Is I Crazy? You Decide.

Tags

economics, evolution, humans, society

Oh, boy have I unleashed the dogs of war. Offering up such a juicy steak to those incredibly warped individuals who don’t think that I’m the greatest thing since sliced bread. Handing them an eviscerating tool of great power–is I crazy? Twice?

Trust me, letting them think they have me at their mercy is just my way of inviting them into my lab-bore-a-tory said the spider to the fly.

Is I?

As a child, I laid upon my bed and wondered was anyone in the world like me? I feared not, and in the era of peer-pressured sameness that we all strove to reach, I quivered. Was I normal?

Now, at the threshold of agedness ( I shall never be a “senior” or and old person I swear), I lay upon my bed and wonder if there is anyone in the world like me. I fear so, and in an era of eccentricism, I quiver. I don’t wanna be normal.

I think my prayers are answered. Were answered, or were ignored but I was just lucky that my prayers were actually the way things are? One of the above.

I’m a nut. I believe in all sorts of things that you no doubt think foolish.

For instance.

I wrote about this before so bear with me. In college I took a logic course and was asked to write a response to this statement: Would you be willing to pay for the support of an individual whose only requirement was to read? In other words can I fathom a world in which not everyone must work for a living?

Buckminster Fuller suggested an answer:

“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”

See,  I went to college. But not to think. I went to earn a living. And I did very well, thank you very much. I set myself up for a gentle life, not working too hard, in a reasonably decent setting. I had tons of friends and colleagues. I made good money and enjoyed the perks of professional work. I needed to make a living and by all standards, I succeeded rather well.

But that’s not what should be or could be. Too many good minds are wasted in menial work of all sorts, professional and otherwise. These minds might be better used if we just let them think.

I think it would all sort itself out over time. I mean if you aren’t a good thinker, then thinking would become both boring and well, mindless at some point. One would ache to get one’s hand on a piece of wood or a pie crust. And one would move to that. We would do what pleases us and revs up our juices. It would be sane.

Trouble is, most of us aren’t willing to pay for others to do what seems pointless to many. But thinkers think about things and thinking about things leads to ideas and ideas lead to schematics and drawings and experiments and prototypes, and, well you see where this goes.

New stuff is discovered and people who work with their hands for pleasure make this new stuff. And thinkers and paper pushers and bus drivers enjoy this new thing, which makes their lives a wisp easier or more pleasant. What’s not to like here?

Still, tight asses will complain. They will suspiciously stare at the thinker and want proof that their money is being well spent. No lobster sir, be satisfied with bean soup you grifter! Yes, they will not trust the process, because they are all about making sure they ain’t bein’ ripped off.

Hey nothing is perfect. Somebody is always scammin’ the system. Hell people go to great lengths to set themselves up as pillars of the community when they are stealin’ ya blind. Humans are very human no matter the system.

But if you are of the mind that humans are in a process of evolving, then shouldn’t we pursue avenues that point to evolution in our THINKING as well as in our technology? Shouldn’t we be nobler and kinder in our systems of governing, pushing us mere mortals to be better than we think we can be?

Didn’t Jefferson and Adams and Madison and all the rest focus on the horizon and see a future better than any before them? Didn’t they offer us the messiness of democracy because we would screw it up surely as humans, but we would have something worth struggling for rather than languishing in the monarch-subject model?

Why do we keep beating up on the defenseless? Look, a cursory examination of physical types of human being proves rather clearly that genetics is a tricky and sometimes comical thing. I’ve seen people put together in what looked to be no more than random cutting and pasting of various limbs. Head too small, body growing outward as one descended, legs like stumps without the merest reference to ankles?

If some physical jokes pass as the range of genetic drift allowed within the species,why is it so hard to realize that not everyone has inside their cranium the makings of even a good basic biologist? Some people are dumb. Some are thoughtless. Some are unable to walk and chew gum, or see beyond their own nose.  Why must they be conformed to some job to which they are ill-suited in almost all respects?

Let them find their way, and then make up the slack. Don’t they have enough to contend with? What must it be like to realize that one got shortchanged in the brain functioning department? To think but not to reason well? Ah, that’s the rub.

Out of common decency let these people be! A decent home, nutritious food, medical care, education based on interests. Do this to our less fortunate and embrace them as providing a meaningful richness to the fabric of humanity and move on.

