I looked at my first blog--about fixing the world, written in July 2012 and originally shared with family and friends. I immediately moved it to Google and it became a rant about the craziness around me. It has been a good outlet for me. My fear and loathing now vented, I can be more creative and productive. Alas, I did not fix the world. But I have changed.
I have become more vocal even in the real world. I found that just like my state, 40% of my coworkers are also liberals in a conservative state. It only took 5 years to find that out, but it has been a weird time. People that are afraid hunker down at first--try to blend in, not be noticed, and wait out the craziness, but after awhile, the waiting starts seeming like its own kind of death.
There is a feeling that comes to a pot of water on the fire, and if you have stirred anything over a fire, while being very calm and mindful, you can feel the change in the spoon right before it starts to bubble. It is as if the energy is rising, but so minutely that there is no evidence except that slight change in the quality of the bottom of the pot. As a person that always loved making jellies and puddings and candies, feeling that moment was a bit exciting. I turned more than one recipe of fudge into sugar by stirring when I should have been waiting, but I can recognize that little vibration when it starts.
These days we are seeing a bit of that vibration in the world. And there are a lot of pots on the fire; a lot of them need to not be stirred or the results will be worse for the outcomes. Figuring out what needs to be done for the good of all is trying for all of us.
We humans are a self centered species. And while half of us are smarter than the other half (don't be offended, that statement can be said about anything, richer, taller, fatter, there is a 50% mark on them all) smart doesn't have anything to do with wise: neither does religion or education or productivity or wealth or success. Right now, we need wisdom-the wisdom to figure out what is most important and what is least important; the wisdom to figure out if it is more important--to be the number one country in something or to have a best possible global team in which we all succeed. We need to have enough wisdom to know the difference between what is success for the long-term and what is just a blip on the monitor for that day.
Perhaps, what we need most is to decide who we are. What kind of species is Homo Sapien? Are we the future, or will the future be brighter for every other species--plant, animal, insect when we finally bring about our own extinction?
Are we mindless hordes of rampaging, slaughtering, thieves? Are we born with no other purpose than to extinguish those cultures we see as competitors? Are we truly just animals with an instinct to maintain our own genetic descendants at the expense of everyone and everything else? Have we no soul?
That was not a religious question. That was a philosophical question, and one we need to answer. We are conscious of right and wrong. We can think about the effects our actions have on everything around us. We are capable choosing goodness and kindness. We are capable of examining the long range effects of our actions. Why then do we go about our business (and business is personal, everything is personal, saying it isn't is like telling your mom you didn't break the lamp, the floor did) as if the only thing that matters is how much money or power or prestige you get from what you did.
"Look mom, I made the Fortune 400 again this year, and only had to screw over a small poor country" "We have access to the oil of those stupid people on the other side of the globe, and my soldiers did that in less than a year and we only had a few thousand casualties." The pseudo-quotes could go on and on. We have replacement words for when we do truly awful things that no wants to know about. We keep our conversations that are most true limited to those people we know that have already committed atrocities in the name of "winning" just like we have.
Replacement words--target for living being that we killed, plausible deniability for lying to everyone, acceptable losses for sure people died but no one important, casualties for soldiers that are no longer available for combat due to death, injury, capture or going missing, collateral damage for loss of lives that were not important enough to avoid killing, friendly fire for we either accidentally or on purpose killed one of our own soldiers, civilian casualties for innocent bystanders, an offensive for a violent attack by military, a police action for when we decide we want our soldiers to go into a place to protect our wants (not our rights) in another country but don't have any reason to declare a war.
No one wants to be the bad guy, except for those petty criminals that have already lost their souls, had them beaten out by a society that left them no other options for success but to be the baddest bad guy of all. But they are nothing next to our winners, our leaders, our powerful people. Those people that are on the covers of magazines, touted as role models, as important, as "movers and shakers" are not judged the same as the people going about their day to day lives trying to do what is right, trying to not hurt anyone or anything while helping our loved ones to be as successful as possible.
If one of the top dogs causes a small war in a country already on the brink of war, all in the name of acquiring that little country's natural resources--that is "good business". If little Tommy down the street bullies first graders out of their lunch money, he is a horrible child with obviously horrible parents. Why do we find excuses for the powerful people that kill, lie, steal, cheat, and bribe their way to more money. Why do we thank them for donating a little of that hijacked money back to the community in exchange for a tax deduction and a brass plaque on the wall.
Why do we buy the excuses for the horrible behavior of people that are more powerful in society than we are. Sure, some of us are scared, of losing what we have, of being the victim of those that are more vicious than we are, of change. But beyond fear, there are people out there lying to themselves. Making excuses for those actions that if done by someone from another country or culture would be a reason to utterly destroy them. Perhaps we need to change how we choose heroes and role models. Perhaps be need to spend some time in front of a mirror examining our own values.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Thursday, January 22, 2015
warmongering.
