Recently I've been spending my time reminding voters that election day comes soon, (next Tuesday) and reminding them of who they should vote for. There is no real expectation that anyone will take my advice and vote the way I want them to, but the theory is that the majority are smart enough to vote in their own best interests.
Oddly there have been several people in every batch of voters who didn't like my ideas on who and what to vote for. More interesting were those who thought that my calling to remind them of their need to vote was evil and insulting. One person told me that, if they could, they would bundle all the voter pamphlets, candidate mailings, ads and entreaties etc. and dump them on my personal doorstep, as if the whole annoying mess was my fault.
Yes, I know that the voting process has become fraught; however, we do still live in a democracy. If we don't vote who then is left to decide? Let's just remember that money talks and those who have it don't just vote, they pay for the legislation (ALEC) and the legislators (all parties) that lead us.
In spite of the fact that The United States Founders didn't trust the citizenry to be smart enough to rule themselves, we live in a country where one person - one vote is the rule. Where that's true the anti-election folks are abdicating their chance to run their own country. It's annoying to get called several times by multiple candidates and to find your mailbox stuffed with candidates info for sure. What's more annoying is to have those in power not represent the voters they were elected to serve.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Monday, October 7, 2013
The Trouble With Empathy...
Social Science has much to tell us recently about how people relate to each other across the class divide. Much of the recent research shows that, just as we suspected, those with social power not only have difficulty sympathizing with those below them - they can't even see or hear them.
The scientists suggest that being poor or of lesser social status makes us more empathic. If we have no money to hire help we are more apt to cultivate friends and neighbors to get things done. Research also finds that all of us have problems hearing and empathizing across the lines of class and status. Worst of all, the powerful consistently downplay the pains and problems of those less fortunate. We tend to focus our attention on those we value most.
As you can guess, this leads to rich congressmen cutting funding to the poor and less fortunate as well as other kinds of prejudice.
It would be just like a scientist to point these things out and then move on to some other area of research. Fortunately, there is research to suggest solutions. It turns out that people who are forced by fate or circumstance to talk and interact shed their prejudice fairly quickly. If, god forbid, you should make a friend across the class divide prejudice becomes even more difficult to maintain.
What frightens me is that we have a wide and growing divide between the powerful and the rest of us. That divide makes it much more difficult to reach across and find friendship and empathy with those who have more or less than us.
Remembering that we live in a democracy, finding ways to reduce the gap between the rich powerful elite and the rest of us is imperative. Democracy cannot survive with power in the hands of those who don't hear the poor. Oligarchy was not what the founding fathers envisioned, but it is what will persist if we can't find our way to empathize across those class and status lines.
The scientists suggest that being poor or of lesser social status makes us more empathic. If we have no money to hire help we are more apt to cultivate friends and neighbors to get things done. Research also finds that all of us have problems hearing and empathizing across the lines of class and status. Worst of all, the powerful consistently downplay the pains and problems of those less fortunate. We tend to focus our attention on those we value most.
As you can guess, this leads to rich congressmen cutting funding to the poor and less fortunate as well as other kinds of prejudice.
It would be just like a scientist to point these things out and then move on to some other area of research. Fortunately, there is research to suggest solutions. It turns out that people who are forced by fate or circumstance to talk and interact shed their prejudice fairly quickly. If, god forbid, you should make a friend across the class divide prejudice becomes even more difficult to maintain.
What frightens me is that we have a wide and growing divide between the powerful and the rest of us. That divide makes it much more difficult to reach across and find friendship and empathy with those who have more or less than us.
Remembering that we live in a democracy, finding ways to reduce the gap between the rich powerful elite and the rest of us is imperative. Democracy cannot survive with power in the hands of those who don't hear the poor. Oligarchy was not what the founding fathers envisioned, but it is what will persist if we can't find our way to empathize across those class and status lines.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Are Americans Exceptional?
I recently posted about the Finnish quest for equity in education and how the unexpected result of that quest was an exceptional rise in test scores and success in Finnish Schools. I suggest that the American quest for exceptionalism might be having the reverse effect.
When we have exceptional schools and colleges the obverse is also true. We have many schools and colleges that help define the exceptional by being mediocre or downright awful. When we decide that it's OK to suffer along with good enough because the exceptional among us are doing well and we think that with luck and perseverance we can be exceptional too, we miss the point. If we can all do well then no one is the exception.
This is hard for Americans to understand. The propaganda we use to prove that we are the exception is flawed. What is exceptional about America isn't us - it's our circumstance. We have the good fortune to live an a land rich in resources and with a legal framework that reduces some inequality of opportunity. That, my friends, is a matter of luck - not a matter of Americans being better or different - it's just plain luck!
We, like the Finns should be looking for ways to bring equity to all Americans, not just looking to become exceptional ourselves.
When we have exceptional schools and colleges the obverse is also true. We have many schools and colleges that help define the exceptional by being mediocre or downright awful. When we decide that it's OK to suffer along with good enough because the exceptional among us are doing well and we think that with luck and perseverance we can be exceptional too, we miss the point. If we can all do well then no one is the exception.
This is hard for Americans to understand. The propaganda we use to prove that we are the exception is flawed. What is exceptional about America isn't us - it's our circumstance. We have the good fortune to live an a land rich in resources and with a legal framework that reduces some inequality of opportunity. That, my friends, is a matter of luck - not a matter of Americans being better or different - it's just plain luck!
