introjects
all those voices in your head -- they're leftover energies, ghosts, imps that are not real. don't listen to them. they just want your attention. they are not real, though. they are fueled by introjects, things that we swallowed whole for whatever reason some time ago.
just breathe in and breathe out and follow your heart.
amen
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Critical Thinking and the War in Iraq
One of the headlines in today’s Dallas Morning News is about how the administration did not release information to the public that ran counter to evidence to support an invasion of Iraq.
I don’t doubt this is true. I began to get skeptical about much of what the administration was saying and doing when after Condi Rice said, “how could anyone have imagined that terrorists would fly planes into buildings,” several intelligence documents were released that indicated that this was not a new idea. In fact, it had been discussed for several years before 9/11. As the National Security Advisor, why didn’t Condi know this?
Not too long after the war started (May, 2003), I sat down and put together a diagram of how it really didn’t make sense for the war to start in the first place. I used only information that was available to the public (not like I had access to anything classified, anyway!). It was striking to me how, if one just looked at what info was being reported in the press, one could easily arrive at a very healthy skepticism about whether the war was necessary or not. Here are some of the things that were reported that, if put together, added up to seriously questioning what we had done:
1) The forgery of the Niger “yellow cake” document and Joseph Wilson’s report
2) The plagiarized graduate student thesis about Iraq WMD that was 12 years old
3) Blix and El Baradai’s reports that nothing had been, nor was being found
4) No credible link to Al-Qaeda
5) No outcry from the Iraqi people about a desire to be “liberated” from Saddam’s rule – only ex-pats like Chalabi (a convicted felon) who were advocating for “regime change”
6) State department released a report saying that there would be NO domino effect in the Middle East if Iraq was “democratized.”
7) CIA reported that Saddam would be MORE likely to use WMD’s if attacked
8) FBI reported that a war with Iraq would INCREASE the likelihood of terrorist attacks in the US
9) CIA and Pentagon warned the administration that US troops would face significant resistance from irregulars using guerilla tactics; one general (Wallace) commented that, “we hadn’t wargamed for this.”
10) Four of the permanent members of the UN Security Council voted against the war
11) US public NOT in favor of going to war without UN support (one poll reported this at 70% at one point)
12) There are other countries that were then (and currently are) in violation of numerous UN Security Resolutions – why target Iraq? (especially in light of all of the above?)
13) Many legal scholars noted that such a war would be a violation of international law and hence, illegal
So, did the administration not tell us the whole story? I don’t know if we will ever find out. My point is that, IMO, there was enough info floating around for someone to conclude that it didn’t make sense, just from what we DID know. I don’t know how or why the administration arrived at the notion that this was a good idea, given all of the above. Sure seems to me that there was more evidence to NOT invade than there was to invade.
IMO, more reason to advocate for critical thinking in the classroom (and among the general public).
One of the headlines in today’s Dallas Morning News is about how the administration did not release information to the public that ran counter to evidence to support an invasion of Iraq.
I don’t doubt this is true. I began to get skeptical about much of what the administration was saying and doing when after Condi Rice said, “how could anyone have imagined that terrorists would fly planes into buildings,” several intelligence documents were released that indicated that this was not a new idea. In fact, it had been discussed for several years before 9/11. As the National Security Advisor, why didn’t Condi know this?
Not too long after the war started (May, 2003), I sat down and put together a diagram of how it really didn’t make sense for the war to start in the first place. I used only information that was available to the public (not like I had access to anything classified, anyway!). It was striking to me how, if one just looked at what info was being reported in the press, one could easily arrive at a very healthy skepticism about whether the war was necessary or not. Here are some of the things that were reported that, if put together, added up to seriously questioning what we had done:
1) The forgery of the Niger “yellow cake” document and Joseph Wilson’s report
2) The plagiarized graduate student thesis about Iraq WMD that was 12 years old
3) Blix and El Baradai’s reports that nothing had been, nor was being found
4) No credible link to Al-Qaeda
5) No outcry from the Iraqi people about a desire to be “liberated” from Saddam’s rule – only ex-pats like Chalabi (a convicted felon) who were advocating for “regime change”
6) State department released a report saying that there would be NO domino effect in the Middle East if Iraq was “democratized.”
7) CIA reported that Saddam would be MORE likely to use WMD’s if attacked
8) FBI reported that a war with Iraq would INCREASE the likelihood of terrorist attacks in the US
9) CIA and Pentagon warned the administration that US troops would face significant resistance from irregulars using guerilla tactics; one general (Wallace) commented that, “we hadn’t wargamed for this.”
10) Four of the permanent members of the UN Security Council voted against the war
11) US public NOT in favor of going to war without UN support (one poll reported this at 70% at one point)
12) There are other countries that were then (and currently are) in violation of numerous UN Security Resolutions – why target Iraq? (especially in light of all of the above?)
13) Many legal scholars noted that such a war would be a violation of international law and hence, illegal
So, did the administration not tell us the whole story? I don’t know if we will ever find out. My point is that, IMO, there was enough info floating around for someone to conclude that it didn’t make sense, just from what we DID know. I don’t know how or why the administration arrived at the notion that this was a good idea, given all of the above. Sure seems to me that there was more evidence to NOT invade than there was to invade.
IMO, more reason to advocate for critical thinking in the classroom (and among the general public).
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
a flash of insight?
I like this insight from the previous post:
...if there is such a stance as objectivity, it would, by its very nature, have to be NON-conceptual. Why? Because concept implies language, which implies culture, which implies group, which implies context, which denies something called, "objectivity."
I have noted the denial of objectivity previously, but the notion of such a thing, if it does exist, having to be non-conceptual by nature is something I had not realized before.
Of course, those who have gone "beyond words" have not find a position of pristine, detached objectivity, but rather a compelling and absolute sense of connection and/or connecteness to all things and all people.
