Archive for ‘Society’

June 6th, 2010

Pondering the future

GO TO THE FUTURE

Image via Wikipedia

These are some random thoughts I’ve had about the future. Share your opinions and speculations in the comments.

  • We’ve taken thousands of young people out of our society at a time of their lives when they are still impressionable and not yet fully mature, trained them to be hunters and killers and transported them to a foreign country unlike ours in so many ways. We’ve kept them there for much of their formative years. Eventually they’ll come home. Is America prepared to deal with thousands of 20 and 30 year old people who essentially grew up as warriors in a foreign land? Do the means exist to help them adjust, to reintegrate into our society? How will we put their skills to use?
  • America has more people in prisons per capita than any other country on Earth. In 2008, over 7.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year-end — 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults. (Source) Far too many of these people were imprisoned for violations of moral law, drugs, gambling and prostitution, and will eventually be released back into society. While in prison many of these “criminals” associated with and learned from more hardened criminals. Having been branded as criminals, many will employ these new skills when they find themselves unemployable and rejected by their society. By enforcing our useless moral laws we have created a entire criminal class that will affect all the rest of our society. Our federal and state budgets cannot even provide services for the law-abiding among us. How will we provide the funds to rehabilitate this class of criminals? How will we be able to afford to monitor them in case they backslide? What will happen to our culture when a million adult former prisoners re-enter our neighborhoods?
  • Our dependence on oil and other non-renewable resources has not waned, even in the face of the worst environmentally catastrophic oil spill in U.S. history. Electric vehicles and those running on alternative fuels continue to sell poorly. Manufacturers do not see a compelling reason to produce more environmentally friendly vehicles when people aren’t buying them. We don’t even appear to be willing to make small sacrifices that might reduce the amount of oil we need, like reducing freeway speeds. Not only are we a wasteful nation but one unwilling to sacrifice for the common good. Will that attitude change in the future? Will our children be more willing to make the sacrifices we aren’t willing to make? Will we ever acknowledge our addiction to non-renewable resources and do whatever it takes to kick it?
  • Over time we have come to inseparably associate democracy with capitalism. We have enshrined both as the epitome of human society. Anyone who suggests that democracy may not be scalable and workable in the 21st century or that capitalism may not be the best way for people to engage in the exchange of goods is castigated from all sides. We cannot accept the idea that our system may be breaking down and not have much of a future. We are faced with abuses of Wall Street and corrupt government officials and persist in considering them anomalies, not indicators of a weak system. Will we ever be able to consider alternatives to our present systems? Will we be able to listen to and consider alternative theories without demonizing those who suggest them? Can we admit that perhaps, just perhaps, our current models aren’t destined to last forever?
  • Will technology be our savior or present us with a host of new and frightening possibilities we haven’t envisioned or provided for? What will we do with all the workers displaced by the inevitable increase in robotic manufacturing? Will we be able to provide for citizens without jobs? Can we make leisure profitable? Will we have to return to a barter system when money becomes worthless? If a future court makes abortion illegal, how will we cope with an increasing population born to unemployed and unemployable couples? Are increased taxes the answer, smaller government? Will neighborhoods have to take over the maintenance of their infrastructure from the federal government?

What do you think? Is a bright future for ourselves and a bright future for those who come after us assured? Have we really given sufficient consideration to the future we are creating?  Share your thoughts.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

April 25th, 2010

A thought experiment on white privilege and latent racism

Back in 2008 I posted an excellent article by Tim Wise on the topic of white privilege and the latent racism that still haunts America in the 21st century. Tim has just posted more on this important social topic at Ephphatha Poetry.teapartyracism

Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure – the ones who are driving the action – we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over.

I encourage you to read the full article and consider his words.

This is an issue we hoped would go away in the 60s. Racism, like religious belief, is fighting hard to remain relevant while experiencing its death throes.

