The Invisible Fence

Every student in the U.S. is exposed to these phrases: "...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and "...with liberty and justice for all." Because we live within the confines of an established, artificial system, it makes sense that we must understand the limits of those constructs. However, there seems to be an increasing amount of disagreement about where to draw the line on liberty. Since this concept is central to the founding and existence of the U.S., who is it that decides what it means? There are numerous laws and legal interpretations, but no particular committee or public office devoted to exploring what liberty means as times—and technologies—change. Additionally, how do everyday people conceive of liberty? Do we understand it as static, or as something adaptable? Do we only think we are free because we are told that? Is it that we are surrounded by media and other influences which tell us that this is what "freedom" is and so we accept this? Are there natural limitations—or only artificial ones—in modern society? These are more than "academic" questions, removed from the mundane concerns of regular people. In fact, they are questions essential for every citizen to consider because they lay the foundation for all questions that come after. Our understanding of liberty sets the limits and expectations about all decisions and questions which follow. If one thinks that liberty extends only to here, then one has difficulty asking what lies over there. These are the beginnings of liberty: thinking there is something which I have that allows me to take action or something I lack that keeps me from taking action.

There is—once again—an interesting aspect to games which is pertinent here. In part, this is because games are also artificial systems. Any game establishes what is allowed or prohibited on the path to victory. These rules are the freedoms players are allowed within the game, but they also reflect the degree to which players give up doing other things which might benefit them. The only succor we may take is that every other player is also bound by the same rules. Additionally, there are the physical parameters to games, but then there are the "soft" limits which determine optimal strategies and "hacks","cheats", or "exploits", especially in video games. Knowing how to work within the game's confines, yet still make marginal advances over other players, can confer large gains over the course of play. This analogy for liberty in real life is especially pertinent in video games using progression, quests, or achievements. These are things which limit a player's development until met or confer advancement (or extra benefits) when completed. They can provide incentives to play certain ways or make particular choices when they are solely achievable through the methods a game maker decides. It then behooves us to ask "who made the rules to the game of 'real life'?" and what have they incentivized or prohibited?

The overall concern of this discussion regards infantilization and disempowerment. Infantilization is the process of keeping or reducing someone to a less active status, to make decisions for them, and/or hobble their development. This may seem like it creates a dependent who then requires care-taking, but is often done for power; either the feeling of having power over another or to add that person's power to theirs. To act on behalf of another confers the power of the other onto the action-taker. This is the basis for representatives in a "representative democracy": the power of those citizens is conferred to their elected official who acts on their behalf. However, it often seems less like representatives actually enact "the will of the people" but are utilizing their power to benefit themselves. It seems self-evident that everyday people will vote to give themselves more control, liberty, and power over their own lives, yet their representatives are often doing the opposite. Instead of having more freedom, more free time, and better education to make informed decisions and participate in their lives (including governmental decision-making), people in contemporary society are infantilized. We are told that people are selfish, ignorant (if not downright stupid), panicky, greedy beings and it is better they do not have too much freedom. It may be better if we challenge those assumptions and demand remedies instead of accepting such a disempowering message.

The First Step in Fixing a Problem is....

Not so much a mystery as it is an assumption. Anyone in a recovery program will recognize, "The first step in fixing your problem is admitting you have a problem." Others might say it is, "...defining the problem", "...understanding the root cause", or "...recognizing there is a problem". These are all very pithy and goal-oriented. You may have surmised, by this point, that I have a suggestion which differs from these. This is correct, and not only that, I believe it is a vital difference. The baked-in assumption is that we can fix the problem, since the sentence begins with, "...first step in fixing...". It is here that we have already lost a large number of people, because they do not believe a fix is possible. It may seem strange or illogical to imagine that anyone could think we are just stuck with problems, that there is no solution for some things. However, this is the issue underlying many conflicts in relationships and life: one side thinks we can fix it and the other side does not.

In a previous post, I made mention of growth and fixed mindsets. These terms refer to the belief that either change for an individual is possible or not, respectively. In terms of nature versus nurture, one with the fixed mindset will hold that nature wins out and cannot be changed. This can be expressed, "Some people are just born bad" or "You can't fix stupid". This may seem to some as an antiquated notion, something that has been superseded by progress and scientific discovery. However, the fact we can hear people continue to use such expressions should be enough to demonstrate the tenacity of this perspective. It is this attitude that poses a barrier in fixing problems, ironically enough. Those with a fixed mindset will work around the difficulties that others present, assuming that there's nothing to be done to change those others' actions. "It's just the way they are," they will shrug to themselves as they assume the other person cannot change. Rather than pointing out this other person's actions as being problematic, looking for ways to fix the situation, or even contemplating how to address the problem, these folks will take it upon themselves. This situation or attitude may begin to seem familiar, as you contemplate times in your life when someone acted this way.

The point here is not that people are incapable of change, and certainly not to berate anyone for thinking such. Having experienced such change in my own life, I hold with the growth mindset and can attest that it can happen. Because of this, I can believe that the same is possible for you, even if you currently hold a fixed mindset. My hope in writing this is to point out how the presuppositions we do not recognize can end up sabotaging our efforts to make things better. Therefore, my suggestion is that the first step in fixing a problem is simply to believe change is possible.

Being the Center of Your Own Attention

Rather than something like selfishness or egotism, this is referring to identity and self-perception. It is, in fact, about the commodification of those central issues and how difficult it can be to actually place ones self into the center of attention. First, let us examine what many people use as substitute for identity and then we can contrast that to what could be a more healthy construction.