We, like the Finns should be looking for ways to bring equity to all Americans, not just looking to become exceptional ourselves.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Does a Rising Tide Really Float all Boats?
Recently the Finnish Education System has been in the news. They have gone from mediocrity to top achiever in just one decade. What I find most interesting about Finland's rise to the top in student achievement is that the Finns didn't set out with the goal of academic excellence in mind. Their stated goal was to provide equity among all students.
Think about it. What Finland wanted was a guarantee that both poor and rich - native born and immigrant - learning disabled and gifted all receive the same chance to learn. What they set out to do was to "Float all Boats". When you think about it that seems a difficult task. In the United States you would have to patch the rotting hulls of the poor - re-caulk the middle class boats and maybe monkey wrench the rich to get all to rise with the educational tide equitably. The Finns, to extend the metaphor, used a different boatyard.
Where Americans would look at the equity problem as too large to solve (you just can't keep them all afloat), the Finns chose to act as if a solution was necessary. Quite simply, they hired the best boat builders - all teachers go to the best universities and need masters degrees to teach. Then they gave them control of their classrooms and provided nutritional and psychiatric help for all children. Most importantly, all go to the same public schools together.
Think what it would mean for Americans if we had equity of education. The poor and disadvantage would go to the same schools and have the same teachers as the well to do. Could the rich then maintain the attitude of superiority and privilege that the current system allows? Anti-government propaganda to the contrary, where students excel the state runs the educational system. If all schools were in the hands of an adequately funded education department all schools would be funded adequately. The rich could not take a chance with their children's education. Perhaps they would even find some advantage to a system that taxes everyone and provides real service for all.
Here are some links to info about the Finnish Education System: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/?fb_action_ids=526843580719229&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%22526843580719229%22%3A10150550129111203%7D&action_type_map=%7B%22526843580719229%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D
http://www.amazon.com/Finnish-Lessons-Educational-Change-Finland/dp/0807752576?tag=vglnk-c53-20
Think about it. What Finland wanted was a guarantee that both poor and rich - native born and immigrant - learning disabled and gifted all receive the same chance to learn. What they set out to do was to "Float all Boats". When you think about it that seems a difficult task. In the United States you would have to patch the rotting hulls of the poor - re-caulk the middle class boats and maybe monkey wrench the rich to get all to rise with the educational tide equitably. The Finns, to extend the metaphor, used a different boatyard.
Where Americans would look at the equity problem as too large to solve (you just can't keep them all afloat), the Finns chose to act as if a solution was necessary. Quite simply, they hired the best boat builders - all teachers go to the best universities and need masters degrees to teach. Then they gave them control of their classrooms and provided nutritional and psychiatric help for all children. Most importantly, all go to the same public schools together.
Think what it would mean for Americans if we had equity of education. The poor and disadvantage would go to the same schools and have the same teachers as the well to do. Could the rich then maintain the attitude of superiority and privilege that the current system allows? Anti-government propaganda to the contrary, where students excel the state runs the educational system. If all schools were in the hands of an adequately funded education department all schools would be funded adequately. The rich could not take a chance with their children's education. Perhaps they would even find some advantage to a system that taxes everyone and provides real service for all.
Here are some links to info about the Finnish Education System: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/?fb_action_ids=526843580719229&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%22526843580719229%22%3A10150550129111203%7D&action_type_map=%7B%22526843580719229%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D
http://www.amazon.com/Finnish-Lessons-Educational-Change-Finland/dp/0807752576?tag=vglnk-c53-20
Saturday, August 31, 2013
The Mathematics of War
Some people think of war as the answer. My theory is that war is the ultimate multiplier of misery. The formula is simple - "A" does something evil, like gassing civilians. "B" punishes "A" by delivering high explosives via missile or bomb. Many more die, both military and civilian, because bombs and missiles are almost as indiscriminate killers as poison gas. "A", to prove his manhood, shouts "down with the evil empire" and gasses more civilians or even takes a poke at "B". Of course we know what happens next - "A" finds himself needing to double down on the bombs and missiles and the body count starts going up in geometric progression. Eventually one evil becomes many and that's why the mathematics of war is and always will be a multiplier of misery with illogic as it's only product.
Click the link below for the real value of war. You can thank Erwin Starr for doing the math.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpWmlRNfLck
Click the link below for the real value of war. You can thank Erwin Starr for doing the math.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpWmlRNfLck
Friday, August 16, 2013
Do we love children - What shall we teach?
The "Common Core" - The set of school standards promoted and supported by the Obama Administration is off to a rocky start. Tea Party activists decry it as federal interference in the duties of parents and individual states. Some parents say the testing provisions are too hard and worry that children will fail.
What I worry about is whether parents and other adults are well enough educated to know if the new standards will be good for children. At the risk of sounding smarmy and smug , many of us have not been trained in the one thing The Common Core is designed to teach - Critical Thinking. If we were, we might first educate ourselves in the new standard. For your edification, here is the link to the site: http://www.corestandards.org. Then if we thought the ideas had merit we could try them for a long enough period to discover their usefulness. That is the scientific way to discover truth, or at least usefulness. Why don't we try it?
