No deep thoughts this week.
Some interesting links:
This is both creepy and totally fascinating. When I was reading this article, I was mesmerized in the same way you might be mesmerized when watching a gruesome B-grade horror movie: wanting to look away but not being able to.
Another science achievement - are cyborgs soon to be found among us?
And a potential hallmark for science - the discovery of life under the Arctic.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Links
Some interesting mid-week links:
A video post of a father of one of the Sandy Hook victims speaks in front of a panel of reviewers of gun laws.
An interesting mention in the New York Times about the current state of affairs for the jobless in America - and how new jobs aren't career positions, but instead low-wage, temp jobs.
A reddit thread on job enjoyment, with some interesting input.
Freeman's commentary on anti-discrimination legislation, and a blog post that takes it further in some respects.
And lastly, an article about how state workforce commissions are imposing fees upon the jobless by mandating that they collect their unemployment benefits on bank-issued debit cards.
A video post of a father of one of the Sandy Hook victims speaks in front of a panel of reviewers of gun laws.
An interesting mention in the New York Times about the current state of affairs for the jobless in America - and how new jobs aren't career positions, but instead low-wage, temp jobs.
A reddit thread on job enjoyment, with some interesting input.
Freeman's commentary on anti-discrimination legislation, and a blog post that takes it further in some respects.
And lastly, an article about how state workforce commissions are imposing fees upon the jobless by mandating that they collect their unemployment benefits on bank-issued debit cards.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Legislative Racism: On Mandating Racism Through Legislative Reform
Let me begin this essay by giving a disclaimer: what I'm going to discuss here is going to be perceived as somewhat inflammatory, and it might upset some of my regular readers. Having said that, know that you've been warned, and feel free to read on or leave.
Monday 21 January was a recognized holiday here in the United States. It was the day designated to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. , a respected and well-known civil rights activist who was heavily involved in the early civil rights movement here in the States.
I applaud the civil rights movement - especially in its earliest forms - and I have the highest respect for those who pioneered it in its infancy. I am hesitant, however, to use the phrase "civil rights movement" in today's highly sterilized western culture, and I want to talk about why and what that means for our future as a culture.
Its important to note, from the beginning, that the civil rights movement here in the United States was born from a long history of oppressive regulations that prevented African-Americans from enjoying the same rights as Caucasian Americans. I could list a number of them here, but there's no need, you can visit the Wikipedia article to learn more about that, or do a little digging on other sites and find plenty of information on your own. What matters is that out of this oppression, a cultural shift was conceived and born, and from that we now have governmental statutes and regulations that protect the status of minority groups and their rights here in the United States.
This is all well and good. In fact, it may arguably be, from a systems analysis perspective, the duty of a democratic government to protect the rights of all its citizens, including minority groups. The civil rights movement, in and of itself, originally brought needed change that (hopefully) significantly changed the lives of many Americans. It also, eventually, gave birth to landmark legislation in the United States that changed history. Some of this legislation includes: The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which includes language that prohibits discrimination against ethnic, racial, and religious minorities, and women as well. Also an important element that came from the movement was The Voting Rights Act, which, among other things, prohibited discriminatory voting practices. Affirmative action was created originally by Executive Order 10925 by President Kennedy, and later replaced by Executive Order 11246 under President Johnson, wherein affirmative action referred to the specific acts required of government and government-endowed contractors to take "affirmative action" to ensure that all employees are treated equally and with fairness.
These legislations and executive orders, however, are little more than fodder in the feed mill for the enormous wheels of government busy-work. From these regulations have stemmed entire industries, including most especially the industry of litigation to keep courts mired in perpetually slow-moving trials and motions. Everyone wants equal treatment: its everyone's right as a human being to be treated with respect and dignity. But what is the real underlying current here?
This legislation, whether intentionally or not, singles out certain populace groups. Under the guise of offering protective status, government mandates in the United States are perpetuating a centuries-old, deeply-ingrained tradition of ethnicity and/or gender bias: legislation that ultimately says "you're special, so we're going to offer you, by the grace of our good nature, a special, protected place in our in our peer group. Without our intervention, you cannot possibly hope to merit equal treatment, so we are going to step in and afford you that. Aren't we nice?"
