous price of $3.98 a gallon. On the way home, the price here in Louisville had jumped to $4.15 a gallon! What on earth happened between 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM? Had some refinery been blown up? Had there been some cataclysmic rupture of a pipeline, spilling millions of gallons of crude on the frozen tundra of Alaska (again)? Had some oil tanker run aground (again)? Nope, it was none of those. As it turned out, according to the local news, the price of gas was simply “adjusting” to the new barrel price of $131. Whew, and I thought it was something serious like some greedy little oil sheik or profit grubbing oil execs. It was just some harmless “self adjusting”. Kind of like the type we’re all making in our buying habits, like paying for more for cans of peas, corn, bread, steaks, fish, and even butter (I just read where people are starting to give up their pets because they no longer can afford the pet food). It seems that the pump prices where just catching up to near current pricing of oil. The price I had paid that morning was the based on the price of oil from a couple of months ago. The price on the way home was based on the cost of the same barrel a few weeks ago. According to the oil industry analyst being interviewed, the price at the pump was still “adjusting” and should settle down at around $5.00 to $5.50 a gallon. Luckily that will just be in time for summer vacations. We sure don’t want a fluctuating pump price while visiting all those national parks, resorts, and beaches do we? Then again, who can afford to go on vacation?

I guess what got my goat (which I may have to start riding to work) was what had happened the day before. The Republicans already have some serious issues to contend with, like a “to-be-named-later” official recession, devastating natural disasters affecting homes, businesses, a housing market collapse brought on by speculative lending practices, and crop failures, as well as two wars, and ongoing terrorists threats (not to mention illegal immigration, China, North Korea, exporting of jobs, a health care crisis, a collapsing airline industry, and deteriorating national infrastructure). And to make matters worse, George W Bush is still president. So, what is the dumbest thing the National GOP could do? The Senate GOP blocked a bill that would have imposed a tax on the billions of windfall profits the oil companies are raking in.

According to GOP House leaders, the windfall tax would do little to reduce the price of gas at the pump. Well, maybe it wouldn’t, but it sure would make the public feel better to know somebody was at least trying to do something to stop economic rape of the public. The Democrat sponsored bill would have added a 25% tax on “unreasonable” profits made the oil companies, who, for the first three months of this year, racked up $36 billion dollars in pure profit. Republican leaders commented that they thought the tax would “do more harm than good”. Yeah, but to whom? The people they were elected to represent or the folks who pay for their junkets? The Democrats needed 60 votes to get the bill through. The received only 51, including from seven Republicans who voted for the people, while one Democrat and the remaining Republicans voted “no” in support of the oil companies. The bill would have also rescinded tax breaks to the oil companies, which is expected to save them $17 billion dollars over the next 10 years.

In a second act of stupidity the same day, the Senate Republicans voted to block extending tax credits, which were scheduled to expire, for wind, solar, and other alternative energy development, including energy conservation and efficiency research. I don’t care what your party affiliation is, but when the people you represent are suffering emotionally and financially and you are in a position to do something about it (even if only symbolically), then you do it. Failure to do so is arrogance at best, and borders on political suicide. The failure to help voters at the pump now will---not may--- result in the voter helping the GOP out of office in November. Frankly, I hate to see it, but perhaps a little comeuppance will do the GOP leadership some good.


The Future of the Right

I came across a recent article in which presidential historians are predicting that based on past trends, the John McCain led Republicans are headed for a serious thumping this November. Given what I cited in the previous article, I started thinking about the GOP and its future. Certainly, as a national player, the Republican Party won’t fade away, though many political pundits think it could, at least for awhile, devolve into little more than a regional player (mainly in the Bible-belt South). It is also certainly true that many of the traditional Republicans in the Northeast and Central Western States have already walked away.

Historically, the Republicans were a conglomeration of several third parties. Today, there appears to be three principal groups. The prevalent group most people are familiar with are the Christian Right Republicans (sometimes called Social Conservative Republicans). They are less interested in fiscal issues or government size than they are with social ones such as abortion, same sex marriage, prayer in school, posting of the Ten Commandments, etc. They are best illustrated by George W Bush, Jerry Farwell, and Pat Robertson.