Generally, when we talk of ourselves, we use job, status, and affiliation; this is not to disregard the value in having quick shortcuts that others can easily understand. However, by focusing on these items, we see our self and others as these labels rather than as a starting point to understand more. It becomes problematic when we are handed these definitions and given no choice about what they mean or how we are shaped by them. Rather than the label being an extension or expansion of who we are, it narrows or stunts that self-expression by deciding what we say or do. Some examples include "liberal" or "Republican", groups that give political distinctions and have developed numerous connotations over the years. If one expresses something different than the generally accepted view of what that label is, then one "is not really liberal." Whether one is a football or music fan, which team or artist is supposed to say something about who one is; whether "we" are winning this season, or if our artist is popular or obscure (and hence we are mainstream or counter-culture). Or we do not watch and follow sports and therefore are not a "real man", one of the most dangerous labels in society that leads to all sorts of twisted logic and harm. What all these labels or affiliations end up doing is inverting the expression of who I am by subjugating my identity to a team, party, or organization. How those are seen by others then effects how they see "me" because of my affiliation. When a political party leader or team coach says something I do not agree with, I am forced to do the work of distancing myself from that party or team because of the automatic assumption that as part of that group, I must agree with everything it does. There is a strong tendency to remain unaware of all these pitfalls and simply take the package of assumptions that come along with any affiliation. Many people act as if a descriptor determines who someone is; that by knowing one single label they can determine who that person is in toto. By pointing this out, the absurdity should become clear.

Rather than using the map as the terrain, it would be better to raise our eyes from the labels and affiliations to see the actual person before us. This does not mean to disregard that these groupings exist, but that they are expressed and experienced differently by each person. What it means to be part of a club can vary and mean different things to different people; being curious about what those differences are can lead to better understanding and connection. "I joined because they have cool hats", "I enjoy the durability of their products", or "I think they have answers for the problems we face" are all valid reasons for people to choose a group to join. They are, however, very different reasons and demonstrate how important it is to understand what someone's connection to a label is. For ourselves, recognizing that even belonging to a club does not define us is a start. The tendency towards para-social relationships, especially when we lack real-world connection, is strong and encouraged by business interests. Instead, we can remind ourselves that this label expresses one thing about us and not the entirety. We can even recognize some aspects that do not fit who we are, and make a conscious choice about our affiliation and it's limits. The main thrust of this is to not mistake one part of a person for the whole of who they (or we) are.

Why Does Context or Intent Matter?

While in philosophy, we could speak simply of utilitarianism (consequence or impact) and deontology (moral duty or intent), let us take a more pedestrian, and relevant, approach to understanding this question. Most often, in the news and in law, people are focused on outcomes. It is too messy or time-consuming to investigate, report, interpret, and adjudicate motives. Psychologically, it is difficult to narrow down behavior to either intent or impact, as there are so many influences and factors. Individuals may consider both when choosing, but are also motivated by drives separate from either (i.e. illogic, coercion, trauma, etc.) as well as various impairments. Additionally, it is important to note that every choice is made with incomplete information; no one knows what the outcome will be, it is just a best guess as to what seems most likely. Some may say there is only one way to do things, and therefore no need to question intent or impact. It is more accurate to say life is open to interpretation and allows for numerous successful approaches. Otherwise, there would be neither need nor ability to improve or discover. Once we accept there is no predictably "right" answer, what is left is to determine how to learn to make better choices. Given the liberty that most expect in the modern world, learning how to do that can be a difficult, protracted, and harm-producing process. This leaves the culture considering outcomes and ignoring context in arriving at those outcomes.

A particularly destructive result of this tendency is to eliminate understanding or finding of common ground. These similarities exist, even in the most intractable fight; being that we are all human, we share fundamental traits and desires. Wanting to feel safe means different things to different people: it could be carrying a gun for you or me knowing that no one has a weapon. That fundamental need for safety is shared, even though we meet that need in different ways. Once we begin to relate, it becomes less a question of whether we can agree than how we resolve the issue. To those who question this, or think that "if it is so easy, why isn't everybody doing it?", I raise two points. First, I never said this was easy; it is challenging to do, and ever harder to do well. Second, I refer you back to the fundamental question "qui bono?": who benefits? Who benefits from the masses thinking they face intractable differences everywhere? Who gains or retains their power by giving frustrated people simplistic answers that allow for no compromise or alternatives? For whom is it easy to let others make difficult decisions instead of facing uncertainty and correcting their errors? Who prefers not having to explain or confess dire circumstances, or risk not getting what they need by involving others? The answer, of course, is that everyone has some benefit from the current system. As with many such problems, it works just well enough or does not fail enough to overcome the shared resistance to change.

I propose the real issue is treating people as disposable, which feeds into and is fed by the disregard for motivations. Rather than determine the cause of a crime, people will say "It doesn't matter, a law's a law," or "Some people are just criminals". These platitudes are verbal shrugs of surrender and passivity that signal "people are disposable, so circumstances don't matter". This black and white thinking leads to executing someone stealing food for their child. There are circumstances that drive people to do the otherwise unthinkable, which is the context. Outside of that situation, the same person would not make that choice. Maybe they would even stop another from taking that action; we evaluate choices differently when they are ours to make, after all. That mutable aspect of human nature demonstrates how adaptable we are and that we are shaped by our environments. The truth is that people are reachable, and able to change; however, ostracizing them does not lead to change, improvement, or re-integration. It takes more effort, and self-examination, but it is possible make the necessary social adjustments. I say self-examination, because to enact changes that will work means tackling assumptions in the culture that most prefer to avoid. These includes underlying beliefs that people are disposable, that there is only one way to be or act, and that change is impossible.

