“Why support Israel?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 17- 23, 2012, 17.

WHY SUPPORT ISRAEL?

As election season is heating up, the presumed Republican presidential contender, Mitt Romney, has made his way to Israel to garner Jewish support and raise funds for his campaign. The Obama administration responded with security support and loan guarantees, sending Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, to meet with his counterparts.

Are Iran’s nuclear ambitions the glue that binds Israeli and American interests in the Middle-East? Is the claim that Israel is the only legitimate democracy in the region the main focus for American support? Or, as some would have us believe, is the Jewish lobby in America (AIPAC) really that strong to secure political support?

We should recall that the USSR was more eager to support the establishment of a socialist-leaning Israel during the 1947 two-state UN resolution that the US which was uneasy at the time to get involved in the post-British Mandate.

As my American girlfriend (who is Christian) was visiting me in Israel, and as I was showing her around the holy sites of the Abrahamic religions (Jewish, Christian, Muslim), it dawned on me that despite politicians’ proclamations about democracy, they are in fact concerned about other issues. It’s not quite hypocrisy, but confusion.

Let me explain. Democracy is a valuable political ideal, especially when compared to other political systems, such as dictatorship or tyranny (military or other). Democratic nations tend to promote human rights, value equality and freedom, and are based on the rule of law.

But if Israel’s democracy were the lynchpin for American foreign policy in the region, then any other nascent democracy would do as well. How about the democratically-elected Palestinian Authority? Why are we stymied by the results of the Arab Spring? If the majority of Egyptians prefer the Muslim Brotherhood, who are we to object? Why vex nostalgically about the good old days of President Mubarak?

One could cynically suggest that at least Mubarak guaranteed the peace agreement brokered by President Carter in 1979, and provided, as of 2008 some 60 billion cubic feet of natural gas annually through a direct pipeline from Egypt to Israel. He controlled the military and the military controlled the country, hence Mubarak had his way, even when it got to Israel. American annual foreign aid ($1.55 billion) reflects this point.

If democracy isn’t the most important reason for American support of Israel, two other standard arguments remain. One has to do with strategic alliance, harkening back to the Cold War when the Soviet Union supported the Arab world while America supported Israel and Turkey. Israel could test American weapons in the region—there were many wars since 1948—and provide feedback on potential improvements. This military-alliance argument remains central in current debates regarding an attack on (almost nuclear ready) Iran, with no mention of Israel’s own nuclear capability and its refusal to sign the international non-proliferation treaty.

Given that the US has engaged in two wars against Iraq without any Israeli involvement (other than intelligence), this argument is weak. We are left with the Jewish-factor argument, one that has veiled anti-Semitic undertones. If American Jews are rich and control the liberal media, they have undue influence over politicians of both parties; in order to get the “Jewish vote,” presidential and congressional candidates support Israel. This assumes that Jews and Israelis are interchangeable, which of course isn’t true.

The casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is the poster-child of this view. Should one example be generalized about a whole minority? No. There are as many Jews who support Israeli policies as those who oppose them; there are as many poor Jews as there are rich ones; and there are as many liberal Jews as there are conservative. Not all Jews are alike.

Annual foreign aid to Israel ($3.1 billion) as well as to other Middle-East countries is in fact domestic subsidy since all expenditures are to be spent here on grain or arms, unlike the billions handed out to local chieftains in Iraq and Afghanistan. It therefore has wide congressional support; it’s pork barrel policies.

So, what is it that compels America to support Israel? It’s the religious holy sites! If America were to gamble on who would protect them, ensure that Christian pilgrims who come to Israel annually can worship peacefully (53% of 3.5 million tourists), it would be on Israel rather than any other Arab state. This is the tipping point that moves Americans of all Christian denominations to support Israel as the custodian of the holy land.

Driving from Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee to Jerusalem, it became clear that a free Israel welcomes pilgrims from around the world, inviting them to worship safely and respectfully, with guards in every gate and on every rooftop.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

      

 

“Mandatory service,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 10 - 16, 2012, 17.

MANDATORY SERVICE

Years ago one of my daughters thought she wanted to become a politician. When asked what would prepare her for the job, she confidently answered that she’d need to enlist in the military. If I’m going to approve funding for wars, she said, I should know what it’s like to fight in one.

Perhaps she was influenced by her father who served in the IDF, where there is mandatory service of three years for men and two years for women. There is something quite reassuring when you look around you and know that everyone served in the military, just like you. Perhaps she was simply young and idealistic, wanting to serve her country.

Unlike the voluntary American military service and its two-tiered system of enlistment, the IDF enlist everyone at the private level and then promotes through the ranks according to merit. Even the Chief of Staff began as a private.

There is something to say about this egalitarian system where everyone gives according to his/her ability (my brother-in-law had a leg problem and worked in the computer center) and in return has his/her security needs met.