We all know from comic books and superheroes that the weapons industry is full of war mongers. It is supposed to be what they exist for. A warmonger is a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war. Since a corporation is a person, any group can also be a person. I am going to assume that a war means not just a "declared war" but also police actions and peacekeeping actions in which people are killed and maimed for the safety of the world. Don't forget that every genocide that has occurred was for the "greater good" and the safety of the world.
So who is warmongering besides those most obviously vested in the profits of war? We know about the defense contractors, the mercenaries, the leaders of our armed forces---but who else?
Well, there are the people, the scared people: the people who are full of hate for people that are different than they are, the people that think the only way to stop change is to kill everyone that represents change to them. In our country, they are mostly white anglosaxon protestants. In other countries they look differently. They are the people that fear that the people at the bottom will quit being at the bottom and start rising above them. If inequality is the only thing giving you an advantage, you like inequality. The less advantage you get from that, the more desperate you become. One hundred and fifty years ago, it explained why poor, white sharecroppers in the south didn't want black people to be treated like humans. And today, it explains why poor people that have ancestors that got here as immigrants hundreds of years ago, don't want poor immigrants allowed in. The only thing safe about the status quo if you are almost at the bottom of the societal structure, is the certainty that you are not at the very bottom of that structure.
But where do the warmongers come in? Well, we have many groups these days that are dedicated to hate and to egging on the fear and paranoia of those that feel their position in society threatened. The woman that declared secret messages to Islamic people were embedded in the State of the Union Address this past week. Since she is part of a group that is concerned (read as "stone them all") with LGBT people--as in "they are destroying the American Family", what she said regarding messages to the Islamic community was odd--unless the goal is to use the current fear of the second largest religious group in the world to set off the fear, anger, rage, and craziness of the first largest religious group in the world.
Last time I checked, Islam was much less friendly to the LGBT communities than the average American. Of course, belonging to her group, she might have a skewed view of that. More likely is an agenda in which she riles up the larger groups of people, the ones that are fearful of all Islamic people due to the current threats of terrorism by violent Islamic extremists. It is ironic that the group she is trying to align the president with is a hate filled fundamentalist group, much like her own. The only similarities between the political stance of the president and the Islamic religion is his middle name.which means beautiful. There is no evidence of Islam in his family, his father's people had a religion that was related to both Christianity, Islam, and the original tribal African beliefs. The president went to catholic school and currently goes to church with his family, although I have no idea what, if any, religious beliefs he has.
So why try to align a pro-LGBT president with an anti-LGBT fundamentalist religious group that is currently at the top of the fear-provoking curve by the average (read average as you wish). Because it makes the president the enemy. And most average Americans are not in a panicky fear of the LGBT community. We have plenty of homophobes, and people whose minds can not wrap themselves around the idea that 1950's America had a lot of stuff that was never printed, only discussed in whispers and over fences. And, they want someone to make everyone be like them. They want to know what is normal. They want rules that eliminate anything gray....or rainbow. But the reality is, most families have somebody in the LGBT community that is also in their family. Some of those families have exiled their members that don't meet their specifications, but others have had to open their minds and hearts to other possibilities. In other words, pointing out that this president is not anti-LGBT isn't doing it for her group.
So how crazy does a person have to be to buy that crap? Well, fear makes normally sane people less sane. And people that are sitting on a load of hate and feeling hopeless and trapped by a system that will never let their loved ones succeed, at least not like the TV shows depict people succeeding, those folks have a low tipping point. But how is this warmongering? What is her goal. What could be her goal. We have a lot of activism going on right now. We have a lot of craziness going on right now. Which is which takes a lot of discernment.
I am using that old parent question, the one aimed at building empathy and ethics in a child.
"How would you like it if someone did that to you"
It's good for biting children and it's good for recognizing crazy agendas.
And really, why would a state of the union address contain a secret message? Is there a decoder ring for that?
So who is warmongering besides those most obviously vested in the profits of war? We know about the defense contractors, the mercenaries, the leaders of our armed forces---but who else?
Well, there are the people, the scared people: the people who are full of hate for people that are different than they are, the people that think the only way to stop change is to kill everyone that represents change to them. In our country, they are mostly white anglosaxon protestants. In other countries they look differently. They are the people that fear that the people at the bottom will quit being at the bottom and start rising above them. If inequality is the only thing giving you an advantage, you like inequality. The less advantage you get from that, the more desperate you become. One hundred and fifty years ago, it explained why poor, white sharecroppers in the south didn't want black people to be treated like humans. And today, it explains why poor people that have ancestors that got here as immigrants hundreds of years ago, don't want poor immigrants allowed in. The only thing safe about the status quo if you are almost at the bottom of the societal structure, is the certainty that you are not at the very bottom of that structure.