I understand that this is not a commonly held view. But this most especially applies to the quote unquote protecting of the rights of African-American citizens, and those of other racial minorities. There has forever been a divide between white America and ethnic minorities; by ethnic minorities I specifically mean ethnic subgroups within the United States, both protected immigrants and foreign nationals. Events like 9/11 did little to help this, and as we go deeper in the world of "protective" legislation, the commons - in this specifically I mean our collective identity - will suffer more splinterization. Initially, these government mandates have done little in the way of fostering real, lasting ethical treatment of minorities: they've instead created sub-categorizations of industry, which, of course, has led to economic growth. As we've seen, the growth hasn't been sustainable.
One thing needs to be understood: FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT CANNOT BE LEGISLATED. The nontransferable right to be a human being is not given by governments. It is not granted by kings or rules or mandates. It is inherent; it is intrinsic.
Legislation does little except foster splinterization and a further deepening of the already-divisive fissures within our culture. I understand the gravity of the history of discrimination against ethnic minorities in the United States. However, this is not something that vanished with history. There is, potentially, more ethnic and gender discrimination now than has ever existed: women are still earning far less than men, and that doesn't just apply to white people; African-Americans are still overcoming hurdles in the workplace; and then of course there is an endless array of hate crimes still being committed across the United States and beyond. Now, of course, within the United States, dehumanizing compartmentalization has chopped up everything into tiny pieces and divisions, so that discrimination no longer necessarily looks like a burning cross or a evil hooded figure, but it may now come in the form of avoided voice mails, rejection letters stating "thanks but no thanks, we found someone more qualified" or maybe there is no response at all. It may come in the form of more insidious rejections: those that are passed over for promotions, or quietly stereotyped through subtle hints and gestures that can leave little guess as to what they refer.
Perhaps, if we examined our legislative efforts more closely, we might find that underneath it all remains the strong undercurrent of our own biased ethos: maybe we can't see each other as equals, because we've never learned to really appreciate who we are as individuals. Maybe its only through self-examination and reflection that we can learn what it means to be human. And when we get that right, maybe we'll finally start to treat others and we would like to be treated ourselves.
That's the real answer to racism and discriminate treatment.
Monday 21 January was a recognized holiday here in the United States. It was the day designated to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. , a respected and well-known civil rights activist who was heavily involved in the early civil rights movement here in the States.
I applaud the civil rights movement - especially in its earliest forms - and I have the highest respect for those who pioneered it in its infancy. I am hesitant, however, to use the phrase "civil rights movement" in today's highly sterilized western culture, and I want to talk about why and what that means for our future as a culture.
Its important to note, from the beginning, that the civil rights movement here in the United States was born from a long history of oppressive regulations that prevented African-Americans from enjoying the same rights as Caucasian Americans. I could list a number of them here, but there's no need, you can visit the Wikipedia article to learn more about that, or do a little digging on other sites and find plenty of information on your own. What matters is that out of this oppression, a cultural shift was conceived and born, and from that we now have governmental statutes and regulations that protect the status of minority groups and their rights here in the United States.
This is all well and good. In fact, it may arguably be, from a systems analysis perspective, the duty of a democratic government to protect the rights of all its citizens, including minority groups. The civil rights movement, in and of itself, originally brought needed change that (hopefully) significantly changed the lives of many Americans. It also, eventually, gave birth to landmark legislation in the United States that changed history. Some of this legislation includes: The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which includes language that prohibits discrimination against ethnic, racial, and religious minorities, and women as well. Also an important element that came from the movement was The Voting Rights Act, which, among other things, prohibited discriminatory voting practices. Affirmative action was created originally by Executive Order 10925 by President Kennedy, and later replaced by Executive Order 11246 under President Johnson, wherein affirmative action referred to the specific acts required of government and government-endowed contractors to take "affirmative action" to ensure that all employees are treated equally and with fairness.
These legislations and executive orders, however, are little more than fodder in the feed mill for the enormous wheels of government busy-work. From these regulations have stemmed entire industries, including most especially the industry of litigation to keep courts mired in perpetually slow-moving trials and motions. Everyone wants equal treatment: its everyone's right as a human being to be treated with respect and dignity. But what is the real underlying current here?
This legislation, whether intentionally or not, singles out certain populace groups. Under the guise of offering protective status, government mandates in the United States are perpetuating a centuries-old, deeply-ingrained tradition of ethnicity and/or gender bias: legislation that ultimately says "you're special, so we're going to offer you, by the grace of our good nature, a special, protected place in our in our peer group. Without our intervention, you cannot possibly hope to merit equal treatment, so we are going to step in and afford you that. Aren't we nice?"
