House of Eratosthenes

My Dad tipped me off to the fact that the City Council in the fair city of Bellingham, where I spent my childhood, has unanimously approved a resolution in opposition to any proposed military intervention in Iran. The argument in favor is summarized here by a couple of peace activists up in the college hippy-town that is my old stomping ground:

On June 23, Bellingham City Councilperson Terry Bornemann introduced a resolution urging a diplomatic surge toward Iran and opposing military intervention in that country without Congressional approval. Why should the Bellingham City Council divert its attention away from important local matters to address yet another foreign policy issue? Didn’t it take enough flack for the Troops Home Now! Resolution in 2006?

Could it be the same reason that our National Guard is being diverted from its intended role in state emergency response? Perhaps it is the same reason that school administrators are diverting their time away from teacher development and curriculum improvement. Could it be the same reason governors are diverting their attention away from crumbling infrastructure to ward off financial ruin?

It doesn’t take a four star general to see the common denominator underlying these quandaries.

Our occupation of Iraq continues unabated, with a taxpayer price tag of $270 million a day. It has already cost the City of Bellingham $98 million. And the human costs to the United States are staggering with over 40,000 casualties, including 4,100 troops killed. Bellingham is home to some of these families.

So why, you ask, is the city council stepping in once again to consider another resolution, this time opposing U.S. military intervention in Iran?

Simple. If our local elected officials won’t, then who will?

What a fascinating rhetorical question!

But therein lies the problem. Rhetorical questions are not considered to be intended for, nor capable of inspiring, coherent answers. That is how they make the point, by arousing a stupefied failure to figure out how to answer them.

If only it applied here. This blogger was struck by a borderline jealousy toward his old man to realize the senior Freeberg’s letter aroused no less than 25 responses since midnight. That seems more impressive than it is — although it still is — because I noticed one commenter expertly named “headupyerass” commented three times and will no doubt return to comment some more. He has to. I know this type; his objective is to get the last word, and there are lots of other folks pointing out the error of his logic.

But which side prevails in this open-thread on the humble backwoods newspaper, is not the point I wish to inspect here. What I wish to inspect is this: This guy with his head up his ass, has an Internet connection, a keyboard, a screen, and all the other equipment that is required to make himself heard.

He has drive. He knows how to put a sentence together that describes his sentiments. He does so, repeatedly, which goes to show he can.

There are millions of others just like him. All of them with their heads up their asses…can’t avoid ’em…off they go, blah blah blah blah blah.

Does this not address the “if the officials won’t, who will?” question just about as satisfactorily as can possibly be imagined?

So with that in mind, the ball bounces back to the side of the court wherein we reconsider what the municipal-level authority’s dog-in-the-hunt is — exactly. Because I’m still unclear on it. Just a smidgen. If the citizens find nobody is speaking for them, they can write. It’s proven. So how ’bout the homeless people moving in, harassing downtown shoppers, and the threadbare parking facilities and the skateboarders and the traffic light switching patterns that encourage motorists to drive twenty miles over the speed limit? Every city can use a little bit more attention on issues like those, and many more.

But here’s another interesting question, one that is not asked. The Bellingham City Council vote was unanimous. It is being hailed as a “grassroots victory” of some kind, which implies that this is a way to manifest the thinking of the man-in-the-street. Remember what Ayn Rand said — the smallest minority is the individual; therefore, whoever oppresses or fails to support the individual cannot pretend to be advancing the rights of any minorities. Does Joe Six-Pack unanimously oppose military action against Iran, for any reason? Would a hundred-outta-a-hundred persons all across the fruited plane approve of the wording in the resolution?

Hell’s bells, you can just read the thread I linked above, to figure out that’s not the case.

But the resolution is unanimous. Something, therefore, is busted & gunnybags. It brings to mind something Bill (“wch”) said this morning about journalism…

A lot of journalists and politicians (metaphorically) stand in a room of people who are doing nothing but asking them for stuff. They believe it is their job to “answer” them, with news or legislation or favors.

They (for whatever reason) think that the people in the room represent the people NOT in the room. A wise person would ask where all of the other people (not in the room) are; and do they share the sentiments of the people in the room.

This is the conservatives’ largest problem: they’re not in the room, they’re too busy to stand in the room. They just know that if they were, they’d shout out “Hell no, we don’t want that!” That’s why they’re called the silent majority.

Bingo. We are facing a recession or depletion of a certain human quality. I think the word that would most accurately describe this quality would be “maturity,” but I intend to use something far more descriptive than that. I’m talking about a specific aspect — the readiness, willingness and ability to defend one’s mindset against the fallacy of false consensus.

To say to oneself, when all assembled in immediate proximity are found to approve of something (or to not care), “I wonder if there is anyone who would dissent, and if so, what their reasoning might be?” Not so much to bring everything to a screeching halt and pugnaciously ask it; the far less intrusive variation — to merely be ready to entertain it.

We’re missing that. It seems to be a vanishing, and non-renewable, resource. I believe it starts early on, in about the second or third grade. Teacher says “How many of you…let’s see a show of hands…” and before the hands go shooting up, there’s two dozen little toe-heads swiveling around, first left, then right, to see what everybody else is doing. It starts out cute. But we tend to forget, too many among us never stop doing that, and years later when they serve on city councils or on editorial panels get this “gut feel” that because everyone in the room thinks something, everyone everyplace else must be on the same page.

It just ain’t so. Sorry.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

City Councils Voting on WarsWednesday, July 16th, 2008

City Councils Voting on Wars
Wednesday, July 16th, 2008