The next group is the Goldwater or Libertarian Republicans. As the name implies, they are interested in getting government out of your life as much as possible. They believe in the old adage that “the government which governs the least governs the best”. Keen on small government, low (or no) taxes, they support private initiatives over public programs. Barry Goldwater, the “father” of the modern Conservative Movement, Ronald Reagan, and Ron Paul are the three best examples.

The last group is the Progressive Republicans (sometimes called the Teddy Roosevelt or Moderate Republicans). It is this group which has historically been the most successful. They are quite at home before a corporate Board of Directors as they are in a Union Hall (in fact, they’ve often been some of Labor’s biggest supporters). Progressives believe government should be kept to a minimal if possible, but should always be used to keep and maintain a level playing field. Unlike the Christian Right or Libertarian Republicans, they believe social issues are essentially private issues. Who you love and choose to marry is a personal issue (whether or not they personally agree with it). Abortion, while it should never be used as a form of birth control, is primarily a private issue and should at least remain an option when the life or health of either the mother or child is at risk. They believe in avoiding foreign wars unless national security is at risk. They supported breaking big business rackets or trusts. They support national programs (like the creation of national parks, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, employee protection such as OSHA and various anti-discrimination legislation, etc.) when private action alone won’t work. However, they are firm believers that there is no room for hyphenated Americans. Once a citizen, you are an American first and last. Your loyalty is to this country alone, and that means not only learning the language, but also civic participation. The group is best represented by Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and George H. Bush.

The Moderate and Libertarian Republicans having either been leaving the GOP since the Newt Gringrich led “Republican Revolution” and the rise of the Social Conservatives, or forced to sit on the sidelines. The Social Conservatives under the Reagan and Gringrich leadership could do no wrong, and it seemed the Democrats could do no right. Nevertheless, their results were at first astonishing. Following on the heels of the “Revolution” however was Bill Clinton, and despite his inability to keep his pants zipped, lead the country to the best economic growth it had ever seen. Internally, the Socially Conservative Republicans (perhaps because of their stinging loss of the presidency) began “Rino” hunting. The term “Rino” is intended to be a derogatory word meaning “Republican in Name Only” and implied that, in a phrase, “if you ain’t with us, you’re against us” (the Democrats have a similar term for ultra conservatives in their party, whom they call a “Dino”). Their idea was to work against a fellow Republican, even if it meant supporting a Democrat if that Republican wasn’t conservative enough. Such was the widening fissures in the Right’s control of the GOP and weakening of the party.

Lastly was the election of George W. Bush. Starting off as the butt of every late night comedy routine, Bush emerged as the dynamic leader of a stricken nation following the cowardly 9/11 attacks. And for awhile, he was. However, Bush (and many would say Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld) led the nation into a military and economic quagmire that we may be decades in extricating ourselves from. Now we are faced with a so-called Republican moderate in Senator John McCain and a unproved Junior Senator from Illinois by the name of Barack Obama for President.

The Chinese philosopher and military strategist, Sun Tzu once said “know your enemy and know yourself and you will find victory”. To which I reply, know your enemy’s philosophy and know your own, and you will find victory. The Republicans want to take America back to a time of Ronald Reagan. The Democrats want to take America forward to a “time of Hope”. Americans have seen the past. We know the promises it held. But we know where those same promises have also led us. I think Americans will choose a future which holds out a promise of hope over a past which has led no where.

As for the Republicans, perhaps it’s time to return to the future and again embrace the values which made it so successful like personal responsibility, an entrepreneurial spirit, and a sense of social moderation.


I alluded earlier to the failure of government to maintain our infrastructure. Regular contributor “Moderate Man” has a few words on the subject himself. See what you think.