I understand that this is not a commonly held view. But this most especially applies to the quote unquote protecting of the rights of African-American citizens, and those of other racial minorities. There has forever been a divide between white America and ethnic minorities; by ethnic minorities I specifically mean ethnic subgroups within the United States, both protected immigrants and foreign nationals. Events like 9/11 did little to help this, and as we go deeper in the world of "protective" legislation, the commons - in this specifically I mean our collective identity - will suffer more splinterization. Initially, these government mandates have done little in the way of fostering real, lasting ethical treatment of minorities: they've instead created sub-categorizations of industry, which, of course, has led to economic growth. As we've seen, the growth hasn't been sustainable.
One thing needs to be understood: FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT CANNOT BE LEGISLATED. The nontransferable right to be a human being is not given by governments. It is not granted by kings or rules or mandates. It is inherent; it is intrinsic.
Legislation does little except foster splinterization and a further deepening of the already-divisive fissures within our culture. I understand the gravity of the history of discrimination against ethnic minorities in the United States. However, this is not something that vanished with history. There is, potentially, more ethnic and gender discrimination now than has ever existed: women are still earning far less than men, and that doesn't just apply to white people; African-Americans are still overcoming hurdles in the workplace; and then of course there is an endless array of hate crimes still being committed across the United States and beyond. Now, of course, within the United States, dehumanizing compartmentalization has chopped up everything into tiny pieces and divisions, so that discrimination no longer necessarily looks like a burning cross or a evil hooded figure, but it may now come in the form of avoided voice mails, rejection letters stating "thanks but no thanks, we found someone more qualified" or maybe there is no response at all. It may come in the form of more insidious rejections: those that are passed over for promotions, or quietly stereotyped through subtle hints and gestures that can leave little guess as to what they refer.
Perhaps, if we examined our legislative efforts more closely, we might find that underneath it all remains the strong undercurrent of our own biased ethos: maybe we can't see each other as equals, because we've never learned to really appreciate who we are as individuals. Maybe its only through self-examination and reflection that we can learn what it means to be human. And when we get that right, maybe we'll finally start to treat others and we would like to be treated ourselves.
That's the real answer to racism and discriminate treatment.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Recommended Reading
Dmitry Orlov has just posted a pre-order link on his blog for his latest book: The Five Stages of Collapse.
One of the biggest reason I like Orlov is because he's straightforward: buy the book from him first - in other words preorder it now - so he gets more money. It enables him to keep doing what he's doing. Personally, I'd rather see a writer/blogger get revenue instead of a corporate entity like a publisher. I recommend going over and pre-ordering the book now so he'll get you a copy first off the press in May.
One of the biggest reason I like Orlov is because he's straightforward: buy the book from him first - in other words preorder it now - so he gets more money. It enables him to keep doing what he's doing. Personally, I'd rather see a writer/blogger get revenue instead of a corporate entity like a publisher. I recommend going over and pre-ordering the book now so he'll get you a copy first off the press in May.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Links
Here's an interesting article about Occupy Wall Street, which claims that the actual demographics of the group were nowhere close to the 99% they claimed to represent.
Here is another link, which I believe is actually sponsored by or somehow linked to the Occupy movement, that shows some posts from voices who are in the throes of economic meltdown. It's interesting to me that the posts stop on 6 Nov 2012.
And then take a look at the most recent post for the Moneyless World blog.
Lastly, this is the original reason I fell in love with Burning Man - RIGHT HERE. Read the poem.
Here is another link, which I believe is actually sponsored by or somehow linked to the Occupy movement, that shows some posts from voices who are in the throes of economic meltdown. It's interesting to me that the posts stop on 6 Nov 2012.
And then take a look at the most recent post for the Moneyless World blog.
Lastly, this is the original reason I fell in love with Burning Man - RIGHT HERE. Read the poem.
Monday, January 28, 2013
The Disenfranchisement of Culture: Peer Blaming and Service of the Self
An interesting trend has become noticeable.
My readers will remember a post I wrote a while ago about self-sacredness and how it plays into our decline and expansion. I wanted to revisit that, and point out another side-effect of this, and how it manifests in our current socio-economic climate.
In our culture of self-service, we consume. Our sole purpose is to acquire and consume goods and services, so that others can obtain money to also acquire goods and services. This is a very delineated version of it, but essentially, that's what we are. We are now seeing pockets of shift here and there - the permaculture movement, for example - but as a whole, the consumerist, self-service model still has a solid grip on us.
