Interesting.
Someone posted the question today on Facebook asking why we do not have an International Men's Day. The response from one woman is that men are not disenfranchised. I disagree with this assertion, men are disenfranchised.
Men are denied the fulfillment of basic physiological needs when they are told they have no right to sexual fulfillment (numerous social policy considerations on that point, alone). They are denied the right of fatherhood when women abort a child to get revenge for some perceived wrong by the man. They are denied the right of fatherhood when a woman demands full custody of their children, then denies his right of visitation, even when the court orders it. The worst cases are when she moves out of state, not even letting the man know where they are.
The financial rights of men are denied when women insist on "renegotiating" child support or alimony payments after the man gets a better job or otherwise becomes successful in life. Men are denied their right to live freely when a woman falsely accuses him of rape or child molestation, ending with him, at very least, spending time in jail trying to prove his innocence. Men are denied their right of free association when women insist on having access to private clubs for men, even though they militarily defend their right to women-only facilities and events. Men are denied the right to free speech and freedom of the press when feminists attack them for even asking questions like the above or gather together to hold meetings to consider such questions.
While some may think men are not disenfranchised, the evidence says otherwise.
Are women oppressed and disenfranchised? In all too many ways, they are. They are underpaid, under-served by the healthcare industry, harassed by even the simplest of bodily functions, particularly if they are breastfeeding a child, and are too frequently discouraged from "men's" work occupations that there is no reason but tradition behind.
The problem as I see it is neither side has ever actually sat down with the other to hammer out an understanding of the issues. Each has always expected the other to bend to their will and needs without question or discussion and this is where our problem is.
Everyone needs to accept that the concept of rights and privileges is a two-way street. Room needs to be made and left for the others of society to have a say and to have their needs met. Just as women need their rights and needs respected and met, men need their rights and needs equally respected and met. Men and women both need to remember that we cannot have children, for example, without each other and that this is a fundamental part of our gender identity.
We need to return to the concepts of ''communal manhood'' and ''communal womanhood'' where our identity was not tied to the size of our bank accounts, how many ''baby mamas'' we got pregnant, or how many people we have beaten up or crushed under our occupational heels. Under communal identity, we should be measuring our maturity by our contribution to society and by the level of personal development we have achieved. Equally, we need to accept and respect the fact that our definitions of ''manhood'' and ''womanhood'' need to be revisited and revised.
Maybe its time we actually started a mature conversation instead of dismissing each other so casually.
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Racist Racists Committing Racism ... Really?
Greetings and salutations, my friends. Yes, I know it has been a while since I posted, and for that I apologize. Life has taken some distracting turns for me, including, happily, my work in getting my Master’s degree (finally!!!) and finding myself becoming more of an activist in social justice issues, which is in part the topic of today’s posting.
Earlier this week, Tim Wise (www.timwise.org) posted an article on his website entitled “The Crime of Innocence: White Denial, Black Rebellion and the Cost of American Obliviousness” (May 5th, 2015), subsequently posting the same article to AlterNet re-titled “White America’s Greatest Delusion: ‘They Do Not Know It and They Do Not Want to Know It’”. The article was the equivalent of a 10-page thesis on the topic of why even those who do not believe they are racist (or who actually fight against racism) are still racist and that there is apparently nothing they can do to change that fact.
Really? If there is nothing we can do to change that fact, why do we bother working so hard on the issue or continue to discuss the problem? The answer is simple … we continue to work on it and discuss it because we as a society can change, despite the claims to the contrary, and it has nothing to do with mythical “white privilege”. The claim of white privilege is itself a racist stereotype that implies everyone who is born with white skin is automatically responsible for the sins of their fathers racist mistreatment of minorities, creating a state of collective guilt that can, in Wise’ opinion, never be forgotten.