But what if you are a conscientious objector or pacifist? You can always opt out and join instead one of the many civil-service agencies. Contributing to the whole binds the population together in ways that foster a sense of citizenship and a stake in one’s country, unless you are an ultra-orthodox Jew.

For some reason—concern for the ability to fully practice religion?—orthodox Jews were exempted from military service since the founding of the state in 1948. Year after year, a brokered deal was in place with weak coalition governments (in which minority religious parties traditionally hold the balance of power for parliamentary control) that prolonged this exemption.

Now its extension has expired (August 1^st) by order of the Supreme Court as a discriminatory practice that violates another, more basic law, about human rights and equality (except Arab Israelis whose rights and duties differ from those of their Jewish counterparts—but this is another issue altogether).

As long as religious leaders were able to cut their own deals behind closed doors and prop up prime-ministers whose majority rule was so slim that their support was crucial for surviving a no-confidence vote, there was little public outrage. But as the centrist party, Kadima (Forward), made it a condition of its continued participation in the current coalition government it has to leave the coalition.

With fourteen political parties making up the 120 membership Knesset (parliament), one can imagine the ongoing mayhem of bringing together competing ideological stances and delivering on promises to constituents. And this doesn’t even include the twenty-one parties represented in municipalities but not in the Knesset. It’s a mess, lively and active, personal and contentious.

Kadima left the ruling coalition, bringing a comfortable super-majority government of 94 down to 66. The Supreme Court’s decision went into effect, and the Knesset is on summer recess till mid-October. The defense department, headed by a member of the ruling coalition, has already suggested it’s not ready to deal with such a large influx of soldiers all at once, so a wait-and-see policy is in effect by default.

Do principles matter? Or does political reality necessitate pandering to those who wield disproportionate power to form coalition governments? Between principles and practice the gap is so wide that nothing will be accomplished soon. But this doesn’t mean that these principles are irrelevant or should be compromised. It’s almost as bad as claiming that “all men are created equal” and overlooking slavery or women’s rights. It took us almost two centuries to get it right; let’s see how quickly the Israelis catch up.

Israel is a young nation that needs guidance. Stubborn and self-righteous as it is, it does have serious national security issues unlike those we have faced in America, primarily because of the proximity of enemy states. Its legitimacy as a state is continuously questioned, and some of its neighbors are bound to annihilate it when the opportunity arises. Numbers do matter when it relates to land-mass and population size.

Perhaps it is with this in mind that it’s puzzling to see a large minority of self-proclaimed religionists enjoy the fruits of the state—claiming educational and welfare rights and funding—while refusing to share in the burdens and duties facing every citizen. If it were only unfair and hypocritical, it would be lamentable; but it’s dangerous as well, and that is unforgiveable.

Equality among people is a religious principle, after all, since we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord, right? Why not extend this to duties as well?

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who served in the IDF. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

“The right, and duty, to bear arms,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 3 - 9, 2012, 25.

GUN RIGHTS AND DUTIES

Admittedly, one has a different perspective when writing from the most militarized nation on earth, Israel. National security isn’t simply a political excuse for parliamentary debate but a real survival matter for a tiny country surrounded by enemies who publicly declare their intention to destroy it. Military might is a watchword even for peace-lovers who’d give up the West Bank in a two-state solution to the Palestinian right of independence.

Whatever one reads here, there is no mention of personal gun rights or the ideology of a lone rider shooting his way through Indian (or Palestinian) territories. Instead, there is shock and horror over the Aurora shooting. One hears a relieved sigh, It can only happen in America.

Perhaps it’s the fact that most public places have guards that check one’s backpack and purse; perhaps it’s a greater awareness that suicide-bombers have caused enough damage over the years; it might even be a general psychosis that informs everyone about living in a military zone, despite exterior conviviality. The fact is, one must be vigilant and keep a watchful eye on one’s surroundings.

This is in no way to say that someone could have prevented a nut-case from opening fire in a crowded movie-theater. The consensus is that with enough intent and planning, one can cause harm anywhere in the world. But there is also a consensus in Israel that cultural cues and training may help create an atmosphere and mindset where citizens can expect to live a normal life under abnormal conditions.

The new normal in Israel differs from that of Colorado when it gets to guns and security, patrolling one’s borders and airports. But public debate about such issues is radically different, and perhaps informative.