In the end, understanding and explaining something is different than forgiving or excusing that thing. Discovering the cause or context is more like diagnosing an illness, as it gives us the information needed to treat that dysfunction and make things better. It is what allows us to correct a problem, rather than suffer it and feel powerless. We cannot correct something we do not understand, and an aversion to nuance and exploration of how things happen keep us from knowing how to prevent them. We need to ask the question "how could this happen?", investigate the actual causes, and be open to the answer so that we stand a chance of stopping the next such event. We need to compassionately understand the motivations of others, and allow that they can be good people, in order to prevent further harm.

Why More People Should Feel Entitled

I was struck recently by a strange realization, during a perfectly normal conversation about what kinds of foods I ate growing up. As a child, we lived in some amount of poverty, though not severe. What occurred to me is that while I did not eat what I wanted, it was also not what my mother would have wanted. Rather, it was determined by what we could afford. Of course, this is also fairly commonplace, as many who live without adequate income do the same. What is remarkable is the impact it had on me, and this is the odd part. It is not just the food choice, but that along with other factors of poverty that all boiled down to a profoundly dis-empowering message: what I want does not matter.

Let that fester for a moment, and especially if it has never occurred to you before. Try on the idea that what you want has no impact on the world around you. Hungry? Unimportant, you will eat what and when you are fed. Tired? Inconsequential, you must get up and get busy. Need a break, want some help, a birthday present, to see friends? Does not matter; what you want does not matter.

That should be a horrifying sentiment, and one that never enters a child's mind. To be raised with the idea one can never get what one wants should be something we all agree is unacceptable. Consider the immediate impact of devaluing the child, and how that begins to influence how they see themselves. Because this is not about winning or losing a fun game, this is about their sense of who they are. Even if it seems a minor issue, or one that can be overcome, why would it be one we add to the difficulties inherent in growing up? Further, if this thought is allowed to take hold, it can be debilitating and impact so many aspects of a person. Imagine living with such a person, one so monumentally unmotivated to do anything since throughout their whole life they never get what they want because wanting does not matter. Even if these were "just" coworkers, their basic lack of motivation would make getting any work from them a struggle. What other impacts to society, and everyday interactions, stem from these people having a hopeless and futile feeling about agency in their own lives?

Personally, I took that message to heart; I believed it and it became such a part of my world that I forgot that I could have wants or even preferences. I was well into adulthood before it even occurred to me to question that bedrock truth: what I want does not matter. This is not to excuse that belief, nor to blame anyone else for my own failings. As ever, there were a number of factors involved. Understanding and explaining something is different than forgiving or excusing that thing, and is a topic for another discussion. I simply point out that throughout my own life there have been a number of negative impacts because of this simple, fundamental belief; the only positive has been that I was remarkably easy to get along with, which could be accomplished through healthier means.

With all the talk of an "entitled" younger generation, I would encourage folks to remember how harmful the opposite tendency is. Celebrate people knowing what they want, and expecting the possibility of obtaining it. A world full of those people is at least a hopeful world,

Mental Illnesses and How to Treat Them

First, because litigation has replaced dialogue as a form of communication, this is not medical or legal advice. This remains the blog of a layperson who expresses a perspective in order to challenge and support others to explore various topics which concern us all.

I will propose that we are still in a Dark Age of understanding mental health; even though we have gone from chaining patients in cells to giving them pills, it is only a first step. Let's briefly review some history of medical knowledge to draw some analogies. Even though intricate knowledge of the human body has been available since ancient Egypt, how to treat diseases was subject to debate and misapprehension. Most people know that prayer, bleeding, and trepanning were all considered actual medical treatment at various times in history (and many discredited 'treatments' still have adherents, sadly). Only in the last 200 years have necessary items like antiseptics, anesthetics, and antibiotics been understood and used generally. Out of thousands of years of recorded history, only the last couple centuries have contained advancements we now consider fundamental to restoring physical health. We still cannot regrow limbs, treat genetic diseases by altering DNA, nor even repair nerves to correct paralysis. Our medical knowledge has finally reached an adequate level; most people, most of the time, can be treated and restored to a physically functional level.

Similarly, our understanding of mental health has advanced. Whereas what has been seen as insanity (or aberrant behavior) must depend upon the surrounding culture, history does have records of various conditions. What we call schizophrenia, for example, shows up reliably; it may be supposed that religious figures who heard, saw, and/or felt things no one else did could have had it. This actually leads to my point: what is a mental illness? In the history of modern psychology, sexuality was grouped in with mental illnesses. Until about 50 years ago, anything other than heterosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Again, some still hold this absurd, dangerous, and disproven idea. PTSD was recognized by the mid-1900s, and has only seen significant treatment in the past 20 years. This, I think demonstrates that we are subject to the ongoing discovery of how our minds work and how to treat disease and injury of the mind. This is not to denigrate the advancements or profession of healthcare, just to recognize the limitations.

Now, I will suggest that some things we do not currently consider mental health issues could be, such as prejudice, conspiracy theories, and procrastination. Even if it turns out to be inaccurate, possibly using the model as laypersons could be helpful in our everyday lives. For example, rather than thinking of someone who is racist as a 'bad person', just think of them as struggling with a mental illness. Just as we can have compassion and sadness for someone with an anxiety disorder, we could think of the conspiracy theorist as deserving empathy. Additionally, this allows us to separate ourselves from those peoples' conditions. Just as I can acknowledge a persons' cancer, lupus, or other self-sustaining pathology, I can put aggression in its proper place. It is something that they suffer from and I can only see the outward signs of, but it is not contagious and I can take precautions to prevent being harmed by their disease.