Stop the whine. Yes, uber conservative with your compartmentalized brain and your rigid sense of right and wrong, I’m talking to you. You have worked all your life. Nobody gave you a thing (I know you believe this although it’s far from true). You can’t retire because you don’t have enough of whatever it is you think essential.

But that is not the only model of living available. There is nothing to be ashamed of if for any reason you can’t hoe the row established by the not so bright but physically strong average human. There is a place for us all, and if we do it right, we will be doubly enriched by the offerings of all these oddball humans who contribute to the human family diversity.

Sometimes people just make damn bad decisions. Should they pay forever? Or can you cut them some slack and help them exist in what’s left of their lives? Can ya?

That damn Protestant work ethic and those bootstraps will be small comfort in the grave. It did not serve you especially well quite honestly. There are other ways.

It’s a little bit socialistic I guess. And a bit psychosis.

That is. . . .

We participate in SoCS.

Why I Remain Optimistic

Tags

editorial, guns, law, political awareness, society, Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman

It was a sobering Sunday. Sobered by the awful truth that once again, the judicial system has failed us as a society. It is intended to do so from time to time. It needs be that way if we are to have a better than even chance of not convicting on whims and possibilities. But that does not lessen the pain in the individual case.

Progressives have a serious flaw in our desire for fairness, equality, and laws that “do no harm” to the greater number. We can only equate “us” to the great us of humanity, and humanity isn’t there yet. Confused?

It is seemingly a proven fact that the great march toward more “civilized” behavior is the product of the group, the tribe. We collect into groups for some purpose that seems to serve the individual, but along the way, the group can and does, when working properly, become more important than the self. It allows us to be altruistic, compassionate, and so forth even when not to our individual interests.

Failure to identify with a group leads to what Émile Durkheim’s called anomie wherein there is a mismatch between what the individual conceives of as societal norms and what the society does. In other words, people become adrift, and unconnected to the larger world about them. Progressives push for a world wherein everyone is provided for at some basic level. They stress the individual and they/we argue that “we” are one in our humanity–that is our group. Most of humanity is no where near that place in their own head. There are still too many “others” out there. So Progressives push for a world that the world is not yet ready for.

What has that got to do with Trayvon Martin? Nothing much, and almost everything if you will bear with me.

A young black male travels the streets of a neighborhood at night. He is “profiled” by a man who has self-styled himself as some sort of neighborhood sheriff, carrying his weapon, patrolling his self-designated neighborhood, looking for “bad” guys. He comes equipped with a radio to call the real police should he come upon one of his prey. He stalks the young man, until in fear the young man stops and confronts his stalker. Some sort of physical altercation ensues, and the wanna-be cop now succumbs to a fear of the youngster he stalks, and shoots and kills him.

A law allows him to do this. This law says that he can “stand his ground” if fearful for his personal safety. Even when that situation was entirely self-created. As one twittered or facebooked, “wow, I can pick out people I don’t like, stalk them until they turn to confront me, and then claim I’m scared and kill them. What a cool law!”

It’s a law brought to you by the NRA and ALEC. It is a law designed for white people who carry guns to avoid being prosecuted when they go too far (by normal understanding), killing unarmed people who may or may not be threatening them with a beating or worse. It has been passed in some twenty-five states as of this writing. Homicide rates have gone up 7-9% in the states that have passed such laws, proving that the killing is good in them. That translates to something like 500-700 more dead bodies. There is no proof at all that crime is reduced.

So where is the silver lining?

There is none really, not in terms of the facts, but I would argue that there is still good news out there to proclaim.

Were you outraged? Depressed? Sad? Were you surprised? If you were, any or all of these, AND if you hadn’t thought much about such things before, or considered them this bad, well, change has come your way.

If you believe that it is simply different to be young and black in America than it is to be white and young. If you believe that guns may not kill people but people with guns kill more people. If you believe that a stand your ground law is wrong on many levels since it rewards those who create their own terror from which to shoot from. If you were surprised that this was not at least manslaughter in the eyes of the law. If you were offended that Fox Noise continued throughout the trial to gin up the fear among whites that there would be rioting in the streets if Zimmerman were acquitted. If you were any of the above—

Join the ranks of those of us who have always known and believed these things. Join us in the tens of hundreds if that’s all “you” constitute. Perhaps “you” are tens of thousands. But you will remember and you will join an organization or be sure to vote next time. You have tipped over into a “group” whose success you now champion, something greater than self, something that is good for all.