While Americans of all stripes—see both Obama and Romney on the issue—publicly declare their support for gun ownership and the right “to bear arms,” in Israel the issue revolves around duties to protect one’s country. Israeli media is enmeshed in a parliamentary debate over the duty of ultra-Orthodox Jews to join the Israeli Defense Forces and bear equal burdens as secular citizens.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution has two versions, one passed by Congress that states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” the other ratified by the states and authenticated by Jefferson, Secretary of State at the time that reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right…”

In his Law’s Empire (1986), Ronald Dworkin spends an entire chapter to the different punctuation of the this amendment, claiming that if one follows the grammatical conventions of the time, the right to bear arms was associated with the formation of militias and not attributable to individuals. This, of course, isn’t what the Supreme Court decided in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller when it reaffirmed the right of individuals to bear arms, overturning the District’s restrictions.

What gets lost in the American debate, especially when intellectual light-weights join the conversation from both political parties, is the realization that in a democracy that holds the rule of law paramount, there are no rights without duties. One’s right ought to be proportional to one’s duties. The assumption is that we are dealing with responsible adults.

Will the horrific Aurora case change anything? There are 49,762 licensed gun dealers in the US and 7,261 pawn shops that sell guns; about 30,000 people die annually from firearms, half are suicide cases (NYT). To some extent, we have to change the public discourse if we want to have a useful conversation with the National Rifle Association.

First, gun ownership shouldn’t be understood as an absolute right. Just as equality isn’t an absolute principle—we have laws and policies about equal opportunity—so must our understanding of gun rights be circumscribed with greater regulations (perhaps a few weeks of waiting period is reasonable, just as we wait for liquor licenses).

Second, gun rights should be accompanied by duties. These duties shouldn’t be limited to the permit fee, but also to training and annual classes where gun owners should reconsider why they own their guns and under what circumstances they should or shouldn’t use them.

Third, gun ownership should be understood as a personal responsibility to one’s community. As such, each gun owner should contribute ten hours a year to help law-enforcement agencies, for example, or participate in mandatory exercises, depending on each community’s needs.

One needn’t be for or against guns, but rather approach the topic as a political issue worthy of public debate with reasonable solutions.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

 

 

 

“Let’s just follow Denver,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 27 – August 2, 2012, 19.

FOLLOW DENVER

As I arrived in Israel, I was thinking about a tale of two cities, but not Dickens’. Though I was born in Haifa, I’m staying in Tel Aviv, about one hour south. These two cities parallel Colorado Springs and Denver, respectively, one hour by car but light-years apart.

Haifa and CS have about the same size population, one half million, and their own reputations: Haifa has traditionally been the labor stronghold, the proud home of the Technion (Israel’s MIT), and the world center of the Baha’i (with gardens meandering down the hill to the Mediterranean Sea), while CS is a conservative stronghold with Focus on The Family headquarters, the USOC, AFA, and UCCS.

Tel Aviv and Denver have populations that exceed one million (depending on how one counts), and their own reputations: TA is the party mecca of Israel, competing with Paris and London for all-night clubs, high fashion, high-tech, banking, and cosmopolitan sophistication, while Denver has successfully climbed up the national ladder as a convention center, communication industries, professional athletic teams, and overall commercial appeal.

Haifa has always been the ugly sister of TA, just as CS remains the secondary city in Colorado. Haifa stayed the course of isolation and self-loathing, internal community squabbles, and lack of leadership or vision. After decades of false starts, it lags behind its ascending counterpart to the south.

CS has likewise not kept up with the growth of Denver, choosing instead to maintain a parochial approach to its self-image. A friend who bought a house in CS and one in Denver about fifteen years ago for the same price reports that while his CS’ house has doubled in value, his Denver place has appreciated ten-fold. Anecdotes, when factual, capture much.

Denver had a visionary mayor who is now our governor, John Hickenlooper. Yes, he is a Democrat by party affiliation, but if you were to judge him on either Coast, he’d definitely be considered a Republican centrist. He is so pro-business that he’s letting fracking (hydraulic fracturing), for example, go on with limited regulation till proven that more is needed.

But even this pro-business politician was keen on raising taxes in Denver in order to ensure a strong infrastructure (with voters’ approval). This, incidentally, didn’t deter corporate America from flocking into town, but rather was a necessary ingredient in their decision to move there. Why?

Tax-burden on corporate entities is only one of many variables that figure into choosing a location. Good roads and bridges, public transportation, police and fire departments, schools and universities, hospitals and concert halls, restaurants and bars, athletic facilities and parks, are much more important!

If a broad tax base ensures all of the above and is used judiciously to provide a wide-range of options for people, the sting of taxes is not only acceptable but even welcome. Cities have to offer the foundation, and private enterprise will follow. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Until the Waldo Canyon fire CS played the “let the marketplace do its thing” game: private enterprise will fill the gaps left by inadequate public funding, from the symphony and FAC to USOC and Uncle Wilbur. Isn’t Pikes Peak enough?

Despite its quirky reputation for religious headquarters and mega-churches (all of whom enjoy special tax status), CS still owns a hospital and utilities. MHS is being sold (unless some genius in CS’ leadership derails this), but CSU is still proudly managed by incompetent, small-town executives who are way over their head.