Decidedly NOT objective.
I like this insight from the previous post:
...if there is such a stance as objectivity, it would, by its very nature, have to be NON-conceptual. Why? Because concept implies language, which implies culture, which implies group, which implies context, which denies something called, "objectivity."
I have noted the denial of objectivity previously, but the notion of such a thing, if it does exist, having to be non-conceptual by nature is something I had not realized before.
Of course, those who have gone "beyond words" have not find a position of pristine, detached objectivity, but rather a compelling and absolute sense of connection and/or connecteness to all things and all people.
Decidedly NOT objective.
more social-scientific heresy...
from a list I subscribe to, I am responding to the following:
> I'm pretty sure that most sociologists have the aim in mind of using
> their results for bettering society (and of course for earning a
> living).
Yes, what I meant was that there are sociologists who are rather vehemently opposed to the notion of "applying sociology" and see our discipline as one that is "pure" science, i.e., a rigorous attempt at understanding what is going on. Their interest is NOT application, but is generating "knowledge," understanding, whatever. They don't see their purpose as sociologists to improve social life, but rather to merely understand "what is going on."
I would also say that if I, as a sociologist, use my sociological knowledge to increase profits for some company at the expense of corporate social responsibility, the environment, human rights violations, etc., that I am not using my sociology to improve social life. Yes, for some (those who directly benefit from increase profits -- comparatively, a few), but not for the majority. I realize that this is an individual decision and discrimination is involved (as well as values) and as such, I am not making a generalization about the use of sociological knowledge -- I am sure that there are many who would disagree with me on this point.
I certainly agree that it can be both a rigorous science and humanistic, with the exception of the notion of any research being value-free and/or unbiased (again, I refer to Dorothy Smith and other feminists, who, in my opinion make a rather strong and convincing argument that social position has much, if not all, to do with one's world view and subsequently, one's choice of what to research, what to find out, and how to make sense out of the entire process) and/or referencing anything known as "objectivity." I do not think that there is such a stance, nor would it be knowable conceptually, i.e., if there is such a stance as objectivity, it would, by its very nature, have to be NON-conceptual. Why? Because concept implies language, which implies culture, which implies group, which implies context, which denies something called, "objectivity."
I have also noted previously that consumption is a political act. All people consume, regardless of their profession, intellectual standpoints, desire to ensure "objectivity," etc. As such, there is no non-involved or detached stance -- we are all in this together. Again, no way, IMO to not have ALL of one's actions be contextual, value-laden and "biased" if you will.
from a list I subscribe to, I am responding to the following:
> I'm pretty sure that most sociologists have the aim in mind of using
> their results for bettering society (and of course for earning a
> living).
Yes, what I meant was that there are sociologists who are rather vehemently opposed to the notion of "applying sociology" and see our discipline as one that is "pure" science, i.e., a rigorous attempt at understanding what is going on. Their interest is NOT application, but is generating "knowledge," understanding, whatever. They don't see their purpose as sociologists to improve social life, but rather to merely understand "what is going on."
I would also say that if I, as a sociologist, use my sociological knowledge to increase profits for some company at the expense of corporate social responsibility, the environment, human rights violations, etc., that I am not using my sociology to improve social life. Yes, for some (those who directly benefit from increase profits -- comparatively, a few), but not for the majority. I realize that this is an individual decision and discrimination is involved (as well as values) and as such, I am not making a generalization about the use of sociological knowledge -- I am sure that there are many who would disagree with me on this point.
I certainly agree that it can be both a rigorous science and humanistic, with the exception of the notion of any research being value-free and/or unbiased (again, I refer to Dorothy Smith and other feminists, who, in my opinion make a rather strong and convincing argument that social position has much, if not all, to do with one's world view and subsequently, one's choice of what to research, what to find out, and how to make sense out of the entire process) and/or referencing anything known as "objectivity." I do not think that there is such a stance, nor would it be knowable conceptually, i.e., if there is such a stance as objectivity, it would, by its very nature, have to be NON-conceptual. Why? Because concept implies language, which implies culture, which implies group, which implies context, which denies something called, "objectivity."
I have also noted previously that consumption is a political act. All people consume, regardless of their profession, intellectual standpoints, desire to ensure "objectivity," etc. As such, there is no non-involved or detached stance -- we are all in this together. Again, no way, IMO to not have ALL of one's actions be contextual, value-laden and "biased" if you will.
Friday, November 28, 2003
wonderful
if you get a chance to see this, DO IT. The tour is in support of the Maitreya Project -- I can't wait to see it realized.
if you get a chance to see this, DO IT. The tour is in support of the Maitreya Project -- I can't wait to see it realized.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
this time, sociology and the military and killing
one more of my posts to a sociology list...
I wanted to make a comment on the observation of the killing during Vietnam.
Last year, I purchased a book written by an Army psychologist entitled, “On Killing.” Great book and one I would recommend. He makes the case that we have gotten better at killing (or at least the military has) and uses data to support this. He notes that during WWII, the fire rates (i.e., the percentage of those soldiers who actually fired their weapons at the enemy) was about 15 – 20%. In Korea it was 50 - 55% and in Vietnam it was 90 – 95%. He accounts for the differences (and subsequent increase) on the training that had been developed to increase fire rates. I don’t recall if he detailed what that training consisted of, but I suspect it had some kind of behavioral component to it other than better instruction on firing one’s weapon.
He also notes that distance has much to do with killing an enemy – the farther one is from an enemy the easier it is to fire a weapon (long range artillery, missiles, bombs, etc.). Hand-to-hand combat is the most difficult as one knows fully well that s/he is attempting to kill another human being. Furthermore, he discussed how many, if not most, soldiers were/are not bloodthirsty, i.e., enjoy killing. Those that do and/or have little compunction about killing, according to him, are diverted into special forces, or some other kind of more clandestine unit.