Perhaps we don't really love children? Maybe what we want from children isn't critical thinking and the ability to act creatively, but to have them be just like us. Maybe what we really love is ourselves and our own prejudices reflected in the next generation?
If we want to believe in progress and the proposition that our children will be better and better off than us we can't kill new methods before they bear fruit. Let's love our children enough to test the new for a little while before we retreat into our caves.
What I worry about is whether parents and other adults are well enough educated to know if the new standards will be good for children. At the risk of sounding smarmy and smug , many of us have not been trained in the one thing The Common Core is designed to teach - Critical Thinking. If we were, we might first educate ourselves in the new standard. For your edification, here is the link to the site: http://www.corestandards.org. Then if we thought the ideas had merit we could try them for a long enough period to discover their usefulness. That is the scientific way to discover truth, or at least usefulness. Why don't we try it?
Perhaps we don't really love children? Maybe what we want from children isn't critical thinking and the ability to act creatively, but to have them be just like us. Maybe what we really love is ourselves and our own prejudices reflected in the next generation?
If we want to believe in progress and the proposition that our children will be better and better off than us we can't kill new methods before they bear fruit. Let's love our children enough to test the new for a little while before we retreat into our caves.
Monday, August 12, 2013
If Addiction is a Disease, Why is Addictive Behavior a Crime?
The US Attorney General is talking about finding ways to reduce the number of our sons and daughters in jail for possession of dangerous drugs. I can only applaud his actions even though his reasons seem to revolve around saving money and not the lives of addicts.
The consensus of the scientific and medical folks is that addiction is a disease. Addicts have the same chance of recovery, if untreated, as they would have of recovering from cancer untreated. The evidence is that dangerous drugs act on addicts in ways that change their bodies and minds for the worse.
There's a feeling in the larger community that if addicts just changed their behavior they will be cured. Doesn't work for cancer or the common cold and the evidence is that it doesn't work for addicts either. Regardless, we still feel that addiction is the fault of it's victim and that it's an offense against the community. As a result, we incarcerate instead of treating these victims of disease.
A cynic might point out that the rich, white addict does usually get diverted into treatment and that the poor and black and brown almost never do. That's a larger problem and probably not amenable to medical treatment. We can certainly do something about helping addicts of all stripes; however.
If we overcome the mistaken idea that the disease of addiction is the fault of it's victim we can surely treat it at a cost less than the cost of incarceration. As a sop to the Tea Party, I would suggest that we might get more bang for the buck if we expand the private sector treatment that is already in place. That combined with additional research into treatment and prevention might solve the problem without the high cost associated with prisons and the justice system.
The consensus of the scientific and medical folks is that addiction is a disease. Addicts have the same chance of recovery, if untreated, as they would have of recovering from cancer untreated. The evidence is that dangerous drugs act on addicts in ways that change their bodies and minds for the worse.
There's a feeling in the larger community that if addicts just changed their behavior they will be cured. Doesn't work for cancer or the common cold and the evidence is that it doesn't work for addicts either. Regardless, we still feel that addiction is the fault of it's victim and that it's an offense against the community. As a result, we incarcerate instead of treating these victims of disease.
A cynic might point out that the rich, white addict does usually get diverted into treatment and that the poor and black and brown almost never do. That's a larger problem and probably not amenable to medical treatment. We can certainly do something about helping addicts of all stripes; however.
If we overcome the mistaken idea that the disease of addiction is the fault of it's victim we can surely treat it at a cost less than the cost of incarceration. As a sop to the Tea Party, I would suggest that we might get more bang for the buck if we expand the private sector treatment that is already in place. That combined with additional research into treatment and prevention might solve the problem without the high cost associated with prisons and the justice system.
The slaughter goes on...
I've already said just about all I want to about guns and violence. From The New York Times here is a summary of the last weeks gun deaths and incidents:
Weekend Gun Report: August 9-11, 2013 A weekend in the life of armed America.
http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/weekend-gun-report-august-9-11-2013/?smid=pl-share
Weekend Gun Report: August 9-11, 2013 A weekend in the life of armed America.
http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/weekend-gun-report-august-9-11-2013/?smid=pl-share
Friday, August 2, 2013
They Still Don't Get It, Do They?
The Tea Party and their friends in the US Congress are "still not getting it". The old saw attributed to everyone from Albert Einstein to Alfred E. Newman that says "If you hope for a new outcome - don't use the same old actions" is still true and the Tea Party still doesn't believe it.
Let's face it, if you have 30 million poor folks and you take away their food stamps you have 30 million folks poorer and hungrier. Our friends in The Congress seem to think that's a good thing - or maybe I misjudge them and they haven't thought about that 30 million folks at all? Let's remember that most, if not all, of our friends in Congress are at least well enough off that they have no need for the tax payers help at the grocery store.
Social scientists have studied those who are better off than you and me. You may be surprised to learn, as the scientists have, that with wealth you get a change of attitude. Oddly the well off start to feel that they have earned the right to be selfish. They feel that helping others isn't as important as gaining and retaining wealth.
This is not how the rich like to be portrayed. It is: however, the truth about many of them and it is certainly true for the Tea Party Caucus in our Congress. They are not like Warren Buffet or Andrew Carnegie - they take but they don't give anything back. If the poor want their share they must find ways to get it for themselves.
