February four.

Well, I know you have your interfaces today. So we'll get
to that a little bit later. If you didn't remember -oh, some
of you sent them to me by E-mail. I got a few from this class.
Those that forgot them, you know the option. Get them in my
mailbox before 9:30 tomorrow morning or they're late. And if
you do them by E-mail that means they should be in by midnight
tonight. It's only fair. That's the deadline. And, yes, there
is a time on the e-mail when it's sent. Except when it's sent
through AOL, but I can subtract three hours.
All right. Last time in class we started talking about
what? How policy is made? Who rules? We talked about pluralism
a little, did we not, and then hyperpluralism? Yes? And then
started on participatory democracy? Didn't I not? Talk a little
bit Tom Haden and Newt Gingrich and their different approaches
to participatory democracy and introduced devolution from the
sense of term from Newt? I'm seeing some heads shaking yes
which means that somewhere along the line it is in your notes.
Q I don't remember devolution. A Devolution is a concept under
participatory democracy. And I'm not sure you'll find it in the
book. Or is it in my book? Did I mention devolution in my
chapter? I do? In my chapter? I rewrote it because it wasn't in
there previously. I just wrote it -- to heck with reading this.
But it is funny how you forget what you put in the chapter.
Well, I'm glad I put it in there.

Devolution seems to be a word that is very very popular
in the British. They're talking about actually changing the
name of Britain to some pre-Celtic word. I can't remember
what it was because of the devolution of breaking up
Scotland, Whales, and North Ireland, so that they won't be
part of Britain directly -- I don't know, but that the words
in the paper have been using devolution which in simple
terms was decentralization. Taking part from Washington and
restoring it to the people. The turn of the 19th century to
the 20th century we saw a mass movement of power to
Washington D.C. From the turn of the 19th century to the
20th century. At the turn of the century -- this century,
which will only be here for another year or two depending on
which calendar you want to accept as the new century -- will
we say two thousand and one or twenty ten? I don't know. I
don't think these kinds of problems are much more important
than Y2K.

The reason for the movement of power towards Washington
because liberals who had previously followed the
Jeffersonian power to the people began to realize that
within the states the power to the people was being
perverted by the local interest who had control of the state
legislature. And they realized or felt -- and I think it
was true at that time -- that by giving more power to
Washington those local industries, those local companies could
not get that power as easily because it was too spread
throughout the country. They would need a lot more money more
spent and a lot more interaction by the turn of the 21st
century coming up now devolution is being fostered almost the
opposite going back to because what has happened is that we
have seen a conglomeration of grouping of power, a
monoplization of power in Washington because of the emergence
of large multinational corporations. They had become so tied
together that they're able to not worry about what's going on
in the states and set up their system around the beltway with
interest groups with access to power. And the point was to
break down the interest of power by allowing the people to -and
that's why Newt created the system that he called Thomas after
Jefferson.
Any questions on that? There was some other things that
occurred at the turn of the century. One of was which was this
fear that interest groups were dominated. There was a movement
to give power to the people by going to Washington. But
interestingly, on top of that by giving power to the people
they introduced a new constitutional amendment which became the
17th Amendment and that was to allow direct election of U.S.
senators. Up until 1913 when it was passed, U.S. senators were
elected by the state legislatures so that -- who were the two
California U.S. senators? Boxer and Feinstein. And they would
have been
J J

elected not by us, but they would have been elected by our
representatives in Sacramento up till 1913. That was a
dramatic change in a sense of more people involvement.

The other elements of change in the turn of the century
was some of the western states and some of the states in the
midwest they developed systems which we have in California
that I'll talk more about later initiatives, recall,
referendums. Where the people directly involved themselves
in government. But they never amended so there is know
recall in the federal level. The only people that can
remove the President of the United States are the U.S.
Senate at this juncture, right? However, in California, we
can remove the government through election. That's called a
recall. That's more direct involvement and that came about
because of this tremendous democratic movement. So at the
turn of the 21st century, we had the same fear to the big
industries, the money groups, the powerful, the
establishment, are also controlling our information, our
sources are deceiving us or whatever. And so it has been
one of those concepts of returning power to the people.

