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.