Of course, there is a paradox here, you and I have acted as if the same old actions will dig us out of the same old hole as well. Let's be clear here - If we go on allowing those with the money to convince us that $7.50 per hour is an adequate wage and that the bosses vacation in Antigua is his due while the workers go hungry, then we are the crazy ones.
As you know, I am a Socialist at Heart and have a preference for actions that equalize wealth distribution across class and ethnic boundaries. I'm calling for the revolution to start now. Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in non-violent action. We have no need for bloody or destructive methods unless they are thrust upon us by wealth and power of the Capitalist Minority. The social sciences have taught us ways to win through the ballot box and the picket line and the sit down or through economic boycott.
Let's not fall into theTea Party trap. We can not do the same old thing and expect a new and different outcome.
Let's face it, if you have 30 million poor folks and you take away their food stamps you have 30 million folks poorer and hungrier. Our friends in The Congress seem to think that's a good thing - or maybe I misjudge them and they haven't thought about that 30 million folks at all? Let's remember that most, if not all, of our friends in Congress are at least well enough off that they have no need for the tax payers help at the grocery store.
Social scientists have studied those who are better off than you and me. You may be surprised to learn, as the scientists have, that with wealth you get a change of attitude. Oddly the well off start to feel that they have earned the right to be selfish. They feel that helping others isn't as important as gaining and retaining wealth.
This is not how the rich like to be portrayed. It is: however, the truth about many of them and it is certainly true for the Tea Party Caucus in our Congress. They are not like Warren Buffet or Andrew Carnegie - they take but they don't give anything back. If the poor want their share they must find ways to get it for themselves.
Of course, there is a paradox here, you and I have acted as if the same old actions will dig us out of the same old hole as well. Let's be clear here - If we go on allowing those with the money to convince us that $7.50 per hour is an adequate wage and that the bosses vacation in Antigua is his due while the workers go hungry, then we are the crazy ones.
As you know, I am a Socialist at Heart and have a preference for actions that equalize wealth distribution across class and ethnic boundaries. I'm calling for the revolution to start now. Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in non-violent action. We have no need for bloody or destructive methods unless they are thrust upon us by wealth and power of the Capitalist Minority. The social sciences have taught us ways to win through the ballot box and the picket line and the sit down or through economic boycott.
Let's not fall into theTea Party trap. We can not do the same old thing and expect a new and different outcome.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Let's Have a Little Class War - Join the Army for Equality
At numerous times in the United States history the poor have exited their hovels roaring a call for a better deal. Going back to before the Civil War American Labor called out for a fair deal. In 1834 Mill Girls struck for better conditions in Lowell, Massachusetts. The next year workers in Philadelphia struck and won a 10 hour day. Slaves and their free cohorts in the abolition movement called for treatment as humans, not property. That brought us the 13th Amendment to our constitution in 1869. In all these times the class of wealth and power resisted change. The class of want and hunger forced improvements in living standards through class action. These actions were not precipitated by intellectuals, but were a result of periods of neglect of the poor by those who had wealth and power.
One of those neglectful periods is upon us now. The rich have, over the last 35 years, taken their share and the share that should have accrued to the poorest. They have manipulated politicians and judges to allow them to reduce the power of the bottom tiers of society and to add to that insult they have priced most of us out of the schools that we, as taxpayers, have paid for. The argument you hear from those in power is simply that it isn't their job to coddle the masses, that if we worked hard we too could be rich and comfortable. Of course, you and I know that we work as hard or harder than they and our IQs aren't much different. The difference, as I see it, is the difference that wealth makes in access to power.
What the rich don't have is numbers. Ninety percent of the population is not rich and if that 90% should speak up what a noise that would be. A new class battle could bring great change for all of us.
The rich now spend less on providing for the common good than you and I do and could be required to prove their good citizenship by upping their share of the tax burden. We might all benefit if we reduced the voting power of corporations by reversing the Supreme Courts "Citizens United" decision. Even better, if we shout loud enough, we might require public financing for all elections. An enlightened electorate might even require that minimum standards in wage and working conditions apply to all workers. The list of things an active and noisy lower class could do is only limited by the amount of activity and noise they produce.
Those in government and in corporate media have cried out at the very thought of Class Warfare. I understand their fear. Oddly they think of themselves as being members, or at least fellow travelers, of the Upper Class. In a more egalitarian society that would not cause fear. A society with our level of inequity leaves those who apologize for the rich open to criticism. They need to rethink this attitude just in case the poor do decide to act.
As a firm believer in nonviolence I hope that our actions can remain within the bounds of what Gandhi and Dr. King envisioned. I can't say that I don't think the Upper Class deserves a little slapping around. I just think that nonviolence produces results with less blood shed. This is; however, a real war - most of the casualties are poor, dead of malnutrition or street violence or rotting away in prisons. Those of us not living in abject poverty, find our lives diminished by a degraded environment caused by unbridled manufacturers or our wealth stolen by government sponsored inflationary schemes or bankers foreclosure practices. Those who look for knowledge to pull them up, find the cost prohibitive. Only the rich can afford many of our elite universities.