All Laws are Negative

There seems to be a misapprehension about laws, that somehow they tell citizens how to live. This is inaccurate, in that laws only tell us what is prohibited. In fact, a great many laws are reactions to terrible injuries and exploitation. Child labor, environmental pollution,workplace safety, manufacturing practices, and financial regulations are all examples of laws that were enacted in order to prevent harms that were being done to the people and lands of various countries. It was not that governments were interested in curtailing business, but that there was such outrage at the deaths related to these business practices that governments no longer had a choice but to pass laws to protect the health and safety of citizens. The truth of this legal history is not the issue at hand. This is all to establish the basis for the objective of this post: that a focus on the negative leads to negativity. Since all laws are prohibitive (that is, they prohibit an activity) - they are negatively focused. Additionally, they are punitive or retributive; the consequence of being found guilty of breaking a law is always punishment. This is because there is no prescription for rehabilitation in a law-remember, laws do not tell anyone what to do-it only says what harm may be leveled against the 'criminal'. This negativity, aside from being demeaning, also sets the entire mindset around law and legality in a negative framework. This means every time I think about the subject, I think about it as a negative.

This relates to the idea of "pessimism", whereby all one sees is the negative or harmful possible outcomes of choices. Instead of recognizing, accepting, and weighing possibilities in a neutral way, the entirety of the process becomes increasingly focused on negatives. Negative reinforcement can be especially impactful when combined with an absolutist and/or "inherently bad" belief system. Someone who believes in absolutes is one who does not believe in extenuating circumstances or 'shades of grey'; these are folks who can only conceive of two possibilities in any situation. One can recognize these individuals by the expressions "like it or lump it", "there's only one way to do something: the right way", and "my way or the highway". The second mindset holds the belief that all people, or certain groups of people (here we can recognize racism or other prejudices), have an initial or inborn 'badness' to overcome...if they believe it possible to change at all. These beliefs combined with the initial assertion of the negativity involved in the "criminal justice system" lead to a greater problem than any of them individually.

Which leads to the conclusion that we are really talking about psychology, not least of which because every person involved in the legal system is a human. Every human is subject to the same psychological issues: biases, stresses, prejudices, and fatigue. Supposing humans somehow become immune to these realities once they enter the legal system is absurd, yet folks seem to act as if that were the case. In the legal system, these psychological factors have tremendous impacts on individuals and society. There are many studies that demonstrate how "priming" participants can lead to fewer options and less desirable outcomes. This is part of the reason defendants are allowed to change out of jail/prison clothes to appear in court: the sight of a person dressed as a 'criminal' primes the viewer (judge or jury) to see guilt, rather than maintaining the presumption of innocence. However, not all factors can be alleviated, thus allowing the psychology of those deciding a legal case to be swayed. Looking at the incarceration of persons of color in the U.S. is a striking example of a series of such psychological impacts. I speak not only of the attorneys, police, judges, and juries-of course these include also the individual suspected or convicted of crime and the communities. Here I may be accused of drifting into a spiritual arena, by including the psychological toll of having a prison or jail in a county, or of the family's grief over the conviction (rightly or wrongly) of one of their own. However, I intend to point out only that there is a psychological impact; this is factual, observable, and-possibly-measurable.

It is this negative psychological toll that I had in mind starting this post. It seems sadly lacking in the discourse of reform around "criminal justice" in the popular narrative of dominant culture. It has seemed absurd to ignore all these obvious components when talking about how to understand such an historically rooted system, let alone how to improve it.

I Take Responsibility for Trump

I did not take seriously the possibility of someone so obviously unfit, unqualified, and unbelievable. I dismissed out of hand, denied with disdain, and scoffed with self-satisfaction. I did not consider for a moment that a great number of people could be swayed by their own disaffected frustration with the way things are. I was as lulled into complacency as so many privileged citizens have been. It is still unthinkable to me that this terrible individual had a chance of being given such a position. He is so demonstrably incapable of the dignity, restraint, and consideration required to be a leader. I look at him still and see the opposite of nearly all attributes that make a person fit for an elected office, let alone one at such a level. I put his chances of success on par with the possibility of Mickey Mouse being elected.

To be clear, these are not excuses. I am not asking for mercy for my error, and I fully recognize that I will be paying a price for my pride. No, this is to explicate my own responsibility and demonstrate how I missed all the opportunities to prevent this travesty. Instead, I should have been making efforts to talk with those individuals who were accepting and supporting the messages that Trump-the-candidate was spouting. It is not in my power to change DNC/RNC policies, I cannot lobby or buy media time, nor can I influence large number of people at rallies. However, I can reach out and build relationships with those who believe differently than I do.

In this way, most of all, is how I failed. I believe it is because we don't have good relations and strong, mutual respect for "others" that people like Trump succeed. Those "divisions" allow us to be steered like cattle by persuasive personalities. I use scare quotes because those words are artificial constructs and the emphasis denotes how they don't fit in reality. Lately, and with tremendous effort, I have begun looking for positive outcomes. In this case I have hopes that there may be some yet.

I cannot ignore this situation, and hope that no one else is able to, as well. I have been shaken from my complacency, and I hope that everyone else is also. I realize that things can truly be worse, and believe that others want that not to happen. We can come together, and need to more than ever.