Follow Denver! That’s all we need to do if we plan to be like our big sister to the north rather than Pueblo (which has a nicer downtown river-walk and historic buildings). Denver got it right: it has a great infrastructure with multiple museums and a core downtown that draws tourists and conventioneers.

Recall the Broadmoor derailing a downtown convention center for decades, as if two are not better than one. An old professor of mine taught me years ago: there is plenty of room at the top; it’s not a pyramid. Recall decades of studies that yielded no results because downtown development would necessitate floating bonds. No financial infusion of city funds, no local development—the equation is easy to figure out. But as real entrepreneurs know: there must be more than one equation worth checking out.

As Councilman Leigh is willing to challenge CSU’s operations, old, small-town minds keep silencing him, worrying that back-room contracts might see the light of day. No matter how hard CSU circles its wagons, let’s follow Denver and keep a water department while selling all else. If we don’t, we’ll turn into another Haifa where the sidewalks are rolled up early to ensure a good night’s sleep.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

   

“Simple questions about water,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 20 - 26, 2012, 19.

WATERWORKS

As the Waldo Canyon Fire made abundantly clear, we need to think about water in the arid high desert in which we live. To the question “How much water consumption do we have in CS?,” Mark Murphy, of CSU’s Public Affairs Division, responded: “Our average annual consumption in recent years has been about 27 billion gallons/83,000 acre-feet.”

Gary Bostrom, who is the Chief Water Services Officer at CSU, refused to answer any questions regarding water consumption or conservation. It took two weeks to move from one department to the other to get simple answers to simple questions. Is this the most efficient manner to respond to public inquiries?

Perhaps CSU needs to justify its bloated Public Affairs Division’s budget. How many employees does it take for Mr. Murphy to respond? One is tempted to throw in a joke about screwing a light bulb, but perhaps this would hit too close to home. Did CEO Forte or the big boss, Mr. Hente, the chairman of the CSU board, gave such orders to make sure no one knows what is done at CSU. Circling the Wagons?

Apparently, efficiency and transparency are not on their agenda. No, this is not picking on anyone in particular, just pointing out a culture of waste that probably will be shoved under the rug now that the big fire consumes all our attention. Isn’t it petty to pick at CSU when CS is burning? On the contrary, it’s what should be done.

Do we have enough reserves, long term contracts, or is this an annual matter? According to CSU’s spokesperson, “We currently have about two years of demand in storage, which we feel is adequate. We typically do not lease water from other sources other than our yield from the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, which is an annual purchase; all our water is yield from the many water rights the city owns. We have on occasion purchased water from other providers, but those have been on a spot market basis and not long-term arrangements.”

How much does CSU charge (in the aggregate) for water, and how much does it pay for it? Answer: “As a not-for-profit, municipal utility, our goal is to recover only the cost of service and keep rates as low as possible.” But what are the numbers? Why bother asking if CSU refuses to answer those who are actually paying? It didn’t seem like a tricky question. Perhaps as users we should just trust CSU. Really?

What conservation efforts have you undertaken lately? A lengthy answer here: “State drought conditions have increased customer awareness for the value of water.  Additionally, we offer a number of free resources - from xeriscape classes to online conservation tools. Our customers may also qualify for money-saving rebates for installing or upgrading irrigation equipment and efficient appliances (http://www.csu.org/residential/water/Pages/waterefficiency.aspx).

Of note, we continue to help the Colorado Springs Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department modernize its irrigation systems and update [its] water efficiency practices for sustainable water savings. Our staff members have conducted water audits, made landscape changes and system upgrades, such as installing more efficient sprinkler heads, rain sensors and irrigation controllers to help save water while benefiting our community. These improvements, along with a water conservation rate applied to more than 130 parks, ha[ve] resulted in healthier turf and a decrease in parks water use by nearly 20 percent.

Our customers continue to conserve. The combination of ongoing customer information, rebates, and tiered water pricing based on use has resulted in a 21.5 percent decrease in water use per person compared to 2001.”

And, finally, is there a correlation between rate increase and decrease in consumption? What's the tipping point? The answer: “There is a price for essential indoor use, a moderate price for typical outdoor use and a higher price for excess use. Calculations are based on monthly use.  One cubic foot (CF) equals 7.48 gallons. Up to 999 CF 2.51 cents/CF; 1,000 to 2,499 CF 4.68 cents/CF; More than 2,500 CF 6.91 cents/CF. Average monthly water use is 1,100 cubic feet (8,228 gallons), resulting in a bill of $46.08. This is equal to about six-tenths of a cent per gallon.” No answer to the question at hand.