I call on all of the so called underclass to become members of the Army for Equality. We must be loud in our demands and implacable in our resolve. We must require our fair portion of our countries wealth. Those who labor must be compensated fairly for the work they do. Labor has as much right to the value of their products as does Capital. If Capital fails to understand that principal, let them produce without Labors help. This war requires no large troop movements or the help of heroic generals. Small groups of like minded people can make large changes. Organized response to the problem at hand has changed the world in the past. The Army for Equality in all it's gorilla majesty will do for the future - if we just join.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
"The Rich Are Not Like You and Me"
The quote above is from F. Scott Fitzgerald. It comes to mind because of a Facebook chat I had recently. It was started by a legislator's lament of the impasse on Washington State Budget negotiations.
Some joined the lament at lack of progress. Others had suggestions for change or ideas for ways to break the impasse. One person thought that we really need to find more ways to spend less and used Heritage Foundation statistics to plead his case. This trusty Radical; however, has seen the results of the last fifty years of getting by with less.
Washington State's Constitution mandates that the prime role of state government is to provide adequate education for all the state's children. The Washington Supreme Court ruled recently that we had fallen 2 Billion Dollars short of fulfilling that role. If that doesn't convince you, my own children had to suffer through the school year in a school so dilapidated that plaster fell from the ceiling and a child was wounded by a clock that didn't stay on the classroom wall. That school had the misfortune of being in a district made up of retirees and the working poor. We moved to a richer district, but not everyone has that option.
I bring all this up because a lot of recent research and polling data backs up Fitzgerald's contention. The rich graduate from High School and College at much higher rates than the poor. 15% of the lower class graduate college vs over half of the upper class. The upper class thinks differently about many things. They are less charitable than the poor giving 1.3% of their wealth to charity while the poorest give at more than twice the rate, 3.2% These statistics from The Atlantic. There is also new research that tells us that the rich don't find legal restrictions binding on them. They feel that greed is good and don't believe that others are as deserving as they are according to these studies.
I really don't know how to reform the rich. It may not even be important, if we can get the 90% of Washingtonians and for that matter the other not so rich Americans to vote for progress instead of for less is better.
I bring all this up because a lot of recent research and polling data backs up Fitzgerald's contention. The rich graduate from High School and College at much higher rates than the poor. 15% of the lower class graduate college vs over half of the upper class. The upper class thinks differently about many things. They are less charitable than the poor giving 1.3% of their wealth to charity while the poorest give at more than twice the rate, 3.2% These statistics from The Atlantic. There is also new research that tells us that the rich don't find legal restrictions binding on them. They feel that greed is good and don't believe that others are as deserving as they are according to these studies.
I really don't know how to reform the rich. It may not even be important, if we can get the 90% of Washingtonians and for that matter the other not so rich Americans to vote for progress instead of for less is better.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
A Belated Response to Fathers Day
I theorize that our response to Fathers and Fathers Day is usually personal and visceral, I know mine is. My own father was a looming presence in the living room and a frowning menace at the dinner table for the first thirteen years of my life. After removing himself from the lives of his five children, he became an occasional support check and a reminder that his young girlfriend was more important than those children or their lives.
It's not that I learned nothing from Dad. He and I learned animal husbandry and farm work together, raising chickens and goats and a lot of garden dust. He was a good Scout Leader and wilderness guide for all of us. He was politically active and his children have kept that legacy. We also learned that if you needed succor, he just didn't have it in him. That's what Mom was for, Dad just wasn't warm and huggable. He was; however, a thinker and an intelligent man. I thank him for teaching his children how to think and to be introspective.
That habit of introspection became immensely important to me as a father. If you only react to the needs of the day, your children may be fat and happy, but you and they will ultimately fail at life. I have had the great pleasure and annoyance that comes with having children who are intellectually my equal or maybe even my superior. Without the advantage of introspection and forethought, they'd have run amuck and I'd have run screaming. Luckily for parents, children's brains don't grow up as fast as their bodies. You can sometimes get ahead of them.
There is in the modern model of fathers a disturbing trend. Many fathers don't seem to understand the need for ongoing commitment to the process of fathering. Just as children grow physically for the first eighteen years and mature emotionally for several years past that, parents must remain engaged in the process for at least that long. It seems to me implicit in the sex act that genetic combination and new life may ensue. If that's true, someone must be bound to ensure the viability of that new life - that new genetic combination of he and she, our culture requires that both parents be so bound. Men you can't pretend that you have no interest here, after all half the genes are yours. Not only are you required by the laws of nature to protect your genetic heritage, but the cultural norms and laws of your state and country require it as well.
My Father like many others chafed at the need to go on husbanding the children of his first marriage after he remarried and Fathered two more. I can sympathize with the difficulty of his task. He chose to father seven children and I can only suppose that he had the forethought to know the cost of spreading his genes so widely. If he failed to understand these costs, perhaps his IQ was not quite as high as was recorded?
I have had the privilege of paying to protect the genetic heritage of profligate fathering. I would have preferred that the fathers at least acknowledged their debt. Since they haven't, I have felt free to count their genetic contributions as gifts to Clan MacKenzie. I have not felt aggrieved at being able to raise so many fine humans to adulthood. I bask in their reflected achievements and am content.
I have heard from some Fathers that the reason that they don't help more in husbanding is that their (the children's) Mother is a bitch or a whore or you name it. Well there you go, that's perfectly logical. If you don't like some adult who you mixed genes with that's a perfect excuse to starve or ignore your genetic descendants.