But where do the warmongers come in? Well, we have many groups these days that are dedicated to hate and to egging on the fear and paranoia of those that feel their position in society threatened. The woman that declared secret messages to Islamic people were embedded in the State of the Union Address this past week. Since she is part of a group that is concerned (read as "stone them all") with LGBT people--as in "they are destroying the American Family", what she said regarding messages to the Islamic community was odd--unless the goal is to use the current fear of the second largest religious group in the world to set off the fear, anger, rage, and craziness of the first largest religious group in the world.
Last time I checked, Islam was much less friendly to the LGBT communities than the average American. Of course, belonging to her group, she might have a skewed view of that. More likely is an agenda in which she riles up the larger groups of people, the ones that are fearful of all Islamic people due to the current threats of terrorism by violent Islamic extremists. It is ironic that the group she is trying to align the president with is a hate filled fundamentalist group, much like her own. The only similarities between the political stance of the president and the Islamic religion is his middle name.which means beautiful. There is no evidence of Islam in his family, his father's people had a religion that was related to both Christianity, Islam, and the original tribal African beliefs. The president went to catholic school and currently goes to church with his family, although I have no idea what, if any, religious beliefs he has.
So why try to align a pro-LGBT president with an anti-LGBT fundamentalist religious group that is currently at the top of the fear-provoking curve by the average (read average as you wish). Because it makes the president the enemy. And most average Americans are not in a panicky fear of the LGBT community. We have plenty of homophobes, and people whose minds can not wrap themselves around the idea that 1950's America had a lot of stuff that was never printed, only discussed in whispers and over fences. And, they want someone to make everyone be like them. They want to know what is normal. They want rules that eliminate anything gray....or rainbow. But the reality is, most families have somebody in the LGBT community that is also in their family. Some of those families have exiled their members that don't meet their specifications, but others have had to open their minds and hearts to other possibilities. In other words, pointing out that this president is not anti-LGBT isn't doing it for her group.
So how crazy does a person have to be to buy that crap? Well, fear makes normally sane people less sane. And people that are sitting on a load of hate and feeling hopeless and trapped by a system that will never let their loved ones succeed, at least not like the TV shows depict people succeeding, those folks have a low tipping point. But how is this warmongering? What is her goal. What could be her goal. We have a lot of activism going on right now. We have a lot of craziness going on right now. Which is which takes a lot of discernment.
I am using that old parent question, the one aimed at building empathy and ethics in a child.
"How would you like it if someone did that to you"
It's good for biting children and it's good for recognizing crazy agendas.
And really, why would a state of the union address contain a secret message? Is there a decoder ring for that?
Saturday, January 17, 2015
5 continents?
Let's start with "race is a social construct". The human genome both denies and confirms this. Are there any differences between people of different races at a genetic level? Yes! Are the differences within a race much more diverse than between races? Yes!
Things to remember. Race is not species.
Things to remember. Race is not species.
Biology definition of species; the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. (for pure curiosity, look at a comparison of chromosome counts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count
Obviously from this chart, having the same number of chromosomes does not make it possible to reproduce. Hybrids are infertile, with exceptions of domestics from wild counterparts--perhaps these particular species are also a social construct.
So what is with the continents? Continents explain our races. (Antartica??? who knows--if humans ever lived there, they also died there.) Specifically, geographic isolation over a long period of time explains races. And yes, I know that there are more than 5 continents. At one time (an ice age), the mountains separating two groups of people were as effective as an ocean in separating people.
Think geologic time. There is evidence that humans have been around 190,000 years. The last Ice Age was from 110,000 to 12,000 years ago. That is not a "some time in there" time frame, but 102,000 thousand year time frame. History, the part we know via pictures and written word is about 6,000 years. That means the Ice Age was over for about 6,000 years before we recorded anything that made it to now. During our "modern, 6,000 years, we traveled pretty well. We find evidence of ships and artifacts from one place in very unexpected other places. Just plain determination and teamwork was not as efficient as mechanics and electronics, but effective none the less.
