The Solution is Simple

You may have sensed there is a national debate in progress; it seems to grip almost everything. Although delineation of the sides involved would require some explanation, let’s just say our upcoming Presidential election more or less defines one camp from the other.  There are some folks in the middle, of course, but I believe they are generally a tired group and come this fall they may find football more meaningful than anything else.

The problem is that there really isn’t any debate at all.  What we have are two sides of a spectrum which acts like the rope in a tug of war.  A debate by definition implies the presentation of an argument, a refuting and counter-argument, and so forth until both sides are whittled to the essence of their cases and one side prevails.  

That sounds a bit like what we might think elections are all about, but not so today.  Today the “debate” is nothing more than pragmatic shouting and political gamesmanship.  Few are listening.  Further, most all the shouting is directed toward each side’s own choir.  Only the rope gets pulled and, at least right now, it’s pulling way right (Conservative).

Not only have we ended up with many tens of millions of people with anxieties related to national identity issues, but we have also generated run away Capitalism, unfunded entitlements, social-economic imbalance, irrational application of military resources, dysfunctional social justice, and government legislation (Federal & State) which has managed to reduce governance to just so many pissing contests.

Anyone who has read the entries of this blog know I strongly object to the direction we are being pulled by the so-called Neo-Conservatives.  Still I am not blind to the strong motivations of these many idealistic minded and decent, but fearing individuals.  There is a clear historic analogy in my opinion - American history at that. It is the American Civil War. The South was far more idealistic, more motivated, more unified, more dogmatic, and felt more threatened than the North.  

It was the election of Lincoln that was the last straw in an inflexible position for the South.  The election of Obama seems to have resonated in a similar way, and as with Lincoln, unyielding opposition started before Obama had flushed his first toilet in the White House.  Regardless how correct I might feel my understanding of this new divisiveness is, there seems to be no solution to this confrontation that pits brother against brother – then it hit me.  It was suddenly so obvious.

We need a Constitutional Amendment.  Not a permanent Amendment, but one that is self-repealing after 12 years.  The law would be extraordinarily simple to describe and foolproof to carry out.  It is this: once enacted and as of January of the following Presidential election year, no men (males) will be allowed to vote in any election, National, State, or local for the next 12 years. 

All political activity, social order, and law creation would be determined by individuals elected solely by women – 12 years so the law would cover at least two Senate elections in each state. That would do it.  The Country would be back on track, more over it might very well be on a better track than it ever has before.

You laugh (or just shake your head)?  If so, you don’t have the ability to see that our collective ship of state (i.e. all levels of government) has been slowly sinking in a vast pool of testosterone.   

Even the few women who have made the choice of political careers have been adversely affected.  If passed, within maybe 4 years women would hold a majority of political offices, maybe even the Presidency.  In that environment and with that constituency I can see most all of the Nation’s problems we face having a chance of being solved.  

It isn’t because women are smarter than men, more informed, more educated (although that might technically be true), wiser, or even less divisive.  They are not always better than men at what they do (I for one believe men drive cars way better than women – call me sexist).  It is for one simple reason:  most women’s identities are not threatened when faced with a competing idea – as a result, they listen, and often they do so empathetically. There would always be exceptions (think M.T. Green), but those numbers would be dwarfed by the majority.

We would gain a happy mix of practicality, individuality, and a respect for the common good.  For example take the almost intractable social problem of abortion: sure, women would remain divided among themselves on the issue, but they would have the ability to realize the value of reducing the total number of unwanted pregnancies regardless of anyone's position and would created unifying policy to that end. Men would rather go to war. 

Take almost any issue and think about.  If such an Amendment had gone into effect in 2000 I have virtually no doubt that my son would not have had to risk his life for two years in Iraq.

Could such a Constitutional Amendment be possible?  I can’t conceive how.  Still, an awareness of why it would work makes even the concept of it valuable.  Among other things, those so enlightened could vote more women into political office right now.  Perhaps men could just look around and start acting more like women when faced with controversy.  It’s possible.  