Perhaps that is part of the problem. It is neither forgotten nor forgiven, perpetually driving a wedge of hatred between the communities and fueling the very racism you are claiming to be against. The black community and apparently self-hating white men like Mr. Wise don’t think it’s enough that we have thrown down the slave whips of the past. Their attitude seems to be that we should pick it up and us it against each other in the white community in a perpetual act of self-chastisement for crimes that we, ourselves, may never have been a part. In rebuttal to the article, I shall confront its points one at a time and explain my perspectives on each.
Wise pointed out that, factually, whites also riot. This is admittedly true. However, the examples he gave pale in comparison to what we have seen in Los Angeles, Ferguson and Baltimore. How does one compare impromptu bonfires of trash, construction debris and portable bathrooms to the burning of gas stations, store fronts and office buildings? How does the throwing of rocks, beer bottles and concrete chunks on a college campus or after a sporting event compare to the throwing of Molotov cocktails and a barrage of bullets in Ferguson or Baltimore?
It is not the act of rioting at issue; it is the level to which protesters took the event that is at issue. And, with all due respect, there is a very large difference between the damage or destruction of a community during a time of war and one committed against your own community during a riot. Moreover, you compare black communities to concentration camps and then accuse white people of rioting when a black man moves into their neighborhood? Really? Let’s see … when WAS the last time that happened? Hell, I was attacked once for daring to move into a BLACK neighborhood in Denver’s “Five Points” neighborhood and a couple years before that in north Aurora for the same reason. How about when I was ganged up on by two black teenagers on my way home eight years before that in Denver’s “Valley Park” neighborhood where I had lived for almost five years and told to “go back to your own neighborhood” after they had assaulted me and stomped on my glasses before walking away?
Claiming that blacks are justified in such behavior is beyond laughable. Claiming foul over jobs moving overseas is equally laughable. How many white people have also lost their jobs over such corporate moves? I lost a call center job because the company “offshored” their call center to somewhere in India twenty years ago. Furthermore, I have been passed over numerous times for jobs because the staff at a given restaurant or business was primarily or even exclusively black or Hispanic and “wouldn’t fit in” with the rest of the crew.
To accuse all white people of being oblivious to the problems of racism ignores contributions by people such as Abraham Lincoln, who believed in more than just the abolition of slavery. If all people are oblivious, how do you account for the contributions of Juliette Hampton Morgan, Reverend James Reeb, Jonathan Myrick Daniels and Viola Gregg Liuzzo during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s? How do you account for your own contributions, Mr. Wise? As misguided as I believe you to be, I recognize you, as a human being, for your efforts in combating racism; I just don’t agree with your blanket claim and attitude on your claim.
Should I bemoan “women’s privilege” over the fact that women get hired more for secretarial positions or as restaurant servers than men like me do or “black privilege” because black people have nightclubs that only they are welcome in or scholarship programs that only they qualify for? Should I tolerate accusations of having “chocolate fantasies” should I have a black woman as my girlfriend, lover or wife while a black man with a white woman screams racism if he is accused of “mixing crème” or having “Oreo” babies?
All of this is offensive, I admit… just as your accusations are offensive to those of us to whom they ill fit. The truth is most of your accusations become self-fulfilling prophecies because minorities tend to believe them to be inevitable and act as if they are true, even when “white” America is standing beside them, trying desperately to help change things. Instead of pointing fingers, Sir … try actually working with people to change the world. As Morgan Freeman said, “How are we going to get rid of racism? Stop talking about it!”
Instead, Sir, do as I do … try treating people as human beings, regardless of their skin color, gender or sexual orientation. This includes NOT accusing all white people of being ignorant of racism. And by the way, I do condemn anyone who destroys the property of others, even if the Rockies were to win the World Series this year.
Earlier this week, Tim Wise (www.timwise.org) posted an article on his website entitled “The Crime of Innocence: White Denial, Black Rebellion and the Cost of American Obliviousness” (May 5th, 2015), subsequently posting the same article to AlterNet re-titled “White America’s Greatest Delusion: ‘They Do Not Know It and They Do Not Want to Know It’”. The article was the equivalent of a 10-page thesis on the topic of why even those who do not believe they are racist (or who actually fight against racism) are still racist and that there is apparently nothing they can do to change that fact.