And when you do, you add imperceptibly to the number needed to reach that magic number called the “tipping point” when we as a human family start seeing all of us as our group, our tribe.

If across the land the GOP remains engaged in the act of denying women the right to choose how to care for their own bodies and how to tend to them medically, and some tens of hundreds of women become enraged, and some tens of dozens join groups and vote accordingly, then they and you will add to that magic number called the “tipping point” when we as a human family start seeing all of us as our group, our tribe.

That is the civilization toward which I cast my vision. That is the future as I see it. It will come slower or faster than I hope, project, or believe, but it is inevitable I contend. We may lose ninety percent of the battles, but even in the losses we convert some, who become so disgusted with power misused and people abused that they join the HUMAN RACE.

The best remark I heard yesterday was “I dream of a time when a George Zimmerman rolls down his window and yelled, ‘hey kid, need a ride?’ to a young Trayvon Martin.” One day it will be a reality.

Related articles

• Race, Justice, and the Political Economy of Vigilantism (concurringopinions.com)
• The Real Winners Of the Zimmerman Trial Were the NRA and ALEC (politicususa.com)
• Richard (RJ) Eskow: I’m Sorry, Trayvon, But We’ll Walk On (huffingtonpost.com)
• It IS About Race: Study Finds Significant Racial Bias In ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws (addictinginfo.org)

Ideological Wars That Never Were

Tags

conservatives, ideology, liberals, society, The Gilded age, theory

Because Willard was only a pretend conservative (my words), Joe Scarborough laments we have never had the conversation we should have: namely the ideological underpinnings of those two behemoths, Liberalism and Conservatism. And we should have, he argues.

According to Joe, conservatives are about securing individual liberties for folks, keeping regulations and taxes low so that people can create their lives as they see fit. Read that as small government. It’s job mainly I would assume is to protect the population from enemies and to intrude only in those areas that require a uniformity in order for things like commerce to operate smoothly.

Sounds okay.

Liberalism, as I define it at least, see government as a much bigger deal. Liberals see government as the last foundation for human lives. It provides the minimum needs of its population. That includes food, clothing, housing, medical care, and education, while providing the basic environment for work–fair wages, safe conditions, and a means to redress grievances for conditions and benefits.

Conservatives, I think, see the Liberal model as bringing about an indolent population that is happy to recline on the sofa, with remote in hand, living on the dole. Liberals see the Conservative model as pie-in-the-sky unrealistic and contra to human nature.

Shall we examine?

Conservatives believe that business (free markets) are best. Business is left unfettered to compete against each other, and everything stems from this. Men and women who have ideas, secure capital, hire workers, and make products that are freely offered in the market place where they compete with other products. As a business succeeds, the products improve, the wages improve, blah, blah, blah.

But this is not what happens. I have read in a number of places recently that the sociopath is not limited to only serial killers. They are indeed often found among CEOs. We have the evidence of this in the period of American history known as the time of the Gilded Age, or the Age of the Robber Barons.

What we learned is that certain men, in all the major industries were not about making great products, but instead were driven by only one thing–winning. And winning was defined by money, and power. And that was determined by putting competitors out of business and controlling the market. No thought was given to the quality of the product, and no thought was given to the life of the worker who made it all happen.

Business left unchecked leads to no trickle down of money or opportunity to all. It simply leads to the oligarchy of the corporate few.

That is the error in conservative thinking as I see it. While there are thousands of compassionate business leaders, most are driven to succeed and success is measured by money and power. Nobody is handing out awards to the CEO who paid the highest wages, made the best quality product, and granted the biggest benefits package to her workers.

Moreover, giving everyone the opportunity to succeed on their own, is not for everyone as conservatives seem to think. Many folks are not driven, not intellectually up to the task, and not psychologically oriented to that pioneer spirit of striking out into the unknown with only their wits and their muscles as tools. Most small businesses fail in their first year.