White privilege is a product of racism. It has no place in a multi-cultural country like America. Racism and its by-products need to be opposed by every clear thinking person. There’s no good reason we should still be battling the ignorance of racists in the 21st century.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

November 8th, 2009

No Intelligence Required

SAPOL officers on duty.

Image via Wikipedia

Another sign that intelligence and an education are becoming a liability in our society.

A US man has been rejected in his bid to become a police officer for scoring too high on an intelligence test.

Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took an exam to join the New London police, in Connecticut, in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125.

But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Mr Jordan launched a federal lawsuit against the city, but lost.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Mr Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

He said: “This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class. I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action and has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.

The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average. (Source-ananova.com)

In a job that at times requires the ability to make reasoned and informed decisions on matters of life and death, do we really want only those of average intelligence?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

September 7th, 2009

Racism, it’s not what you think

It’s a natural instinct to recognize those most similar to yourself and consider those too different to be outsiders, in a sense. There’s sexism because we are aware of the differences between the sexes (straights get mad at gays because gays mess up the visual clues we all rely on to define to ourselves “the opposite sex”). There’s racism (or racial awareness) because we are aware of the differences between the colors humans come in. Actually racism is based on more than just color as there are distinguishable physical differences between the races as well that act as indicators of ethnicity.

We notice other races because nature equipped us to. It’s what we do with that awareness that determines if we are acting as racists in the conventional sense. Every culture produces racial awareness, the knowledge of the difference between them and us. But not everyone in every culture is a racist. The closer-knit the community, the more that community feels threatened by those outside that community, the easier it is for racial intolerance, sexual intolerance, etc., to exist. The more integrated and pluralistic the community (be it a church or a country) the more resistant to intolerance it becomes. Us becomes a broader concept.

The sign of the headquarters of the National A...

Image via Wikipedia

It’s not what we think about people of color, men, women, gays or anything else that makes us intolerant, bigoted, racists. It’s how we act on those thoughts. It’s how we express our perceptions of the differences between us.

Do we focus more on the differences or on the commonalities?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

July 4th, 2009

Americans, enjoy a thoughtful 4th of July

Take pride in your accomplishments, be happy you’re American.

January 31st, 2009

Are we loathsome?

The Beast has published their annual list of the 50 most loathsome people in America. As always it’s extremely funny but thought-provoking as well. I doubt you’ll agree with every entry, I didn’t. But it’s hard to deny their substantiation has merit. Perhaps the most compelling entry is this:

43. You

Charges:You think it’s your patriotic duty to spend money you don’t have on crap you don’t need. You think Hillary lost because of sexism, when it’s actually because she’s just a bad liar. You think Iraq is better off now than before we invaded, and don’t understand why they’re so ungrateful. You think Tim Russert was a great journalist. You’re hopping mad about an auto industry bailout that cost a squirt of piss compared to a Wall Street heist of galactic dimensions, due to a housing crash you somehow have blamed on minorities. It took you six years to figure out what a tool Bush is, but you think Obama will make it all better. You deem it hunky dory that we conduct national policy debates via 8-second clips from “The View.” You think God zapped humans into existence a few thousand years ago, although your appendix and wisdom teeth disagree. You like watching vicious assholes insult each other on TV. You support gun rights, because firing one gives you a chubby. You cuddle falsehoods and resent enlightenment. You think the fact that 43% of whites could stomach voting for an incredibly charismatic and eloquent light-skinned black guy who was raised by white people means racism is over. You think progressive taxation is socialism. 1 in 100 of you are in jail, and you think it should be more. You are shallow, inconsiderate, afraid, brand-conscious, sedentary, and totally self-obsessed. You are American.

It may have been intended as humor, but I’d say it gives all Americans something to consider and not just reject out-of-hand.

January 4th, 2009

U.K citizens…please enable remote desktop

If that last post doesn’t make you wonder if George Orwell only erred in the year he selected for his title, read on…

THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant.

The move, which follows a decision by the European Union’s council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives “a coach and horses” through privacy laws.

The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.

Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.

Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. The strategy will allow French, German and other EU forces to ask British officers to hack into someone’s UK computer and pass over any material gleaned.