This trend is in line with an article titled “Residential water use trends in North America” (2011) that concludes: “when controlling for weather and other variables, the evident decline in residential use was pervasive among the national and regional components of the study. A household in the 2008 billing year used 11,678 gallons less water annually than an identical household di in 1978.”

Except for PR silliness, the Water Department is on board with the rest of the country. It therefore seems reasonable to follow Denver’s lead and keep it, while selling the rest of CSU.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

“Consider a paradigm shift,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 13 - 19, 2012, 19.

PARADIGM SHIFT

It used to be called a paradigm shift. This happens in scientific circles when we move from one framework where our assumptions and methods can no longer solve problems to another where they can. The shift occurs because the old paradigm can no longer accommodate new variables or solve new problems. We must change some assumptions, even our methods of inquiry.

It’s still a mystery when exactly such shifts take place. At times, there is an obvious observation that contradicts old ideas—think of Galileo and his telescope confirming a heliocentric worldview away from the geocentric one. He was considered a heretic by the Catholic Church not because of his observations, but because they shattered a Biblical view about the earth being at the center of the universe.

We don’t hear much about paradigm shifts anymore. Instead, we hear about something being a “game-changer” that eventually becomes a “new normal.” Paradigm seems too archaic and cumbersome a term, especially as the person most credited with its coinage, Thomas Kuhn, was accused of having more than thirty five definitions for it.

As the Waldo Canyon Fire recedes into our collective history—a horrific natural disaster whose price will be paid for months and years—it can be seen as a game-changer for us as a community. It has forced us to rethink who we are and what we value. Solidarity isn’t a term we might have used before, but one we can use now; government assistance is something some have dreaded, but was essential to save lives and property.

The fire will be remembered by Americans across the land, making them more reluctant to come as tourists. So, tourism as we have known it in the cool and dry summers of Colorado may change as well. Our new normal may look quite differently from what it has looked in the past, especially when the state boasted that in 2011 we claimed 2.7% of the US travel market.

The total spending on overnight trips during 2011 was $10.76 billion, hosting a record 57.9 million travelers. Of them, 29 million were overnight visitors. The Colorado Tourism Office’s budget for 2011 was $13.3 million. Not a bad return on investment!

Our local economy is diversified enough that we aren’t as reliant on tourism as, say, Breckenridge, Vail, or Aspen. But we should revitalize our own Convention & Visitors Bureau—finding young and creative leaders rather than hiring outsiders who come to retire here.

One can see this kind of transformation or paradigm shift in San Miguel de Allende. Narco-trade has given Mexico such a terrible reputation around the world that tourism has dropped perceptibly. A desired destination for Canadian and American tourists and host to about 10,000 expats (out of a population of 70,000), San Miguel suffers from many empty restaurants and galleries.

A city founded in 1542, San Miguel is old and magnificent, with cobbled streets and three-meter walls, colorful and quiet, perched on hills some 250 kilometers north of Mexico City. Its European ambience is sophisticated the way the old world has always been, knowingly avoiding the latest trends to assure the continuity of tradition. Yes, they do have televisions and Internet connectivity. But the cuisine remains seasonal.

As tourism declined in the past few years, and as money transfers from Mexicans working in the US has shrunk (estimates put the annual amount around $20 billion), San Miguel’s largest industry remains strong: dairy. The new normal there has lowered real-estate speculation, because foreigners are not flocking there as they used to. The recent rigged election of the PRI isn’t helping in assuring Americans Mexico is their favored destination.

Just as San Miguel had to adjust because of circumstances not of its own doing, so will Colorado Springs have to adjust as well. We may have to rethink our tourism industry and promote cycling, for example, more than ever. Likewise, we’ll have to rethink our dependence on national defense budgets, and develop related high-tech industries that have broader applications.

The fire has definitely been a game-changer for us: we learned what it means to be a community (despite some ugly manifestations to the contrary among burglars and thieves). Coming together we can even try and change our national image of a silly conservative holdout that refuses to invest in its infrastructure. We may not become liberals in any sense of the term, yet we can be republicans.

When Michael Sandel urges us to recall our republican heritage, he suggests we consider having a “public philosophy” that stresses building virtues among the citizenry the way our founding father envisioned them. This doesn’t mean choosing specific ends, but recognizing ourselves as members of a community that cares.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Fires and human nature,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 6 - 12, 2012, 17.

HUMAN FIRES

The great Waldo Canyon fires affecting Colorado Springs is different from other wild fires in the west because of its proximity to a large metropolitan area. And this fact brings to light human generosity in the face of disasters.

Western traditions have held to one of three competing views of human nature: we are either good by nature, bad, or neither (clean slate, tabula rasa). Obviously, each view of human nature spun a set of ideas about who we are and how we should interact with each other.