The Ice Age made our current Midwest winters look pretty mild. People weren't traveling very fast or very far. And it is likely, that teen pregnancy was more the rule than the exception during that 100,000 plus period of time, so a generation was more like 15 years than 20. That means over 6,000 generations passed with most people choosing mates from people that lived nearby.. That makes for a small gene pool, not as small as the cheetah gene pool--which will likely be the cause of their eventual extinction--but small enough to create some definite family resemblances. A combination of natural selection for those traits that make surviving in a freezing place versus surviving in a sunny, warm place alter who is more likely to survive long enough to reproduce. Never underestimate the importance of Vitamin D in reproduction. Add to that humanities tendency to characterize people as beautiful or ugly, desirable or untouchable and you have altered the gene pool again. A people that values hair color over intelligence, a society that likes short over tall, fat over thin, light over dark, all those things will create changes in the population of that location. And soon, after only 10 or 20 millennium, you have something we call race.
If you look at the people living in borderlands, places where the continents connected during that 6-12 thousand year period after the Ice Age (and yes, I am aware that the last Ice age is still sort of slowly melting away as proven by our glaciers still being present in places they weren't during the age of the dinosaurs, but I don't know that we humans really want to speed that up too much, we aren't prepared for the world the dinosaurs loved, we didn't genetically develop for it. If it is slow enough, we will, or at least we might survive it.) you will note that they have certain similarities, although those similarities involve a greater diversity than those people living in the areas more isolated. We see a preponderance of dominant gene phenomes with enough recessive phenomes appearing to make it obvious we are a heterogenous group. In areas without genetic isolation, people rapidly become more diverse in appearance and in genome. In places that have maintained their gene pool isolation, either by geography or by culture, you develop what racists frequently refer to as racial purity. A population homogenous in genome and displaying whatever recessive genes they consider to be superior--such as those all blond haired, ice-blue eyed children--no wait, that was the "Village of the damned". Just kidding, but the Nazi's knew what I was talking about.
But I'm sick of social constructs, thus the 5 continents. Five geographically isolated-mostly-land masses is all we have. Therefore, 5 continents: Africa, Australia, America, and Eurasia.and Antartica (because it is an isolated landmass and may one day prove to be our salvation from ourselves. If you think I have cheated anyone of there own continent, check a map, or better, an accurate globe.
And while we are eliminating social constructs, maybe we should make race and species synonymous--and leave it at human.
But I'm sick of social constructs, thus the 5 continents. Five geographically isolated-mostly-land masses is all we have. Therefore, 5 continents: Africa, Australia, America, and Eurasia.and Antartica (because it is an isolated landmass and may one day prove to be our salvation from ourselves. If you think I have cheated anyone of there own continent, check a map, or better, an accurate globe.
And while we are eliminating social constructs, maybe we should make race and species synonymous--and leave it at human.
Monday, January 12, 2015
I can't take it anymore--give me a real deal.
I'm gathering up my satellite TV boxes this morning and returning them. It isn't that I don't watch anything or that I think watching is bad for me or morally wrong or anything like that. It is the fact that once again, I'm facing a huge monthly bill rivaling my electric bill. I'm being charged 56.99 a month for channels, 35.00 a month for equipment, 1.68 for other charges, adjustments and taxes. Originally it was 42.00 a month total. but that was because when someone comes onboard, they get specials, they get rebates, they get coupons. they get freebies. As those go away, the price rises.
If I call them, they will offer me three free months of a movie channel. If that doesn't entice me to stay, they will offer me three free months of three movie channels---then they will find another six month discount bringing me back to only 10$ over my starting price. I could do that forever, they get their 1 month to 6 months of full price then discount me again.
But the actuality of the call to get the price back down, the time on hold, he number of phone transfers, the number of times I get cut off or some new and desperate telephone sales person decides to threaten me if I try to get out of an already expired contract, it makes me nauseous. I put it off. Thus, the six months at full price.
And what is it I'm being offered at this nice ridiculous price? Channels 1-9999 as far as the guide is concerned. But the reality is, I have access to 165 different channels unless I want to get pay-per-view (not included in my bill, it raises it quickly if I use it)
Of those 165 channels, 11 are available locally if I get a good digital antennae. 50 are shopping and ads, 17 are news and weather, 16 religion, etc. In other words, I'm going to miss BBC, and AMC. Thank god for computer sites for these networks. Most of the escapist crap I watch is on broadcast anyway. And while I will miss the DVR, I'll live. In 3 months I can buy one of my own with the money I've saved turning off the satellite-- if I miss it that much.
What do I want? I want a Cable or Satellite company that gives me complete Ala Carte. I only want to pay for what I watch. I don't want to have to go past 20 pages of Pay-Per-View listings to see what is on TV. I don't want to see stuff that is not available to me. I REALLY don't want to pay to have access to all the crappy stations that do nothing but try to sell me their junk. I don't want to see line after line of the same show available. And I don't want to be offered a special deal for a few months. I want a good price. I want a price that makes sense. If I watch about 2 hours of TV per day, then I don't want to pay $1.50 per hour to watch what is available for free. There are very few great TV offerings. I enjoy some of the series. But most of us just turn on the tube for the noise when we are alone, to mindlessly relax for a minute before going to bed, to escape.