Conservatives are very good at giving the failures in society someone to blame. It’s government with its taxes, and this or that minority with its willingness to take a hand-out, that takes your money and prevents you from doing for yourself. When we have others to blame for our shortcomings we never look at ourselves and perhaps discover what we are not suited for and what we are. Conservatives short-circuit that process, giving us false enemies to blame for what are really our personal failings.

Some of us are meant, for many reasons to follow, to work for others, to concentrate on things other than monetary success in the world. The Conservative mind sees everyone (except the real people–the creators) as susceptible to any offer that allows them to receive rather than do. The truly do think most people will sink to the lowest level if given the chance. But where does the Conservative model leave the artist–the songwriter, the sculptor? Where the scientist or historian? Years upon years of work may be necessary before any apparent benefit is seen. How many painters are unknown and unappreciated during their lives? Do not these folks have a right to subsistence?

I recall back in the ancient days when I was in college, taking a philosophy course. A question was posed, and of course it was one of those that has no real answer, only promoting your thinking skills.

Would you pay someone a subsistence living wage to read–with no strings attached?

My answer was an unqualified yes. Yet I could not articulate exactly why. I just knew the answer should be yes.

Today, I can articulate why. It is because it is not human nature to learn for ever and go to the grave having never divulged what you learned. Whether from wanting the adulation or recognition or from a more socially acceptable need to help humanity, we as humans are driven to share what we know or think we know. It is why we are community animals and not lone wolves.

That is why the seminal error that conservatives find in liberal theory–that all receive the basics of food, clothing, housing, medical care and education–is not an error at all. They think this will lead to a dull, passive, uncreative, lazy, society in which nothing valuable is done. It will not.

If one looks to Europe, where a safety net such as described has long been in place, one doesn’t see a decadent useless society. One sees countries who are leading the way in alternative energy, in medicine, and in education. I see no evidence that people in Europe eschew work and prefer to sip wine on the veranda.

Conservatives lives in a dream work, one abetted by the likes of Ayn Rand who reacted to the soviet world that descended upon her country and stripped her family of freedom. She interpolated all that into some fantasy where job creators created for the pure love of creation, and worked tirelessly to improve their creations, where fair wages were paid by happy entrepreneurs who knew the value of  a well-paid workforce.

Yet, history tells a different story. We did not institute clean air and water acts because of some fear of dirty air and water that might happen in the future. We did not institute child labor laws because someday some boss might work children too many hours. We did not institute safe working conditions, safe food laws, safe drugs, and so forth, because of potential greedy men and women who might endanger us.

WE ENACTED THOSE LAWS BECAUSE ENTREPRENEURS HAD DONE THOSE THINGS.

We protected unions because fair wages were not being given.

Clearly I come down on the liberal side of things. I think to be considered civilized, a nation must care for its people. It must provide them with the basic foundation from which to compete in the world. Poor children are BEHIND at the beginning because they come from less rich environments. We owe them a fair and level field.

Tomorrow: What we owe, and why we owe it.

Related articles

• What is the difference between my conservatism and progressivism? (tannngl.wordpress.com)
• [personal|politics] Why I am not a conservative (jlake.com)
• The Dangers of Intellectual Arrogance (americanthinker.com)
• Mitt Romney’s post-election gaffe (politico.com)

 

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Tags

ballroom dancing, bonobo apes, Colbert Nation, dancing with the stars, Entertainment, female dominance, NASA, psychology, sex, society, sociology, space station, Steven Colbert

I’m not one inclined to make a big to do about the differences between men and women. I recognize that our brains are somewhat different, and therefore we respond to some stimuli in different manners on occasion.

Yet it must be noted, that among our distant ancestors the Bonobo Ape suggests an important aspect of that male-female difference.  Zoologists and others who study these creatures tell us that this creature is closely genetically aligned with chimpanzees, and of course chimps are closely related to humans. In fact we humans are equally genetically related to both.

I am told that the bonobo may in fact be a more primitive form of the chimp, remaining in the trees when the chimp wandered out onto the savannahs of Africa.  They, in fact, are a bit closer to our “common” ancestor.

The interesting thing about the bonobo, is that it is female dominated. Groups of bonobos thrive under female leadership, and things are so very peaceful that it can almost be described as if there were no dominance by either sex in actuality.

The other significant factor in this unique animal, is that it is the only animal other than humans who engage in sex for fun. In fact, bonobos engage in sex all the time, in every sort of manner, and between every possible combination of male and female arrangement.