I also seem to recall that part of his argument for making it “easier” to fire a weapon and kill an enemy is not seeing them as human, as “objectifying” them. This makes sense in light of the intended purpose of firing a weapon (killing someone else). However, one has to wonder, what effect this has not only on the individual doing the objectifying, but on the culture that supports such a notion.
A recent example…I found it interesting a week or so ago reading about the intelligence officer who was being charged with cowardice (charges since dropped) because he got sick and was disturbed at seeing an Iraqi man cut in half by a machine gun. I think this is quite a “normal” response, one, in fact that gives me some hope in humanity. Curiously (or not), he was admonished by a superior to “get [his] head out of his ass and get in the game” – I think we all know what this means. I suspect in a situation like that, not a bad thing to do as a way of protecting oneself and one’s peers, and perhaps an example of precisely what the author of the text I reference is talking about in not seeing another human being as a “human being,” but as an object.
Again, the question for me is, do we want to live in a world in which shrugging off the sight of another human being mangled by a weapon is an “appropriate” response?
one more of my posts to a sociology list...
I wanted to make a comment on the observation of the killing during Vietnam.
Last year, I purchased a book written by an Army psychologist entitled, “On Killing.” Great book and one I would recommend. He makes the case that we have gotten better at killing (or at least the military has) and uses data to support this. He notes that during WWII, the fire rates (i.e., the percentage of those soldiers who actually fired their weapons at the enemy) was about 15 – 20%. In Korea it was 50 - 55% and in Vietnam it was 90 – 95%. He accounts for the differences (and subsequent increase) on the training that had been developed to increase fire rates. I don’t recall if he detailed what that training consisted of, but I suspect it had some kind of behavioral component to it other than better instruction on firing one’s weapon.
He also notes that distance has much to do with killing an enemy – the farther one is from an enemy the easier it is to fire a weapon (long range artillery, missiles, bombs, etc.). Hand-to-hand combat is the most difficult as one knows fully well that s/he is attempting to kill another human being. Furthermore, he discussed how many, if not most, soldiers were/are not bloodthirsty, i.e., enjoy killing. Those that do and/or have little compunction about killing, according to him, are diverted into special forces, or some other kind of more clandestine unit.
I also seem to recall that part of his argument for making it “easier” to fire a weapon and kill an enemy is not seeing them as human, as “objectifying” them. This makes sense in light of the intended purpose of firing a weapon (killing someone else). However, one has to wonder, what effect this has not only on the individual doing the objectifying, but on the culture that supports such a notion.
A recent example…I found it interesting a week or so ago reading about the intelligence officer who was being charged with cowardice (charges since dropped) because he got sick and was disturbed at seeing an Iraqi man cut in half by a machine gun. I think this is quite a “normal” response, one, in fact that gives me some hope in humanity. Curiously (or not), he was admonished by a superior to “get [his] head out of his ass and get in the game” – I think we all know what this means. I suspect in a situation like that, not a bad thing to do as a way of protecting oneself and one’s peers, and perhaps an example of precisely what the author of the text I reference is talking about in not seeing another human being as a “human being,” but as an object.
Again, the question for me is, do we want to live in a world in which shrugging off the sight of another human being mangled by a weapon is an “appropriate” response?
sociology and the military
a sociologist and ex-military person posted a question to a sociology list about the apparent incompatibility of sociology and the military; my response:
I was going to respond yesterday, but couldn’t quite formulate my thoughts in time. I had been thinking about my small tear for awhile, so that was easier to post.
I don’t want to add too much more to what has been said as I appreciate everyone’s perspective and their input. I am grateful to be part of a group that has discussions like this on a list (and I hope we have more).
In brief, I agree with what some others have said, which in my words is, “if it involves people, it involves sociology” so I see no disconnect between the military (i.e., people in groups with institutional structures) and sociology. I think most, if not all, would agree with this.
I can’t say I am opposed to the military as that would mean I am opposed to people, which I am not. I guess if I am “opposed” to anything having to do with something called “the military” it is the seeming need to have one in the first place. It appears that I am naïve enough to think that if we spent the same amount of time, effort, and money to create some institutional arrangement that would dramatically increase the likelihood of more peaceful interaction and cooperation among people, we could possibly make “the military” obsolete. I do like to think that big, I think that is what our current world situation calls for. I heard someone say that what we need is a “Manhattan Project” on poverty – similarly, a “Manhattan Project” on peace and cooperation. I just can’t imagine that with all of that talent that exists in this world that we can’t come up with something that is more conducive to life and human thriving than what we have going on right now. I guess that is why I am a member of this organization.
RE: treatment of veterans in our country…I think that most “negative” reactions to veterans is due to ignorance on the part of the person being negative. That doesn’t make it right, but at least it allows for some learning to take place. I think that gov’t “ignorance” of veterans is inexcusable, however. The notion of charging veterans in the hospital $8 a day for their food is unconscionable. If anything, veterans should be getting more benefits for free, not less. Talk about being “unpatriotic” and duplicitous!
Okay, time to go now, rant coming on…
John
(son of a WWII vet, whom, as family history has it, had an appointment to West Point yet was unable to get in due to poor eyesight; the grandson of a German Kriegsmarine who fought on “the wrong” side in WWI but who had enough sense to leave Germany after the war and tried to convince other family members to leave when Hitler came to power and was later questioned by the FBI because his last name was “Hess”; and the brother to three Vietnam era men who, for different reasons, were not drafted – much to our mother’s delight as she was readying their flight to Canada if they were)
a sociologist and ex-military person posted a question to a sociology list about the apparent incompatibility of sociology and the military; my response:
I was going to respond yesterday, but couldn’t quite formulate my thoughts in time. I had been thinking about my small tear for awhile, so that was easier to post.