I can do all that for $7.00 a month with Netflix. I can get most of my preferred shows with a digital antennae or off the internet. I guess the question to the company is, does it really pay that well to install your equipment, keep a fully staffed group of people whose job is to keep you from cancelling when they lose their discounts, and reinstall them again when they come back in 2 years after going through the same thing with the other local TV access company? Back and forth, back and forth, and with better choices for accessing exactly what we want without satellite and cable companies available every year. Figure out what you really need to charge to provide the service your customers want. Leave the prices alone. Make them honest, none of those add on installation, equipment, tax fee surprises. None of those sudden increases. None of that crappy double-talk to convince people that they don't want to cancel, they want three free months. How about an honest price for an honest service.
And I know what you are paying your people, so who is raking in all that money?
Late note--4 hours after I cancelled, an earnest telephone customer service representative told me he could get me 3 free months of my preferred movie channel. When I told him my starting price and my current price, he looked it up, then finally after thirty minutes of add-ons, offered me a year of 37.00 a month for my current package with all the movie channels for the full year and a 200$ visa gift card, bringing my price for all that to 25$ a month. Did I take it? I was tempted. But at some point, enough is enough. Quit screwing your customers in the first place. Sell us what we want at a reasonable price.
If I call them, they will offer me three free months of a movie channel. If that doesn't entice me to stay, they will offer me three free months of three movie channels---then they will find another six month discount bringing me back to only 10$ over my starting price. I could do that forever, they get their 1 month to 6 months of full price then discount me again.
But the actuality of the call to get the price back down, the time on hold, he number of phone transfers, the number of times I get cut off or some new and desperate telephone sales person decides to threaten me if I try to get out of an already expired contract, it makes me nauseous. I put it off. Thus, the six months at full price.
And what is it I'm being offered at this nice ridiculous price? Channels 1-9999 as far as the guide is concerned. But the reality is, I have access to 165 different channels unless I want to get pay-per-view (not included in my bill, it raises it quickly if I use it)
Of those 165 channels, 11 are available locally if I get a good digital antennae. 50 are shopping and ads, 17 are news and weather, 16 religion, etc. In other words, I'm going to miss BBC, and AMC. Thank god for computer sites for these networks. Most of the escapist crap I watch is on broadcast anyway. And while I will miss the DVR, I'll live. In 3 months I can buy one of my own with the money I've saved turning off the satellite-- if I miss it that much.
What do I want? I want a Cable or Satellite company that gives me complete Ala Carte. I only want to pay for what I watch. I don't want to have to go past 20 pages of Pay-Per-View listings to see what is on TV. I don't want to see stuff that is not available to me. I REALLY don't want to pay to have access to all the crappy stations that do nothing but try to sell me their junk. I don't want to see line after line of the same show available. And I don't want to be offered a special deal for a few months. I want a good price. I want a price that makes sense. If I watch about 2 hours of TV per day, then I don't want to pay $1.50 per hour to watch what is available for free. There are very few great TV offerings. I enjoy some of the series. But most of us just turn on the tube for the noise when we are alone, to mindlessly relax for a minute before going to bed, to escape.
I can do all that for $7.00 a month with Netflix. I can get most of my preferred shows with a digital antennae or off the internet. I guess the question to the company is, does it really pay that well to install your equipment, keep a fully staffed group of people whose job is to keep you from cancelling when they lose their discounts, and reinstall them again when they come back in 2 years after going through the same thing with the other local TV access company? Back and forth, back and forth, and with better choices for accessing exactly what we want without satellite and cable companies available every year. Figure out what you really need to charge to provide the service your customers want. Leave the prices alone. Make them honest, none of those add on installation, equipment, tax fee surprises. None of those sudden increases. None of that crappy double-talk to convince people that they don't want to cancel, they want three free months. How about an honest price for an honest service.
And I know what you are paying your people, so who is raking in all that money?
Late note--4 hours after I cancelled, an earnest telephone customer service representative told me he could get me 3 free months of my preferred movie channel. When I told him my starting price and my current price, he looked it up, then finally after thirty minutes of add-ons, offered me a year of 37.00 a month for my current package with all the movie channels for the full year and a 200$ visa gift card, bringing my price for all that to 25$ a month. Did I take it? I was tempted. But at some point, enough is enough. Quit screwing your customers in the first place. Sell us what we want at a reasonable price.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
government of the people, for the people
I realize I remember that from the Gettysburg Address and not the constitution, but even if we aren't a real democracy, even if we are a Republic (and the downside of a true democracy is absolute rule by the majority. Our own government with its system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful and its Bill of Rights and Amendments to prevent the majority from treating anyone that is not part of it like criminals or pariah or non citizens is better for a melting pot--or stew--like us. And isn't that what we all expect from our government. Aren't governments that have nothing to do with the non ruling people just making time till the next revolution?