Among the others you're familiar with are term limits
which means what? Term limits. How long they will stay in
office? There's -- but they can get reelected. What does
this do? It stops the number of times they can be
reelected. So it is right. It is how long they stay in
office, but basically how many terms they can stay in. More
than how long they stay because there's a technical word there.
If I'm elected for a four year term, I can only stay four years.
But if I'm only allowed two terms, then eight years. Everybody
follow that? So term limits have been introduced in some 22
states in the United States presently through the initiative
process, however, when states have tried to place it on the
federal level, it's been declared unconstitutional because to
put term limits for our federal office that would require a
constitutional amendment federally. So we can term limit anybody
in the state of California and they are now -- the governor
could be term limited, but Barbara Boxer cannot; why? Because
they're federal officers. Constitutionally, they're under the
federal constitution. Pete Stark who is your local congressmen
also could not be term limited. However, Liz Figora, who is your
state senator this area could be term limited. And John Dutra
who is you're assembly person from this area is term limited.
Okay? So term limits were another big reform that were being
pushed right now to bring back democracy in people's
involvement.
The other attempt to control vested interest and -- was
just recently thrown out by the Supreme Court and that was the
line item veto that they gave to the president. The Supreme
Court of the -- the president, the congress could not give the
president a line item veto. It had to be -what is a line item
veto?
A It's where, say a bill is proposed. They could just

veto out a certain line rather than the whole thing.
However, presently the President of the United States if he
vetoes a bill, the whole thing is vetoed. if he crosses out
some of this extra money in interesting groups and income it
up because everybody has all this extra money and that would
give the president power to represent the people because the
president is the only person -- at least indirectly -
elected in the country by all the people. All the rest are
elected locally. So they call him as the person overlooking
the United States. And there is a word for that. That is
often banned around. They see him as ombudsman. it is a
Scandinavian word -- meaning people's representative. A
person who is elected or appointed to look out for people's
interest only. They are the person who supposed to represent
the people. And in a sense, the president is our ombudsman,
since he is the one elected by all the people. Not an
official term, it is in some schools, in some companies, it
is in some government agencies, but it is the concept that
somebody has to look out for us. So there have been some
movements then for attempting to bring more participatory
democracy. More people involved in the system directly so
that we are heard individually not necessarily only through
the groups who represent us, but may not be really talking
for us.

Now people have always had an ability to be heard in

strange ways individually. All societies have gadflies.
It's on your word list. Gadfly. Oadfly sort of the buzzes
around like an insect: bug in the system. And you want to
jot it down and get rid of it. The system goes out of it's
way and tries to swat it down. The gadfly is usually an
individual who really has one cause that they push. I
usually describe it as individuals who have a messiah
complex. Not that they want to be crucified, but that they
get crucified. They're people. They know they're right
they don't want to work with anybody else and they don't
want to be part of the political system. They stay outside
of it. They don't run from office they a now it from the
outside. Sometimes they get carried away and run for office
but most of the time it's outside. And boy does the system
try to destroy you because sort of being outside the system
maybe they see you as being better than you are. You're
pure. What I'm basically saying to get away to be a gadfly
not only do you have to be well versed, but you have to be
trustworthy, brave -- that's the Boy Scout pledge. Who's
probably Americas best known gadfly over the last fifty
years? Ralph Nader. Some of you may not have heard of him
because he's not well-known today perhaps among the young
people as he has been maybe five years ago when he supported
one of the propositions dealing with insurance taxes and
people in California voted that way because of him. A
native, in 1968 he wrote a book called Unsafe At Any Speed.


He took on General Motors, he took on the Corvare car and -
the fact is that much of the safety regulations in the auto
history are really due to his efforts. Some people say we
went too far. They joined him. They carried it out, but when
he first wrote the book and people -- congress began to hold
hearings, they became concerned. What you do with a gadfly
is you try and make them look bad. So they hired two
private detectives to find duty dirt on him -- you see, the
concept is if you can destroy the person, you can destroy
what they have to say and making it look like it's
self-serving or worthless which is sad because you're not
listening to what's being said. Well in this case, the two
private detectives could not find anything. Nader, a
lawyer, spent very little money on anything. He wore the
same suit for months on end. He lived in a one-room
apartment. 'He took public transportation. They couldn't
find him spending money or, you know, on drugs, cigarettes,
he didn't even drink. He didn't go out with women. He
didn't go out with men.
They couldn't even find him masturbating. Nothing.

