evolution and speculation

i was watching my cats fight this morning (nothing bad, don't worry, no kitties harmed in this observation) and noticed the flattening of their ears like all kitties do when they are fighting. I suspect that some evolutionary biologist would be able to say "why" they do this, i.e., provides a lower profile for hitting, makes them look meaner, etc.

My point is that just because someone provides an explanation for something and attributes it to evolution doesn't mean that is why somethign is occuring. for one thing, we don't know why a cat does that as we have no access to a cat's conscious awareness. we can infer reasons why, but that is all they are...inferences.

Second is that evolution has not stopped. What we could be witnessing in any behavior is a behavior that is not selected for, but is dying out; we just haven't been around long enough to notice it dying out. For that matter, I suspect that one could argue that all behavior is/was adapative at one time, hence it's existence. Granted, some could have been produced by mutation and serve no advantage, but within any one person's lifetime, we would not know this.

BTK = entitlement to the max

i listened to brief excerpts from the BTK killer's testimony yesterday on the radio. he was telling the judge about how we murdered one family and in the course of describing what he did, he said (to the judge), "if you have read anything about serial killers, then you know that when was I was doing XYZ, I was in the XYZ phase..."

Amazing, the guy has admitted to ten murders and he is lecturing the judge on serial killers. That is entitlement.

Also, he is not crazy, he is (and was) very rational. I know that many would describe him as a sociopath and according to the defintion of sociopath, he would fit the profile quite nicely; no conscience, no remorse, etc.

The interesting thing, however is to pay attention to how he makes sense out of what he did. He was extremely rational in plotting and in killing people. His rationality in carrying out what he did is really no different than the rationality that many of us employ in caring out daily tasks. Indeed, the commentator on the radio described him as a "technician" when it came to killing people.

So, mix rationality with entitlement and in most cases you just get a self-centered jerk; in this case, you got one scary bastard who enjoyed killing people.

so much for rationality and entitlement...

over there, over there...

our Prez recently has been talking about how we are "fighting the terrorists over there [in Iraq] so we don't have to fight them here."

The thing that seems to escape him and all of the others in the Admin is that this is precisely what the "terrorists" want us to do! They want to be able to fight us in their land(s), they want to kill as many Americans as they can, and we are, inadvertently playing right into their hands by continuing to provide them with people to be killed. And because the Admin is hell-bent on "staying the course," this is precisely what is going to continue to happen, over, and over, and over again -- there will be absolutely no shortage of willing volunteers to kill Americans.

Ironically, and sadly, by invading Iraq, we will now have to settle for an uneasy truce with the "terrorists" as, at some point we will have to negotiate with them (yes, duly noted that this is already happening) so that we can pull out. If we had not invaded Iraq, we would still have world-wide support to challenge and dismantle their networks; we wouldn't have to settle for negotiating with anyone.

so, if we had not invaded, we would still be in a one-up position; now we will always be in a one-down position because this thing ain't gonna be over anytime soon and there is no way that we can regain our original position.

oh, and as soon as all the other Repubs figure out that they ain't gonna be re-elected because of this war and their gravy train is pulling into the retirement station, they are gonna cut and run as quick as they can, leaving Georgie out in the cold.

(note that I use the term "terrorist" not because I agree with the notion of a "war on terror" and a terrorist under every bed; I use it because this is how the Admin is framing the conflict).

saying sorry is easy when you're not corrupt

I was listening to NPR this morning and one of their editors came on the air to apologize for a freelance commentator who apparently had been plagarizing others' work (too bad, I liked the guy, Gabe Wisdom). The editor gave the facts of what happened, stated what NPR did in response, and aplogized for the entire event.

made me think...

if you honestly made a mistake in doing your job, and you have nothing to hide about your behavior which led up to the mistake (and afterwards, your response to the mistake), then you have no reason NOT to apologize for it...it was a mistake. You were doing your job to the best of your ability, something happened, you noticed it, took responsible action, and are sorry for any fall-out. pretty simple.

if, however, you are not being straight with what you were doing when the "mistake" occurred, and if you were not straight about what you did about it, then you can't apologize as it would open you up to all kinds of scrutiny, lawsuits, you name it. most people understand that mistakes occur and that if you can demonstrate that you took reasonable action to respond to them, then they are going to be accepting of it.

if you are dishonest with them, and deny what happened, or deny the outcomes of what happened, then that seems to be a sure sign that you are "cooking the books" regardless of what the "books" are.

if it can't stand the scrutiny of daylight, there is something very, very wrong.

common sense, eh?

i think

i screwed up my formatting...

subverting, yet again

i have a wild idea about starting an online journal or database of sociological applications that anyone could use. like, if someone wanted to know how to change the culture of an organization, or how to assist someone in changing him or herself, etc. here is how i envision the format for the entries:

Name of intervention

Purpose of intervention

Potential uses

Sociology behind it (theory, concept, research, etc.)

How to do it (list steps and brief commentary)

Limitations

Cautions

References

seems simple enough. i'm sure that someone will get upset about it, though; accuse me of rocking the applied sociological boat by doing something like that. i know this sounds strange, but i think that applied sociologists should be developing applications for people to use. but, then again, i know that i have some strange ideas.

troy duster

president of the american sociological association, prolific intellectual, wise man interviewed about the senate's decision yesterday to publicly apologize for their lack of intervention in lynchings during the last two centuries. well worth a listen.

the jackson verdict

some were speculating during the trial that jackson would have a hard time as it was an all-white jury. i think this was to his advantage. why? that county is pretty wealthy and i suspect if it is like other wealthy counties in the u.s., most, if not all of the weatlh is in the hands of whites. so...an all white jury, in a wealthy county could probably relate to the idea that someone is out there trying to steal your money and/or set you up so that they can sue you. in short, i bet that they could relate to a poor person (the accuser and his mother) preying on a naive wealthy person (jackson). wealthy people are fearful of being victims; the evidence seems to indicate that jackson was "set up" by the mom.

so, if michael was a poor black man, it would have in all likelihood, worked against him. but, michael is a very wealthy, international celebrity with millions of fans, so his wealth and his status, in this case helped him.

so, the speculating after the trial begins (and ends, i don't plan on saying anything else about it).

i understand road rage

i don't agree with it, but i understand it.

consider the amount of frustration that current urban living consists of. consider, also, how due to our "it wasn't me!" attitudes about responsibility and accountability, there is no way to vent our frustrations over others' mistakes.

now, someone cuts you off, someone runs a red light in front of you...tangible, immediately identifiable blame ready and able to be laid on that person. and what happens? all of that simmering frustration finds a focal point to come out. and you get? road rage.

no timing, no cry (sung to the Bob Marly tune)

the other day, out of the blue, my seven year old said, "dad, i've never seen you cry." that's true. i don't know that i have cried in seven years or if i have she was too young or was not around.

she then asked me why.

my first thought...no time. i don't have time to cry. crying takes time, energy, space, etc. all of those are in short supply now. i get up, i take my triglyceride medication, make my daily ayurvedic tea, make my lunch, settle disputes among the kids, take a shower, go to work, get home and repeat of much of the morning, just different names for similar tasks.

and we don't watch TV except on rare occasions.

i wonder how anyone who is a parent has time to cry?

we're going to have a book burning!

the following list was posted on a sociology list; my response follows:

I think the "giveaway" in this list is in the title...the notion of associating "dangerous" with a book. An exploding book, perhaps, one that secretes poison upon contact with human flesh, perhaps, but the information, knowledge and ideas in a book being dangerous???? Wow, better get those parking lot bonfires started, cause there be a lot of book burnin' going on soon.

Surprised that the Sinclair Lewis novel, It Can't Happen Here, isn't on the list; it is a fictional accounting of how the US becomes a fascist country (written 70 years ago).

Required reading, IMO.

That said, I agree with XXX that we are lacking in our ability to empirically demonstrate our overall worth. Note the fairly recent discussion in Teaching Sociology about the "core" of sociology. My takeaway was that, in some respects, we have no clothes. At best, we are a practice VS a science. Not too bad, IMO, but not what we promote to the world at large.

Yes, we use empirical methods to collect and analyze social data, but do we have any well-founded theoretical propositions and/or axioms that we teach as the foundation(s) of sociology? The closest I have seen is exchange theory ala Homans, network exchange theory, and possibly network analysis. These theories have some possibilities of testing and building on axioms as is the case in other sciences.

Is anyone else getting kind of tired of regurgitating the 3 perspectives in Intro classes? Isn't it odd that we still talk about Durkheim, Marx, and Weber as if they are deities? This would be like modern physics touting Newton as the preeminent natural scientist (which he was, but physics has moved well beyond Newton by now). Granted, natural science predates (at least in the West) social science by a century or two, but they have moved on considerably more quickly than we have. It's like we are stuck in the 19th century. Some of the best material about things social I have read of late comes from outside the discipline. That strikes me as odd.

In any event, I will continue to promote membership in the reality-based community.

huh?