But we are traipsing far from our safe zone. We have done so many things to dismantle our own safety nets that we are courting disaster. We change our voting districts to make it where our states majority can get all the seats, (so in my fine state, about 40% of the people have no representation, they don't even have a candidate in the primaries). In states with large non-majority people eligible to vote, they do strange things to 1)make it harder to register to vote, 2)make it harder to get to the polls in the time allotted; if a site has 2-3 times the number of voters that can realistically get through, then 2/3 of that group have been eliminated from the vote. They make it harder to get on the ballot, make it known that no one that can't come up with as much money as the majority party to run a campaign is wasting their time. There are stories of non majority people being threatened if they run, with everything from not getting invited to the right events to physical violence to themselves and their loved ones. And the news? We now have a network whose news is so incredibly propagandist that it will raise a thinking person's blood pressure. That is not counting the dozen's of internet news sites that have no problem with printing the most outrageous, most ridiculous, most untrue things they can find. Big followings get more ads.
A lot of people assume that if you are not for the majority party in your state, you must be a huge fan of the other party. We are currently living in a world in which loyalty to a side is the most important thing. But what if you are just for doing what is best for everyone. Giving everyone a shot at a good life. Letting everyone have access to good preventative healthcare so their health does not derail their dreams. What if you really believe that everyone should have access to the same educational opportunities; that being born extra wealthy is not a requirement to have those special school experiences and that it is not just those 'token math whizzes that need their special gifts nurtured. Why not let everyone willing to put in the time and effort to get a college education have access to that, and not just at community colleges and vo-techs. No one is asking for a living stipend--that would be entirely too European for us--just the tuition and books. Of course, when people have to work full time while they go to school, that five year limit before their past credits start going away needs to be examined. It isn't like history and algebra have changed. It is more of a "get another dollar our of them" mode. Schools that receive financial aid for their students need to quit treating those students like goldmines and start focusing on what they are there for--providing a good education. If we examined closely the amount of money schools spend on marketing reps(also called admission reps) and financial aid specialists we would need to ask ourselves why so many of the adjunct professors and teachers are receiving less pay than those reps and specialists.Could it be those schools see themselves as providing a place to take in financial aid rather than a place to provide a good education?
And how about small businesses, small contractors, non-franchised restaurants. Why do we have strip malls and downtown stores and zoned business buildings standing empty while people that want nothing more than to start a business going day after day to a job they hate and are therefore not good at.
Too long, the aim of our nation, unspoken and deeply denied, is to keep the money with the moneyed and keep the poor with the poor. The middle class has become a joke. Two people work 40+ hours a week to pay their rent and groceries and car payment, or if they didn't ruin their credit on school and some awful period of unemployment, their mortgage. They send their kids to daycare as soon as the FMLA runs out, and live in fear that the daycare worker is mentally ill or on drugs or just plain mean. They live in fear of losing their job every time the child gets sick because, despite the fact that kids in daycare catch everything that goes around, they can't stay at daycare when they are sick. Jobs give paid time off for scheduled vacations or for illness, but not for taking care of children with a cold. For most people, the thought of trying to provide care for more than one or two children is enough to cause a panic attack.
Perhaps defining the middle class is part of the problem.
"fall between the working class and the upper class"
"the class between nobility and peasantry"
"professionals, managers, senior civil servants possessing significant human capital"
"labor aristocracy, professionals, white collar workers"
The size of the middle class depends on how it is defined, whether by education, wealth, environment of upbringing, social network, manners or values, etc. These are all related, but are far from deterministically dependent. The following factors are often ascribed in modern usage to a "middle class": (but describe by whom?)
A physician is middle class. (average pay $170,000)
Lawyers are middle class. (average $130,000)
University Professor is middle class. (average $130,000)
Engineers are middle class (average $140,000)
Politicians are middle class (average $69,700) (lets break that down--they are not all equal)
Members of congress ($174,000)
About 20% of the USA population makes more than $100,000,
So, minus that "no doubt about it--we're wealthy" top 2%, that puts about 18% of the USA as genuinely middle-
class by money comparison.
But what about home ownership. It is currently around 65%. But the number is deceptive because people
living in other people's houses are not counted. Therefore the percent is elevated. There is nothing about
home ownership alone making a person middle class, or how much a house has to cost to make a person
middle class or whether it can be mortgaged to the hilt versus paid off. Maybe that is not a very good indicator.