So, the fact is that in a sense, he came through looking good. No motive; no personal motive,
which meant that he was perhaps saying something that was
worth while and he actually sued the GM for invasion of
privacy and won a lawsuit against him as well. So that in a
sense his cause was aided. But let me tell you, most
people, you know, you or 1, I'm sure they're going to find a
little dirt if they do that kind of searching. It is amazing. I
remember, I like functioning as a gadfly. To me it makes more
sense. The trouble is that my feeling is that if you open your
mouth sometimes you have to put your money where your mouth is
and I'm one of these people who really -- if I speak out on
something, I feel the need to take action because it's bothered
me those people that bitch and then don't do anything. So, at
times if I'm in an organization, I put my name up to run for
office just to show that I'm serious with the knowledge that
they're not going to elect me because they don't want this
troublemaker as their president. The damn trouble is every now
and then they elected me. You know, it's like Woody Allen said,
any organization that wants me I want -- there's something
wrong with that organization. And I always wondered about it,
but the trouble between when you're the head of an organization
or president and you're speaking out you can't speak for
yourself as easily because everything you say is taken as
representing the organization. And so you never to preface it
or watch what you say. I hate that. As you can tell already I
like saying what I have to say and to hell with it: isn't that
easy when you're heading an organization. But, often times give
us the opportunity. I was faculty president back around -- I've
been union president too but this is the faculty center which
is the professional organization on campus. The also by the way
gets to sit at
the board table here at Ohonle and you can get out there if
you're given the opportunity. At this time there was a woman on
our board of trustees who constantly put down the college. She
seemed to want to destroy it. And this was a person on the
board, and she was always making these nasty remarks that the
board and elsewhere -- um, you know she in fact she sounded -
well okay. So one day she's -- she is actually -- they had a
circular system here each person serves as president. So she's
president of the board and she tells the newspaper -- the Argus -
- that Ohlone College is nothing but a small Mickey-Mouse
college. Student don't want to hear it. The administration was -
to think if some student said that or say thinks joking but this
was quote in the newspaper and there was no correction made.
Well, I like to take action when I get annoyed because then that
avoids me from getting an ulcer. What can I do? I came up with
the idea. I asked one of my students in class anybody have a
Mickey Mouse cap? And one of my students did, so I took the cap
with me to the board meeting. In any case, I sat it right in
front of the me. And she flipped out. For over an hour she went
on lecturing how Mickey Mouse really was a hero and how we
misinterpreted it. It goes on and on. Later on she even
dedicated the pledge of allegiance to Mickey Mouse. And after
the meeting was over I guess I don't want to disturb a meeting
and everybody was leaving I happened to have my tape recorder
there and I played the
theme song. It was the new disco verse. John Travolta back in
1978 and it drove her nuts. Well in any case I was not able to
attend the next board meeting for whatever meeting it was and
apparently she gave a very heavy personal attack on me. I later
went up and read it. I thought it was funny and the board was -
that they would do that to somebody and I think they were just
looking for an excuse, well, they couldn't remove her because
she's an elected politician. We could if we wanted to, um,
recall her, but recalls by the way can be very and expensive.
So, they held a meeting, a special meeting where they were
going to censure her and remove her from the presidency of the
board, which, of course, I went down there smiling. I thought it
was great. And I get down there and I'm sitting and I'm -- and
this guy comes over to me from the New York Times and he said,
"Is that you? Is that you?" And I said well yeah. It was an
interesting article. It was about my being fired from the
university job because of my left-wing political activities
along with two other people. And it did appear in New York Times
and I hadn't seen it -- well, I left Florida in '78, 1 hadn't
seen it in seven years. Okay and you know, I looked at him and I
said, "Can I have a copy of that?" He got really pissed because
I -- in any case whoever it was had sent it to all the
administrators and to the press in an attempt to discredit me so
that she would come out lookinq like she had a reason for
attacking me.
Well I'm one of these people, as I indicated, that I just
don't cover things up and when I got the job here they knew I
had been fired and they knew the reasons underlying it, so
there was nothing secret about that. They sent it anonymously
and the press didn't publish it. But it's funny how I went back
to the 'New York Times index to try and search this out. I knew
the whole details. It took me over thirty minutes to find the
material. They must have searched for days just to get
something -- dirt, to try and discredit me. Now if they wanted
dirt on me, I could have given if they would have asked, but it
just shows you why many people are afraid to speak out. Why
many people don't want to get involved in politics because -and
the higher you go and the more you speak out, the more they're
going to look and so -- out to destroy you in some fashion.
And so gadflies exist on every level in every society
because they have an ability to somehow survive. Even in Nazis
Germany it's also taking advantages of contradictions if you're
going to survive. For example, when Hitler ordered all Jews to
wear Stars of David, the yellow star of David, in Holland -- I'm
sorry, in Denmark, the King and his court were so upset by it
that they protested by putting on Stars of David. Well I think
if it had been the Polish people Hitler would have mowed them
down. Somehow they were just misled and they got away with it
taking advantage of contradiction, but back to gadflies.
Can you think of any others today? Not one? Yeah, Rush
Limbaugh, Howard Stern. Both born on the same date.
January 12. Two of the biggest loud mouths. Anybody here
born January 12. 1 want to see if the loud mouth seems to be
inherited by the date. Yeah. Although Howard Stern -- he
pulled out before the primary so, and, you know, for many
many years a guy who later ran for office I would say is
definitely a gadfly because he's gotten involved politically
running but that was Ross Perot. So those are names that
are somewhat -- but are not a part of it. Taking advantages
of contradictions of the system. My favorite. Madeline
Murray O'Hare first came into the forefront when she sued
the New York State Board of Education in 1961 because her
son had to say a prayer in school. The son later -- and
then she went on to create the American Atheist church.
She's best known as an atheist. It was funny because that
son later turned against his mother and created first his
own atheist church and then became a born-again Christian
and went around the country speaking against his mother
which is a really unchristian thing to do is talk about your
mother. Isn't it a violation of the ten commandments or
something? But apparently, the other son and the
daughter-in-law and Madeline Murray O'Hare disappeared two
years ago with all the money from the American Atheist
church. Now some felt that she died and they wanted the
money and got out of the country because they didn't want
Christians to claim that she called out to Christ or God or
whatever. Actually I think she was deserected. I figured that
she was deserected; the devil took her down. Never mind. I
know it was bad.
I was in Berkeley a number of years ago and I was looking at
the paper and there was a number for Dial a Prayer. Dial this
and take that. This was Dial an Atheist. So I couldn't resist,
so I picked up the phone. I dialed an atheist it was a true
atheist number. Nobody answered. I'm sorry. Actually there was a
three-minute tape message attacking God. It was very very funny.
So I came back. I thought it was so hypocritical and funny that
I gave the number to my class so that they could check it out.
And two students went to the administration and said I was
spreading athiestism. I couldn't believe it. It's amazing what
happens. So I told the president of the college and I don't
think he appreciated -- "Look, when God gives me her number I'll
give that to the class." I don't think he got my humor when I
said her, but that's besides the point. They don't appreciate me
sometimes.
The contradiction in the system by creating an American
Atheist church, what advantage, what contradiction did they take
on in the American system? The right to religion? The right to
what? Religion. Well back a little to religion, she's able to
do? What being she now do? She can get a tax exception. People
can -- to the American Atheist church
where before they'd have to pay taxes on it. Now they, one,
have to -- and that's hypocritical? Taking advantage is a
contradiction in the system, the point is they're all around us
and sometimes we can beat the system by looking for the
contradiction.