I just read the following (from the AP) and found it interesting. Sec. Rumsfeld apparently cited this as a defense for how the Administration is responding to allegations of detainee abuses; the ironic part is that I think it substantiates the allegations, just by the sheer number of investigations. In short, IMO, evidence of a systemic problem:

"Yes, there have been instances where detainees have been mistreated while in U.S. custody, sometimes grievously, but consider these facts," Rumsfeld said Wednesday. "To date there have been approximately 370 criminal investigations into the charges of misconduct involving detainees" since Sept. 11, 2001.

I just wonder when these Admin guys will figure this out; actually, I should save myself the energy...they never will.

a progressive post...

to a sociology list.

RE: What is being progressive?

I think what defines “progressive” is irrelevant. I suspect that many people would consider me “progressive,” “liberal,” etc. I don’t use those labels in addressing myself. I don’t think that they are useful. If I do use a label to describe myself, I use terms like, “sane,” “reasonable,” etc. I know that these can be debated about me, but I do strive to be those things.

I think that being “sane” and “reasonable” is taking into consideration all of the known data of a phenomena, being respectful of others, and not pretending that I know everything there is to know about something. In past times, this was known as “humility.” Now a dirty word, I think. I also think it is worthwhile to consider how actions have consequences and paying attention to what those consequences might be prior to taking action; being aware of the limitation of resources, etc.; making judgments based on all of the above with the hope of having the best impact on the greatest number. Again, to me this kind of approach seems sane and reasonable; apparently now this kind of thinking is considered “liberal.” Go figure. But seemingly traditional American values (that I try to adhere to and naively expect others to do the same) like respect, honesty, integrity, accountability, and personal responsibility are also apparently now “liberal” values, too. Go figure again.

So, what constitutes “being progressive” is irrelevant, IMO. What matters is how people act. What can I say? I think pragmatism got it right.

RE: politics, religion, values…to answer your question, I do those things that you mention and am not in conflict with my religious belief system. I suspect that some would argue that I have a very “liberal” and/or “progressive” religious belief-system. I consider myself a Hindu-Buddhist-Jesus (-ist?), although when asked what my “religion” is, I will deny affiliation with any; all of that makes complete sense to me and does not run counter to my “beliefs.” I was raised Catholic, but the whole no birth-control, “homosexuality is bad”-thing is just ridiculous, IMO. Although, I do have to admit that my presence on this earth is entirely due to the rhythm method, so I guess I do, on some level, owe the Catholic Church for my corporeal existence (man, what a freaking institution to be beholden to!!!). I agree with their stance on the death penalty, war and abortion, however (I do think that abortion is the taking of a life; I do not think it is my role to pass judgment on those who do that, however).

So, yes, IMO, one can be spiritually/politically/religiously “progressive” all at the same time. In fact, the people I admire the most are those who did/do precisely that.

But, hey, I’m just a damn liberal sociologist and my opinion ain’t worth @#$%!

you know that saying...

that you get what you pay for? well, you also get what you over-pay for, too. and you are stuck with it.

triple-XXX consumption

i was thinking over the weekend how easy it is to just buy things that bring pleasure, i.e., food, movies, stereos, cars, entertainment, alcohol, tobacco, etc. essentially, the purchase of those things is what consitutues much of our economy. if you think about it, all of the "base" pleasures are legal to purchase except...sex. illegal to buy that one.

i wonder why? that one would make billions for companies/corporations for a long, long, time. i would say that morals are involved, but then i remember that we are talking about making lots of money, so it can't be morals, has to be something else.

in any event, you read it here first; someday, probably soon, buying sex will be legal.

Jesus...exasperated

Couple of weeks ago in my Sunday school class, one of the members called the apostles, "knuckleheads," because they never really got what Jesus was really all about. They kept thinking that he was going to get rid of the Romans for them.

I started dwelling on this and soon imagined a scenario with the apostles standing around Jesus, after his resurrection and Thomas saying, "That's pretty cool that I can stick my hand in your side, and you know, all the miracles were really neat, but when are you going to do something about these Romans?" And Jesus going, "Forget about the %$#@! Romans, okay??? I'm freaking God, do ya get it??? You're talking to God right now, in the flesh! So, forget about the ^%$#@! Romans!!!"

That would've been a hoot.

when i grow up and am called before the senate...

i hope i can deliver just like George did.

A suggestion for ending “frivolous” legislation

(I sent the following to Common Dreams, but they didn't publish it)

Recently in Texas there was a state bill introduced by Rep. Al Edwards (D) to ban “overtly sexually suggestive” cheerleading. The bill passed the state House, but apparently is not going to make it out of the state Senate this year.

Now, as a parent with daughters, I am not in favor of “sexy” cheerleading either. I think there is plenty of time to be “sexy” in one’s life and I support anyone being so when they have reached adulthood, not when they are eleven or twelve.

I don’t, however think that the state legislature needs to pass legislation to ban it. There are many more pressing issues in Texas than cheerleading (believe it or not). I think that communities can set and enforce standards of behavior just as well, if not better than legislation, and in this case, I would be much more in favor of communities advocating for “clean” (or whatever the opposite of “sexy” is) cheerleading than the state legislature passing legislation banning it.

As such, I think that this bill constitutes “frivolous” legislation.

That said, I think that we need a sure-fire way of reducing, if not completely eliminating frivolous legislation (given that our current state and national leaders are pressing for banning frivolous medical lawsuits, I am sure that this will be an easy sell).

Here is my suggestion: Anyone proposing legislation banning and/or regulating specific behavior needs to sign a sworn affidavit stating that she or he has not ever in the past, does not currently, nor ever will in the future, engage in, support, nor advocate the behavior proposed to be banned. This would, of course, be a public document and would become public record along with the proposed legislation. Anyone voting in favor of the bill would have to sign a similar affidavit. Those legislators that base their proposals and/or their votes on religious grounds, would, in addition to the affidavit, be encouraged to swear on the Holy Book (of their choice) to the same. Their swearing to same would also become public record.

I know what you are thinking. Brilliant! Why didn’t anyone think of this before? Why didn’t any legislators think of this before? Darned if I know. I would think that anyone in public office, local, state, or national would be thrilled about affirming their virtuosity in such a public, tangible manner. Maybe they just needed an affirmation from their public. If so, here it is.

life...

i realized the other day that life, including the life that we experience, has been going on, on our planet for who knows how long. an unbroken chain that we are inextricably linked to and are a part of. consider that it doesn't really matter how it began. the fact that it has been around, and we are the direct descendents of whom/whatever, is just amazing. even more amazing thinking that we started out as one-celled organisms.

that same life that started millions of years ago is the same life that we experience today. my ancestors came from the sea and the life that they had, they passed on to their descendents, etc., until that life became my grandparents, my parents, and then me.

just amazing.

the secret memo...

i have posted a couple of things to a sociology list on the "secret memo" from MI-6 that documents the Bush Adminstration already having determined that they were going to invade Iraq in July of 2002. Note this was before they told us, "we have no plans to invade Iraq." In sum, they lied to us and there is hard, tangible evidence that they lied to us.

some other thoughts about the memo that i posted today:

My last word on the memo…I think I would have more respect for politicians and their minions if they would just admit that they were lying. Like, “yeah, we lied, and chances are, we’ll probably continue lying to you when we see fit, so get over it.” The fact that they lie really wouldn’t be news; what would be news is that anyone of them would admit openly that they are lying. At least then we would know where they stand. And at this point, given the apparent national apathy, most people wouldn’t care enough to do anything about it, anyway.

One other thing along these lines; I also think that it would be nice for death penalty proponents to admit that what they really want to see is the SOB who did the crime die. We have enough evidence to know that the death penalty doesn’t deter murder. Case in point…the man who shot his way out of the Atlanta court room in March. GA is a death penalty state, and he is going to be prosecuted with the hopes of getting the death penalty. Now, was he deterred by thinking about the death penalty when he was pulling the trigger and killing those four (?) people? No, he was thinking about getting away; I’m sure that the notion of the potential consequences of his actions didn’t come into play at that particular point in time. Consider, he is in the courtroom, he gets the gun from a police officer, he shots people in the courtroom, he is in the very place where someone would sentence him to the death penalty and he is NOT DETERRED BY THE DEATH PENALTY!!!!!!!

As I have mentioned before, of all of the felons I worked with, there wasn’t one that was deterred by the thought of potential consequences when committing the crime (obviously or they wouldn’t be felons!!!). They all thought that they wouldn’t get caught, that’s why they did it. Most felons aren’t stupid. Careless, arrogant, maybe, but they go to some length not to get caught. In that sense, the “law” had no deterrent effect. Others have argued that laws, in all likelihood, have a deterrent effect on people who are less likely to commit crimes in the first place.

Maybe some day we will have a rational and reasonable society. If evolution determines this, it doesn’t bode well for the human species.

extreme apathy

Post to a sociology list...