If all humans are good by nature, rules and regulations are superfluous, because we’d be nice to each other whenever possible. Jean Jacque Rousseau suggested that in addition to our survival instincts we are endowed with compassion or pity, and therefore would agree to enter into a social contract.

According to one interpretation, Roman Catholics who believe in Original Sin set up numerous injunctions to ensure peaceful coexistence among us. If we are evil by nature, a police state (in addition to God) can potentially guarantee safety.

Those who assume that we are by nature a clean slate believe that we can steer people to do the right thing (nature vs. nurture). The Enlightenment ideals about education eventually made their way to contemporary culture. Prison reform is based on this view of human nature.

Business-people still want to know: why bother with three alternative views, when one will do? Knowing our nature can help organize corporate structures and incentives, help in marketing goods and services, and justify a whole range of attitudes about competition, greed, and success.

Beyond business interest, there is a broader interest in human nature as it relates to the debate between rugged individualism and communitarian collaboration. Sometimes this debate is couched in terms of minimal government intervention, at others as the nuisance of taxation.

We may never lay to rest this debate or many others that are rooted in our views of human nature. Edward O. Wilson, the famed Harvard socio-biologist who specializes in the study of ants, recently suggested that human evolution happens both on the individual and the social level, thus bridging many differences in evolutionary theory.

For him, a multi-level selection is in place or what he calls a “gene-culture coevolution.” This means that just as natural selection on the genetic level continues to remain operational from one generation to another, there is also a cultural selection where groups ward off enemies and ensure the survival of group members, retaining certain cultural traits over others.

This discussion matters especially when catastrophes come about. New Yorkers with a national reputation of rudeness and selfishness, competition and greed, distrust and fear behaved quite differently as the Twin Towers fell on 9/11. Was it their true nature? Or were they pretending to be nice in front of television cameras?

The shock of the attack made people realize that what they had in common was much more important than their differences. They came together as residents of a great city and not as individuals fighting each other. It took 9/11 to remind them of these simple but profound facts of life.

The same can be said of the Waldo Canyon fires here. The instinctive and natural responses have been quite remarkable. Perhaps these responses say much more about human nature than many textbooks can: when under fire, people seek each other’s comfort and help, and acts of selfless generosity are bound to surface.

More importantly, it becomes clear that those wanting to eliminate all government agencies or starve their funding out of existence are mistaken. They may score points at some conservative think tanks or among those listening to some radio shows. But in the real world, a world that brings about wild fires and flash floods, individual heroism goes only so far.

Only with a well-trained and well-funded Fire Department can a city like ours afford to coordinate fighting fires, evacuating residents, and rescuing those trapped in a bad situation. You can sing the praises of rugged individualism all day long, you can flaunt your handgun to protect your home, but without a unionized fire force, you’d be out of luck, overwhelmed by forces greater than yours.

And guess what? To maintain a standing force, you must pay taxes. This ensures funding that hopefully will never be used, but when needed, will be readily available. Contributions pour in during emergencies—but without prior planning and coordination, without policies and procedures in place, chaos ensues.

The Lesson of the day is that it’s not about more government or none at all, but about the optimal size that is required to maintain our social contract. May we never have to test its effectiveness.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“10 ideas that could change our city,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, June 29 – July 5, 2012, 25.

CITY MANIFESTO

Cities are built by visionaries or economic necessities (trade routes, ports). Ours has a history of great men, from General Palmer to Stratton and Penrose, who have thought of making our town a better place to live for future generations. We don’t need a gold rush to have a vision, only some dedication and goodwill.

While the Mayor is busy cleaning up city administration after decades of benign neglect bordering on fiduciary delinquency, and City Council is figuring out its job description after changes in the city charter, let me dare dream.

First, as part of the city structural cleanup, we should divest ourselves from any and all entities that are not essential to our operation. Sell or lease Memorial Hospital, Utilities, and the Airport. There is a twofold urgency for this: ridding ourselves of entities we cannot manage efficiently or oversee responsibly, and providing funds to pay for all the ideas listed below. Lease revenues (or outright sale) should be set aside in a special account for long-term projects and initiatives without the need of additional taxes or fees.

Second, we should build on the presence of the USOC and focus on athletic activities. We cannot expect professional teams to move here, so instead we should become the center of handicap/special tournaments (including veterans). A downtown complex (perhaps in place of the Drake power plant) would revitalize the city and draw tourists from across America. Every major city (see Denver) has realized this fact.

Third, if indeed University of Colorado Health System takes over Memorial and opens a branch at UCCS, we should ask for it to become dedicated to sports medicine—training, nutrition, treatment. The synergy between USOC, UCCS, and MHS could become a national model. This is not about money but about an execution of ideas in the most efficient way, using the talent we have and responding to community needs.