Really? If there is nothing we can do to change that fact, why do we bother working so hard on the issue or continue to discuss the problem? The answer is simple … we continue to work on it and discuss it because we as a society can change, despite the claims to the contrary, and it has nothing to do with mythical “white privilege”. The claim of white privilege is itself a racist stereotype that implies everyone who is born with white skin is automatically responsible for the sins of their fathers racist mistreatment of minorities, creating a state of collective guilt that can, in Wise’ opinion, never be forgotten.
Perhaps that is part of the problem. It is neither forgotten nor forgiven, perpetually driving a wedge of hatred between the communities and fueling the very racism you are claiming to be against. The black community and apparently self-hating white men like Mr. Wise don’t think it’s enough that we have thrown down the slave whips of the past. Their attitude seems to be that we should pick it up and us it against each other in the white community in a perpetual act of self-chastisement for crimes that we, ourselves, may never have been a part. In rebuttal to the article, I shall confront its points one at a time and explain my perspectives on each.
Wise pointed out that, factually, whites also riot. This is admittedly true. However, the examples he gave pale in comparison to what we have seen in Los Angeles, Ferguson and Baltimore. How does one compare impromptu bonfires of trash, construction debris and portable bathrooms to the burning of gas stations, store fronts and office buildings? How does the throwing of rocks, beer bottles and concrete chunks on a college campus or after a sporting event compare to the throwing of Molotov cocktails and a barrage of bullets in Ferguson or Baltimore?
It is not the act of rioting at issue; it is the level to which protesters took the event that is at issue. And, with all due respect, there is a very large difference between the damage or destruction of a community during a time of war and one committed against your own community during a riot. Moreover, you compare black communities to concentration camps and then accuse white people of rioting when a black man moves into their neighborhood? Really? Let’s see … when WAS the last time that happened? Hell, I was attacked once for daring to move into a BLACK neighborhood in Denver’s “Five Points” neighborhood and a couple years before that in north Aurora for the same reason. How about when I was ganged up on by two black teenagers on my way home eight years before that in Denver’s “Valley Park” neighborhood where I had lived for almost five years and told to “go back to your own neighborhood” after they had assaulted me and stomped on my glasses before walking away?
Claiming that blacks are justified in such behavior is beyond laughable. Claiming foul over jobs moving overseas is equally laughable. How many white people have also lost their jobs over such corporate moves? I lost a call center job because the company “offshored” their call center to somewhere in India twenty years ago. Furthermore, I have been passed over numerous times for jobs because the staff at a given restaurant or business was primarily or even exclusively black or Hispanic and “wouldn’t fit in” with the rest of the crew.
To accuse all white people of being oblivious to the problems of racism ignores contributions by people such as Abraham Lincoln, who believed in more than just the abolition of slavery. If all people are oblivious, how do you account for the contributions of Juliette Hampton Morgan, Reverend James Reeb, Jonathan Myrick Daniels and Viola Gregg Liuzzo during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s? How do you account for your own contributions, Mr. Wise? As misguided as I believe you to be, I recognize you, as a human being, for your efforts in combating racism; I just don’t agree with your blanket claim and attitude on your claim.
Should I bemoan “women’s privilege” over the fact that women get hired more for secretarial positions or as restaurant servers than men like me do or “black privilege” because black people have nightclubs that only they are welcome in or scholarship programs that only they qualify for? Should I tolerate accusations of having “chocolate fantasies” should I have a black woman as my girlfriend, lover or wife while a black man with a white woman screams racism if he is accused of “mixing crème” or having “Oreo” babies?
All of this is offensive, I admit… just as your accusations are offensive to those of us to whom they ill fit. The truth is most of your accusations become self-fulfilling prophecies because minorities tend to believe them to be inevitable and act as if they are true, even when “white” America is standing beside them, trying desperately to help change things. Instead of pointing fingers, Sir … try actually working with people to change the world. As Morgan Freeman said, “How are we going to get rid of racism? Stop talking about it!”