America’s Infrastructure Needs an Overhaul

America’s infrastructure needs an overhaul from top to bottom. It desperately needs leadership from the executive office. Someone with vision and determination. It also needs funding and tax reform to make it work for centuries to come. Our country started over two centuries ago with no infrastructure and a smaller population. My, look at what we have grown into! Not only has our land mass expanded, but so has our technology and population. We have 8,420,000 total road miles (2,308,602 are urban and 6,111,987 are rural), of which 87,944 miles are interstate and of those, only 46.5% are listed in good condition, according to the Department of Transportation. The county has 169,346 miles of oil pipelines and 1,437,500 miles of natural gas pipelines. America has 157,000 miles of high voltage transmission power lines with 10,000 power plants. Usually there are disruptions in service in the summer months. There are networks consisting of 120,000 miles of major railroads.

Meanwhile, the country’s publicly funded rail, Amtrak, has only 505 stations in 46 states on 22,000 route miles. It only owns 3% or 730 route miles. America has over 25,000 miles of commercially navigable waterways and over 19,900 airports. This vast system also includes over 500 major urban public transit operators and more than 300 ports on the coasts, Great Lakes, and inland waterways with 26,000 total miles of navigable channels. According to the Department of Transportation, 72,520 of America’s bridges (599,766 total bridges in America) are listed as structurally deficient and 79,804 are listed as functionally obsolete. That will make you feel safe the next time you cross a bridge. America has 79,000 total dams blocking 600,000 miles of rivers (about 17% of all rivers in America). Dams don’t last forever. Experts indicate there are one TRILLION dollars needed in water and sewer projects around the country. Think about that the next time you brush your teeth. Transportation contributes 11 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, amounting to approximately one trillion. Transportation accounts for 19 percent of spending by the average household in America-as much as food and health care combined-and second only to spending on housing. Although it might be more due to the recent fuel increase costs.

The U.S. transportation system carries over 4.7 trillion passenger miles of travel and 3.7 trillion ton miles of domestic freight generated by about 270 million people, 6.7 million business establishments, and 88,000 units of government. Rail and maritime transportation each account for over 11 percent of the tonnage carried. America’s transportation system each year carried 2.7 trillion miles of travel by cars and trucks, more than 9 billion trips on public transit, more than 640 million passengers boarding’s on airplanes, 21 million trips on Amtrak, and nearly 700 million rail freight train miles. Our country in short, uses the infrastructure very heavily. It needs maintenance and replacement in sections. We don’t need to be rebuilding other country’s infrastructure. Fix our own first! The solution is simple, but not easy. Infrastructure should be revenue dedicated and untouchable for other federal agency expenditures. The same for national defense and social security. There should be a tax at the point of profit for these 3 items and a fourth for the rest of the federal government expenses. This doesn’t include any state or city taxes that could be added. Take care of America first!


Moderate Man


Poll Results

With gas prices rising, I asked if oil companies should be nationalized. 40% of you said “no” and the free market should dictate prices. 35% of you thought oil companies needed stronger governmental regulation, while 15% thought oil companies should be nationalized.

What is Progressive?

I found this article by Andy Garib to be one of the best I've read about Progressivism. Basically, this is the approach that I believe America needs to take. It's beyond the archaic concepts of Liberalism and Conservatism. It's about being a societal realist. It's about making life a little better, with as little governmental interference as possible. I urge you to take a moment and read this college student's take on what modern politics should be like:



What is Progressive?by Andrew Garib,
Campus ProgressPosted on July 25, 2005, Printed on July 30, 2005 http://www.alternet.org/story/23706/

Progressivism, like many important concepts, is many things to many people. Nevertheless, it has its own history, its own culture, and its own politics - all wrapped into a potent package that is making its comeback in the political discourse of this great country. The Campus Progress conference is just the latest manifestation of a political movement that is already changing America's political landscape for the better.

So what the heck is "progressive"? Those called 'progressives' of the late 19th and early 20th century, including such figures as presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were renowned for checking the rise of corporate power and abuses and expanding democratic rights domestically. Later, leaders who followed the progressive line on foreign policy created an American nation that was an international leader in an economic, military, and moral sense.