Fourth, given the many veterans that we have in town, we should integrate them into the previous two ideas, whatever the conditions under which they are discharged. The military has some resources that could be part of what the city plans to do. Whether as participants or fans, veterans should be made to feel as part of the city. They cannot be heroes abroad and pariahs at home.

Fifth, get the business community more involved in education (K-12). Our very own Steve Schuck spearheaded the school voucher initiative that brought about charter schools around the state. The Chamber of Commerce should follow this lead and ensure that graduation rates from our school districts are no longer an embarrassment. School reform should be local (rather than the disastrous federal mandate of No Child Left Behind), but to be meaningful it requires local pressure so as to change entrenched attitudes.

Sixth, we have the bright light of an expanding UCCS, an engine of economic development that can produce new innovations. The Silicon Valley in California proves that academic centers are the foundations of business prosperity. Let our own Digital Rockies serve this role here.

Seventh, as we focus on our indigenous talents and brain-power, we should also take advantage of the natural beauty that surrounds us. Perhaps the leadership of local tourism should be placed in the hands of thirty-something that can generate the kind of excitement the future of our town can enjoy.

Eighth, since attracting tourists and newcomers is still our vision of growth, let’s stop urban or suburban sprawl and focus on the center of town. If you visit any great city in America, you begin with downtown, and not some faraway development. Urban “filling” would also reduce the pressure on our inadequate infrastructure—from sewage lines to fire and police stations.

Ninth, in order to combat the impression that we are religious extremists, let’s emphasize religious diversity and harmony, agreeing on some common religious principles. UCCS’s Center for Religious Diversity and Public Life is only a starting point; the city should foster such initiatives to foster tolerance.

Tenth, if we agree to adopt any of the above initiatives and change our mindset as an emerging mid-size city rather than a small town below Pike’s Peak, we need to promote civility among all stakeholders, from the Mayor to City Council, all the way to every department head and city employee, and the rest of us. We need to learn to exchange ideas passionately but respectfully.

If we execute only half of these ideas in the next year or two, it’ll be amazing. If we execute them all, we would become a model city rather than a national laughing stock of religious fanatics and narrow-minded conservatives. We deserve a better reputation than that. But we must earn it first.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Let’s use common sense,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, June 22 - 28, 2012, 19.

COMMON SENSE

Even the greatest logicians and scientists agree that the most sophisticated formulae can be explained in simple, common sense terms to anyone. If we agree that A is different from not A, or that if A leads to B, and B leads to C, that A therefore leads to C, we can communicate with each other. According to Laplace, “the theory of probabilities is at bottom nothing but common sense reduced to calculus.”

Communication between business partners or between the Mayor and Council is then something that can be achieved. In simple terms, without the aid of experts and specialists, any two people can exchange views and respond to those of others, even when disagreeing with each other.

This was the central idea that governed the writing of our founding fathers in regards to political life conducted by farmers and merchants. Benjamin Franklin warned against paying high salaries to congressional representatives so as not to attract professional politicians.

A farmer can understand the logic of an argument and see through its fallacies; a housewife knows do discern marketing fraud just as well as any expert; and the local retailer figures out quite easily if local politicians are bamboozling him or her. It’s really not that complicated, if you pay attention to common sense.

When esteemed colleagues in the academy tell me that what they work on is too complex to explain to someone like myself, I always encourage them to try. I can only imagine what they say to their unsuspecting students. And when they actually try, two things commonly happen.

Either their explanations make perfect sense; I then understand exactly what they are working on, because they indeed know their “stuff.” Or they fumble terribly, confusing themselves along the way, and ending up so frustrated that they give up. At this point I know they are full of it, and really camouflage their own pretenses with fancy words or formulae. Where is their common sense?

What’s true of the stuffy academic world is true of the public sphere as well. When economists fail to give a simple answer to the question: what should be done to stimulate the economy?, they only prove that theirs is indeed the dismal science or not a science at all. They are clueless, despite fancy computer programs that process mounds of data.

When politicians give similar vague answers to questions, such as: should we intervene in Syria now?, they betray their own insincerities. Of course geopolitical variables come into play: what about the Russians and the Chinese? What about Turkey and Iran? Can we afford a military engagement in another theater? But the complexity of the situation alone doesn’t justify not giving an answer at all.

What common sense forces us to do is get beyond the fancy wordings of our arguments and dissertations, and simply convey the values that guide us. Common sense can tease them out from the complex double-talk politicians have mastered over the years. Just tell us that you believe in personal responsibility and therefore want no government intervention, and we can get it.

But common sense also exacts a price: you must be consistent. You can’t say that you want the government off your back but then ask it to handle your retirement in the form of Social Security and Medicare. When Bush tried to privatize Social Security, even his fellow Republicans were not pleased (because of their constituents of senior citizens), and he had to give up on his initiative.