And interestingly, it does more than just drive our economy. It also inserts its fingers into our religions, our education, and our personal relationships. For example; a local reader of mine sent a note (quite a while ago, I'm a bit behind) about peer relationships and their change in the new economy. It was interesting to note that the reader mentioned that he has experienced a heightened sense of mistrust in the workplace now - as if he is being scrutinized by his peers, not just his supervisors. I wrote back with a few questions about how it was different than before - were the relationships good before the proverbial economic belt-tightening? It took him a bit to answer. When he did, the answer was surprising. No, he admitted. They weren't necessarily good. In fact, he reflects it it being not at all different than what it currently is; except that the difference was in him - in the fact that he didn't notice.
So what is this new perspective, then? The trend of environmental miniaturization maybe? Is it self-induced, or caused by external factors? It is, in a word, disenfranchisement. It is a separation of the self from the standardized norm - removal from the commons and into a further compartmentalization. And it can result in peer blaming, peer criticism, and even in some cases self-isolation. Now, before we go too far into this, please note that this was a comment from one reader - that doesn't automatically represent a consensus I am willing to bet, though, that a careful review of other similar scenarios will yield a similar response.
In the era of perceived plenty, the self is viewed as a ruler to be served; in other words, during years of perceived economic bounty our lives are built around acquiring our needs and desires, and because during times of a thriving economy the acquisition and consumption of goods and services to meet our needs seems relatively easy, or at least easier, we are less focused on the value of the details that build the story of us. We call this type of living COMFORT.
However, during the periods of disenfranchisement, when the markets are unstable, and our positions - both social and economic - are precarious, we view them as items to be guarded and protected. In this, we experience discomfort, or at least what is perceived as such, in that we are working harder at maintaining what we have already acquired, to the point that we begin to notice details that we may have overlooked before, including but not limited to those not-so-stellar peers whose lives overlap with our own around the edges.
This also is part of what I have talked about before - although in a less direct way. This transition from consumerism of the self to mindfulness - awareness, I call it - of others, of their actions, of their reactions is a necessary migration. Its uncomfortable; because now we want to blame others for the way things are: I didn't get that promotion because George got it, or Suzanne sabotaged me and that's why I was passed over for a raise, etc. But its actually leading to something else.
It is a gradual breaking apart of the mask of our culture; a slow corruption of the view in the mirror. Eventually, it may lead to a reversal in the way we see our selves - and then our real work can begin.
My readers will remember a post I wrote a while ago about self-sacredness and how it plays into our decline and expansion. I wanted to revisit that, and point out another side-effect of this, and how it manifests in our current socio-economic climate.
In our culture of self-service, we consume. Our sole purpose is to acquire and consume goods and services, so that others can obtain money to also acquire goods and services. This is a very delineated version of it, but essentially, that's what we are. We are now seeing pockets of shift here and there - the permaculture movement, for example - but as a whole, the consumerist, self-service model still has a solid grip on us.
And interestingly, it does more than just drive our economy. It also inserts its fingers into our religions, our education, and our personal relationships. For example; a local reader of mine sent a note (quite a while ago, I'm a bit behind) about peer relationships and their change in the new economy. It was interesting to note that the reader mentioned that he has experienced a heightened sense of mistrust in the workplace now - as if he is being scrutinized by his peers, not just his supervisors. I wrote back with a few questions about how it was different than before - were the relationships good before the proverbial economic belt-tightening? It took him a bit to answer. When he did, the answer was surprising. No, he admitted. They weren't necessarily good. In fact, he reflects it it being not at all different than what it currently is; except that the difference was in him - in the fact that he didn't notice.
So what is this new perspective, then? The trend of environmental miniaturization maybe? Is it self-induced, or caused by external factors? It is, in a word, disenfranchisement. It is a separation of the self from the standardized norm - removal from the commons and into a further compartmentalization. And it can result in peer blaming, peer criticism, and even in some cases self-isolation. Now, before we go too far into this, please note that this was a comment from one reader - that doesn't automatically represent a consensus I am willing to bet, though, that a careful review of other similar scenarios will yield a similar response.
In the era of perceived plenty, the self is viewed as a ruler to be served; in other words, during years of perceived economic bounty our lives are built around acquiring our needs and desires, and because during times of a thriving economy the acquisition and consumption of goods and services to meet our needs seems relatively easy, or at least easier, we are less focused on the value of the details that build the story of us. We call this type of living COMFORT.