If we he see them once again going back to what I said

the other day. You have to be observant. One example I
didn't give in my book because I was a little hesitant, a
number of years ago I walked into a fish store. I mean a
tropical fish store. A pet store, and over the tropical
fish tanks they had these packets of antibiotics for the
fish.


And I noticed -- I was taking tetracycline at this
time I can't remember what it was, why they had given it to
me


you people say zits -- and then in the east coast we
say pimple. Strange different language. Did you ever hear
the word zit on the midwest? You used that word there too?
I guess New York is so different. Um, anybody here from New
York? I wonder if the word's used there now? Well, zits.
But so you didn't think about zits four years ago. Okay.
Got you. Okay. I understand. I didn't mean to embarrass you.
I'm sorry.
But um, the fact is that -- what was I saying? The
tetracycline. I wasn't taking it for the clap either so that
seems to be the other downer. Remember I told you about the
walk back the prostitute section in Paris and not being
propositioned and how much that was? Well, I had the
same experience with the clap. I went to school in Mexico for
three months, sort of an exchange student. At that point I went
to Ohio State University, so a bunch of us drove down and went
to school of Mexico. Everyone else in the group got the clap. I
didn't. Do you know what that means not to be a real man? To be
able to brag about having VD? I mean, now a days we're a little
hesitant about AIDS, but in those days there was no AIDS and so
locker room talk was important. So I'm a double loser here.
Prostitutes don't prop position me; I can't get the clap. It's
ridiculous. So, in any case, I look at all this a now recorded.
It's all down for the future.
Um, but, in any case, the tetracycline was the same color
cartridge. It was a tube, whatever you call it, capsule. The
blue and the yellow capsule and it had the same milligrams,
215 milligrams made by the same company. So I bought one. I
took it to the pharmacist. It was the same stuff. You could
buy tetracycline at the fish store without a prescription, but
how do they get away with selling it? Because underneath it
said Not For Human Consumption, and you know, so I bought it
for the fish, but I could have used it. I just had to figure
out what size tank I was and what fungus was -- I don't ever
recommend buying and I do want to be very clear on this, any
antibiotics because they can be toxic and some people are very
allergic to penicillin, but the fact is that they are
there. And you know if you notice these thick thing like
that are all around. And -it's a contradiction in the system
and the way that a Nazi could run for the office of the
president want to overthrow our country. It's a
contradiction. More democratic to societies.
Better term, for contradiction is a loophole. Another way
people have function with a authority in systems and elsewhere
to be heard in a sense not participatory but in a sense getting
away heard is by dealing with the leadership in the way that
they want to be dealt with. Most leaders get into power and they
want to be loved. They want to prove to you that they're really
likable people even if they're nasty. One of my favorites books
is Catch 22. Good movie too. Anybody read the book or see the
film? Catch 22 is based on the principle of there's no way out
if you accept the words of the system. The individual who's the
hero of the book is named -- and he's a fighter -- bomber during
World War II, 'and the more flights you fly, the more chance
there is that your plane is going to get shot down and killed.
The average flight time is twenty missions, but because of the
lack of pilots, they keep increasing the missions. 30, 35, 40,
and he's going crazy. They're trying to kill me and then one of
his buddies is blown away. So he just starts climbing trees nude
and everything else, going nuts and during all this particular
period of time he's trying to get out. So he goes to the
chaplain and he said
how do I get out of the service? The only way is if
you're crazy. But I am crazy. They call me crazy. well
that's the problem. According to the Army, if you know
you're crazy, you're not crazy because crazy people
don't know you're crazy and if you are and you don't
know it nobody's going to test you to find out if you;re
crazy. So you're stuck. well there's this other person
who has also the same attitude, but his plane keeps
crashing and they think he's just unlucky, but
apparently he's crashing it on purpose because he
finally rows off to Sweden to get away from the
military, but he wants to get out and the guy that's
over him is the guy, a major by the name of Major Major
is the guy who talks to. And Major Major tells him the
only way we're going to let you out and dismiss you if
you go home. We'll give you a parade and you tell them
how great the Army/Air Force is. And he said no, I'm not
going to tell them I love you and how great you are.
That's a lie. you're stuck.