I know plenty of farmers, truck drivers and plumbers with their own houses. I think that I like home ownership
as an indicator. It is probably the only way I make it there.
Which means that the majority of the country is neither wealthy or middle-class. We are a nation of working
class people that have lost their power. We are diverse. We are invisible. We are the walk-ons and crowds
of the movies. We are lost. We have lost touch with our roots. We've lost contact with the reality of our
existence. We grasp at anything that lets us put on airs and distance ourselves from those other working class
and poor people we see around us..
What do they say?
"the first step is admitting their is a problem"
"Houston, we have a problem"
Time to take back our power for future generations. We are are nation of the people, for the people,
by the people.
But we are traipsing far from our safe zone. We have done so many things to dismantle our own safety nets that we are courting disaster. We change our voting districts to make it where our states majority can get all the seats, (so in my fine state, about 40% of the people have no representation, they don't even have a candidate in the primaries). In states with large non-majority people eligible to vote, they do strange things to 1)make it harder to register to vote, 2)make it harder to get to the polls in the time allotted; if a site has 2-3 times the number of voters that can realistically get through, then 2/3 of that group have been eliminated from the vote. They make it harder to get on the ballot, make it known that no one that can't come up with as much money as the majority party to run a campaign is wasting their time. There are stories of non majority people being threatened if they run, with everything from not getting invited to the right events to physical violence to themselves and their loved ones. And the news? We now have a network whose news is so incredibly propagandist that it will raise a thinking person's blood pressure. That is not counting the dozen's of internet news sites that have no problem with printing the most outrageous, most ridiculous, most untrue things they can find. Big followings get more ads.
A lot of people assume that if you are not for the majority party in your state, you must be a huge fan of the other party. We are currently living in a world in which loyalty to a side is the most important thing. But what if you are just for doing what is best for everyone. Giving everyone a shot at a good life. Letting everyone have access to good preventative healthcare so their health does not derail their dreams. What if you really believe that everyone should have access to the same educational opportunities; that being born extra wealthy is not a requirement to have those special school experiences and that it is not just those 'token math whizzes that need their special gifts nurtured. Why not let everyone willing to put in the time and effort to get a college education have access to that, and not just at community colleges and vo-techs. No one is asking for a living stipend--that would be entirely too European for us--just the tuition and books. Of course, when people have to work full time while they go to school, that five year limit before their past credits start going away needs to be examined. It isn't like history and algebra have changed. It is more of a "get another dollar our of them" mode. Schools that receive financial aid for their students need to quit treating those students like goldmines and start focusing on what they are there for--providing a good education. If we examined closely the amount of money schools spend on marketing reps(also called admission reps) and financial aid specialists we would need to ask ourselves why so many of the adjunct professors and teachers are receiving less pay than those reps and specialists.Could it be those schools see themselves as providing a place to take in financial aid rather than a place to provide a good education?
And how about small businesses, small contractors, non-franchised restaurants. Why do we have strip malls and downtown stores and zoned business buildings standing empty while people that want nothing more than to start a business going day after day to a job they hate and are therefore not good at.
Too long, the aim of our nation, unspoken and deeply denied, is to keep the money with the moneyed and keep the poor with the poor. The middle class has become a joke. Two people work 40+ hours a week to pay their rent and groceries and car payment, or if they didn't ruin their credit on school and some awful period of unemployment, their mortgage. They send their kids to daycare as soon as the FMLA runs out, and live in fear that the daycare worker is mentally ill or on drugs or just plain mean. They live in fear of losing their job every time the child gets sick because, despite the fact that kids in daycare catch everything that goes around, they can't stay at daycare when they are sick. Jobs give paid time off for scheduled vacations or for illness, but not for taking care of children with a cold. For most people, the thought of trying to provide care for more than one or two children is enough to cause a panic attack.
Perhaps defining the middle class is part of the problem.
"fall between the working class and the upper class"
"the class between nobility and peasantry"
"professionals, managers, senior civil servants possessing significant human capital"
"labor aristocracy, professionals, white collar workers"
The size of the middle class depends on how it is defined, whether by education, wealth, environment of upbringing, social network, manners or values, etc. These are all related, but are far from deterministically dependent. The following factors are often ascribed in modern usage to a "middle class": (but describe by whom?)
- Achievement of tertiary education.
- Holding professional qualifications, including academics, lawyers, chartered engineers, politicians, and doctors, regardless of leisure or wealth.
- Belief in bourgeois values, such as high rates of house ownership and jobs which are perceived to be secure.