"Crowd" sourcing

Work is supposedly about employees trading their labor for wages, pushed as a model of simplicity and equity. It can be seen as extracting from workers the lifeblood that keeps businesses alive, rather than supplying workers the means to live. What began as layoffs, outsourcing, and downsizing became the new normal, and is now being sold to workers as 'freeing' and a boon to 'motivated self-starters'. The idea is to work two or three low-paying, part-time jobs without benefits because, "Why put your eggs all in one basket," and, "Why depend on work for health insurance"? In addition, we have a slew of 'startups' that want to (allow workers to) take advantage of these conditions. Uber, Airbnb, and other 'collaborative consumption' companies - supposedly parts of a new 'sharing economy' - offer the illusion of opportunity, profitability, and a community base. They are packaged as creating opportunities for individuals to live the dream of independent contracting: set your own schedule, choose which jobs to take, be 'your own boss', and leverage your assets into unlimited earning potential.  The upstarts claim disruption, and an alternative to 'the establishment', supposedly easing the way for regular folks to cash in. Rather than taxi companies hogging the market, these companies will allow regular people to get in on the action. Instead of paying for a mortgage (or lease), one can become part of the hospitality industry and get a little extra for minimal effort. However, they are still privately owned companies looking to maximize profit for themselves.

It could be that the change started with personal vehicles being used for business delivery. This process shifted the burden onto individuals rather than businesses for business expenses. While offset by requirements to laws regarding reimbursement and insurance, it still placed the burden on the employee to learn, abide by, and then enforce these regulations with their own employer. This is most problematic in fields that had no history of doing so. The essence of all these actions is the uncertainty faced by workers. The question that follows is whether this change is better for workers, or only benefits the business. The test is how each practice happens and the results in the real world, not just the theory. In reality, Uber bullys cab companies, drivers, and local governments to get what it wants. Airbnb displaces responsibility and implies more than it delivers.

A few examples, with sources and further reading at the bottom of this post. In the City of San Francisco Airbnb should have collected and remitted $1.9 million in taxes, over 90% of hosts surveyed spent nearly half what they made on living expenses, and it continues to use drip pricing (which does not allow consumers to preview their total price). The legal agreements that Airbnb members are required to accept amount to "55081 words," equivalent to a short novel requiring several hours of reading time. In San Francisco, Airbnb hosts who control multiple properties comprise 4.8% of hosts and control 18.2% of the listings; in a similar company (HomeAway), 14.8% of total hosts control 46% of listings . These "super hosts" are like property mangers without any oversight or accountability. People also use these sites to set up Hacker Hostels (so-called because they lure techies and the like into short-term accommodations), which are problematic because they may flout a variety of city rules on overcrowding. Finally, for some perspective, a city such as San Francisco typically adds 2,000 homes in a year, and these companies take 200+ units off the market - a meaningful percentage.


I propose that choice is most meaningful when individuals are fully informed about consequences and willingly accept. In new and untested situations, these conditions do not apply and the potential for abuse is acute.


Wikipedia list of companies

Excellent article on pros and cons


Uber and taxis

Airbnb and San Francisco

The Tragedy of Hope

In the current preparations for the U.S. Presidential Election, there are a number of contradictions. There is the near–incessant coverage of an avowed "non-politician", leaving The Republican Party in a state of disarray. On the other hand (read: political party), there are two actual politicians: one established (even entrenched) and traditional, while the other is painted as a radical and a Populist. In this, the more information technologies change - from printed handbills to electronic tweets - the more political discussion stays the same. Rampant are labeling, nit-picking, 'washing' of many types (where motives are assigned, denigrated, and questioned), blaming, straw-man arguments, and supposedly clever insults instead of honest, substantial discourse. Alternatively, given the two "disruptive" candidates, one might expect the natural results to be inevitable change and hope for the future. However, those who look at history could recognize a consistency with the pattern of previous elections.

Both Bernard Sanders and Donald Trump are very popular, if only within limited demographics. I will leave Trump, as others seem obsessed with analyzing that issue. Instead, I'll offer a view on Sanders. One problem is the contradiction that in order to be elected president, he needs to have been elected already. Which is to say, the conditions necessary for the election of a Populist, non-establishment candidate require significant changes to electoral policies that only a Populist, non-establishment elected official would enact. An alternative prerequisite would be for citizens to approach politics, government, and elections quite differently. Currently, there exists a "one and done" attitude, whereby citizens vote in elections and consider their participation complete.

I suggest this is the illusion of involvement - a version of the ball-and-cups or "shell game" - and more is required. By calling a vote 'the franchise', it sets up certain expectations. Disenfranchisement becomes the focus: the idea that those who are kept from voting are the only ones impacted and by ensuring their ability to vote the problem is solved. Instead, by changing the focus and shifting the discussion to actual issues, by admitting that voters are not being represented (because both the influence of money in politics and the electoral college), by demanding a better-educated and better-informed citizenry, by allowing citizens time to study and consider as well as participate, and having expectations of consensus from discussions, we could begin to affect the political landscape. Even this modest list could seem overwhelming, therefor easier to just focus on 'the right to vote'.

At a time when it is controversial or novel to say "I represent all constituents, not just those who voted for me," it becomes clear how removed the political system is from the necessities of a Representative Democracy. Whether valid or not, the perception that money is the only avenue to influence politics dis-empowers the majority. If citizens instead believed that their representatives listened and acted no matter their wealth, background, beliefs, etc., it would be much different political discourse.

None of this is to say our situation is hopeless, rather that the focus of hope is misplaced. It is too easy to fall into disillusionment, cynicism, and despair by pinning one's hopes on one candidate or election. There is also an expectation of having an endpoint, a destination, rather than this being a process that requires ongoing dialogue and revision. The way of change is sustained effort over long periods of time, which require movements rather than just candidates.