The reality of parenting's difficulty is hard to ignore. Parents, Fathers and Mothers, give up much to raise children. Our parents, our schools, our society all fail to prepare us for the work necessary to raise children. That said, there is no reason we shouldn't give our best effort. Remember, these are your own genes you are saving from oblivion. Even if the genes aren't yours, growing up children is eminently satisfying and you can always add them to the clan.
It's not that I learned nothing from Dad. He and I learned animal husbandry and farm work together, raising chickens and goats and a lot of garden dust. He was a good Scout Leader and wilderness guide for all of us. He was politically active and his children have kept that legacy. We also learned that if you needed succor, he just didn't have it in him. That's what Mom was for, Dad just wasn't warm and huggable. He was; however, a thinker and an intelligent man. I thank him for teaching his children how to think and to be introspective.
That habit of introspection became immensely important to me as a father. If you only react to the needs of the day, your children may be fat and happy, but you and they will ultimately fail at life. I have had the great pleasure and annoyance that comes with having children who are intellectually my equal or maybe even my superior. Without the advantage of introspection and forethought, they'd have run amuck and I'd have run screaming. Luckily for parents, children's brains don't grow up as fast as their bodies. You can sometimes get ahead of them.
There is in the modern model of fathers a disturbing trend. Many fathers don't seem to understand the need for ongoing commitment to the process of fathering. Just as children grow physically for the first eighteen years and mature emotionally for several years past that, parents must remain engaged in the process for at least that long. It seems to me implicit in the sex act that genetic combination and new life may ensue. If that's true, someone must be bound to ensure the viability of that new life - that new genetic combination of he and she, our culture requires that both parents be so bound. Men you can't pretend that you have no interest here, after all half the genes are yours. Not only are you required by the laws of nature to protect your genetic heritage, but the cultural norms and laws of your state and country require it as well.
My Father like many others chafed at the need to go on husbanding the children of his first marriage after he remarried and Fathered two more. I can sympathize with the difficulty of his task. He chose to father seven children and I can only suppose that he had the forethought to know the cost of spreading his genes so widely. If he failed to understand these costs, perhaps his IQ was not quite as high as was recorded?
I have had the privilege of paying to protect the genetic heritage of profligate fathering. I would have preferred that the fathers at least acknowledged their debt. Since they haven't, I have felt free to count their genetic contributions as gifts to Clan MacKenzie. I have not felt aggrieved at being able to raise so many fine humans to adulthood. I bask in their reflected achievements and am content.
I have heard from some Fathers that the reason that they don't help more in husbanding is that their (the children's) Mother is a bitch or a whore or you name it. Well there you go, that's perfectly logical. If you don't like some adult who you mixed genes with that's a perfect excuse to starve or ignore your genetic descendants.
The reality of parenting's difficulty is hard to ignore. Parents, Fathers and Mothers, give up much to raise children. Our parents, our schools, our society all fail to prepare us for the work necessary to raise children. That said, there is no reason we shouldn't give our best effort. Remember, these are your own genes you are saving from oblivion. Even if the genes aren't yours, growing up children is eminently satisfying and you can always add them to the clan.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Guns Really Do Kill People
More die from gun violence than auto accidents
“The contrast to our nation's shameful response to the public health crisis of gun violence could not be more stark. We've done virtually nothing to address the issue nationally, even as the death toll continues to mount. Here are the 13 jurisdictions where gun deaths outpaced motor vehicle deaths in 2010 (data is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control):
Alaska: 144 gun deaths, 71 motor vehicle deaths
Arizona: 931 gun deaths, 795 motor vehicle deaths
Colorado: 555 gun deaths, 487 motor vehicle deaths
District of Columbia: 99 gun deaths, 38 motor vehicle deaths
Illinois: 1,064 gun deaths, 1,042 motor vehicle deaths
Louisiana: 864 gun deaths, 722 motor vehicle deaths
Maryland: 538 gun deaths, 514 motor vehicle deaths
Michigan: 1,076 gun deaths, 1,063 motor vehicle deaths
Nevada: 395 gun deaths, 289 motor vehicle deaths
Oregon: 458 gun deaths, 324 motor vehicle deaths
Utah: 314 gun deaths, 274 motor vehicle deaths
Virginia: 875 gun deaths, 728 motor vehicle deaths
Washington: 609 gun deaths, 554 motor vehicle deaths”
(The above is quoted from Huffington Post - Josh Sugarmann: Guns Kill More People Than Motor Vehicles in 12 States & DC, check it out.)
The same study shows continual declines in motor vehicle deaths and an opposite trend for gun deaths for the same periods. Don’t know about you, but I think that it’s past time for us to decide whether the current individualistic interpretation of The Constitution’s First Amendment is one we can all live with. There are so many things we could do that would reduce gun deaths without impacting peoples right (if there is such) to own guns. We could, for example, mandate proper locks and storage as part of the purchase price of guns. As most agree, we could require real background checks and develop ways to remove guns from the hands of those who later lose their right to own guns through conviction of crime or mental illness. It is even possible that an educated electorate might decide that hand guns are like teen drinking and driving and are just too dangerous to allow.
If nothing else we might decide to make the debate about safety. It is not germane to make comments about “only criminals having guns”. We all know that criminals are by definition not out to improve the general welfare. Nor should our main emphasis be punishment. We are after all trying for safety and how many gun owners would we need to jail to guarantee safety? One thing we should do immediately is to repeal the law that keeps us from studying guns and violence. Thanks to The National Rifle Association (NRA) there are almost no current studies of the hows and whys of gun violence. What I am sure of is that there are a multitude of people who have thought about the problem and that there are multiple ways to make us all safer.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Poverty Can Make You Sick.