A physician is middle class. (average pay $170,000)
Lawyers are middle class. (average $130,000)
University Professor is middle class. (average $130,000)
Engineers are middle class (average $140,000)
Politicians are middle class (average $69,700) (lets break that down--they are not all equal)
Members of congress ($174,000)
About 20% of the USA population makes more than $100,000,
So, minus that "no doubt about it--we're wealthy" top 2%, that puts about 18% of the USA as genuinely middle-
class by money comparison.
But what about home ownership. It is currently around 65%. But the number is deceptive because people
living in other people's houses are not counted. Therefore the percent is elevated. There is nothing about
home ownership alone making a person middle class, or how much a house has to cost to make a person
middle class or whether it can be mortgaged to the hilt versus paid off. Maybe that is not a very good indicator.
I know plenty of farmers, truck drivers and plumbers with their own houses. I think that I like home ownership
as an indicator. It is probably the only way I make it there.
Which means that the majority of the country is neither wealthy or middle-class. We are a nation of working
class people that have lost their power. We are diverse. We are invisible. We are the walk-ons and crowds
of the movies. We are lost. We have lost touch with our roots. We've lost contact with the reality of our
existence. We grasp at anything that lets us put on airs and distance ourselves from those other working class
and poor people we see around us..
What do they say?
"the first step is admitting their is a problem"
"Houston, we have a problem"
Time to take back our power for future generations. We are are nation of the people, for the people,
by the people.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
adjectives and adverbs
Joseph Campbell
defines yellow press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page
headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal,
using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy
reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion. The term was
extensively used to describe certain major New York City newspapers about 1900 as they battled for circulation.
Frank Luther Mott defines yellow journalism in terms of five characteristics:[3]
Today, if you open any webpage, social media, newspaper, magazine, you will find that whether it meets the definition of yellow journalism or not, there are an excess of extreme descriptors. Every video uploaded by an amateur is "amazing" "utterly adorable" "the most horrifying". Open facebook and every comment is "beautiful" "wonderful" "too cool". We are not creative in our descriptions. There is not an increase in metaphors and similes. The adjectives used are neither unique or used unusually. But they are extreme.
And by using "extreme", I am falling into the pattern.
I remember when the most likely person to use the word extreme was the weather man (person?). Next up were articles about politics. Now there are sports, groups, well, you've heard them.
So, we have perfection, genius, cutest thing ever, (and apparently by adding "ever" it ramps up the meaning logarithmically) glorious, amazing, wonderous, and on and one. Talking like that would sound a lot like a carny pitch.
So what is feeding this trend? Is it the number of internet news services that seem more worried about meeting Frank Luther Motts's five characteristics than about saying something true or insightful or....true? And the last one, I think he may have that wrong. It seems to me that an article that is clearly written to gain the sympathy of one side only should fall here--whether it is on the side of the underdog or on the side of the current convention. We are so focused on the emotional side of every news item that the facts have little meaning.
It all needs to be "beyond epic" so choose your favorite 5 extreme descriptors and use them up.
Frank Luther Mott defines yellow journalism in terms of five characteristics:[3]
- scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
- lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
- use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
- emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips
- dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.
Today, if you open any webpage, social media, newspaper, magazine, you will find that whether it meets the definition of yellow journalism or not, there are an excess of extreme descriptors. Every video uploaded by an amateur is "amazing" "utterly adorable" "the most horrifying". Open facebook and every comment is "beautiful" "wonderful" "too cool". We are not creative in our descriptions. There is not an increase in metaphors and similes. The adjectives used are neither unique or used unusually. But they are extreme.
And by using "extreme", I am falling into the pattern.
I remember when the most likely person to use the word extreme was the weather man (person?). Next up were articles about politics. Now there are sports, groups, well, you've heard them.
So, we have perfection, genius, cutest thing ever, (and apparently by adding "ever" it ramps up the meaning logarithmically) glorious, amazing, wonderous, and on and one. Talking like that would sound a lot like a carny pitch.
So what is feeding this trend? Is it the number of internet news services that seem more worried about meeting Frank Luther Motts's five characteristics than about saying something true or insightful or....true? And the last one, I think he may have that wrong. It seems to me that an article that is clearly written to gain the sympathy of one side only should fall here--whether it is on the side of the underdog or on the side of the current convention. We are so focused on the emotional side of every news item that the facts have little meaning.
It all needs to be "beyond epic" so choose your favorite 5 extreme descriptors and use them up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Make love not war--a counterculture slogan from the 1960's--very hippy-dippy, very anti-establishment, very John Lennon. Images of graf...
-
We are currently seeing lots of change, lots of manmade change, change that is affecting the weather, the average temperature, the percent...