A Discussion About Debate

I feel it's important to keep this subject in mind, especially during such emotional and challenging times as these. I am letting go of needing to be "right" or "bright": of finding the answer everyone should abide by or saying the witty, pithy thing everyone admires. I am stating my feelings here without expectation; I am stating here my desires without attachment. You choose to listen and/or hear just as you choose how to interpret my message. There is no goal I have in mind or ultimate "me" I need to become, only the pursuit of becoming more clear. In that pursuit, I want for us to talk about important subjects with the intensity in our hearts, with truth and reason in mind, and with compassion.

I am consciously not commenting on the many tragedies occurring right now, those that have been reported in the past couple weeks, or any potentially looming. I am focussed instead directly on the meta-conversation and meta-debate. I am drawn to the value-indeed, necessity-of holding and reminding ourselves to hold discussion of how and why we have discussion.

I, like you, have opinions. I feel things much as you do. I have wishes and dreams and believe you do also. I am imperfect, and think we are similar in this also. Most of all, I have questions. We are similar enough that I think you have questions as well. I even have a favorite question: "What Is It?" This is the shortened form, compressed and distilled into a purified reminder. It means to ask about reality, about what is true, and what is behind what we see. What moved behind, what motivated, what "caused" that which I see? It's my favorite both because I ask it all the time and because it covers so much of what I'm interested in.

Why am I sharing this and why should you bother reading it? Because I think it's the same question you are asking.

Why are we talking to others if not to understand? Why are we being open and vulnerable to one another if not to be understood? Recognise that we are all very similar and want similar things. By this I mean shelter, food, clothing, friends, a sense of fulfillment, a legacy, and fun. We are not so different that we cannot understand and be understood. We are not enemies that cannot coexist. We are not so alien we cannot communicate.

Therefore, in the interest of understanding and being understood, to realise the goal of knowing what is real, valuable, and true I ask you to commit to debate. We may be rivals, even opponents at times, but only to the extent we choose to be. Let us choose to value differences and allow for them. Let us acknowledge common needs and work together to meet them. Let us discuss with the intention of reaching the end together rather than separate.

My Very Own New Word!

Disneed: a self-destructive or harmful pattern of thinking, doing, and/or interacting.  The prefix dis- is used as in a dis-ease, dis-function, or dis-order whereby an actual need is sabotaged to result in a counterproductive outcome.  My disneed for being helpless led to us getting lost and missing the dinner.  The underlying drive may be to not be responsible; so as to bring down others expectations of me to such a minimal level that I won't be asked to do anything in the future.  It could also be a sense that I am not fit to make these decisions and so I force others to take control and make decisions.  At any rate the term disneed describes the underlying motivation.

Since it is self-destructive rather than productive or generative it isn't actually a need.  It would be too easy to say "My need to be irresponsible..." where it is not an actual need.  What I want is to accurately diagnose and describe what is happening, and that starts with recognising an error in thinking.  As language has power and the words we use will shape our thoughts and beliefs I feel that making this distinction is important.  It allows me to point to my self-destructive habits and know/show how the result was not what I really wanted nor needed.  It can call attention to where I need to focus-on the problem-rather than on blaming and belittling myself as the "uncorrectable source of the problem".  I do not believe in condemning people; it is the internal issues-which can usually be corrected-that should be the focus.  I hope that this tool helps with that goal.

Action V Intention

A while ago (Do what you want to the girl... 26Dec06) I said: Since it is the actions that count, rather than what we claim we will do, then it is our actions which indicate who we truly are.  It is past time that I supported and explained that.

I once heard an aphorism that stuck in my mind: in the end you are what you pretend to be (evidently this is not a direct quote from Kurt Vonnegut). What I mean by actions demonstrating who we are is that our intentions or promises do not make something happen. It is only when we fulfill our promise that it becomes truly meaningful. I can intend to ask someone out on a date or intend to apologise for hurting someone, but unless I follow through it won't matter. I do not discount intention in saying this, because I do not see this as all/nothing, either/or. It simply means that unless I actually go to that person and apologise they will never know if I'm sorry; meaning to say, "I'm sorry" doesn't matter to them, they want to hear me say it. Actions are also linked back to intent and mean more when done with purpose. If I save a life on accident it indicates less about me than if I set out to do so. The person whose life I've saved doesn't much care, they're just happy to be alive and I've still done a great service. Do I deserve to be called a hero, though? Think of a firefighter rushing into a burning building and rescuing a baby. Now think of someone who trips at the bottom of a stair and, unintentionally, is the soft landing place for an infant who fell from a great height. Both have saved a baby, but which should be thought of as "heroic"? This example can work in reverse as well: a firefighter who accidentally kills a child while performing regular duties versus a criminal who shoots a child to escape the police. Which should be judged more harshly? The focus here is how others see us and feel they can best judge us. Actions are observable while thoughts or intentions are not. We choose what we will do, while we may not always be in such control of our thoughts and emotions. Furthermore, actions can change and different choices can be made even in the last instant. These factors mean our actions have more of an impact on others. As social creatures, we mostly determine who we are in the context of others.  We get feedback from others, which shows us what is desirable and what isn't. This influences what we do to fit in and will colour our future choices. We "live up (or down) to" people's expectations of us, mostly to those whose opinions matter to us. For all these reasons, "who we are" is made up of family, friends, peers, strangers, and idols. It may be simple and attractive to say that people's actions are their own responsibility, but it is so much more complex than that. Rare is the person who acts in a vacuum of influence and is totally independent from others. This is why our actions, and by extension who we choose to be, are important: because they are formed by and impact those around us while being refracted through the prism of our being.