I think I posted on this list sometime back an analysis I did, before the Iraq War, of how the reasoning for the war didn’t make any sense; it just didn’t add up according to what the CIA, FBI, and others were reporting (and the lack of finding any WMD’s by the UN). Now, of course we know that there were no WMD’s, thus invalidating the original stated reason for the invasion.

Turns out, the reason that it didn’t make sense was because of something that was not known to the public…the Administration had already decided to invade Iraq to remove Saddam by at least July of 2002. All that was needed was some reason for doing so; apparently, at least according to the memo that was released to the British press last week, terrorism and WMD’s were the reason(s). It all becomes clear when the facts are known.

See this article here.

Now, this memo has been made public, I don’t know to what extent, since I don’t watch TV, but I know that I have heard reports of it on the radio and on the internet. Curious, isn’t it? If the memo is indeed real, then the decision to invade Iraq was already made when statements about using diplomacy, giving Saddam one last chance, etc., were being promulgated on the airwaves. In other words, it seems pretty apparent to me that we intentionally were not being told the real reason for the invasion and this deceit/manipulation was deliberate. Sad, yes? Of course, we are jaded, we KNOW that the gov’t lies, it has done so for years.

I have a feeling that this memo will blow over (I guess it already has since it is NOT front page news anywhere, except maybe in the UK) and life will go on. IMO, this is evidence for something that is truly disconcerting about the American population. I know that some will say that we were mislead and we continue to be mislead by the media, the gov’t, etc., and that the population isn’t to blame. True, I suspect we are. This does not mean, however that we cannot find out things about what is happening if we really want to…obviously the release of this memo is tangible evidence of that.

I think our collective lack of response to this really quite devastating information is indicative of something even sadder than the fact that our gov’t wasn’t truthful with us about a war that has cost thousands of lives. We, as a nation, as a collective, don’t care. Sure, there are large numbers of people that do care. But, apparently, there aren’t enough because this is NOT front page news. We have tangible evidence that we were mislead, and there is no significant collective response. It is a blip on the news, nothing else. We just don’t care.

I say this not to provoke anything. I say it because it is an observation I am making about what in the future, I am sure, will be a critical point in history.

This is really interesting to me as a sociologist, and as a member of the collective that we know as America. The former because of the social dynamics that may be driving this indifference and the latter because this is not the America I was raised in.

Fascinating.

Pope Week

I wasn’t sure what I thought about this Pope week until today, when driving into work; here are my thoughts:

1)The Pope was a wonderful person, did great things, embodied those values and beliefs that many people strive for.

2)I have always maintained that funerals were for the living, not for the dead (not an original thought, I know), so this week has been for whomever wanted to grieve (and I don’t think that the grief being shown is all for the Pope; I am sure many people are taking this opportunity to use the Pope as a surrogate for other, more personal griefs.)

3)The Catholic church has muy dinero and is spending it like mad this week; their prerogative, but it seems to me that this $$ could be better spent on things like the poor, but from what I understand, the Pope was opposed to liberation theology, so it ain’t gonna go there.

4)Tradition is nice, but excessive tradition is ridiculous in this day and age and I really don’t see the purpose that it serves other than providing a public display of grief for a week.

5)The US media loves this because they don’t have to figure out what they are going to do for a week.

6)The US media loves this because it is essentially pabulum for the masses and not controversial, therefore safe to have wall-to-wall coverage of whatever happens in Rome.

7)I find it ironic that many people who despise the Catholic church are joining in the grieving, but again, I think that is more due to their unacknowledged personal griefs – again, like the media, it is safe to grieve publicly for the Pope, but not for others

8)I would really love to know what the Bushes and Clinton were thinking about for those five minutes that they kneeled before the Pope’s body; I can’t imagine all of them being immersed in prayer for five solid minutes. If I had time, I would write out what I thought they were thinking and you can bet, it wouldn’t be pretty!

9)I don’t see how this advances anything that the Church is allegedly interested in – peace, compassion, etc. Sure, everyone is all nicey-nice for a week, but then they all go back to their daily routines of aggressive competition, extreme self-centeredness, etc., once the week has passed.

I see it all from an intervention standpoint…what has this accomplished for nations, societies, cultures? IMO, not much. I think a better service to the public would be to have week-long memorials for each and everyone one of the young men and women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. The grief would be much more real, more immediate, and it would have a much greater impact on the society. Are these young people any different than the Pope? Not in my opinion. They gave their lives to serve their country, they engaged in heroic activities everyday, they were selfless in most of their actions, and they embodied the ideals and values that the society holds dear. Plus, IMO, they DESERVE a weeklong memorial; not that the Pope doesn’t (if that is how the Church wants to spend their money, who can tell them otherwise?), it is that they do, also.

Oh, and now the US media will be obsessed with who will be the next Pope for the next four weeks or so. One of the many reasons I only watch Animal Planet, the History Channel, the Weather Channel, and Comedy Central; and that’s for an average of about four hours a month.

later that same day...

responding to a colleague's post about the study mentioned earlier:

I am not surprised at the lack of quality or rigor of the study, what got to me was the fact that it was framed as evidence of a "liberal bias" in higher education.

Let's face it, rarely does anyone, other than us, read the fine print about things like bias, sample distribution, etc. Yes, we know that those are crucial factors in interpreting findings, but the general public just hears that "...80% of academics are self described Liberals". This is in the context of a larger debate about how conservatives are not getting equal access, how morals and personal beliefs are not respected, etc. And what is obvious conclusion? Yikes, "they're" right, academia in the US is in the hands of Liberals and what must they be teaching our youth????!!!"

Again, I bet soon it will be like the flap about gays teaching in public schools..."Well, we can't have Liberals teaching in public schools!" Isn't this essentially the argument that the legislator in FL made to get the bill passed?

I just wish that academics would use their critical thinking skills a bit more when it comes to issues like these and in this particular case the use of self-reported "stigmatized" labels. One would hope that academics in particular would be savvy to the potential misuse of such a label.

Honestly, I don't care what political persuasion an academic is (and I really don't think it should matter). What I do care about is the ability to "suspend" one's political persuasions when teaching, conducting research, and discussing studies. I think that we owe that to the public we serve, whether that public consists of students in our classes, friends or the "general public."

One way to do this would be, when issuing a press release, to begin with the limitations of the study as opposed to the "dramatic" findings. Wouldn't that be nice to see for a change?

sounds like something we ought to try here

President Bush said this yesterday:

"In a democratic Iraq, these differences will be resolved through debate and persuasion, instead of force and intimidation."

Wow, I guess they do politics a lot differently over there then we do here; maybe we could learn something from them.

use your critical thinking skills!!!

I heard on one of our local (Dallas) AM radio stations yesterday about a study that was released indicating that about 80% of professors at universities self-report as Liberals and about 10% or less self-repot as Conservatives. The story was about how there was now evidence of a "liberal bias" in academia.

The one thing that struck me was how whomever responded to the questionnaire (specifically, the Liberal professors) didn't give much thought to what the implications of their response would be. I don't think I would ever tell anyone, especially on a survey, how I view myself politically using a label. People frequently ask me if I am a Liberal and I usually respond that I think of myself as "sane" and leave it at that.

The other thing that struck me is that this seems to imply that now, not only things like gender, sexual orientation, religion, are going to be scrutinized (some under the table, some overtly), so is one's political persuasions. I thought that our votes were supposed to be private? Isn't that why we go to great lengths to ensure privacy in voting booths?

I am surprised that anyone who considers him or herself a Liberal would not be aware of how, by answering the question, they were feeding the "gathering threat" of Liberalism in academia.

Seems like this is one great example of shooting oneself in the foot.

ignorance...it's us

Some Eastern systems of thought (Buddhism, Hinduism, Vedanta, etc.) assert that our normal, day-to-day actions, thoughts, motives, etc., are born of and emerge from ignorance of our true selves. Our true selves are "pure consciosuness," "the Self," "the Atman," etc. Our innermost essence is expansive, unbroken awareness, the notorious, "oneness with the universe." Everything that we experience that is not that, is ignorance.

so...studies of things human, i.e., the human sciences, are really studies of human ignorance.

I want to remember that.

okay, so she got it a bit wrong...

my 6 year old daughter went with one of the children's ministers yesterday to administer communion to folks who are unable to get out of their homes (local assisted living center). i asked what she did and she said that she did the "shredded blood of Christ" for them.

hmmm, okay. hey, i was just happy she was being of service, making life more meaningful for people that usually have no one come visit them.

a dental visit

am i the only person who thinks that going to the dentist is like getting assaulted in the mouth? i know that they are not intentionally trying to hurt me, but i always feel violated when i come out. my mouth hurts from having to stay open for an hour, my gums hurt from them digging in them, and my teeth hurt from all the drilling and stuff. yuck.

okay, i know i'm naive, but...

wouldn't it be cool to be able to say things to people without them thinking you're weird? like, i saw this guy coming out of the Y yesterday. he had a great body. it looked like he worked hard at it. i was impressed because i could never have a body like that. i wanted to say, "wow, great body," but i thought he would clock me if i did.

similarly...i once told a co-worker that her eyes looked like the color of the sky. she thought i was flirting with her; i was just making an observation. i was looking at her while talking to her, and she was sitting in front of a window; i noticed that her eyes were the same color as the sky and i told her...what's the big freakin deal?

religion? we don't need no stinking religion!