I don’t want to add too much more to what has been said as I appreciate everyone’s perspective and their input. I am grateful to be part of a group that has discussions like this on a list (and I hope we have more).
In brief, I agree with what some others have said, which in my words is, “if it involves people, it involves sociology” so I see no disconnect between the military (i.e., people in groups with institutional structures) and sociology. I think most, if not all, would agree with this.
I can’t say I am opposed to the military as that would mean I am opposed to people, which I am not. I guess if I am “opposed” to anything having to do with something called “the military” it is the seeming need to have one in the first place. It appears that I am naïve enough to think that if we spent the same amount of time, effort, and money to create some institutional arrangement that would dramatically increase the likelihood of more peaceful interaction and cooperation among people, we could possibly make “the military” obsolete. I do like to think that big, I think that is what our current world situation calls for. I heard someone say that what we need is a “Manhattan Project” on poverty – similarly, a “Manhattan Project” on peace and cooperation. I just can’t imagine that with all of that talent that exists in this world that we can’t come up with something that is more conducive to life and human thriving than what we have going on right now. I guess that is why I am a member of this organization.
RE: treatment of veterans in our country…I think that most “negative” reactions to veterans is due to ignorance on the part of the person being negative. That doesn’t make it right, but at least it allows for some learning to take place. I think that gov’t “ignorance” of veterans is inexcusable, however. The notion of charging veterans in the hospital $8 a day for their food is unconscionable. If anything, veterans should be getting more benefits for free, not less. Talk about being “unpatriotic” and duplicitous!
Okay, time to go now, rant coming on…
John
(son of a WWII vet, whom, as family history has it, had an appointment to West Point yet was unable to get in due to poor eyesight; the grandson of a German Kriegsmarine who fought on “the wrong” side in WWI but who had enough sense to leave Germany after the war and tried to convince other family members to leave when Hitler came to power and was later questioned by the FBI because his last name was “Hess”; and the brother to three Vietnam era men who, for different reasons, were not drafted – much to our mother’s delight as she was readying their flight to Canada if they were)
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
wow, those Italians are incredible!!!!
posted to sociology list...
Sorry, small tear…
Did anyone else see the article last week about how the brain is “hard-wired” for empathy? Brief summary:
“Researchers used a tool called functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to monitor the brain activity of 14 [Italian] men as they watched short movies of people smelling pleasant, disgusting and neutral odors. Brain activity was also monitored while participants themselves smelled a variety of odors. The researchers found that a part of the brain called the anterior insula, which previously has been linked to feelings of disgust, was activated not only when participants smelled something disgusting but also when they watched others take a whiff of something stinky.” (I added whatever these things [ ] are called – brackets?)
And the researcher had this to say about “things cultural” and empathy…
“Although Keysers said that empathy for others is often thought of as a matter of morals, "in our study, on the other hand, we show that empathy is a very basic, simple and automatic process," he said.”
So, there ya have it, 14 Italian men have set the standard for empathy worldwide; 14 Italian men represent the entire depth and breadth of humanity, regardless of culture, ethnicity, gender, etc. 14 Italian men have the exact same physiological response as EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING in the world. So, simple, how come we never knew this before??? We need these 14 Italian men for more testing on other nifty things, eh? These guys are going to be popular! I can see a reality TV show emerging from this – “The 14 Italian guys and fantastic scientific discoveries!”
And this is accepted as “science” – amazing, isn’t it? I am not even going to comment on how they operationalized “empathy.”
Hmmm, we sociologists DO have a lot of work to do, don’t we????
posted to sociology list...
Sorry, small tear…
Did anyone else see the article last week about how the brain is “hard-wired” for empathy? Brief summary:
“Researchers used a tool called functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to monitor the brain activity of 14 [Italian] men as they watched short movies of people smelling pleasant, disgusting and neutral odors. Brain activity was also monitored while participants themselves smelled a variety of odors. The researchers found that a part of the brain called the anterior insula, which previously has been linked to feelings of disgust, was activated not only when participants smelled something disgusting but also when they watched others take a whiff of something stinky.” (I added whatever these things [ ] are called – brackets?)
And the researcher had this to say about “things cultural” and empathy…
“Although Keysers said that empathy for others is often thought of as a matter of morals, "in our study, on the other hand, we show that empathy is a very basic, simple and automatic process," he said.”
So, there ya have it, 14 Italian men have set the standard for empathy worldwide; 14 Italian men represent the entire depth and breadth of humanity, regardless of culture, ethnicity, gender, etc. 14 Italian men have the exact same physiological response as EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING in the world. So, simple, how come we never knew this before??? We need these 14 Italian men for more testing on other nifty things, eh? These guys are going to be popular! I can see a reality TV show emerging from this – “The 14 Italian guys and fantastic scientific discoveries!”
And this is accepted as “science” – amazing, isn’t it? I am not even going to comment on how they operationalized “empathy.”
Hmmm, we sociologists DO have a lot of work to do, don’t we????
the agony and the ecstasy
something that is true, yet I don't think we consider very often, if at all, is that those feelings of deep joy, ecstasy, bliss, etc. are always within us. I find myself dreaming about being in Northern California, or in Hawaii, or some other very cool locale (Canda, Europe, anywhere but here!). In my mind, I am happy and blissful there. Indeed, when I go to those places (like on vacation), I do feel happier, more content, with a greater sense of ecstasy. I associate those feelings with the place(s) and think that I need to be "there" to feel those wonderful feelings.
The feelings, however, do not belong to those places, they belong to me. As such, they can arise at ANY time, wherever I am, not just when I am somewhere where I think they should arise. In fact, they are with me ALL the time or at least the potential for their emergence is.