Who'd a thunk it? Poverty's bad for babies and children. At least that's what the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies tells us. They are asking their members to address the poverty issue among their patients and at the national level.
Of course many of us already knew that being poor is a problem that no one wants to share. Look at this piece by Dr. Perri Klass MD and then we can talk about why the rich need to be in this conversation with us.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/poverty-as-a-childhood-disease/?smid=pl-share
As Dr Klass suggests, just saying to a poor mother "Jimmy needs a better exercise program" will not pay for his after school Karate. Nor will a nutrition class help poor families afford better than the calorie high fast food that leads to poor health and obesity.
When we let the well-to-do off the hook by believing that it's not their fault that most of us are poor, we do them and us a disservice. They lose because they get by without paying the full cost of the government they demand. It's not a financial cost but a moral one. They know that the poor suffer and that they have the power to alleviate that suffering. The poor suffer in physical and psychological ways. Our children make do without adequate nutrition and go to schools that are underfunded and are otherwise not nearly as good as the schools of the rich.
When we think of solutions we run up against the gigantic power and propaganda machines the major corporations and their friends in congress. An individual can feel like a midget when you go up against these forces. There are ways to fight back; however. We already have the pediatricians on our side. That's several thousand well paid helpers. We also have the possibility of organizing other groups such as school teachers and others in organized labor groups.
In spite of what the US Supreme Court says, most corporations aren't people and are hard to move, especially when their profits are at stake. There are ways to move them however. Shareholders have access to their boards and officers. Boycotts also work as do protests. They do take time and sometimes have to be used in concert. Remember when all else fails there's always the revolution.
Of course many of us already knew that being poor is a problem that no one wants to share. Look at this piece by Dr. Perri Klass MD and then we can talk about why the rich need to be in this conversation with us.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/poverty-as-a-childhood-disease/?smid=pl-share
As Dr Klass suggests, just saying to a poor mother "Jimmy needs a better exercise program" will not pay for his after school Karate. Nor will a nutrition class help poor families afford better than the calorie high fast food that leads to poor health and obesity.
When we let the well-to-do off the hook by believing that it's not their fault that most of us are poor, we do them and us a disservice. They lose because they get by without paying the full cost of the government they demand. It's not a financial cost but a moral one. They know that the poor suffer and that they have the power to alleviate that suffering. The poor suffer in physical and psychological ways. Our children make do without adequate nutrition and go to schools that are underfunded and are otherwise not nearly as good as the schools of the rich.
When we think of solutions we run up against the gigantic power and propaganda machines the major corporations and their friends in congress. An individual can feel like a midget when you go up against these forces. There are ways to fight back; however. We already have the pediatricians on our side. That's several thousand well paid helpers. We also have the possibility of organizing other groups such as school teachers and others in organized labor groups.
In spite of what the US Supreme Court says, most corporations aren't people and are hard to move, especially when their profits are at stake. There are ways to move them however. Shareholders have access to their boards and officers. Boycotts also work as do protests. They do take time and sometimes have to be used in concert. Remember when all else fails there's always the revolution.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Even the New York Times has noticed the disparity between rich and poor. The following post from the Sunday April 28 Opinionator Column speaks to the vast and increasing differences in learning between the rich and all the rest of us. Oddly enough, the things that make being poor so difficult are also the things that keep our children from doing well in school. The author, Sean F. Reardon, a Stanford Professor, notes a large and and still growing gap in school performance between rich children and their less affluent peers. Oddly all the changes in education policy over the last decades don't seem to have had any effect on this disparity. Even thought all students are better in math and reading, the rich have continued to advance faster.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/no-rich-child-left-behind/?smid=pl-share
"No Rich Child Left Behind"
The question is what if anything should you and I do about this disparity? Should we care that we are two different societies and that more and more power resides in an upper class that works hard to be better than or at least better educated than the rest of us? As a socialist at heart I vote for action.
There are lots of things that the national government could and should be doing to make the field of play level for all children. Put early parental and child education on the national agenda. Make sure the poor have what they need to provide children with adequate stimulus and nutrition. Make sure that schools in poor neighborhoods match those of their more affluent neighbors. Maybe most importantly treat the poor as if they matter. Of course, the current national government probably can not or will not do any of those things.
Luckily the community has the ability to do what the government can not or will not do. With the exception of money, the poor have everything we need to improve children's learning. Community organizing could provide day care and early learning in poor communities. The same is true of parenting classes and nutritional help. Even the money problem can be solved with community help. Yes the one percent does have most of the wealth, but you and I and 300 million others between us can do quite a bit with what's left. We can and must use our own solidarity as a shield protecting against the propaganda that tells us being poor is the cause and not the result of larger forces in the nation. We can fix this if we just try.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/no-rich-child-left-behind/?smid=pl-share
"No Rich Child Left Behind"
The question is what if anything should you and I do about this disparity? Should we care that we are two different societies and that more and more power resides in an upper class that works hard to be better than or at least better educated than the rest of us? As a socialist at heart I vote for action.