Well

So he finally winds up rowing to Sweden. You got
people in power who want to be loved and there are two
kinds of dealing with that loss. Because the higher you
go, the more isolated you become. Really. The more you
fear for your position, the more -- you know. One way to
deal with and get things done is to show the person how
much you love them. Kiss their butt. Brown nose them.
Kissy kissy. Suck up. What other terms do you use? That's
the only ones
I can think of just now. Come on, there must be other
terms you're using now. Cowards. Kiss ass. Come on. There
are others. That works for those people, showing you love
them. They feel, well, this person appreciates and we'll
give it to them.
I think the best example may have been the -- God
Father movie. Everybody gathered around and they gave out
gifts to the God Father and they ask for the permission.
If he wants to do it for you, he does it. But they're
just being nice


gifts Bribes? Well, in a sense, but they don't
giving gifts have to do it to you, they're campaign
contributions to the God Father. It's culture. Gifts
become important until we hear about the Salt Lake City
Olympics -- begin to realize that this is really part of
our world. That it's a matter of, you know, even if they
don't carry it out, it's an appreciative with the hope
that they will.
A number of years ago we were on the quarter system
here at Ohlone College. And so we ended right before
Christmas and just before final exams, I get a call from
the switch board and they tell me there's a Christmas
gift there for me. well this is college -- maybe in
elementary school you give teachers Christmas gifts.
Generally the only Christmas gift you get somebody is
fruitcake with poison in it. But you know, so -- but I
went down there. And they're nicely wrapped in paper is a
nice little box and there's a card and it says,
"Professor, I've really loved your course. I've
enjoyed taking it. I'm giving you this gift and also
with the hope that you'll give me a passing grade
instead of an F. "
Well I was a little pissed off that's like a bribe you
know I certainly can see it in anyway and by the way but
I looked at the name and realized this person came from
Greece and was from a -- I understood in his culture. I had
when I was in Mexico doing research. I had been in front of
this politician all these people were in a room and each
one giving a gift. I didn't have anything to give him,
and I didn't really give him a chicken a bread thing and
he would sit there like the God Father and I got in front
of him and I apologized and embarrassed. He started
giving me some of the things they gave to him because he
was so appreciative of my interviewing him. It was
interesting.
Um, but in any case, you know, I told the student
afterward, I said look I understand your culture, but in the
United States this is considered -- besides you really
do. Number one, you gave a Christmas present to a Jew.
Number two, you gave a bottle of liquor to a non-drinker.
Yeah you're a loser. Yeah. I am very happy though however
that I grade by social security numbers. Because I didn't
know which his paper really was, and so, you know, I
didn't feel the guilt of, one, if I passed him, did it
influence me and two, if I flunked him, did I do it out of
anger. It puts you in an embarrassing situation. But the
social security number
really helps. He did flunk. I felt
bad.
Um, so cultural differences then. Showing
appreciation. They love it. People in power. However,
there's also the ability to get things done when you tell
me you don't love them when you treat them like they
really are nasty they want to prove to you that they're
not bad people. They want to show you that they're -that
you're misinterpreting it. You know, I also wonder under why
Yule Brenner never wiped out Chariton Heston. They've
redone cartoon film now. Prince of Egypt. Has anybody
seen it? By yourself or with a child? No, with my friend.
Same basic age. You didn't have to bring a little kid in? I
gave you credit. They got to bring little kids. They wait
for it to come out on video tape. So you can go see
Disney films. It was okay? Yeah it was good. So reviews
are good. I'll wait for video. I haven't got the guts to go
in. Um, why didn't he just kill, why did he wait for the
tenth play before he let them go and then changed his
mind? Why did the Czar of -- it is the -if fear that
God's going to beat him or people are going to turn
against him or is it just you want to prove you're not as
bad as think you are?
So sometimes speaking out does work. Any questions
about different ways to beat the system? Besides
participatory democracy? Gadflies? Taking advantage of
contradiction in this system? Kissing butt? All right.
Then let's take out the interfaces. We'll finish up
with
the bureaucracy when we go through the interfaces. Okay.
We're focusing on the interfaces that you're turning in
today. Or you turned in by E-mail. Interface. Um, the first
interface has that, you know, chart with a line. And it asks
you to place yourself on the line based on your trust/distrust.
Young people are evil or good? Whether you believe in
nature/nurture and most of you don't go to extremes. However,
that is obviously just a basis for your personality.
Um, a few years ago I had the same interface chart at the
end of the packet to see if there were any changes and I had a