How easy it is to forget this, though.
All I need to do now, then, is realize them as each moment passess...
something that is true, yet I don't think we consider very often, if at all, is that those feelings of deep joy, ecstasy, bliss, etc. are always within us. I find myself dreaming about being in Northern California, or in Hawaii, or some other very cool locale (Canda, Europe, anywhere but here!). In my mind, I am happy and blissful there. Indeed, when I go to those places (like on vacation), I do feel happier, more content, with a greater sense of ecstasy. I associate those feelings with the place(s) and think that I need to be "there" to feel those wonderful feelings.
The feelings, however, do not belong to those places, they belong to me. As such, they can arise at ANY time, wherever I am, not just when I am somewhere where I think they should arise. In fact, they are with me ALL the time or at least the potential for their emergence is.
How easy it is to forget this, though.
All I need to do now, then, is realize them as each moment passess...
Monday, November 10, 2003
solutions? let's see 'em!
from a post i sent to a sociology list...
"I like the approach; I just have one question (and this is not just to you, but to ALL members)...
> There Are Solutions...
> And We Have Some...
Do we really? If so, what are they? Where are they? Where can I find the step-by-step directions on how to:
Improve the failing education system
End poverty
End hunger
End economic inequality
End domestic violence
End racism
End sexism
End homophobia
I was fortunate to be invited to be on the SAS plenary panel and this was one of the things that I said we needed to do to resolve our "identity crisis" -- develop "turn-key" applications for these and other social ills. Having ready-made (or at least templates) applications that are based on research that we can provide to people, IMO, will raise our level among the public and clearly identify us as a discipline separate from other social sciences.
Bill DuBois argues that we have over 150 years of research on human behavior and we know what works and what doesn't (and I agree with him). If so, where is the knowledge about how to make use of all of this research? Where are the texts, manuals, etc., on how to change institutions, strengthen communities, increase human thriving? Are they buried in scholarly journals somewhere? Do they exist at all?
I think it is our task to build these applications and get them out there for people to use. Not to be relegated to a journal, but to be USED by people who want the world to be different.
If they do exist already, then let's develop a centralized database where people can access them. Or let's put them into a workable framework that someone without a Ph.D. can read and go, "hey, I can do this!"
from a post i sent to a sociology list...
"I like the approach; I just have one question (and this is not just to you, but to ALL members)...
> There Are Solutions...
> And We Have Some...
Do we really? If so, what are they? Where are they? Where can I find the step-by-step directions on how to:
Improve the failing education system
End poverty
End hunger
End economic inequality
End domestic violence
End racism
End sexism
End homophobia
I was fortunate to be invited to be on the SAS plenary panel and this was one of the things that I said we needed to do to resolve our "identity crisis" -- develop "turn-key" applications for these and other social ills. Having ready-made (or at least templates) applications that are based on research that we can provide to people, IMO, will raise our level among the public and clearly identify us as a discipline separate from other social sciences.
Bill DuBois argues that we have over 150 years of research on human behavior and we know what works and what doesn't (and I agree with him). If so, where is the knowledge about how to make use of all of this research? Where are the texts, manuals, etc., on how to change institutions, strengthen communities, increase human thriving? Are they buried in scholarly journals somewhere? Do they exist at all?
I think it is our task to build these applications and get them out there for people to use. Not to be relegated to a journal, but to be USED by people who want the world to be different.
If they do exist already, then let's develop a centralized database where people can access them. Or let's put them into a workable framework that someone without a Ph.D. can read and go, "hey, I can do this!"
Saturday, November 08, 2003
hiatus
i have bitten off more than i can chew of late, hence the long hiatus. that and i am in the process of living. "john" is an interesting incarnation -- moody, depressed at times, feeling low, self-critical, and then, those moments of bliss and wonder. ahh, to live in those...
i am teaching a course on the sociology of family violence this semester -- went from what i thought was a class of eight to ten graduate students to a class of sixty plus undergrads. i found out five days before the semester was supposed to begin. have been playing catch up ever since.
i found myself coming home from my day job and working more at home -- all extra-curricular stuff. no time with my family, getting irritated with the kids for "interfering" with my work...yadda, yadda, yadda,...not who i want to be. so, i have been NOT doing things for awhile. i am planning on not teaching next semester and letting go of some other things. i hope to have more time to write.
i have one post from a list i am going to post here and i have a couple of "rants" coming on, I can tell. almost got them out yesterday, but didn't have time -- that damn day job again.
more later and not too much later, i hope. in the meantime, wonder a lot, don't conclude, just wonder...that is truly miraculous. if you need assistance in doing this, buy this little book, it is worth the $$.
i have bitten off more than i can chew of late, hence the long hiatus. that and i am in the process of living. "john" is an interesting incarnation -- moody, depressed at times, feeling low, self-critical, and then, those moments of bliss and wonder. ahh, to live in those...
i am teaching a course on the sociology of family violence this semester -- went from what i thought was a class of eight to ten graduate students to a class of sixty plus undergrads. i found out five days before the semester was supposed to begin. have been playing catch up ever since.
i found myself coming home from my day job and working more at home -- all extra-curricular stuff. no time with my family, getting irritated with the kids for "interfering" with my work...yadda, yadda, yadda,...not who i want to be. so, i have been NOT doing things for awhile. i am planning on not teaching next semester and letting go of some other things. i hope to have more time to write.
i have one post from a list i am going to post here and i have a couple of "rants" coming on, I can tell. almost got them out yesterday, but didn't have time -- that damn day job again.
more later and not too much later, i hope. in the meantime, wonder a lot, don't conclude, just wonder...that is truly miraculous. if you need assistance in doing this, buy this little book, it is worth the $$.