Occupy Your Democracy

Okay, granted I'm a late arrival in commenting on the movement, but I've been an armchair cheerleader this whole time. I support all those out there, in various countries around the world, who are taking their time and energy to stand or sit against the 1%.  I am also writing to urge everyone to not lose focus or energy around this issue.  Real changes can only be realised if we keep pushing, even after they say we've won or that they can't give any more.  I look back at indentured servitude, slavery, serfdom, rule by divine mandate, physical or financial force and wonder what could arise from a real change in our system. Can we eliminate the inequality? Is it possible that we might only take back some of the ground we've lost in the past 30 years?  Either way, it would be better than leaving it in the same hands that have limited and controlled us all this time.

My suggestion in this case is that we "act as if" instead.  Rather than only getting those things that we are allowed by the "powers that be", we should create our own system and act it out.  If your business requires that you cover piercings and tattoos or wear a uniform, don't.  The 99% reaches down to management, it reaches down at least to the upper offices and echelons of large companies.  Don't fire those under you for stupid rules that even you don't agree with.  Take back your time.  Be more human and allow yourself to enjoy life free from the oppressive tyranny of work, work, work.  As long as the majority can agree on these things, we can implement the changes we desire!

Consent of the Governed

I brought up this topic in my post "Capitalism as Favoritism" of 15Mar09.  The idea here being that laws only have as much effect and last only as long as they are adhered to by those being governed.  This is not to say that laws cannot or will not be enforced by the sword or gun because it is certain that they oftentimes have been.  We have seen throughout history where an oligarchical group keeps power by terrorizing the farmers, workers, whatever majority there is.  However, even in the face of brutal repression by those using overt force there is a choice.  It is this choice, the consent, that we are concerned with. These citizens stand up, most often individually at first, and demand change.  Call it revolt, revolution, or reform-however it is characterized it signals the end of draconian rule by an elite class.  I wish that were the end of the story, but it is not so.  It is at this point that the governed consent to a law, series of laws, or entire government which become the new standard. Recognize that even now, after so many of these uprisings, there is still oppression and unfair rule by the elite.  How, if there have been so many examples of these circumstances being imposed and overcome, is this still the case?  How could it be that after overthrowing each dictatorship another springs up in its place?  My supposition is that no real change has taken place and that the reform is simply a "changing of the guard", if you will.  When the majority finally resist their government and succeed in changing the situation, they simply end up with a new elite class who hold the same interests: holding onto their power and status. My feeling is that the majority of people do not want to have the responsibility of wielding power or of adjudication.  I think most people enjoy living a simple life of work, family, and leisure and that it is actually abnormal to desire domination and strife.  I further suggest that it is this aspect which creates the systemic problem of a "ruling elite". Because it is only those few individuals who want to control and contend while others just want to get along and enjoy life.  It automatically creates a divide between those ambitious few and the rest. I think it can be addressed and changed, but in most cases up to now it is ignored so the problem persists.

Getting back to the point, I suggest simply that it is up to the majority to decide things, not the elite. When enough of the citizenry stop following a law or rule, it ceases to have any power.  Furthermore, without the majority following it means that the minority has no power.  "Leaders" are actually quite unimportant, as life and even government goes on without them; it is the masses of citizens which are vital to nations and to everyday operations.

How our Technology Has Outstripped our Humanity

We have ideas that are handed down to us from between 300 to 2500 years ago.  We hold on to blatantly incorrect notions that have no application to modern life. These ideas come into conflict with the discoveries that are made by science every day. We can now transplant genes from completely different species into others. This means, for example, putting genes from a jellyfish into a cat.  Where in this new world does believing in ghosts or luck have any relevance?  How does judging the worth of another person mainly by their external appearance serve?  I, for one, am suspicious and immediately mistrust anyone who is too attractive, well-dressed, or who has expensive accoutrements.  However, not every well-to-do, FUC (fine, upstanding citizen) is actually the morally bankrupt and reprehensible individual I judge them to be.  More to the point, these beliefs keep us from knowing and interacting with each other in meaningful ways. Every judgement about others is one more obstacle to really meeting them and opening up to them, which is the only way to actually relate.  It is in this relatedness that we find our humanity. When technology is simple and information easily comprehended, it poses no barrier to relating.  We can all agree that fire is hot and that being burned hurts.  It does not necessarily follow that fire is dangerous or useful, those are opinions that may differ from person to person.  If we can all find commonality and agreement on our reality then we can act in accord and in unison. If we believe different things, and especially believe incorrectly, that is an obstacle.  It is necessary to agree on facts and on how to use our knowledge in order to make the choices that lead forward.  When that happens, we will be able to actually fulfill the promise and live up to the capacity of our humanity.

Going Deeper into the Heart

I felt I might need to be a bit more explicit about what the problem is with this situation and what I meant by saying, "...trying to create a new generation that is better to their liking."  The article gives an overview of the process and consequences but it comes down to money being the motivation rather than education or the needs of the students.  This large buyer in one area is determining what is going to be printed by these textbook companies in all areas.  The school board with the most buying power is setting the curriculum for most other school boards.  It's the equivalent of Wal-mart where the store tells the manufacturer what they will pay for the product instead of the manufacturer selling to the store based on how much they spent making the product.  In this case, the school board is telling the publishing companies what will be included in the textbooks regardless of what consumers or authors want or need to be included.  These are the same types of companies that use large amounts of the money they get to influence elections and lawmakers to continue allowing toxic (by differing definitions) products to be made and sold unregulated.  Companies which are willing to trammel the rights and opinions of others.  Companies which operate under the guise of "free enterprise" or even "economic Spencerism" if you will.  These companies are actually rigging the market and government regulations to their advantage, continuing to dupe the public.  I will address the "money in politics" issue soon, as it is necessary and unavoidable.