(post to a sociology list in response to someone else)

I read what you are saying as intermingling religion (structure, codes, symbols, status, etc.) with religious (or I supposed spiritual) experience (way of living or being). I think that the two are different. I also think that the notion of spirituality is bandied around far too much in our post-modern world, but,...that is an aside.

Personally, I believe that persons like Jesus, the Buddha, Ammachi, Ramakrishna, etc., did (in the case of Ammachi, "do") have a profoundly different experience of life than I do. As such, I think that what they have to offer in terms of their teaching (and the way they lived) is very valuable to me. I can follow them and their teaching without having to be part of any religion. I have not been able to attain their level of living, but I see it as possible and as something I want, so I work towards it.

IMO, the bracelet shouldn't read, WWJD, it should read HWJB -- How would Jesus BE -- that is something I have no clue about, Jesus' fundamental way of being in the world. From what I have read, it is a pretty neat way to be.

I participate in religion (i.e., attend church) because I like the people, they treat me and my kids very well, I can talk about what I think about Jesus, and I can learn more about living in ways that are fundamentally foreign to me (humble, gracious, compassionate, etc.). Is it necessary for me to have any kind of belief in something to do this? Not anymore than any other belief that I have about anything. I suspect that one could argue that having any belief (in science, rationality, inherent goodness of persons,
etc.) is fantastical simply because beliefs, by their very nature exist only in the mind and as such, have no real substance, i.e., they are "all"
fantasy.

Do, I have to participate in religion to follow any and/or all of the above persons? I don't think so. Being part of a group (whatever that group is) does have its benefits, however. I learn much, am challenged much, am humbled much, etc., in the context of the religious group I participate in.

Is my wanting to be like the folks I mention above delusional? I don't think so. Again, if so, then my wanting to be like anyone else is delusional, too.

In sum, I don't think the twain needs to meet nor does one (religion VS
experience) preclude nor include the other. Variety and diversity abound in this world of ours, I have much to learn from many, if not most I encounter.
And I encounter "them" in physical proximity, through reading, through video, etc.

tertiary musings

(third in this series of list exchanges; other two immediately preced this one).

I wanted to just add something to my previous (the second iteration) of my musings as I think this identifies a profound sociological reality, too; to return to a passage from the quote from Sogyal Rinpoche…

“As you begin to think more and more about the tree, you will discover that everything in the universe helps to make the tree what it is; that it cannot at any moment be isolated from anything else; and that at every moment its nature is subtly changing. This is what we mean when we say things are empty, that they have no independent existence.”

Is this not true of our “selves,” too? Embedded in the ever-shifting social realities that we encounter each day, our selves are “inherently empty,” too. I think Mead laid the foundation for this (as well as James). If our mind and our self are social products and are not fixed, then it stands to reason (and experience, actually) that they change, shift, etc., based on the situations that we encounter. They, too, like the tree are aided, if not created, by “…everything in our [social] universe...” Granted, we are not passive recipients of social conditioning, there is something that consciously acts (Mead’s “I”); I do think that we attribute undue influence to that thing as the prime “agent,” however. We forget that that agent is always acting within the bounds of a massively influential social universe. Given that the language we use is not really “ours” personally (it belongs to the group), how can we conclude that even the thoughts that we think (or thinking itself) are “our own,” let alone the actions that we take? (This is not to be interpreted as endorsing socially irresponsible nor harmful behavior, just thinking out loud to a seemingly logical conclusion). I see this, too, in Mill’s vocabulary of motives.

Takes the notion that, “things are not what they seem” to new heights.

and someone to talk to...

(colleague of mine responded to my post)

Thanks for the thoughts. I had forgotten about Bacon’s quote; yes that was mentioned in the text I read. I can understand his orientation to Nature and his analogy as brutal as it sounds. I think that this was “current thinking” among the natural philosophers of the day. I also don’t deny what scientific thinking has done for the world and for humanity; if nothing else, furthering our thinking about what is going on around here.

I don’t know that I have said this on the list, but I have learned much from Buddhist thinking. I think the Buddha was one of the first “scientists” in that he used both reason and observation to gain deeper insights into himself and the world. As the main area he was interested in was change “within,” he could provide no empirical evidence for what he found there. He encouraged others to seek it out, though. IMO, he lived his life in a way that demonstrated he had discovered something quite significant; empirical “evidence” enough for me to consider seriously what he said and did. Note that I do not think he was alone in living like this, I do think that there were others…how many, I don’t know, but certainly the “big” ones that have had an impact on history.

I say this to preface the following quote from Sogyal Rinpoche, a current Buddhist teacher. IMO, he hits the nail on the head when it comes to categories, labels, and the vitality and wonder of life. I have attempted to demonstrate the following insight in some of the classes I teach by slowly destroying a crayon (with a hammer – its fun!), each time asking students what is left, where did the “crayon” go, and was there ever a crayon in the first place? To me, this is what symbolic interactionism is all about – naming objects; it is also what reification is about – relating to those named objects as if they have some kind of independent reality.

Anyway, the quote:

“Nothing has any inherent existence of its own when you really look at it, and this absence of independent existence is what we call “emptiness.” Think of a tree. When you think of a tree, you tend to think of a distinctly defined object; and on a certain level it is. But when you look more closely at the tree, you will see that ultimately it has no independent existence.

When you contemplate it, you will find that it dissolves into an extremely subtle net of relationships that stretches across the universe. The rain that falls on its leaves, the wind that sways it, the soil that nourishes and sustains it, all the seasons and the weather, moonlight and starlight and sunlight—all form part of this tree.

As you begin to think more and more about the tree, you will discover that everything in the universe helps to make the tree what it is; that it cannot at any moment be isolated from anything else; and that at every moment its nature is subtly changing. This is what we mean when we say things are empty, that they have no independent existence.”

Fascinating, IMO. Wonderful, too.

It's amazing what you can learn when you have some time...

I had two weeks off over the holidays and actually got to read a couple of books (short ones!); one was on Francis Bacon and the experimental method, the second was on Aristotle’s basic teachings; I also found some time to read about an “alternative” to the theory of evolution. All of these prompted the following:

1) I never knew (actually, I am sure I did, but I had forgotten) that our system of classification of objects (namely living things – phylum, species, etc.) arose with Aristotle. I find it very curious that this system is accepted as “fact” today, i.e., that the classifications have become reified as some kind of independently existing reality. My son likes to read about whales and dolphins and we spend a fair amount of time discussing what the names of the different kinds are (killer whale, gray whale, southern right whale, river dolphin, etc.). I realize that this serves a purpose, but it also can over-rationalize the wonders of life. Besides, it was just ONE GUY’S THINKING about the world…what an impact! Maybe it’s time to think differently? I mean we have only been using his system for a couple of millennia or so!

2)I also never knew that Bacon took the notion of the experimental method from what at the time was known as “magic.” No doubt, the experimental method is very cool and makes rational sense (another Aristotelian contribution, logic) but again, can we consider other epistemologies as “valid,” too? Why the methodological hegemony? Again, reification of ONE METHOD over most, if not all others.

3) Lastly, I revisited intelligent design. For those unfamiliar, intelligent design is sometimes branded as creationism (i.e., Christian fundamentalism) wrapped in “scientific clothing.” The first time I encountered it, I dismissed it immediately; this time I approached it differently because of something I read in our local newspaper. My question about how many people have been born on earth arose from my reading of some of this material, and I don’t want to say more about that as I am trying to finish the piece I started writing before Xmas. I must admit, however, that I find some of their reasoning compelling. One argument in particular I really like. Two authors (names escape me, I can get the citation if someone wants it – it’s at home) argue that science is built on a naturalistic premise, i.e., that all scientific explanations inherently MUST have a naturalistic cause-effect dynamic. Now, I am not saying that this is accurate or inaccurate (i.e., whether or not there is intelligence in the universe – however we might want to define that!!!!), but I think that they have hit on a rarely discussed premise…one I was completely unaware of until they pointed it out, that science precludes any cause other than natural/material. Interesting. Makes me wonder about how this would impact our field? Are all of our cause-effect dynamics considered to be “natural” and/or material? Mind/consciousness is material????