However, during the periods of disenfranchisement, when the markets are unstable, and our positions - both social and economic - are precarious, we view them as items to be guarded and protected. In this, we experience discomfort, or at least what is perceived as such, in that we are working harder at maintaining what we have already acquired, to the point that we begin to notice details that we may have overlooked before, including but not limited to those not-so-stellar peers whose lives overlap with our own around the edges.
This also is part of what I have talked about before - although in a less direct way. This transition from consumerism of the self to mindfulness - awareness, I call it - of others, of their actions, of their reactions is a necessary migration. Its uncomfortable; because now we want to blame others for the way things are: I didn't get that promotion because George got it, or Suzanne sabotaged me and that's why I was passed over for a raise, etc. But its actually leading to something else.
It is a gradual breaking apart of the mask of our culture; a slow corruption of the view in the mirror. Eventually, it may lead to a reversal in the way we see our selves - and then our real work can begin.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Reader Responses
A couple of questions from readers that I'd like to answer:
1. I haven't decided what to do about the comments yet. For now, we'll leave this as it is. You can feel free to write to me with your comments, like always. However, because I'm getting more and more comments, I won't be able to respond to them personally. It just gets to be too much. I will still read them, and if there are noteworthy responses, I'll share them here in reader response posts occasionally, linking back to the post for which the comment is intended. This will not happen every week, however.
2. I appreciate the recommendations about Typepad. I've explored it, but still haven't decided which way I'm going to go. When I do, I'll figure out a tentative date for the migration, and I'll post it here.
3. Thirdly, I'm starting to get requests from some people about guest blogging. I can appreciate this. However, at this time (meaning at least this year) this is not something I intend to do. I reserve the right to change my mind about this at some point in the distant future, but don't look for that to happen any time soon. I appreciate comments and link suggestions, but for now, this collection will be just the compilations of essays as you've seen them.
4. A reader asked me about catastrophe, and how it relates to our cultural decline. Good question, but it's one I've addressed before. At some point, I suppose I believed that we would see some type of immediate overhaul in our systems that would create a hiccup in our society and maybe even reset the cultural clock for us. But I no longer believe this. I've watched the rise and fall of economy here in the states, seen pockets of weather upheavals and social disruptions, and yet overall the system into which we are so irrevocably in-grafted has remained unchanged. I think we're in for a slow decrease over an extended period of time, rather than an all-at-once upheaval of our way of life.
5. This is (or at least it should not be) a gloomy site. I don't want readers to come here and leave depressed. Decline is an inevitable part of life on earth. If there weren't decline, you and I wouldn't be here. Our systems and structures will rise and fall; our societies will expand and collapse, and the planet will still turn. I don't believe the world is ending. It's instead a place of constant change; an ebb and flow of the proverbial universal tides, so to speak. This is not a negative thing.
More on Monday.
1. I haven't decided what to do about the comments yet. For now, we'll leave this as it is. You can feel free to write to me with your comments, like always. However, because I'm getting more and more comments, I won't be able to respond to them personally. It just gets to be too much. I will still read them, and if there are noteworthy responses, I'll share them here in reader response posts occasionally, linking back to the post for which the comment is intended. This will not happen every week, however.
2. I appreciate the recommendations about Typepad. I've explored it, but still haven't decided which way I'm going to go. When I do, I'll figure out a tentative date for the migration, and I'll post it here.
3. Thirdly, I'm starting to get requests from some people about guest blogging. I can appreciate this. However, at this time (meaning at least this year) this is not something I intend to do. I reserve the right to change my mind about this at some point in the distant future, but don't look for that to happen any time soon. I appreciate comments and link suggestions, but for now, this collection will be just the compilations of essays as you've seen them.
4. A reader asked me about catastrophe, and how it relates to our cultural decline. Good question, but it's one I've addressed before. At some point, I suppose I believed that we would see some type of immediate overhaul in our systems that would create a hiccup in our society and maybe even reset the cultural clock for us. But I no longer believe this. I've watched the rise and fall of economy here in the states, seen pockets of weather upheavals and social disruptions, and yet overall the system into which we are so irrevocably in-grafted has remained unchanged. I think we're in for a slow decrease over an extended period of time, rather than an all-at-once upheaval of our way of life.
5. This is (or at least it should not be) a gloomy site. I don't want readers to come here and leave depressed. Decline is an inevitable part of life on earth. If there weren't decline, you and I wouldn't be here. Our systems and structures will rise and fall; our societies will expand and collapse, and the planet will still turn. I don't believe the world is ending. It's instead a place of constant change; an ebb and flow of the proverbial universal tides, so to speak. This is not a negative thing.
More on Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)