There are lots of things that the national government could and should be doing to make the field of play level for all children. Put early parental and child education on the national agenda. Make sure the poor have what they need to provide children with adequate stimulus and nutrition. Make sure that schools in poor neighborhoods match those of their more affluent neighbors. Maybe most importantly treat the poor as if they matter. Of course, the current national government probably can not or will not do any of those things.
Luckily the community has the ability to do what the government can not or will not do. With the exception of money, the poor have everything we need to improve children's learning. Community organizing could provide day care and early learning in poor communities. The same is true of parenting classes and nutritional help. Even the money problem can be solved with community help. Yes the one percent does have most of the wealth, but you and I and 300 million others between us can do quite a bit with what's left. We can and must use our own solidarity as a shield protecting against the propaganda that tells us being poor is the cause and not the result of larger forces in the nation. We can fix this if we just try.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Reality vs Perception
I think that most of us spend our lives denying the unpleasant realities of life. In many ways that's a useful way to live. It lets us get through the day even when a large part of the world lives with poverty and carnage. We wonder what could we do to change things and when the solutions aren't apparent or easy we let our minds take the easy path and adjust the perception to make it easier to live with. Most of us know that the rich get richer as the poor get ... well you know. What we don't let ourselves know is just how far apart the rich and poor are.
Take a look at this video and then let's talk about what these kinds of differences mean for all of us.
Here is the latest data from The Pew center: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/ Just a hint, it's not getting better.
Here is the latest data from The Pew center: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/ Just a hint, it's not getting better.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Mirandize What?
I'm having a difficult time with law enforcement's decision not to give miranda warnings to Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing. First and foremost, it is my contention that rights for Americans are the same as the rights that all humans should enjoy. Secondly, this young man is not a foreign national or a known enemy combatant. He is known to be an American Citizen and as such is constitutionally protected as being innocent until proved guilty. If we don't provide him with all the rights of citizenship, what happens when you or I are accused of illegal acts?
Beyond the philosophy and legality of our treatment of suspected terrorists is the question of why someone finds it necessary to bomb innocent athletes and spectators? Is terrorism a pathology that needs to be cured? I think that is sometimes true as in the case of the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski or the many recent young men with assault rifles. If so perhaps miranda warnings are beside the point. These folks need treatment rather than punishment and if we catch them before they offend might even return to society better or at least safer than before. We, meaning the medical profession, must find ways to identify and treat dangerous pathologies just as they would for infectious diseases.
More difficult, I think, is the political and cultural terrorism displayed by the Brothers Tsarnaev and members of various organized terror groups such as the Aryan Brotherhood or al-Qaeda. They are crying out against real or perceived evils in their culture or the world at large. It's hard not to sympathize with their plight if not with their solutions. If you or I lived in the culture of poverty and want, we also might resort to extreme means to expose our plight - or fall victim to the "out to get us" attitudes of many stressed cultures. In many ways there is little difference between the aims of Osama Ben-Laden and Mahatma Ghandi. Using your body as a barricade is different only in degree from using your body as a bomb. Yes I know, blood should not be spilled but the sweat of the poor might as well be blood for all it costs them.
So, where does that leave us? How about redirecting the majority of our war spending to human needs, starting with places like Chechnya and Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, or you pick one. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost $1,444,990,000 plus over 1,000,000 deaths. What good could we do with a trillion and one half dollars? Even if we wasted half of it, that would leave close to $400 each for the whole world population or considerably more if we properly target the least fortunate. You say people don't appreciate a hand out? Probably true, but people respond well to help if allowed to direct it and participate personally. One thing is for sure, most folks don't send the suicide bombers after the people helping them out of poverty.
Beyond the philosophy and legality of our treatment of suspected terrorists is the question of why someone finds it necessary to bomb innocent athletes and spectators? Is terrorism a pathology that needs to be cured? I think that is sometimes true as in the case of the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski or the many recent young men with assault rifles. If so perhaps miranda warnings are beside the point. These folks need treatment rather than punishment and if we catch them before they offend might even return to society better or at least safer than before. We, meaning the medical profession, must find ways to identify and treat dangerous pathologies just as they would for infectious diseases.
More difficult, I think, is the political and cultural terrorism displayed by the Brothers Tsarnaev and members of various organized terror groups such as the Aryan Brotherhood or al-Qaeda. They are crying out against real or perceived evils in their culture or the world at large. It's hard not to sympathize with their plight if not with their solutions. If you or I lived in the culture of poverty and want, we also might resort to extreme means to expose our plight - or fall victim to the "out to get us" attitudes of many stressed cultures. In many ways there is little difference between the aims of Osama Ben-Laden and Mahatma Ghandi. Using your body as a barricade is different only in degree from using your body as a bomb. Yes I know, blood should not be spilled but the sweat of the poor might as well be blood for all it costs them.
So, where does that leave us? How about redirecting the majority of our war spending to human needs, starting with places like Chechnya and Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, or you pick one. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost $1,444,990,000 plus over 1,000,000 deaths. What good could we do with a trillion and one half dollars? Even if we wasted half of it, that would leave close to $400 each for the whole world population or considerably more if we properly target the least fortunate. You say people don't appreciate a hand out? Probably true, but people respond well to help if allowed to direct it and participate personally. One thing is for sure, most folks don't send the suicide bombers after the people helping them out of poverty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)