Thought I would share those with anyone interested in reading them. Again, Dallas is kind of an intellectual wasteland (at least for me) and I don’t have any local colleagues who I can discuss these things with. Some members of my family roll their eyes when I say things like the above; my six year old tells me I’m annoying and my two year old just keeps repeating, “huh?” I suspect some adults would respond the same way, though.

the monster dombe...

a couple of weeks ago, my son Nikhilananda (named after this wonderful man) started saying, "dembe, dembe, dembe" while he was playing with me. I said it back to him and we laughed and did that for awhile. Then he stopped, looked at me quizzically, and asked, "Are you the dembe?" I laughed and said, "Yes, I'm the dembe." We played some more like this and then he started growling, saying, "I'm a monster!" and then, "I'm the monster dembe!" Then, he stopped again and asked me, "Are you the monster dembe?" I said in my scary voice, "Yes, I'm the monster dembe!" Then, we said that for awhile again (you know how two year olds are...). Then he asked me, "What do monster dembes like to do?" and I said, "They like to hug!" and I hugged him and then we did that for awhile...

Fast forward to the other night at dinner when he started chanting dembe again, and then realized that we had done the "monster dembe" thing before, so he said, "Are you the monster dembe?" and again I said, "Yes." He looks at me, tilts his head, and says, "Awwww, can I get a hug?" and I say, "Sure, come on over." So, he climbs down off the stool, and walks over to me saying, "You're the monster dembe?" and I continue to say, "Yes, I am." He climbs into my lap, looks at me, and asks again, "Can I get a hug?" and I say, "Yes!" and hug him.

Fast more forward (forwarder?) and the "dembe" part has morphed into "dombe" -- the monster remains the same (hmmm, good name for a classic hits album, yes?). So, now we have, "the monster dombe."

Children's book of same name with similar story to follow soon...

:)

no one ever listens to me, anyhow...

post in response to what I would tell an NPO board about outcome evaluation:

If I were invited to do a presentation on this particular subject (to ANY NPO board) here are the points I would raise (in no particular order):

1) NPO's do not have the financial nor staff resources to do rigorous outcome evaluations.
2) NPO's many times, do not have the opportunity to choose the outcomes that they want/need to track.
3) Outcome evaluation, in many ways, is more about fulfilling funding requirements than about the collection of relevant data that will assist NPO's in improving service delivery and better serving clients.
4) In short, outcome evaluation is NOT client driven, it is funder driven.
5) NPO Boards should serve as advocates to change #4.
6) The primary (ideal?) purpose of NPO outcome evaluation is to see to what extent one can reasonably discern if the NPO is meeting its mission; this is the litmus test for NPO's -- their bottom line if you will. For-profits bottom line is profit; NPO's bottom line is achieving the mission.
7) Outcomes do not tell the entire story, especially quantitative outcomes only.
8) Implementation fidelity is a challenge with outcome evaluation as it is with any other program.
9) Outcome evaluation should never be used as a performance measurement for staff as this is not what it is about (see #6 above).
10) Outcomes that can actually be used to assist staff in improving service delivery and better meet the needs of clients should be tailored to that agency; standardized outcomes are more about hoop-jumping than anything else.
11) The notion of setting targets for outcomes is anathema to client-centered service delivery; there are a host of factors beyond an agency's control that influence client outcomes; the notion of setting a target for client change is naive as an agency cannot influence client outcomes as one could if clients were employees (i.e., by rewards and/or
sanctions)
12) NPO outcome evaluation is not an exact science; many clients refuse to complete outcome data, do not return for services after an initial visit, etc. Hence the extent to which one can actually claim generalizable findings to specific programs is tempered much, if not most, of the time.

it's not all good, but is all relative

I have come to understand cultural relativism differently in the last ten years or so. Here are some of my thoughts and how I am currently approaching it with students.

First, I think the notion of there being distinct cultures is inaccurate. To me, cultural, cultural items, etc., are fluid, especially now with the ubiquity of cultural information exchange through different media. In other words the "boundaries" between "cultures" are illusory to a great extent -- where does one stop and the other begin? I don't think one can say this with any real degree of precision; certainly not with "scientific" precision. Furthermore, I believe that certainly arguments can be made that even the possession of one cultural item from "another" culture has an influence on the possessor and that possessor's "culture." In sum, I just don't see the argument for distinct cultures being tenable any longer.

Second, I think that one could argue that the logical extension of the soc imagination is that each person is a culture unto her/himself. Why? Precisely because of how we as individuals intersect with our own personal biography and the social contexts we find ourselves in. Yes, we have "cultural" similarities based on classic sociological variables like education, ethnicity, gender, etc., but the combination of those factors, along with our personal experiences with those factors leaves us unique in many respects. I am an upper-middle class, well-educated, Anglo male. Are there some things that I share with others that share those characteristics? Yes. But, I also have distinct differences with many of them, too. Not the least of which are the enactment of my values, which I am sure many of them would claim to share with me, but the actual behavior which, IMO, is reflective of those values would differ greatly, i.e., I certainly don't plan to re-elect the President.

I think that feminists have done an incredible (and typically
underappreciated) job at pointing out to us the merit of taking into consideration our own social and personal places in the structure and how these influence our outlook on things -- our own personal "culture" if you will. To me, this kind of analysis is very much in keeping with the soc imagination and is, in fact, what constitutes great sociology, IMO.

All of that said, I do think it is critical for students to pay attention to their ethnocentrism. Despite what Fox News and all of the other pundits declare about the seeming divine "rightness" of all things American, I think it is disrespectful to approach any other human being with a sense of knowledge about him or her, even, if not especially, other Americans. I try and instill a sense of wonder with students in their encounters with others
-- whomever they might be. I think that is what social inquiry is all about
-- perhaps one of the reasons I highly value verstehen as a method of inquiry. I really don't "know" about any one person's experience of "culture" until I speak with her/him about it -- even then, my knowledge of it is going to be mediated by MY soc imagination

Lastly, I heard a debate on Democracy Now last year between a human rights atty from the US and representatives from a women's rights group from a country in which FGM is practiced -- it was fascinating. The HR atty was saying that FGM was a violation of universal human rights and the reps were saying, yes, but let us handle who we change it. It was a great debate because it exposed the HR atty's ethnocentrism -- she could not hear what the reps were saying because she was so intent on promoting human rights for them! I wish I had bookmarked it.

Armed Men and Safety

I have been listening to some of the news reports about the RNC. A few times I have heard about how many police, firefighters, law enforcement, and other security personnel in “full body armor” with automatic weapons there are around NY and how safe many of the delegates feel because of all of this. I flashed back to a time when I was a young teen, exiting an airplane in Venezuela, walking between a phalanx of heavily armed military men across the tarmac from the plane to the terminal. This would have been in the mid ‘70’s sometime. I remember at the time how much fear I felt, not safety at all. It spoke to me about how ineffective that current gov’t was in maintaining security – so much so that they had to have heavily armed men protecting passengers deplaning. I was terrified. I didn’t feel safe – that walk was one of the longest I ever took in my life.

Couple of other things that came to mind, too…I used to live in Brazil (again in the seventies) and it was not at all unusual to see heavily armed law enforcement men driving around in Suburbans. It was also not unusual to see some of these guys stop and physically assault someone on the street. As youth, we knew that if we really screwed up and somehow got into trouble with the law, their motto was, “shoot first and ask questions later” – so we had to make sure that we could either run really fast or steer clear of any of them. Recall, also, that it was at this time that Brazil had the off-duty police officers roaming around in gangs (the Black Hand) murdering people. The one redeeming factor about the law and Brazil was that if you had enough $$ (and the amount varied, based on the offense) you could discreetly walk away from just about anything. I did not have any personal experience of that, but knew people who did (I did have a personal experience of being shot at by the police, but that is another post!).

Last reminiscence…when in college, some friends and I went to a small beach in Mexico (where they filmed Catch-22 believe it or not) and were approached by two very heavily armed Federales. They asked us if we wanted to buy some marijuana. Not being idiots, we declined, but turning my back and walking away, was again one of the scariest things I have ever done – walking away from heavily armed men who were allegedly “maintaining the peace.”

Granted the last two anecdotes are a bit divergent from the first, but I think all speak to something that we have not really experienced that much in the US, yet -- heavily armed law enforcement folk walking around as a matter of course. I can’t help but wonder if the reason that some of the delegates felt safe by all of it is because it is new, it is NOT common-place and I guess it does physically demonstrate power, which I suspect some people associate with safety. I continue to wonder how safe people are going to feel when we see them not JUST at conventions, airports, bus stations, ports, etc., but wandering around in the course of their normal activities.