In some bizarre ways, no American president has been able to be consistent in the application of his ideology—compromises abound. So, why harp on local politicians and their inadequacies? Why chide the Council president, for example, who wonders why I don’t like him. Guess what, Mr. Hente, I don’t know you well enough to form a personal opinion about you. My complaint is always philosophical, that is, one rooted in the common sense idea of a Social Contract. Have you used it lately in your dealings with CSU?

Common sense tells me that there ought to be a division of labor between the Mayor and Council; it also tells me that each ought to be responsible for overseeing various government entities. That’s simple enough. What’s not so simple is how they perform their oversight jobs. No, expertise isn’t essential, but knowing what you vote on is: read the documents before you vote! As one can observe from CSU’s board meetings, unanimous votes are routine. Should they be?

Perhaps Emerson was right when he lamented that “common sense is not so common.” Let’s prove him wrong and find common ground in common sense for responsible governance.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who teaches the use of common sense. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Let’s talk about blue gold,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, June 15 - 21, 2012, 19.

BLUE GOLD

As the 2008 documentary “Blue Gold” suggests, there are bound to be world water wars in the next few decades, as the survival of our civilization will depend on scarce water resources. Just as we are fighting over oil resources now, so will we declare war around the globe to control water.

More than 70% of the surface of our planet is covered by water, admittedly mostly salty; our bodies are between 50-60% water, including our blood and brain-matter; and most of what we eat and drink includes high percentage of water (97% in beer).

It’s the process of evaporation, condensation, precipitation, surface runoff, and accumulation that eventually allows us to have enough water for agriculture and drinking. And as global warming engulfs us—despite deniers out there in wishful-thinking land—and a population growth of seven billion inhabitants, water is becoming more precious every day.

Colorado offers a unique set of conditions of what the future holds. Last year we had a record snowfall of 525 inches during the ski season; this year it’s reminiscent of the snow draught of the early 1980s; snowpack in the Colorado River basin is 44% of last year’s record level, and 63% of the annual average.

During the 2002 Hayman fire that consumed around 138,000 acres, I recall having to ration water to my restaurant customers: only when asked, could we offer water. A glass of water wastes another when washed. Cars couldn’t be washed with garden hoses, and lawns had to be watered on assigned days only.

When precipitation was zero this March, climatologists took little comfort in the relatively good reservoir levels we enjoy. Their worries are about a year from now, if warmer weather persists. We can perform rain dances, as some chiefs were asked to do for snow in Vail this past ski season; others have suggested magnetic air-spray Ion-generators as a means of forming rain clouds.

Can we bring market wisdom to water? First, local conditions: we live in the high desert, despite pretty lakes and snow-covered mountains. It’s dry here. Second, given limited supply and an ongoing increase in demand, prices should be going up. Third, since we despise government subsidies, let prices reflect the true cost of water.

So, if you insist on growing Kentucky-like grass in your backyard, you should pay full price for this Midwestern luxury. What happened to xeriscaping or xerogardening as ways to reduce or eliminate the need for supplemental water from irrigation? What happened to drip-irrigation systems (originally developed in Israel in the late 1960s)?

Our aesthetic addiction to green lawns may harken as far back to some European ancestors from England or Ireland; it may be more recently associated with transplants coming from the Midwest of East Coast where golf courses dot the landscape that was once farming land. Can our water supplies support fifteen golf courses around town?

The quality of our water is good enough not to warrant buying water bottles (see the 2012 “Drinking Water Quality Report”). Mayor Bloomberg admonished New Yorker not to waste on average $3,000 annually on bottled water and drink tap water which would cost them only $30 annually. His worry was about the city’s landfill, something we can ignore because our city doesn’t collect garbage.

As we plan the sale of CSU, and as we are bound to deal with our agreement with Pueblo in regards to stormwater controls and the Southern Delivery System, here is what we can do.

First, separate the Water Department from the rest of CSU. Outside of historical precedence, energy concerns are different from water issues, and should be treated as such. This would also protect water contracts and agreements for the long-term regardless of the power-plants’ sale.

Second, whatever the price of water today, it should be doubled as soon as possible. We should use market mechanisms not only to reflect today’s reality (costs) but encourage long-term planning that would ensure future water supplies. Conservation behavior will become a byproduct of this price increase, a much more effective tool than yet another set of regulations.

Third, until we begin to sell our natural gas to out of state customers (in the Midwest), and then buy their water (from the great lakes), we should cherish our shrinking water resources. It’s an asset we should protect.

And finally, when you brush your teeth or shave, turn off the water till you rinse; when you shower, make it as short as possible; and when you drink, refill your own bottle and sip slowly. It all makes financial sense, while being mindful of living in the desert. 

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who dreamed of ranching in the Negev but couldn’t afford to buy water. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com