Instead, Sir, do as I do … try treating people as human beings, regardless of their skin color, gender or sexual orientation. This includes NOT accusing all white people of being ignorant of racism. And by the way, I do condemn anyone who destroys the property of others, even if the Rockies were to win the World Series this year.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
The Threat of Government Backdoor Access
Someone yesterday asked me what is so wrong about the government having backdoor access to our computers. As I see it, such unfettered access actually has several dangers that we should bare in mind as citizens.
First, backdoor access into our computers circumvent any firewall or antivirus protections. If a hacker learns how to access via the government's backdoor access (and you can be assured they will sooner or later), every computer so equipped will be unsecured. Your personal information on your computer would be an open book to the world, as would your bank accounts, the controls over our power grid and potentially every computerized military system.
Second, such access wouldn't allow them to just view your files, they could manipulate them as well. Why should the government wait for you to commit a crime if they want you in prison? With such access, they could load your computer with whatever materials they want, from child porn to "The Anarchist Cookbook", complete with "emails" sent by you to the heads of terrorist organizations around the world. Don't believe that? Try looking at the arrest warrant they used against the "terrorists" that were arrested in Aurora, Colorado a couple years ago. All the evidence was digital (computerized) records.
Third, the backdoor access could be used to install software that would render your computer useless, permanently or temporarily. A particularly interesting ability if they wanted to destroy the computers of anyone who criticizes the government. They could also do the same to computers controlling power grid infrastructure components without actually destroying the infrastructure, the perfect weapon for false flag operations. The gem of it is, they could then claim that terrorists, foreign agents or even "anonymous" hackers were responsible for destroying vital computer systems.
As a well-known computer security expert said a few years ago, it is poor civic hygiene to allow the installation of technologies that may one day be used by a police state against us. Allowing a government whose trustworthiness and credibility is decaying rapidly to have what seems like a minor ability could end up being the ultimate Achilles Heel that ends the last vestiges of Constitutional America.
Think about it, my friends.
First, backdoor access into our computers circumvent any firewall or antivirus protections. If a hacker learns how to access via the government's backdoor access (and you can be assured they will sooner or later), every computer so equipped will be unsecured. Your personal information on your computer would be an open book to the world, as would your bank accounts, the controls over our power grid and potentially every computerized military system.
Second, such access wouldn't allow them to just view your files, they could manipulate them as well. Why should the government wait for you to commit a crime if they want you in prison? With such access, they could load your computer with whatever materials they want, from child porn to "The Anarchist Cookbook", complete with "emails" sent by you to the heads of terrorist organizations around the world. Don't believe that? Try looking at the arrest warrant they used against the "terrorists" that were arrested in Aurora, Colorado a couple years ago. All the evidence was digital (computerized) records.
Third, the backdoor access could be used to install software that would render your computer useless, permanently or temporarily. A particularly interesting ability if they wanted to destroy the computers of anyone who criticizes the government. They could also do the same to computers controlling power grid infrastructure components without actually destroying the infrastructure, the perfect weapon for false flag operations. The gem of it is, they could then claim that terrorists, foreign agents or even "anonymous" hackers were responsible for destroying vital computer systems.
As a well-known computer security expert said a few years ago, it is poor civic hygiene to allow the installation of technologies that may one day be used by a police state against us. Allowing a government whose trustworthiness and credibility is decaying rapidly to have what seems like a minor ability could end up being the ultimate Achilles Heel that ends the last vestiges of Constitutional America.
Think about it, my friends.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Rebirth
First, allow me to apologize for letting this blog lay fallow for over three years. Though life has been interesting (as in the Chinese curse), it is no reason to have neglected my responsibilities for so long.