From the limited experiences I have had in encountering these folks, the feeling I was left with was not safety, but fear. And the thought that if things were so bad that we had to have some kind of military-like presence in our communities, we were in deep trouble – that was easy to dismiss in those “third-world” countries like Brazil and Venezuela, I wonder what it will be like in the US?

tune in, turn on, turn on

i started reading a book by timothy leary this afternoon entitled, change your brain. i think leary was a genuis. he figured some good stuff out. i think he tumbled to what is going on around here.

some examples -- he notes in this book that:

Culture is the Game Master

"Cultural stability is maintained by preventing people from seeing that the roles, rules, goals, rituals, language, and values of society are game structures. Cultural institutions encourage the delusion that games have inevitable givens, involving unchangeable laws of behavior...it is treason not to play the nationaliality game, the racial game, the religious game (p.20)."

exposing these games for what they are can be very, very frightening for both those that are doing the exposing and those that are recieving the exposing. we like our games, find safety, and reassurance in them. we don't want them taken away from us.

curiously, what he found through his research (and it was quite scientific at the beginning) was that when the games were exposed on an individual level (he calls a person a "human singularity" -- brilliant, IMO), what was left was, "...the uncensored cortex, activated, alert, and open to new realities, new imprints (p.22)." this sounds to me like that which many are looking for -- freedom, unbridled energy, awareness, wonder. reminds me of a blinking cursor --"whom shall we be today?"

i also realized that much of what i attributed (and attribute today) solely to my sociological understanding of things (when I was actively taking psychedelics twenty plus years ago) was really a combination of psychedelic experience made sense of sociologically. thank god for that, no telling what i would have figure out if i had been studying psychology or economics!!!

not advocating mind-altering substance use, but am advocating mind alteration. the one thing that psychedelics did do was break the routine of the socially-conditioned patterns of thinking, responding, being. i do think that this occurs though other means, too, not just substance use. what is there is important, not one way of getting there. i knew some people that were terrified of what was there -- the lack of social conditioning, the realization of how false most social interaction is, the superficiality of it all, yet the stability of it all, too. exposing its tentativeness, and contrivedness can be deeply discomforting.

so, I do like tuning in to what/who we really are, turning on to the potential that is there, and turning others on to that same potential.

finally, for me, psychedelia meets positive, liberating social change work.

coulda, shoulda, woulda

this whole Kerry in Vietnam and the kind of injuries he received, under hostile fire or not could be resolved pretty easily, if mainstream news folk had any stones. let's look at the facts and then ask the most salient question...

FACTS
Kerry volunteered and went to Vietnam
Bush volunteered and went to the Texas Air National Guard

QUESTION
"Mr. President, one question sir. Ah, why didn't you volunteer to go to Vietnam instead of the Texas Air National Guard?"

sociologist predicts the future!!!!

Recall a couple of weeks ago I posted a comparison between the 9/11 commission report of a system failure and the 94 incidents of prisoner abuse as individual acts and I commented 1) how I thought it was odd that one was a systemic failure and the other just random acts of depraved individuals? Well, today, in the Wash Post, there is an article, the title of which is:

Abu Ghraib Probe Points to Top Brass

(article here, but you have to register with them: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17092-2004Aug19?language=printer)

And discusses the extent to which the entire SYSTEM was wacky based on the preliminary findings of a 9,000 page report by the Army. Hmmm, I wonder how it was that I could have drawn that conclusion after only scant public evidence, and it took the Army 9,000 pages to figure that out? Yes, it is that sociological imagination at work!

2) I also commented that it seemed like the farther up the Washington food chain one was, the lesser the likelihood that any kind of sanctions would occur. There is evidence that supports this hypothesis in the same article! I note the following:

“It widens the scope of culpability from seven MPs who have been charged with abuse to include nearly 20 low-ranking soldiers who could face criminal prosecution in military courts. No Army officers, however, are expected to face criminal charges. Officials also said that the report implicates five civilian contractors in the abuse, and that Army officials plan to recommend that their cases be sent to the Justice Department for possible prosecution in civilian courts.”

I am sure that if convicted, both groups of people (military and civilians) will receive some kind of sanction; I, however, would not want to be in the civilian shoes, as I think there is a big difference between serving time in a military institution and serving time in a state/federal one. Different standards for the same acts.

“…justice for all…” and all that…

resonating thoughts...

the present is always awaiting input/design -- we can either respond to the present consciously or unconsciously -- it awaits patiently, it has all the time in the world...literally.

democracy,  shmemocracy

I heard an Indian news anchor interviewed on the radio yesterday about the DNC. He made a comment about how Indians were "...wondering why, in the world's most powerful democracy, that there are only two political parties. In India, there are numerouse political parties."

Hmmm, could it be that we have a crappy democracy?

svaw chat

As most of you know, I work in the field of domestic violence. I also chair a local Violence Against Women (VAW) committee. Amnesty has a two year campaign on VAW that started this year. Yesterday they had an all-day online chat with one of their state coordinators. I had submitted a question prior to the chat, and Elizabeth responded to it. I thought it might be of interest to SAS’ers as it is about institutions and social change – I was curious to know how a non-sociologist would respond (and hoped it would give me SOME ideas). My question and her response is here:

Question Submitted by John:
Hello I am a sociologist and as such, see much of the continued incidence and prevalence of VAW as being rooted in our institutions and/or social structure. Institutions, by their very nature are quite stable, so the are very resistant to change. So, my question is, does anyone have any specific tactics on how to change our institutions? I think that we need all of the current tactics that we have PLUS ones that are specifically designed to change, modify and/or replace our current institutions. Are you aware of any tactics that are designed to do precisely that? Thanks much and thanks for this initiative.

Elizabeth Jennings answers:
Hi, John. You’re right: Changing institutions can be very difficult. Generally, it happens from three directions: From above (government laws and policies that force institutions to act in a non-discriminatory way), from below (grassroots pressure and cultural change to end gender-based discrimination), and from within (among staff and leaders in institutions that want to create a culture that respects all people). Ending violence against women in the U.S. military is just one example of a current effort to change an institution at all three levels. Through the AI Stop Violence Against Women Campaign, a grassroots effort is underway to pressure U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to develop a military-wide protocol to address domestic violence of service members and service members’ spouses, and to address sexual assault of female soldiers by their colleagues. AI’s top-down and bottom-up efforts to end violence against women in the U.S. military supports the long-standing work being done by U.S. military personnel (men and women, enlisted and officers) who are trying to change the culture and process of the armed services from the inside out in order to ensure that women may serve their country without fear of other soldiers. To learn how to take action on this particular institution-changing issue, go to http://www.amnestyusa.org/stopviolence/actions.do

The summary of the entire chat can be found here:
<http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/live/display.php?topic=17>

can i pick another planet to live on??????????

just sent this to the same sociology list...

I was listening to the radio about the 9-11 report and something struck me – made me think about my post last week on threshold and systems…

Essentially the 9-11 report blames the SYSTEM, not any individuals; if you recall, I think it was the Chairman (Kean) who said something to the effect of, “we are not in the blame business;” the report on the 94 incidences of abuse blames INDIVIDUALS (aberrations), not the system.

So…

9-11:                 system failure (no apparent individual failings)
94 abuses:        individual aberrations (no apparent systemic failing)

Makes even less sense now…one conclusion I can draw is that the farther up the food chain one is, the less likelihood there is for any accountability. Notice that not one elected official has been fired, removed, resigned, re-assigned, etc. for 9-11 (of if they have, it hasn’t made any of the news that I read, and I DO read a lot of it). I guess if one can successfully fault the “system” for a failing, there is no need for anything like that.

I seriously doubt, however that those military persons who committed those “aberrant” acts of abuse are going to be afforded such a defense.

This IS all a bad dream, right?

what's the threshold?

from a post i sent to an sociology list...

I have been reading about the 94 incidents of prisoner abuse and how these do not indicate a “systemic” problem. I find this very interesting as I wonder what is the threshold for # of incidents that WOULD trigger characterization as a systemic problem? Needless to say, their current characterization of it NOT being systemic doesn’t make sense to me. Despite the actual # of persons involved in the abuse, it was apparent in the Taguba report (and I believe he said so himself) that at least Abu Ghraib was a systemic problem in that it was a breakdown of the system which allowed the service personnel to commit the abuses.

I also recall what W. Edwards Deming (“father” of TQM) posited as a truism…when you have a failing in an organization, 10% of the time it is due to individual failing, and 90% of the time it is due to the system failing. Ironically, when I first started looking into TQM some years ago, some of the best info on its utilization came from the military.

a noble man

i read Meeting Jesus again for the first time back in May. my first real thought was, "the bastards, all this time i have been thinking i am not worthy of God's love and in reality, i am simply because i am." i was ready to throw the book across the room. not because of what Borg was saying, but because of the implications of what he was saying and they relevance that they had for my life. i had been duped, tricked, manipulated by that rigid and authoritarian Catholic school structure all "in the name of God" and now Borg was telling me that I didn't need to be. the friggin "good news" is that Jesus lives in all of us -- we just need to realize that. it has nothing to do with earning His love or any other crap.

anyway, i emailed Borg and thanked him for the great book -- it allowed me to be a Christian again (BTW, Christians, look out, I'm back).

he emailed me back. he is a noble man. next to my Guru, he is the sanest spiritual person going right now for me.

to sleep or not to sleep...

i realized yesterday when "trying" to take a nap that I could fall asleep almost instantly if i could let go enough. let go and fall asleep. my usual pattern is to think, think, think, drift, think, think, drift, think, drift, drift...and then wake up.

i think the solution is to just let go and relax and sleep.

imagine that. anxiety being my middle (perhaps first) name, this comes as a great surprise and in some respects, no surprise at all.

friday morning analytical rant

Sorry, time for one of these again…

What prompted it was Powell “clarifying” the terrorism report that was apparently misrepresented by the President (Prez says terrorism has declined; Powell corrects that it has, indeed increased and done so dramatically). I am just wondering when people will get tired of this? The transparency of this administration is so apparent to me – their affront to an open, (Ashcroft telling the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that he would not release memoranda about what the Justice department advised the administration about use of torture – note that he may be in contempt of congress for not giving a reason why he is withholding this information) democratic (what has come to light about the use of torture and the President is that he was advised that he could, essentially be outside the law, i.e., not be held accountable, for the use of torture if the argument could be made that his okaying it was to ensure national security – now, think about this…a national leader who, for all intents and purposes, is outside of the law…whom does this conjure up in your mind? What kind of leader?) society. Their pattern of misrepresentation, denying information until their feet are held to the fire, serious and grave miscalculations about Iraq…and this from a Prez who promised to “restore dignity and integrity to the White House.” What duplicity.