Today, progressivism is not as easily definable as the ideas of the so-called Progressive Era of TR and Wilson. Nonetheless, the progressive movement's leaders, young and established alike, certainly have something to say about what "progressive" means to them.
"At its core," John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress writes, "progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society." Progressivism is practical and driven by the values that define America morality and have made our country stronger and better. It's a dynamic concept giving the leadership of an up-and-coming generation of politicos - you - the tools to make this nation's future brighter for all.
Sound enticing? It should be: The future of America's progressive political landscape is in your hands.

It's not liberalism

The first key to understanding progressivism is that it's not the same as liberalism, as many might assume. "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics," Halpin said in an interview with Campus Progress. "It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept ... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressivism is not an ideology at all, but an attitude towards the world of politics that is far less black-and-white than conservatism or liberalism, breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has dominated American politics for too long.

Said simply (perhaps oversimplifying), American liberalism is an ideology grounded in traditionally liberal American values: individual freedom, democratic government, freedom of thought and belief, and equal opportunity. Government intervention is generally seen as the solution to society's problem.

Progressivism, on the other hand, is far more flexible than any one ideology. Traditionally, conservatives see the world, especially human nature, as predictable and static. Liberals are often burdened with endless optimism - a belief that all problems can be solved through implementing utopian visions (especially through government intervention).
Progressives aren't simply liberals; progressives see the world for what it is, accept it as ever-changing and dynamic, and choose the best course of action in line with decidedly American values.

It is pragmatic

"A progressive skier is unafraid to huck a 40 ft. cliff, but a progressive skier wears a helmet." Once again, Geoff the Philosopher/Intern gives us a glimpse of what progressive means to him. In researching this story, I asked several young progressives (including Geoff) what 'progressive' means to them. Many, along with Halpin, emphasized how progressive thought is above all pragmatic and flexible.

Free of ideological structures that tie leaders to strict policy courses, progressivism is averse to simple answers and flourishes within the details of the problems facing our society. That's why asking others - and ourselves - what 'progressive' means to them (and to us) is a crucial part of the never-ending development and growth of the progressive movement, and a key part of progressives' participation in American democracy.

Certainly, government involvement is one solution among many. CAP intern Suzanne Kahn, another young progressive, expressed one insight: "Progressives [understand] that government can be used as a force for good." But progressives don't simply ask "How can government help this situation," but "with the tools we have, both public and private, how can we solve this problem?"

It is value-driven

One reason that Americans commonly equate progressivism and liberalism is that progressive thought is often informed by liberal ethics - it's driven by a desire to promote fairness, human well-being and opportunity. CAP intern Andrew Fong puts it this way: "Progressives believe in maximizing human freedom and helping society (and its individual members) achieve their full potential." Fong reminds us that "power, wealth, and information must flow freely rather than be concentrated in the hands of a few so that all citizens have the means to contribute."

Conservatives often accuse progressives of rejecting a values- or morality-driven perspective on society and government. Nothing could be further from the truth: Progressives encourage personal and moral responsibility, and promote respect for ethical values.
Compare that with the false and empty chants of compassionate conservatives, who gladly engage in reckless and unjustified war; deny gays, lesbians and transcendence Americans their rights as citizens; condemn working families to a cycle of poverty; and err on the side of big business over public health and nature's untouched beauty. These are the same 'principled' conservatives who whole-heartedly defend the most crooked legislator in decades, Tom DeLay.

It's yours

Radical conservatives who accuse progressives of being unpatriotic are amusingly out of line. Progressivism is about pragmatism and fairness, two ideas that couldn't be more American.

The dynamic outlook of progressives also is inherently democratic, a call for participation and leadership for today's young America. Progressivism is a living tree of pragmatic problem solving, informed by a constellation of bright leaders. Progressives have to stand up and define the future of the progressive movement, founded firmly on the principles that make this nation great.

Progressivism is uniquely American and entirely yours. Be a part of the discussion that defines both a concept and a nation. On the eve of this great conference, let's define "progressive" for ourselves.

Check out the 'What is Progressive?' Campus Progress' Blog here, and join more than 600 young progressive leaders in defining a more progressive America.
Andrew Garib is an intern at the Campus Progress project.
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/23706/