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
long time, not post
okay, it's been awhile...
discovering that one of the greatest crimes against humanity is the destruction of our native sense of wonder. rational-legal society cleaves that spirit and we loose our most prized possession. this is not about dreaming, this is about connecting with that which leaves us in awe.
i have been grieving that loss lately, thinking about the death of this body, about how limited this all is, how much there is to it and how much we miss along the way.
and i have three more children to raise :)
my current fantasy is to become a homeless person in Nepal when I am 60 or so -- just wander, anticipate others caring for me. i think i missed that as a kid, no sense i can't re-live that childhood as an elder, right? imagine how wonderful it might be to actually rely on the kindness of strangers as a way of life. i figure Nepalese are used to that kind of wandering person.
i know, i know, naive, etc. oh, well, a middle-age man can dream yes? who woulda thought that one of my dreams would be to be homeless in a foreign country, relying on others for my sustenance and actually associating a notion of happiness with that?
Mother save me...Ma, Ma, Ma, Ma, Ma,.........
okay, it's been awhile...
discovering that one of the greatest crimes against humanity is the destruction of our native sense of wonder. rational-legal society cleaves that spirit and we loose our most prized possession. this is not about dreaming, this is about connecting with that which leaves us in awe.
i have been grieving that loss lately, thinking about the death of this body, about how limited this all is, how much there is to it and how much we miss along the way.
and i have three more children to raise :)
my current fantasy is to become a homeless person in Nepal when I am 60 or so -- just wander, anticipate others caring for me. i think i missed that as a kid, no sense i can't re-live that childhood as an elder, right? imagine how wonderful it might be to actually rely on the kindness of strangers as a way of life. i figure Nepalese are used to that kind of wandering person.
i know, i know, naive, etc. oh, well, a middle-age man can dream yes? who woulda thought that one of my dreams would be to be homeless in a foreign country, relying on others for my sustenance and actually associating a notion of happiness with that?
Mother save me...Ma, Ma, Ma, Ma, Ma,.........
Thursday, September 04, 2003
dreams, books, and intmacy
I had a dream the other night that i was in a library kind of place along with some other people. i was young, so the other people there were kids, too, with one adult, maybe a teacher.
I felt completely safe among the books. it felt wonderful.
I have always felt this way about books (in waking reality). they have always been a safe place for me. reassuring. comforting. nurturing.
I think with the dream, i know why. why i read a book, i am being intimate with the author. s/he is freely sharing her/himself with me. i feel honored. i also feel like it is reciprocal -- they are intimate with me by writing it , and in return, i am intimate with them by reading it.
it is like we are inside each other's minds and we are completing accepting each other.
i don't think you can get more intimate than that.
I had a dream the other night that i was in a library kind of place along with some other people. i was young, so the other people there were kids, too, with one adult, maybe a teacher.
I felt completely safe among the books. it felt wonderful.
I have always felt this way about books (in waking reality). they have always been a safe place for me. reassuring. comforting. nurturing.
I think with the dream, i know why. why i read a book, i am being intimate with the author. s/he is freely sharing her/himself with me. i feel honored. i also feel like it is reciprocal -- they are intimate with me by writing it , and in return, i am intimate with them by reading it.
it is like we are inside each other's minds and we are completing accepting each other.
i don't think you can get more intimate than that.
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
another MP epiphany (or at least a VAW epiphany)
A colleague of mine sent me this story -- How Two Aspiring Pornographers Turned Me Into An F Word -- and no, the F word is not what you might think. Read it. Men, USE it to have your own epiphany -- the world needs you to do this.
A colleague of mine sent me this story -- How Two Aspiring Pornographers Turned Me Into An F Word -- and no, the F word is not what you might think. Read it. Men, USE it to have your own epiphany -- the world needs you to do this.
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
kinder, gentler in a sterilize poor, black, addicted women, kind-of-way...
Selling sterilisation to addicts
By Clare Murphy
BBC News Online
To its critics, Project Prevention or Crack - an American organisation
which pays drug addicts and alcoholics to be sterilised - is a terrifying throwback to the neutering of "defectives" during the 20th Century.
But the woman who runs this not-for-profit programme believes she is offering a service to everyone: the drug addict, the taxpayer, the child
who has not yet been born, and if she has her way - will never be born. As the programme reaches its fifth anniversary, Barbara Harris also
believes she has cause to celebrate. Some 1,050 addicts - mainly women - have undergone sterilisation as part of
her programme over the past five years.
It may not seem a considerable number, but, Ms Harris stresses, the number of clients has more than doubled over the past 12 months compared with the
year before. "Basically, despite the initial controversy over the programme, people are starting to accept that it's a good idea. Probation officers, social
workers and those who work on drug treatment programmes are increasingly referring their clients to us," she says.
Increasing presence
There is no way of independently verifying the figures given by Project Prevention, nor will the group divulge the names of institutes whose
counsellors allegedly refer their clients to the programme - arguing that those people could fall foul of the authorities if their identities were
revealed.
Some prisons - such as the Bernalillo County Detention Center in Albuquerque - have apparently allowed the group to host information
sessions for their female inmates, but have stressed that this is not tantamount to a referral. But what is undisputed is that the programme has expanded significantly over the past five years - growing from a small establishment in California to a nationwide programme with a presence in most major cities.
As it has expanded, the tone of the group has also shifted. Ms Harris, who was quoted in one of her first interviews as saying "We don't allow dogs to
breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of
children," has since toned down her language.
Her project was initially referred to simply as Crack (Children Requiring A Caring Community). Now it frequently uses the warmer term Project Prevention. But the essence of her project remains the same. It offers drug addicts and alcoholics a sum of $200 for opting for a long-term form of birth control,
such as sterilisation or a contraceptive implant.