The primary things that have distracted me from my blogs for so long as been my work towards finally earning my Bachelor's degree in computer science, my entering the freelance writing industry, and my work on a number of soon-to-be-published manuscripts. Recent world events have, however, reawakened my view that our world needs a blog like this to start drawing together the various issues our world is facing.
Take for example the issues I have been dealing with during my academic endeavor.
Our school has a fairly strong reputation for excellence when it comes to the training of future medical, graphic design and business professionals. When it comes to our computer science program, however, there are a number of issues. Our school is marketed as a "hands-on" school, meaning students learn by doing realistic exercises that give them both knowledge and experience in their future occupations ... or at least it is supposed to.
Our school has issues in this field in a number of ways. The computers we have in-school are outdated by at least seven years, as is the network hardware. The computers used for Linux and server classes are totally inadequate for the task. Classes that mutually need what equipment is available are often scheduled for the same time slots, which limits the hands on experience for the students.
Turning to the laptops (which are supplied by the school), these do not have the software necessary for the students to complete their programming assignments, even though there is an academic version available for about $100 of both Microsoft Office and Microsoft Visual Studio. Mind you, this is a school that charges $65,000 - $75,000 for a Bachelor's degree program. Even considering the school is giving us laptops and lends us our textbooks instead of making us buy them, the lack of proper equipment and software is hard to overlook.
Which leads me to this ... we as activists and advocates are, in general, no better when we approach the general public or our political leaders. In recent weeks we have witnessed massive protests against corporate and governmental corruption across the United States (the "Occupy Wall Street" movement) that illustrates this.
While protesting the corruption, no one in the groups seemed to be able to say exactly what they were protesting or what could be done to address the issues. Without a clear understanding of what the problems are and some idea of what can be done to fix the issues, we are leaving our political leaders as helpless as my college has been leaving its computer science students. Instead of just complaining about problems, let's start focusing on solutions. If a given company is refusing to clean up its act, for example, why not buy controlling interest in the company and make the necessary changes ourselves?
Sure it will take capital, but consider this a moment. Any one of us may not have a million dollars, but with a few hundred thousand of us around the world, coming up with a few hundred dollars each would add up pretty quick. Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm in!
The primary things that have distracted me from my blogs for so long as been my work towards finally earning my Bachelor's degree in computer science, my entering the freelance writing industry, and my work on a number of soon-to-be-published manuscripts. Recent world events have, however, reawakened my view that our world needs a blog like this to start drawing together the various issues our world is facing.
Take for example the issues I have been dealing with during my academic endeavor.
Our school has a fairly strong reputation for excellence when it comes to the training of future medical, graphic design and business professionals. When it comes to our computer science program, however, there are a number of issues. Our school is marketed as a "hands-on" school, meaning students learn by doing realistic exercises that give them both knowledge and experience in their future occupations ... or at least it is supposed to.
Our school has issues in this field in a number of ways. The computers we have in-school are outdated by at least seven years, as is the network hardware. The computers used for Linux and server classes are totally inadequate for the task. Classes that mutually need what equipment is available are often scheduled for the same time slots, which limits the hands on experience for the students.
Turning to the laptops (which are supplied by the school), these do not have the software necessary for the students to complete their programming assignments, even though there is an academic version available for about $100 of both Microsoft Office and Microsoft Visual Studio. Mind you, this is a school that charges $65,000 - $75,000 for a Bachelor's degree program. Even considering the school is giving us laptops and lends us our textbooks instead of making us buy them, the lack of proper equipment and software is hard to overlook.
Which leads me to this ... we as activists and advocates are, in general, no better when we approach the general public or our political leaders. In recent weeks we have witnessed massive protests against corporate and governmental corruption across the United States (the "Occupy Wall Street" movement) that illustrates this.
While protesting the corruption, no one in the groups seemed to be able to say exactly what they were protesting or what could be done to address the issues. Without a clear understanding of what the problems are and some idea of what can be done to fix the issues, we are leaving our political leaders as helpless as my college has been leaving its computer science students. Instead of just complaining about problems, let's start focusing on solutions. If a given company is refusing to clean up its act, for example, why not buy controlling interest in the company and make the necessary changes ourselves?