Okay, I think the rant is done, now one to some analysis (with, perhaps some rant still left)

9-11…the 9-11 commission heard testimony from many people – many said that “even if they were able to piece together all of the disparate (and this is in question too, just how disparate all of it was) information, they still wouldn’t have been able to stop 9-11 because it had already been planned.” Huh? This would be like saying, “Well, it looks like there is a fleet of hostile nuclear subs off our coast, but we’re not really sure, and ya know, it looks like this has been planned for a long time, so there really isn’t anything we can do about it now.” If this is the best argument that they could come up with for their failure(s), then we are really in trouble.

Reagan…yes, I know that man was warm, apparently sincere, etc. But, he stated publicly once that “the US was not selling arms for hostages,” then a couple of months later said, “well, in my heart, I still believe that we did not sell arms for hostages, but the evidence appears to indicate otherwise” and he is known as the “great communicator?” Now, what does his prevarication communicate? That it is okay to break the law, and lie to people just so long as, in your heart you really believe what you are doing is right, despite evidence to the contrary. Hmmm, I wonder if that defense would work in court? “Ya know, I held the gun, and pulled the trigger, and yup, he died, but in my heart I truly believe that it was not ME that killed him, it was the GUN that did.” Yeah, makes sense to me.

Ray Charles death…hmmm, a week long remembrance for Reagan and a blip for Ray Charles? Not right. Who has the much better story to tell and contributed much more to world peace and understanding? A blind, black man who overcame all kinds of obstacles to be successful, was not bitter about any of it, never complained, worked his butt off his entire life, and his primary concern was with making people happy or…RR. No question in my mind – we should have a week long celebration for Ray, a national day of mourning, and have hundreds of eulogies, etc, for him…and I would LOVE to see Ray on the $100 bill (his contribution to the world is worth waaaaay more than $10, IMO).

Elderly men in my Sunday school class…now, I know that none of you know these guys, but they are an inspiration to me. We have two men that are over 80 in our class – they come every Sunday (one with his wife of 60 years, the other a widower), one bakes muffins for all the Sunday school classes every Sunday, works serving food to the congregation on Wednesday night, spent time in a WWII German prison camp is funny, irascible, and very, very kind. The other is a former missionary, wrote an article on Christianity and homosexuality (essentially how it was NOT Christian to condemn homosexuality) and the other day when a 50- something member of class who has hepatitis came in, got up, and helped him to a chair. Amazing. (Now, we have women that are equally as amazing, too. I focus on the men because they are role models to me). Two men, living quiet lives, serving others selflessly, and they are both considered to be “irrelevant” in our society because of their age. I hope I am equally as “irrelevant” when I get to be their age (assuming that I do, that is).

The culture of make believe…this is actually the title of an incredible book by Derrick Jensenthat is more about racism and hatred in our country, but I think that it is apropos here, too. I think it is time that we let go of the myths about America – we are the moral leader of the world, we are the best country in the world, we are the strongest country in the world, etc., not so much because they are wrong, but because they are not useful to us. Make believe in general is not useful. It is delusional. What we need is reality, honesty, accountability, and compassion. The hubris, arrogance, and ignorance that has become our cultural export is so disappointing and it cheapens what we have to offer the world as Americans, but more importantly, as human beings. People might say, “gee, John you don’t like America” – nope, not true. I don’t like bullshit. I don’t like make-believe. I like reality because then I know what the hell is going on and what we need to do about it to make it better. That is why I am a social scientist – so I can reasonable know what they hell is going on so I can do something about it. You cannot do something about make-believe, except to get rid of it. Trying to improve things on the basis of make-believe is inherently flawed. I don’t dislike America – I dislike the myths about America. I would much prefer to acknowledge what is REALLY going on in America and with Americans than pretend all of the other crap. Hell, I just said that I admire two Americans (the guys in my Sunday school class – well, actually 3 if you include Ray). But what I admire about them is NOT that they are Americans, but that they live(d) what they believed – they are honest, they serve others, they are compassionate, they admit their faults…they are real. No make believe, no bullshit. Amen to that.

I was going to add something about terrorism, but I am too tired – this writing takes a lot out of me. If I get refreshed, I might post it later.

Live long and prosper…

so true, yet so hard to remember...

From Eknath Easwaran:

In the ultimate analysis, our resentments and hostilities are
not against others. They are against our own alienation from our
native state, which is cosmic consciousness, Christ-consciousness,
Krishna-consciousness. All the time we are being nudged by some
latent force within us, trying to remind us what our native state
is. Our senses are turned outwards and we are adepts at personal
profit and pleasure, so we do not like to hear these little
reminders; but the needling goes on.

our unconscious collective

couple of posts to a sociology list about our "sleeping" collective, that if awakened, we could really change the way things are...

posted on 6/2/04:

I try and get students to realize that simply by "going through the motions" each day they create the structure of our society...coming to class they maintain the institution of education, buying stuff, they maintain the institution of the economy, paying taxes, they maintain the institution of gov't, etc. I try and emphasize that WE are society, it is not something "out there."

I think that if a one-day national embargo against Exxon, Mobil, whomever worked, i.e., around the country NO ONE bought any gas from Exxon, Mobil, etc., people would have tangible evidence that it is US that is the economy, US that is "the market," etc. Getting this to occur is quite another matter, as evidenced by it not happening yet.

I do think that most people need to witness the effects of our collective behavior to truly get a sense of how we "create" society through all of our daily actions.

As such, IMO, we really CAN create any society that we want -- it is simple to do something different, but it is not easy. This is true for individuals and especially true for groups/cultures (the not being easy part).

I also get students to think about group arrangements that support human thriving (a "good" family, a Buddhist monastery, some schools, etc) and ask them to identify what it is about those arrangements, the cultural content of those structures, that consistently promotes and maintains human thriving. Once we identify those, then I say, "Well, all we got to do now is get those things going on a national/global basis..." How does that happen? Everyone acting in accordance with what we identified, creating that kind of social arrangement every day through their daily actions.

Simple, but not easy.

In short, we create the current structures, why not create some different ones? As sociologists, we know how structures are created, the question is, what KIND of structures should be created? This past weekend I presented a workshop on "Human Rights as Organizing Principles for Family/Community Life" at a home-schooling conference. Granted, they are eruo-centric and could use some updating, but IMO, the UDHR is one place to start.

posted on 6/3/04:

(My perspective was challenged as being naive and individualistic)

This is not what I was saying. I was saying something similar to Marx, actually, and that is, if we as a collective realize that we ARE a collective and we can use our collective power to create something (which is what we do anyway), why not create something that truly promotes human thriving?

I do, however, think that individual actions can and do make a difference. Do they radically change the social structure? Guess it depends on whom the person is that is acting. I suspect that ANY action could have a profound effect given the right circumstances. I am surely not going to stop doing things that I think are beneficial simply because I think they won't make a difference -- isn't this characteristic of the apathetic malaise that infects our culture currently to some extent?

I think that if there is naiveté in this perspective it lies with all of us whom think that we can do nothing and so we don't. Again, the issue is the "class consciousness" that needs to occur -- doesn't really matter what the trigger is, what matters is that it arises.

I certainly don't think that classroom teaching is the sole way of getting the world to be different. In fact, I think that "education" has little effect in making things different. The factors that I am familiar with, that, IMO, DO have an influence are desire and motivation.

Right now, many folks' desire and motivation are purely self-centered -- "Gotta get what I want and need and make sure no one gets it before me or takes it away once I get it" -- this is the American way, yes?

Hard to think about others and making the world a better place when you are obsessed with getting all you can before you die (and rising gas prices, the threat of terrorism forever on the horizon, etc.)

Education can only have so much effect on this kind of orientation to life.

Sanity

Spent this last weekend here -- what a wonderful oasis from the (sur)real world we currently inhabit. To be surrounded by sane, caring, parents who actually are interested in trying to do what is best for their children is inspiring. The kids are just incredible...an anecdote...