student who tried to correlate to see if we had any impact at
all. Absolutely no correlation to this. Didn't show -- just so
different. So it was a waste. I was hoping that I would be able
to see that there were some changes that took place in
attitudes. Again, I can't make any changes in your attitudes,
but at least I can hopefully teach you some things. The question
on the proper roll of government. Some of you stated the proper
roll of government, but please note there are two parts of that
question. The main question there which is also bolded is based
on your choices, of nature/nurture, good/evil, trust/distrust:
What do you think the proper roll of government? So if you tell
me it's to control people then you need to tell me how that
applies to your choices. If the proper roll of government is to
provide police protection
and control people, then I think it's that way because I
believe people are basically evil and they can't be trusted and
they're with born that way. Anyway, so we have to control those
people. You see what I'm saying? And if that is not in there,
you're not fully answering the question.
Remember I said I don't take points out for trying to
answer the question? But if you ignore -- at this point, you
will lose some points. So, what is the proper role, and of
course, that can be debated. However, in the United States
there is a document that spells out the proper roll of
government. What is it? And where is it? It's in the Federal
Papers? No, although I'm sure there are elements that do talk
about the -- it's in the Constitution. Where in the
Constitution does it state the proper roll of government? Well,
apparently put this in then. In the Preamble to the
Constitution. We talked about it the other day and some of you
memorized it. We the people of the United States -- in order to
form a more perfect union to ensure domestic tranquility. What
peace. Provided for the common defense. government? Promote the
general welfare We hereby establish and/or -- blah blah blah, but
interestingly we have
two political parties in the United States that are the major
parties, and I think we know their names. They are -the
republicans and the democrats. And to some extent their
interpretation is to the proper roll of government differs
Dased on their reading of what is most important in the
constitution. In the Preamble. Okay? The republican party has re
emphasized and pushed one element to provide for the common
defense. They are more willing to spend money for the military
and for police protection and for prisons and that was what they
feel the proper roll of government should and must be. The
democratic party has emphasized promoting the general welfare.
From this perspective you can't provide for the common defense
until you promote the general welfare. And so rather than spend
large sums of money on prisons, they're much more willing to
spend it on education and schools and certainly that argument
held the day in this last election in California when the
present governor, Gray Davis, pushed as the only thing in his
platform: Spending money on education. And Californians were
sort of the tired of I guess the sense of building more prisons.
Maybe because the crime rate had dropped, but education became a
major issue. And the surprise and the shock was how badly the
republicans got trampled in California this last election. But
anything can happen in two years. Any questions on that?
We can talk more about the two parties and the differences
later. The next interface asks you to first name five things
that happened to you politically or words to that effect that
day that you were doing it, right? All right. I want to make
something perfectly clear at this
point over and over again. The thing that you have to show me is
the ability to show that you've learned from the course and the
ability to synthesize material. Every one of you who put down I
couldn't think of five things that occurs to me politically or
my parents never said politically, you're ready to flunk the
course. Not that I'll flunk you. You are -- you're not thinking
about it because if you want me to believe that your parents
never once mentioned speeding tickets or about their taxes,
forget their pillows, and we'll talk about their pillows, then
you missed the whole point in my book about the pillow being
political. And if you can't synthesize that kind of material and
see things in that light or make them up and lie, then as I say,
that's why you're going to wind up flunking because you're
refusing to try and think and thinking is a major part of this
structure.
Well my parents never said a thing about Clinton or they
never said a thing about politics, so the democrats and
republicans you've voided the first two weeks in the classroom.
Not because you can't read or memorize; not because you can't
study, because you can't analyze. Or you refuse to. Or you're
binding yourself in a little box with blinders rather than
having what we have periferal vision. And education is about
critical thinking and the basis of this course is derived around
critical thinking. Thinking about what your thinking while
you're thinking. Or reading
between the lines. Another definition of critical
thinking.
So, what was some of the things that you put down happened
to you that day that was political? Did anybody put down I slept
on my pillow, just for curiosity? Did you? Bless you, my