Those interested are asked to submit documents proving that they have been arrested on narcotic offences, or provide a doctor's letter as evidence
that they use drugs. After she or he has been accepted on the programme, fresh documents are then required to show that the procedure has indeed taken place. The money is then despatched.
"Our principal aim is to stop children winding up in foster care or with long-term health problems, whose care puts an enormous burden on the
taxpayer," says Ms Harris. "If they spend the $200 on drugs, they spend it on drugs. It's none of our business what they do with the money we give them."
Historical analogies
Organisations like the National Advocates for Pregnant Women do not deny that there can be problems with children born of addicted parents but
stress that many drug addicts become loving mothers and that their children in many cases do not suffer life-long health problems.
The programme diverts efforts away from helping addicts to become clean, they argue. "Barbara Harris couldn't care less about the addicts themselves and what might be best for them. And while it may be dressed up in the language of choice, for them to argue that these people come to them entirely of their
own free will is totally disingenuous," says Wyndi Anderson, co-ordinator for NAPW.
"The project targets poor women - and you tell me what sort of choice it is when its made by someone living in poverty and desperate for money. The
whole project is eugenist, it recalls what went on in the 1930s in America, or even in Nazi Germany." Laws authorising coerced sterilisations were passed in more than half of US states in the 1930s after lobbying from the American eugenics movement, which sought to further the existence of what it deemed to be the "genetically superior" and prevent reproduction among those it saw as inferior: "the licentious" and "the indolent".
America's legislation served as a model for the Nazis' programme of eugenics, which led to the extermination of Jews and the murder of many
gypsies, the mentally ill, and homosexuals. Ms Harris rejects any comparison.
"It's just nonsense. Nobody is forcing these people to do anything - it's their own decision. What infuriates me is that if my critics don't think these people are capable of making their mind up on an issue like this, why on earth do they think they are capable of bringing up a child?"
Time and reason
Ms Harris also has some influential, and wealthy, people on her side.
Dr Laura Schlessinger, one of the nation's most popular radio talk-show hosts, has made hefty donations and has frequently plugged the project.
Richard Scaife, heir to the Mellon fortune in Pittsburgh, is also reported to have donated, along with Jim Woodhill, a right-wing venture capitalist
from Texas.
African-American writers favourable to the programme have also helped to rebuff criticism that the programme targets black people. Despite these luminaries, the group continues to attract negative coverage in the media and it raises hackles whenever it opens a new branch.
And while it is acknowledged that the group is making progress, the sterilisation of 1,050 drug addicts in five years remains a relatively
inconsiderable number. This, however, appears to provide little solace to the critics. "It doesn't seem a lot, but the fact is that the group hasn't disappeared or faded away, and people are now starting to get used to it," says Ms Anderson of NAPW.
"As the saying goes: Time makes more converts than reason."
Selling sterilisation to addicts
By Clare Murphy
BBC News Online
To its critics, Project Prevention or Crack - an American organisation
which pays drug addicts and alcoholics to be sterilised - is a terrifying throwback to the neutering of "defectives" during the 20th Century.
But the woman who runs this not-for-profit programme believes she is offering a service to everyone: the drug addict, the taxpayer, the child
who has not yet been born, and if she has her way - will never be born. As the programme reaches its fifth anniversary, Barbara Harris also
believes she has cause to celebrate. Some 1,050 addicts - mainly women - have undergone sterilisation as part of
her programme over the past five years.
It may not seem a considerable number, but, Ms Harris stresses, the number of clients has more than doubled over the past 12 months compared with the
year before. "Basically, despite the initial controversy over the programme, people are starting to accept that it's a good idea. Probation officers, social
workers and those who work on drug treatment programmes are increasingly referring their clients to us," she says.
Increasing presence
There is no way of independently verifying the figures given by Project Prevention, nor will the group divulge the names of institutes whose
counsellors allegedly refer their clients to the programme - arguing that those people could fall foul of the authorities if their identities were
revealed.
Some prisons - such as the Bernalillo County Detention Center in Albuquerque - have apparently allowed the group to host information
sessions for their female inmates, but have stressed that this is not tantamount to a referral. But what is undisputed is that the programme has expanded significantly over the past five years - growing from a small establishment in California to a nationwide programme with a presence in most major cities.
As it has expanded, the tone of the group has also shifted. Ms Harris, who was quoted in one of her first interviews as saying "We don't allow dogs to
breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of
children," has since toned down her language.
Her project was initially referred to simply as Crack (Children Requiring A Caring Community). Now it frequently uses the warmer term Project Prevention. But the essence of her project remains the same. It offers drug addicts and alcoholics a sum of $200 for opting for a long-term form of birth control,
such as sterilisation or a contraceptive implant.
Those interested are asked to submit documents proving that they have been arrested on narcotic offences, or provide a doctor's letter as evidence
that they use drugs. After she or he has been accepted on the programme, fresh documents are then required to show that the procedure has indeed taken place. The money is then despatched.
"Our principal aim is to stop children winding up in foster care or with long-term health problems, whose care puts an enormous burden on the
taxpayer," says Ms Harris. "If they spend the $200 on drugs, they spend it on drugs. It's none of our business what they do with the money we give them."
Historical analogies
Organisations like the National Advocates for Pregnant Women do not deny that there can be problems with children born of addicted parents but
stress that many drug addicts become loving mothers and that their children in many cases do not suffer life-long health problems.
The programme diverts efforts away from helping addicts to become clean, they argue. "Barbara Harris couldn't care less about the addicts themselves and what might be best for them. And while it may be dressed up in the language of choice, for them to argue that these people come to them entirely of their
own free will is totally disingenuous," says Wyndi Anderson, co-ordinator for NAPW.