I was walking through the lobby on Sunday, late afternoon and noticed this tween boy putting up his laptop. I asked him if the wi-fi was working in that area. He said it was. I told him how it hadn't worked for me, blah, blah, blah. Then he asked me how he could organize a session to teach other kids how to write computer games. Now, this was on Sunday, the second (and last full day) into the conference. I told him to talk to the two organizers, tell them what he wanted to do, get a room and then let people know about it. I mentioned that the talent show was coming up that night and that the MC could announce all the details then. He said okay, thanked me, and we parted company.

I saw him again at the talent show, pointed out one of the organizers to him, and he said that had decided to just invite people by word of mouth.

Twenty minutes later, he is walking around the dance floor on his hands -- one of his many talents that he received much applause for.

At midnight, I went to the auditorium to watch a horror film by one the presenters at the conference. I had attended his session on Saturday entitled, "How to make a movie for under $1,000" and had wanted to see one of his features.

I go into the room, and here is the tween whom I had spoken to earlier, with a handful of other kids, and he has his laptop hooked up to an LCD projector and is holding a class on how to create computer games.

Fortunately, the movie director didn't show up -- if he had, I would have told him that the kids got here first and we were out of luck.

amazing what kids can do if given some support, space, and opportunity.

empathy, fear and neo-cons (oh, my!)

my response to a colleague's post about the need for us to be more empathetic to other cultures (and anyone other than ourselves, for that matter):

Interesting idea…distribution of empathy, access to empathy…seems like we are bankrupt of the product (empathy), despite the fact that the lines of distribution are in place. Of course, being empathetic means being vulnerable, Lord knows ‘merikans aren’t really keen on doing that right now. The neo-cons are really good at force-feeding fear to all of us. I also think that they are really good at tapping into our cultural conditioning of being abused…they act just like those authoritarian care-givers that many of us were raised with. When someone is confronted with similar behavior as an adult, it is not uncommon for them to just respond like they did all those many years growing up…”I know nothing, the authority is always right, the authority is like God, etc.” I know that despite the fact that intellectually I know that they are lying, self-serving bastards, when they start talking, there is a part of me (emotional) that just goes into some kind of automatic fear of challenging them, conceding that I AM stupid and that they are right.

Alice Miller has written some great material on this.

surprise, surprise

It doesn't (nor did it) take a Ph.D. to figure this one out BEFORE the war started. The consequences of a radically, fundamentalist run government (OURS, that is).

Jesus, the bummer

I was at our local Satsang for Ammachi on Friday night. Typically, we sing songs, chat, meditate and pray. While singing a song about Krsna, I realized how different the Hindu religion is from mainstream Christianity. The Krsna story is a happy one, the songs about Krsna are happy, light, playful. The Jesus story (as typically told) is a bummer. Not because of Jesus, nor because of what happened, but because of the emphasis on the story. the whole thing about the cross and dying for our sins, is, IMO, not the main story. The main story is that here was this realized soul, living in a human body, who loved, loved, loved and died because he loved so much.

While growing up Catholic, I never understood the whole cross thing and I still don't -- it seems like a side note to the entire message. More reason to agonize about our humanity, more reason to fight against some group of people, etc. Again, the Jesus story is about love and ignorance...His love, our collective ignorance about His love.

So, what about we re-write the Jesus story and transform it from a bummer to a hummer (not the H2 kind)?

Watch out, The Republicans Are Coming!!!

See here for the announcement...

a bumper sticker i gotta make

Ignorant and Unethical! Hell, if its good enough for our President, its good enough for me!

Documentary on Republican Women

In case you haven't heard, there is a shocking, "tell all" documentary about Republican women coming out in June. Details here.

Yowza!

The Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia

Now this is great applied sociology.

God Bless America, Goddamn it!!!!

Using those current events skills I learned in seventh grade, I offer the following:

In case you haven’t been following the Ahmed Chalabi story, allow me to briefly summarize who this guy is and why this is so ironic (and truly frightening in how it reflects the leadership of our country)

Ahmed Chalabi:

* Is a convicted felon (in absentia) in Jordan
* Was one of the prime sources of info for the Pentagon on the alleged WMD stockpiles in Iraq
* Was a prime source of info on WMD’s and “all things bad in Iraq” to Judith Miller, star NY Times reporter
* Has been on the Pentagon payroll for years
* Has been discredited by the CIA and the State department
* Was flown into Iraq by the Pentagon days after Saddam lost leadership
* Is a current member of the Interim Iraqi gov’t
* Told a reporter that it didn’t matter if Saddam didn’t have WMD’s, what was relevant was that Saddam was gone (note that he made this statement after Iraq fell and after he allegedly told everyone and their brother unequivocally that Saddam HAD WMD’s)
* Is the uncle of the lawyer assigned the task of prosecuting Saddam for crimes against humanity
* Has recently been charged with making side deals in Iran about the future of Iraq

Oh, and ALL of this has been reported far and wide in the mainstream media, so if that little voice in your head says, “john is just overreacting” please note that I have simply gathered existing longitudinal data on this guy.

So, if the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and then turns out to not be your friend, what does that make him? And more importantly, YOU?

Damn, this international relations stuff REALLY is hard to follow – good thing we are the moral leaders of the entire world and that our morality is not based on self-serving situations and exigencies...and monkeys really DO fly out of my butt regularly!

SIN

not what you think, or, maybe not, check it out.

more temporary-emergent meaning...

My response on a sociology list I subscribe to:

To clarify my statement about empiricism a bit…(consequence for writing in haste)…

I don’t see a distinction between empiricism and humanism, although I would hazard a guess that committed positivists/empiricists would. I personally base my use of empiricism as an epistemology on humanistic values – I do not see it as an end in itself. I suspect that some, if not all, positivists would disagree with this and argue that positivism is value-free and objective (despite that fact that ALL IRB approved research is based on humanistic values).

I think that this strikes at the heart of the recent discussion. The notion that empiricism is somehow trans-cultural and therefore demonstrably universal and “objective” is intellectually untenable, IMO. Again, I refer to our inability to know, through the use of symbolic systems, anything that allegedly exists independently. I think it is absurd to consider that this kind of knowing is possible (a symbolic system – language – is an inherently CLOSED system – it is bounded). “Knowledge” of anything is inherently cultural – anything that is inherently cultural is not, by definition universal and/or objective. Again, I think that ethno points this out in spades (as does feminist literature – at least feminist sociological literature).

So, I see the limitations of empiricism and truly do not believe that the application of the scientific method, sans values leads anywhere – especially since it is not possible in the first place. The application of empiricism is a value-based action (valuing sensory data over some other kind of data).

I think that this is the distinction that needs to be acknowledged, i.e., the ridiculousness of claiming some kind of knowledge is objective and exists independent of culture. I am very much in favor of using empirical methods. I do not see then as producing knowledge, however, but UNDERSTANDING. I think that this is another crucial distinction that we neglect in social science. Again, I value verstehen as a methodology. Is it empirical? Of course. Is it objective and does it produce objective knowledge? Nope. Can and does it further understanding of self and others? If done properly, yes.

I see any type of methodology as being an iterative process that never arrives at any REAL (i.e., independent) solution. Can we as humans grow in the process of applying the scientific method and the values that underlie it? I think so…and I think that this is the true value of our discipline. Not some ridiculous notion that we are creating independent knowledge about the social world.

new level

Article in Reuters about an Iraqi group (the Green Brigade) that have released a tape saying that they will kill three Italian hostages in a few days unless there are protests in Italy against the war:

I don’t recall ever hearing of a terrorist group making such an explicit demand on an entire country. I think it is interesting that they would be so forward about it. If protests do occur, it would certainly transcend the Al-Qaeda-Spanish train bombing-Spanish election outcome contention.

Talk about holding an entire country hostage. Maybe this is a prelude of how such groups will put overt pressure on societies - no longer inferences of outcomes, but specific social demands?

This does not bode well all around. if anyone protests, they will be accused of giving in to the terrorists. interesting way to shut down any type of legitimate protest -- accusing them of being sympathetic and/or giving in to terrorist demands

funny and true, unfortunately.

got this off of boingboing -- it is from a comedian named Bill Hicks. I don't remember him, but that don't mean nothin.

"The world is like a ride in an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it, you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time and they begin to question, is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, "Hey - don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride..." And we... kill those people.

Very Cool

this is the way to go -- thank goodness some creative people are thinking around here. look for this on all of the stuff i produce.

Life's ROI

it's kind of bizarre when you think about how much time and effort we invest into becoming social beings that can function in society and the return that we get on it in the long run...death. think about all these years we spend learning, working, thinking, crafting, realizing, reflecting, etc., and we ALL know that one day, we ain't gonna be no mo.

kind of weird ROI, yes?

branching out

I have decided to grow a bit. i think that this will be fun. if you know of anyone in need of these services, drop me a line. i want to work as much as i can, wherever i can.