daughter. I love you already. See, some people are thinking.
You're going to wind up getting an A in the course. I don't even
know who you are. Call me a liar at the end of semester. Pisses
some of you off. It was too stupid. It was too simple. That's
life, folks. What are some of the other that you put down? I
said I took a shower. I took a shower. Okay. How was that
political? The water is regulated. Certainly. The chlorine and
everything else in the water and you're on the same level as the
pillow. I paid my vehicle registration. Yeah. That's very direct
because you're paying a certain tax on the vehicle registration
is a good percentage of tax, but I know I can deduct it from my
income tax. I think $29 is actually the fee and the rest of it's
tax. Or $29 is a tax and the rest is a fee. I worked. You
worked? And how is that political? They took taxes out of your
paycheck, sure. And so of course is the place that you work at
regulated in some fashion for safety? Or it will be controled
and checked and health reasons, sure. What else did somebody put
down? When I had to take 12 units here at Ohlone College. They
required me as an international student. So where are you
from? Hong Kong. Oh, so you spoke English before coming here?
Yeah. It makes it even more difficult if you had come from
China. Um, what did some of think your parents said in your
reaction to them? Anybody? What do you remember something your
parents said about politics? Politicians are scum. Yeah. A lot
of parents seem to say that. It was my dad's answer to anything
political. Yeah, it's funny because my wife's parents respond
that way all the time. And one day my wife just had it. She's
also got a degree in political science and she said to them,
you know, I majored in political science. What if I ran for
office and, you know, I got elected. You know me; you love me;
you know my values and morality. And they looked at her and
said you'd become scum. What was your response? What do you
feel? What did you feel? Most politicians are SCUM. We call that
primary group influence. Is it on your word list? Maybe on the
next one. Primary group being the fact that we're very much
influenced by our values, by our parents.
Um, what else? I used to live in Amador where the space
shuttle lands, and there was like -- and in the '80s when
Reagan -- like the economy really went up and when the Cold War
ended and all of companies everyone lost their job and homes
and so your parents' commentary? Oh, that they hated Ronald
Reagan. You can remember back to then? My dad worked for the
newspaper and so -- well I was going to say
you weren't even born then. Jeez, when Ronald Reagan? Yeah you
were? Oh, not that young.
My parents told me to stay here in America and study and
not go back to Hong Kong. Because they're part communist and
they thought it was dangerous for -- it would be risky. Are
your parents still in Hong Kong? Yeah, they're still there. So
how long have you been here? They took over in July '97? Is
that correct? Yeah. So you've been here for two, three years?
Three years. Have you gone back to visit at all? Yeah. I have.
Is it dangerous? But, I think China will become a stronger
country. I disagree with my parents. My personal feeling is
that Hong Kong is going to pervert. It wasn't dangerous for me.
It wasn't dangerous for me when I went there, but the Hong Kong
flag wasn't there and there were different rules and stuff, and
they took out the English flag, and it kind of shocked me. The
Hong Kong flag was still there, but China put their own flag in
and they have a different flag for Hong Kong and the English
flag is down. Now it kind of shocked me and then he said, my
opinion is, huh? Oh, that Hong Kong is going to infect the
mainland China and cause communism to die there. I wish that
will happen. Well I think it's happening little by little.
There's not much communism left in China right now.
Um, in any case, then we go on to interface three which is
your chart. Is that the case? Left, right, and center?
All right. I'm going to -- I forgot I was doing this because I
used to have an interface four in the old book and for and that
could deal with the various interpretations as who rules and it
just struck me as who took that out so I want to finish up
probably do that next time. Onto the other three
interpretations. Social security to how policy is made and who
rules. In reality, I've dealt with two only and with subsection
to it. I dealt with participatory democracy and pluralism. The
other will be interpretations that I deal with in the book as
to how policy is made is elitism, machiavellianism, I guess?
And the last one, the bureaucratic.
Now if you'll recall, I earlier said is that most political
scientists do believe America is a pluralistic democracy. And
that's the traditional argument given, however, there are a
number of political scientists who argue that America is run by
elites. Elitism is a popular interpretation in America. Anyway,
by elite we mean a small group making the decisions. In the
United States we often see that small group as the wealthy. The
well-born. In other countries it may be the military. Could be
the communist party. Could be the Mafia. But it's a small
group, and in this case in United States the rich the well
born. Often are what constitute the --. When political
scientists originally that there are an elite group running the