I do believe that if such an amendment went into place in 1852 (if Suffrage existed) that the American Civil War might never have happened, and yet slavery would have still disappeared.  There never would have been an epithet that said: the War that pitted sister against sister.

No Risky Business

A news story out of Ft. Lauderdale caught my interest.  It was one of those how stupid is that kind of stories that instantly makes National news, promoted by major media’s endless need to attract audiences.  It caught my interest not for its circus quality, rather for the context in which it exists, that affects almost all of us, nearly every day.

On May 8^th an 18 month old toddler was denied access on a JetBlue flight from Ft. Lauderdale because she had shown up on a terrorist “No Fly” list.  In fact, she and her parents had already boarded and were required to leave the plane.  How the media got wind of this would be interesting in itself.  According to the news story I read, the plane was held while things were being sorted out. The parents however, incensed by the incident and claiming they were held “on display” during the process, refused to re-board…and so it goes.

What makes this a Pop news story is, of course, its absurdity.  The outrage of the parents is a secondary news bit which touches on ethnic profiling (the family was of Middle Eastern decent) and potential lawsuits.  I don’t think any of those angles equate to the real story behind the incident.  I don’t believe it would have gained much traction had the story lead been “Ft. Lauderdale flight delayed 20 minutes while airline resolves conflict on flight manifest”.  I’d venture that or similar headlines could be churned out by the hundreds hourly. Yet I believe the real story behind this mini-fiasco would gain even less traction.

In financial investing there is a clear concept of risk-reward.  It is clear because the concept (in finance) is usually explained in quantitative terms (numbers), therefore it can even be understood by laymen; the greater the risk, the greater the extent of potential gain, but conversely the greater the extent of potential loss.  Buried in that concept is that there are consequences when there is an attempt to eliminate risk.  The negative connotations simply associated with the word “risk” cloud that fact and the reality that the risk-reward concept pervades perhaps all human endeavors.

The general uses of the term “risk” involve the feared loss of security or safety.  That “loss” can relate to almost anything, for example; property, “happiness”, relationships, careers, or life.  The financial advisor can sit down with a client and easily show on a piece of paper that doing nothing with your investments is neither prudent nor particularly safe.  But who is going to sit down with you and show that an inability to take risk with your time (i.e. actions) can prove counterproductive to your conception of what makes life valuable.  Although not quantitative it still is possible to explain to a reasonably open mind that doing nothing has a good chance of getting you nowhere.  But how possible is it to do the same for the "collective mind”?

We live in an age of pervasive externalized fear.  Of course to view extensive fear as unique to this time and place is as absurd as frisking down 18 month olds for hard core weaponry.  Fear, after all, is our basic primitive emotion for survival and the desire for survival has not changed since the Mystery began.  However, there is an unprecedented collective of fear that is unique to this age, born from levels of human population with no historical comparison and communication which washes over that population at speeds beyond the conception of its users. We are persistently moving in a direction aimed at removing risk from our social order.  The desire to do this relates directly with the communication of fear as applied to mass numbers of people.  Whether it be war, pestilence, violence, natural disaster, or simple loss of property (to name a few) we are beset with a perceived loss of individual control. We are becoming less concerned about the aesthetic short comings of ring around the tub, and more concerned with the deadly germs lurking beneath that ring and of whom may have failed to notify us of that fact for the protection of our children. 

The irony is that in the attempt to sanitize our world and reduce risk we begin to produce a lot of stupid.  The reason we have a situation such as an 18 month old detained because of her potential threat to our society is because there was no one, at that moment in time, who could or would take the small risk to quietly let her and her parents proceed to New Jersey.  The systems were in place to protect the nation from harm (and the company from lawsuits) and they couldn't be altered.  The net result was a whole lot of stupid and probably an equally absurd lawsuit to boot. This same scenario can be found almost anywhere, in our schools, our courts, our businesses, our governments, and all types of institutions. Think about it. That’s the real news story. Maybe that's why the lemmings eventually choose the sea.