I recognize that it may be uncomfortable and/or difficult to read too many of these posts in one sitting, so please, pace yourself and do not become so enraged by these injustices that you do something reactionary.  Any real change to these problems will require conscious, thoughtful, coordinated, and sustained effort.  Join up with others who understand the situation and make yourselves heard.  Remember what Margaret Mead said!

Buy in Haste, Repent in Leisure

One of the most troubling parts of capitalism is that it does really well when people lack the ability to make an informed decision.  Throughout the history of buying and selling, having an uninformed and uneducated public is key to hucksters and their snake oil empires.  Claiming the whole time that people wouldn't buy their products unless those products worked and "you can trust me because [neighbor/friend/relative/famous person] did!"  The appeal of joining the crowd, of abdicating responsibility for vetting a product to the larger group, is that there isn't any one person to blame.  You can't blame your neighbor for getting you into it because everyone on the block did the same (maintaining friendly relations); you aren't at fault because everyone else bought the same thing, you aren't any better or worse than any of them (preserving your self image and status).  Looking back at what these carpetbaggers have done, it's easy to see why they kept moving: they had a hard time continuing to rip people off once their credibility was shot.  Nowadays, however, with a "global economy" and multinational corporations, we are seeing the same tactics being successfully used over and again.  Most likely this is due to "consumers" (1) not having the knowledge to adequately check products, (2) being overwhelmed with choices and advertising, (3) not making products' risks or shortcomings widely known, and (4) companies generating a slew of products and overwhelming the marketplace.  Asking "what is the difference between the product that came out last week and the previous version" from just last year?  Is it really so different that I need to spend more money?  Or are these things just flashier versions of the same thing or something I really don't need?

When we have finally have adequate education and gain the necessary experience, we will no longer be so easily taken advantage of.  This wouldn't just lead to an implosion of sales of worthless products, but rather to those products being successful which would endure and be helpful .

Public Education v. Private Interests

There is a move by a fairly large group in the U.S. to privatise primary and secondary education, thereby making the ability to pay requisite for an adequate education.  This attack on public education follows on the heels of privitising other governmental functions such as the military, retirement, and utilities, all with consequences we have experienced.  The established order of the public education system is to provide this basic and necessary service to children without regard for ability to pay.  This has been our choice because being adequately educated is intrinsic to the ability of citizens to participate in a democracy.  It is untenable and undesirable for all to privatise this system and I include those trying to enact it.  Firstly, the promise of compulsory universal public education is to better not solely the individuals, but rather society at large by improving each participant's interactions and ability to contribute.  The goal being that as each member is elevated, we raise the collective society that much more: the sum is greater than its parts.  Secondly, having a minimum level of education  increases the satisfaction, self-worth, and capability of each citizen.  When people are educated they are (and feel) better prepared to discuss ideas and have opinions rather than trusting someone else's argument or spouting nonsense based in ignorance. It is a basic drive, as a social species, to relate to others and it should be rewarding and uniting to do so. Third, the argument that private education is better than public is nonsense.  The differences between the two are largely cosmetic and the "improvement" seen in private schools would be mirrored in public schools if some small changes were made there. Public schools are overwhelmed by the sheer number of students, often who have been unsupported at home and in the community.  Many of these children model behaviour which is counterproductive to their own needs and disruptive in the school environment. If corrections were made in these areas, public schools could be as "successful" as the private ones.  The secret motive behind the push to privatise is to further separate individuals and communities and this is the opposite of what we need.  Integrating with others and establishing cooperation are key components in overcoming many of the problems in society today.  If we begin to separate people more strongly into classes even earlier we will only strengthen the attitudes behind and problems with declining advancement.  I believe there are a few who are cognisant of these factors and are counting on these effects.  It is to the capitalistic benefit of the few to be able to easily manipulate and control the majority.  It is not, however, an improvement to their personal, spiritual, relational, or integral well-being.  For these reasons, I would stand with those who oppose all "voucher programs" and any such thing which undermines the promise of education for and improvement of all.  This means that "private schools" may want to watch their backs, I might have a post about them later.

Choice and Consequence

Capitalism is not a system that allows people to exercise free will, even though it is supposedly based on choice. We are told that we are free, that because we can pay for what we want and because the capitalist system provides so many options, that we have real choices.  However, all the choices boil down to the same one: pay or die.  If you can't afford food, you starve; if you don't have the cash for health care, you'll get or stay sick; when you need a vacation, you'd better have plenty of cash.  The problems of capitalism are ameliorated by factors like insurance, subsidies, and donations, but these are not solutions.  Also, the illusion of choice is exposed by having only those select "approved" choices. In this I mean not that we should be able to break laws or do without them altogether, those are collective decisions and necessary for societal well being.  I mean simply that true innovation and free thought is stifled.  We are caught up in the system and have to work within its confines.  This is due to spending so much energy just to meet our "cash needs" (food, clothing, shelter, recreation) there isn't much left over for exploration.  There is only funding for research that "those in charge" allow for, and they only want to pay for things that will get them more money and power. If we want to do something, we have to get their permission and support.  If we want to operate outside of their purview, we still have to work inside the system and have those same  "choices".  It is a self-fulfilling, self-perpetuating cycle whereby the more one plays the game, the more the game controls the player.