country they usually argue from a
non-conspiracy point of view meaning that they don't conspire
to deceive us. They don't get together. They don't meet
secretly. That they deceive us because they came from the same
class and value system. They have the same interests and even
if they don't come from the class, the people that are part of
the elite want to be a part of the class so that they have
their own interests and those interests could inside they're
very similar.
So that we could argue that a Net Scape fights tooth and
nail with Micro Soft. But in both cases, their outlook is to
create a monopoly on the web and they could care less about
which is there to make money and we may benefit from the
battle, but in the longrun it's all for their interest and
anything they can do to deceive us is fine.
Is the argument for the political scientists? However there
are also groups who believe that America is run by elitism that
do believe it's a conspiracy that they get together to defraud
us. Sometimes they look at the same group and have different
interpretations. For example, both the political scientist, the
nonconspiracy, and the conspiracy often look to the trilateral
commission. The trilateral commission was organized in 1973 by
David Rockerfeller to enhance the world trades, supposedly, now
David Rockerfeller is a name that most of you may not the
Rockafeller name that's the famous Standard Oil Company.
Trilateral, United States, Japan, and Western Europe.
The -- was to between Japan and western Europe. However, the
powerful were brought in and they meet secrecy. Many of these
people who were not allowed to go in government when they were
members went into government in their own countries and it's
believe by some that they were there specifically to follow the
orders of David Rockerfeller for the Chase Manhattan Bank.
Others hold that they simply owed him and saw -- in the same
light and so they did think for David Rockerfeller or things
that David may want, but it wasn't because they were ordered to
because is there really a difference? Maybe. Depends on how you
look at it.
Example, in 1980, some of you may remember or have heard
about that the Iranian terrorists calling themselves students
took over the American embassy in Tiron holding hostages. Some
forty plus American diplomats and workers for 444 days. The
reason for the takeover in large part was that the Czar of Iran
who had been kicked out had been invited into the United States
to get cancer treatment in a hospital in New York. And they were
upset. They wanted the Czar to be tried and they want the money
that he stole. So they took over the American embassy. The fact
was that the Czar was brought in was because Jimmy Carter had
allowed him to come in and under the urging of David Rockafeller
and Henry Kissinger. Now the reason is very simple: Jimmy Carter
had been a member of trilateral, so had Henry Kissinger, and so
had David Rockefeller. Now David
Rockerfeller gave the orders to Jimmy Carter, or did they as
friends, and he felt he owed them something. Do it as a favor?
There's no doubt that David Rockerfeller felt obligated to help
the Czar because Standard Oil had made a fortune in Iran during
the days the Czar was from there. Conspiracy concepts abound.
Is it deceptive or is it not? Is it, you know, a group that
secretly meets? Supposedly, they were formed in the 14th
century to promote devil worship. And they tried to deceive
you. One of the things that they supposedly did was to make you
believe that paper money had value. So you'd search after paper
money so that you will would go to hell rather than -- because
searching after wealth is against the Bible. In their
interpretation. And that is why on the back of dollar bill you
had the pyramid with the eye in it. That was the symbol to
bring you to the devil.
Well, I know a few years ago there was some letters to the
editors and I just told them to send me their paper money and -
um, these kinds of questions about conspiracy theories exist on
both the left and right. The left sees it as a Wall Street.
Well this, conspiracy -- the right tends to tie the conspiracy
to the devil, to the anti-Christ, to 666. They see the 666 all
over. From the book of Revelations. They see a computer in
Belgium, 666. They see the coming of the anti-Christ. In fact,
some have them claim the anti-Christ is on earth riqht now.
Time magazine
article on it that Jerry Fallwell head of former moral
majority claim that the anti-Christ, but obviously he's
Jewish and we had to search him out to destroy him. And
Time Magazine article was quite funny as being Jewish and
the article came to the -- is really Adam Sandler. But
they've accused Ronald Reagan of being because if you talk
he's got six letters in each name. 666. And also when he
left the White House he bought a house there and it was 666
Bell Aire. He later changed it to 668, and so he was really
a front for the aluminotay and the anti-Christ and these
kinds of, you know, projections do exist with the concept
that we will have the screening of 666 in our hands or
foreheads.

Now I may be making fun of it in a way but maybe it's
true, the old story about paranoia. If people really follow
you. So maybe you need to know that Adam Sandler is the
anti-Christ, and the reasoning is it is who else could have
gotten people to see the movie Water Boy?