A remote search can be granted if a senior officer says he “believes” that it is “proportionate” and necessary to prevent or detect serious crime — defined as any offence attracting a jail sentence of more than three years. (Source-The Times Online)computerchaineddown

If any of my readers would like advice on securing your computer and/or home network against unwanted intrusion or wiping your hard drive to military specifications, let me know in the comments. Without knowing what resources the governemt currently employ I can’t guarantee absolute security, but I’m willing to bet too many of you are making it far too easy for the government to snoop on your personal computer.

Any trace of even deleted porn, warez or pirated music and movies can be detected by means available to anyone, let alone the government. Even if you think you have nothing to hide, even if you seriously think this will help the police nab criminals or terrorists, you should still be concerned over the rapid loss of our rights to privacy. Soon they’ll be asking, nicely I’m sure, that everyone wear transponding devices (”we can make it look just like fashion jewellery!”) so that the government can know where you are and what you’re doing 24/7. What better way to make sure those rotten criminals and terrorists don’t bother you anymore.

January 4th, 2009

A personal information hellhouse

The private sector will be asked to manage and run a communications database that will keep track of everyone’s calls, emails, texts and internet use under a key option contained in a consultation paper to be published next month by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary.

A cabinet decision to put the management of the multibillion pound database of all UK communications traffic into private hands would be accompanied by tougher legal safeguards to guarantee against leaks and accidental data losses.

But in his strongest criticism yet of the superdatabase, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, who has firsthand experience of working with intelligence and law enforcement agencies, told the Guardian such assurances would prove worthless in the long run and warned it would prove a “hellhouse” of personal private information.

The home secretary postponed the introduction of legislation to set up the superdatabase in October and instead said she would publish a consultation paper in the new year setting out the proposal and the safeguards needed to protect civil liberties. She has emphasised that communications data, which gives the police the identity and location of the caller, texter or web surfer but not the content, has been used as important evidence in 95% of serious crime cases and almost all security service operations since 2004 including the Soham and 21/7 bombing cases.

Until now most communications traffic data has been held by phone companies and internet service providers for billing purposes but the growth of broadband phone services, chatrooms and anonymous online identities mean that is no longer the case.

The Home Office’s interception modernisation programme, which is working on the superdatabase proposal, argues that it is no longer good enough for communications companies to be left to retrieve such data when requested by the police and intelligence services. A Home Office spokeswoman said last night the changes were needed so law enforcement agencies could maintain their ability to tackle serious crime and terrorism.

External estimates of the cost of the superdatabase have been put as high as £12bn, twice the cost of the ID cards scheme, and the consultation paper, to be published towards the end of next month, will include an option of putting it into the hands of the private sector in an effort to cut costs. But such a decision is likely to fuel civil liberties concerns over data losses and leaks. Macdonald, who left his post as DPP in October, told the Guardian: “The tendency of the state to seek ever more powers of surveillance over its citizens may be driven by protective zeal. But the notion of total security is a paranoid fantasy which would destroy everything that makes living worthwhile. We must avoid surrendering our freedom as autonomous human beings to such an ugly future. We should make judgments that are compatible with our status as free people.”

Maintaining the capacity to intercept suspicious communications was critical in an increasingly complex world, he said. “It is a process which can save lives and bring criminals to justice. But no other country is considering such a drastic step. This database would be an unimaginable hell-house of personal private information,” he said. “It would be a complete readout of every citizen’s life in the most intimate and demeaning detail. No government of any colour is to be trusted with such a roadmap to our souls.”

The moment there was a security crisis the temptation for more commonplace access would be irresistible, he said. (Source-The Guardian)

How afraid of becoming a victim of crime does a person have to have to endorse the wholescale undermining of personal rights and freedoms?

Thanks to press coverage of every little incident of criminal activity and the government’s continued efforts to make its citizens feel vulnerable and frightened, people seem to be developing the perception that crime is rampant and there are terrorists in every neighborhood. We are being encouraged to allow the government to employ draconian measures to protect us from a threat they can’t seem to substantiate.