It’s probably impossible to know which came first, the female leadership or the free for all sex. But we do know that they exhibit none of the aggressive violent tendencies that are found among chimpanzees.

I guess I’m reminded of another Star Trek show where Captain Kirk’s personality was split between the “light” and “dark” sides. It turned out that he was not a functional human being without a melding of both sides. Perhaps the bonobo types don’t have the drive to learn and be creative, things humans have needed to progress beyond the cave. That of course remains to be seen.

But I just wonder, perhaps if we got over our strange preoccupation with what sex was okay, and when it was okay, and where it was okay, we might be a bit better off.

Similarly, we might think about nurturing the qualities of tenderness, care giving,  cooperation and empathy that seem a bit more natural for the female than the male.

It just might make the world a tiny bit better place to live.

***

This is a rant! We ‘re about ready to stop watching DWTS. This is plainly ridiculous.  Last night Denise Richards was eliminated. She was in the bottom two with another woman, whose name escapes me. Neither were at the top of the heap, but they were no where near the bottom from the judges standpoint either.

That seminal distinction went to Steve somebody from Jackass and Steve Wozniak, former Apple genius. Both had failed miserably over two dances in two weeks. They were simply awful, the way that Billy J. Cyrus was awful, the way Cloris Leachman was horrible. It seems that there is always at least one, and sometimes two real clinkers in the mix.

I’m not sure but that the show doesn’t require some audition before being asked, but I’ve read nothing to that  effect. I suspect some “contestants” turn out surprisingly good, and others the opposite, but given that, like I said, each show seems to have at least one, one might wonder that somehow they know.

In any event, the judging is fair, and the three actual experts in ballroom dancing seem to call ’em as they see  ’em .

The problem comes from the fact that the “fans” across the land can vote out anyone they choose, whether from high in the standings or low. They are not limited to the two lowest vote totals from the judges. And that is the problem.

What happens is that it all ends up being a popularity contest to some extent. I don’t know what the demographics are for the show, but I know that certain people don’t slot in well. Billy Ray Cyrus went far far beyond his talent, while other better dancers were eliminated. Cloris Leachman so overstayed her ability that it became such a joke that we quite watching in disgust. Now we seem on the road again to allowing the worst to keep staying for amusement purposes while better dances are kicked to the curb.

I object! Okay, you can say, shaddup, it’s a stupid show for goodness sakes. Yes it is, but I’m not into the Roman gladiatorial if you get my drift. I don’t see a reason to make fun of people for sport, or to watch them suffer as stooges for my enjoyment.

I frankly thought the judges were mean to Steve Wozniak this last go round. He was horrid, and all they had to say was that the man had done his very best, and applauded him for his tenacity and his joy in having fun. Instead they really made fun of him. Apparently they can have another go round with him next week, since he will be back, much to their surprise.

We have a horse in the race, with our Shawn Johnson, Olympian and fellow Iowan. We may continue to watch for her sake. Or, for mine at least with the oh so sexy Giles from France. Oh my goodness my goodness, what a sexy one he is! They are both at the top from the judges standpoint. If either falls out due to the fans, I’m outta here!

***

Well, Stephen and company has done it again!

His producers, writers, gofers and whomever, must comb the world for every situation where some government or entity is offering the public the opportunity to name something.

As soon as the Colbert team gets wind of it, Stephen announces it on his show and the Colbert Nation responds. The votes pour in, and Stephen wins. This in the end, causes some countries, cities and such to withdraw the offer. The poor sporting continues yet again.

NASA offered the public the opportunity to name the newest space module to be added to the International Space Station. They offered a few possibilities, but also allowed write-in choices. Well, Stephen has won with some thing like a quarter of a million votes.

Now NASA is backing away, suggesting they don’t have to actually go ahead and name the module after Colbert if they don’t want to. There is some suggestion they might name a “toilet” after him.

I cry foul. The man won fair and square. And it’s not like you NASA couldn’t have foreseen this. Colbert has pulled this again and again, and each and every time, he has won. It’s time to “man up” and take your Cobert Report medicine. Name the module after him and be a good sport, get some good press, enjoy the happy support of another quarter million folks, and learn your lesson. Don’t mess with the Cobert!