"The project targets poor women - and you tell me what sort of choice it is when its made by someone living in poverty and desperate for money. The
whole project is eugenist, it recalls what went on in the 1930s in America, or even in Nazi Germany." Laws authorising coerced sterilisations were passed in more than half of US states in the 1930s after lobbying from the American eugenics movement, which sought to further the existence of what it deemed to be the "genetically superior" and prevent reproduction among those it saw as inferior: "the licentious" and "the indolent".
America's legislation served as a model for the Nazis' programme of eugenics, which led to the extermination of Jews and the murder of many
gypsies, the mentally ill, and homosexuals. Ms Harris rejects any comparison.
"It's just nonsense. Nobody is forcing these people to do anything - it's their own decision. What infuriates me is that if my critics don't think these people are capable of making their mind up on an issue like this, why on earth do they think they are capable of bringing up a child?"
Time and reason
Ms Harris also has some influential, and wealthy, people on her side.
Dr Laura Schlessinger, one of the nation's most popular radio talk-show hosts, has made hefty donations and has frequently plugged the project.
Richard Scaife, heir to the Mellon fortune in Pittsburgh, is also reported to have donated, along with Jim Woodhill, a right-wing venture capitalist
from Texas.
African-American writers favourable to the programme have also helped to rebuff criticism that the programme targets black people. Despite these luminaries, the group continues to attract negative coverage in the media and it raises hackles whenever it opens a new branch.
And while it is acknowledged that the group is making progress, the sterilisation of 1,050 drug addicts in five years remains a relatively
inconsiderable number. This, however, appears to provide little solace to the critics. "It doesn't seem a lot, but the fact is that the group hasn't disappeared or faded away, and people are now starting to get used to it," says Ms Anderson of NAPW.
"As the saying goes: Time makes more converts than reason."
Friday, August 29, 2003
one more arnold
okay, i am not fixated on this man, he just keeps digging one heck of a hole and i can't ignore it. Okay so all of the stuff in the Oui interview took place in 1977. I don't think that changes anything, but some folks think that time does have an impact on people.
Okay, then, why did he say this not too long ago?
About Arnold Schwarzenegger
Read the July 20, 2003 story from the San Francisco Chronicle.
TERMINATED TAKE: Arnold Schwarzenegger has some big ideas when it comes to running for governor -- but he was definitely thinking small when it came to
shooting that bathroom dunking scene for his new action flick, "Terminator 3."
"I saw this toilet bowl," Schwarzenegger told Entertainment Weekly in its July 11 edition. "How many times do you get away with this -- to take a woman, grab her upside down, and bury her face in a toilet bowl?" But, the Mighty Terminator adds: "I wanted to have something floating there."
Ughhh.
"The thing is, you can do it," Arnold argued, "because in the end, I didn't do it to a woman -- she's a machine! We could get away with it without being
crucified by who-knows-what group."
Maybe -- but in the end, the "floating" idea was itself terminated.
"They thought it was my typical Schwarzenegger overboard."
and then there is this.
okay, i am not fixated on this man, he just keeps digging one heck of a hole and i can't ignore it. Okay so all of the stuff in the Oui interview took place in 1977. I don't think that changes anything, but some folks think that time does have an impact on people.
Okay, then, why did he say this not too long ago?
About Arnold Schwarzenegger
Read the July 20, 2003 story from the San Francisco Chronicle.
TERMINATED TAKE: Arnold Schwarzenegger has some big ideas when it comes to running for governor -- but he was definitely thinking small when it came to
shooting that bathroom dunking scene for his new action flick, "Terminator 3."
"I saw this toilet bowl," Schwarzenegger told Entertainment Weekly in its July 11 edition. "How many times do you get away with this -- to take a woman, grab her upside down, and bury her face in a toilet bowl?" But, the Mighty Terminator adds: "I wanted to have something floating there."
Ughhh.
"The thing is, you can do it," Arnold argued, "because in the end, I didn't do it to a woman -- she's a machine! We could get away with it without being
crucified by who-knows-what group."
Maybe -- but in the end, the "floating" idea was itself terminated.
"They thought it was my typical Schwarzenegger overboard."
and then there is this.
Thursday, August 28, 2003
privilege in rare form
Arnold tries to dodge a recent revelation about him. he brushes it off by saying, "...only that he had things other than politics on his mind all those years ago" (this was in a Hollywood Reporter story)
Hmmm, interesting defense, yes? "Yeah, I smoked dope/hash, treated women like shit, participated in a gang rape, and was highly egocentric, but you know, I wasn't thinking about running for governor of CA back then, so whaddya expect????"
I'd like to see how well a similar defense would fly if he wasn't a rich, white, Republican, film star.
Imagine if he was African-American or Hispanic-American, NOT a film star, and had no political connections and he admitted to the same things? Think the same defense would fly then? He says it like we are expected to forgive him or something. I don't mind the forgiveness part so much, it is the apparent expectation that we WILL accept such a ludicrous explanation as a reasonable explanation and let him slide.
Privilege in rare form, indeed.
Arnold tries to dodge a recent revelation about him. he brushes it off by saying, "...only that he had things other than politics on his mind all those years ago" (this was in a Hollywood Reporter story)
Hmmm, interesting defense, yes? "Yeah, I smoked dope/hash, treated women like shit, participated in a gang rape, and was highly egocentric, but you know, I wasn't thinking about running for governor of CA back then, so whaddya expect????"
I'd like to see how well a similar defense would fly if he wasn't a rich, white, Republican, film star.
Imagine if he was African-American or Hispanic-American, NOT a film star, and had no political connections and he admitted to the same things? Think the same defense would fly then? He says it like we are expected to forgive him or something. I don't mind the forgiveness part so much, it is the apparent expectation that we WILL accept such a ludicrous explanation as a reasonable explanation and let him slide.
Privilege in rare form, indeed.
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