Where are these hordes of terrorists? Has crime, measured per capita, really risen to unprecedented levels? intruder

Is there any guarantee that by surrendering our freedom to the government we are assured to never suffer another terrorist attack or that we’ll never be a victim of crime? Can they show a cost-benefit ratio that justifies their actions?

Thousands of people just lost their savings due to the scam perpetrated by Maddow. How will these actions prevent this sort of crime? Should we surrender control over our finances to the government so they can “protect” us from ponzi schemes and phishing sites? How much of our autonomy should we give up in order to feel a little safer, especially when that perception might be nothing more than an illusion?

I’m with Ben Franklin when he said, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

December 21st, 2008

Don’t you annoy me

Repeatedly annoying or insulting someone in Brighton could get you fined.

The City Council Thursday passed ordinance amendments aimed at protecting individuals from harassment, intimidation or interference by others in their daily activities.

City Manager Dana Foster stressed that the amended ordinance wasn’t adopted to muzzle anyone or infringe on their rights.

The ordinance makes it a civil infraction for a person to “engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.” It further makes it illegal to “insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign or motion any person in any public place.”

Brighton Police Chief Tom Wightman said violating the ordinance is punishable by fines only. He also said it’s not about a single incident but involves repeated acts. (Source-Ann Arbor News)

annoying

They seriously don’t see this as infringing on a person’s rights? What purpose does an ordinance like this serve except to provide an end-around the 1st Amendment? Does anyone think this will survive its first court challenge?

Who will be the arbiter of what is annoying? What exactly constitutes an interference? Will Jahovah’s Witnesses be fined under this ordinance? How about those who badger me to register to vote outside the grocery store? How will a person substantiate their perceptions in a court of law? Where’s the standard, since what annoys or offends you may have no impact on me?

Will poorly considered ordinances like this be enforced by the thought police?

October 30th, 2008

Race in the 21st Century

I was reading a forum post in which the college student was discussing something that happened in class that day. The students got into a discussion about the word nigger, if using it was ever appropriate and if it should be acceptable for Black kids to use while being unacceptable for most White kids to emulate.

Sadly my generation had high hopes that the current generation of 20-30 year olds would be the one to make race irrelevant. Now they tell us they don’t have a clue either. Great. We’re screwed for another twenty years. Maybe their grandkids will finally work it out.

First of all I don’t hesitate to use the word nigger if that’s the word we’re discussing.* I don’t care for it, and won’t use it unless it’s called for. But I also realize it’s just a word, one with a well-understood etymology, one that elicits strong emotional reactions in people of many colors. I do not consider it profane. As long as it still has the power to shock our sensibilities it will remain in use and divisive.

One thing to consider is “ownership” of certain terms. There are a few words that society seems to have agreed may be used by a certain group yet aren’t appropriate used beyond that group. Nigger is one of those words. Queer is another, and faggot. Certain words are owned by certain groups. Group members can use them with impunity, non-members are expected to refrain from tossing them about, especially in a negative way. Self-depreciation isn’t restricted to the Black community. “Redneck” can be a proud title or an insult. Was it said by a member of the “redneck” group or a non-redneck? That’s often the only difference between self-depreciation and insult.

Words create thought by their context. Context is vital to communications. These words exist in a narrow context with strong boundaries between who can and who shouldn’t use them. I usually respect those boundaries. Not always. In this matter I follow the teachings of George Carlin, master jedi.

People like George and me hoped the 60s would have at least helped ease racial tensions and misunderstandings. Instead the problem persists. Stereotypes are tenacious. They don’t die easily. But we can hope they do die eventually.

(* This comment was prompted by the other person spelling nigger as “nigg*r”, a practice I understand but don’t accept. As I said, it’s a word. Spell it properly. The euphemistic * doesn’t fool anyone. Words aren’t scary; it’s the thoughts behind the words.)