Sure it will take capital, but consider this a moment. Any one of us may not have a million dollars, but with a few hundred thousand of us around the world, coming up with a few hundred dollars each would add up pretty quick. Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm in!
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
The Greatest Key to Success
"I never let schooling interfere with my education"
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
I've been studying some of the great social and political movements of the past. By great I mean those that were found significant enough to be kept in our history books and legends. I find myself struck by a profound truth. I shall reveal it in a moment.
People in our society have some funny ideas about the keys to success. Yet I find myself realizing that most of them are lies.
Lie #1 - Education leads to success
Under this lie, it is assumed that one cannot be successful without a college degree. This has manifested itself in our society through the assumption that for most occupations candidates must have at least a bachelors degree to be taken seriously. Evidence that this assumption is a lie can be found by looking to successful men like Bill Gates who dropped out of college to start working in the computer field. We all know what happened with that.
Lie #2 - Great wealth assures success
With rare exception, accumulated wealth seldom survives more than two generations before disappearing into oblivion. Too often the children of wealthy individuals have no appreciation for the wealth responsible for their upper class lifestyle and clearly no ideas on perpetuating it into the future. Instead of absorbing this appreciation and knowledge from their parents, they become spoiled and lazy, guaranteeing their future failure.
Lie #3 - Poverty guarantees failure
Men like Chris Gardner are proof this is a lie. Chris Gardner raised himself from a poor, homeless father to being one of our nation's top, successful stock industry experts. Mr. Gardner is also a living example of the profound truth I have finally come to recognize.
Note that I did not say I discovered the truth, but said I finally recognized the truth. The truth was there all along and used quite effectively by men like Bill Gates and Chris Gardner. This truth has a name.
Allow me to introduce Personal Motivation.
Personal Motivation is a sad, lonely fellow in many cases. Like most of us, people pass by personal motivation everyday, never noticing its there, waiting in the dusty wings of our minds. Personal motivation survives on crusts of dreams and quenches its thirst with our flights of wishful thinking. The personal motivation of most people subsists much like the homeless citizens of our inner city.
People like Bill Gates and Chris Gardner have rescued their personal motivations from the streets and proven how powerful personal motivations can be. From the margins of society, these two men have built personal empires that most of America envies without ever realizing they too can have such success.
We as activists can learn much from men like these. We too have our dreams; dreams of what our world could be like, if only we would address the many problems facing our civilization. The one thing lacking, most of the time, is our own personal motivation.
Too many times we feel our activism is done because we have no choice. To truly have the energy and dedication necessary we must awaken our personal motivation. For me, mine was awakened by the revelation that it is my nieces and nephews who are going to bear the brunt of the issues we have failed to address over the years. I love them dearly and have no desire to leave the world in such a mess, no more than I would leave a gun and ammunition laying around the house when they visit.
My personal motivation is to improve our society not for myself, but for those who come after us. But the truth is, I cannot do it alone. I need the help and mutual assistance of all those who wish to improve our society. I read postings and blog entries every day from people worried about where our society is and where it is going. I say its time to do something about it. We have the technology to fix many of the problems in our world. Those that cannot be fixed by technology will no doubt take greater effort, but we can do it!
All we need is the motivation.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Activists Beware
It has become obvious to many of us that there has been a profound shift in the conduct of our government, particularly during the Bush administration. This shift has brought increased pressure and harassment against those of us who are trying to make a positive difference in the world.
This shift has brought violations of free speech, violations of free press, violations of free associations, violations of free trade, violations of free travel, violations of ... well, I think you get the picture ... all in the name of national security. Things that were considered acceptable and normal in a democratic society only a few months ago are now bringing seizures of property by Homeland Security, arrest and disappearances of independent reporters, and a spiraling environment of fear and surveillance by what is rapidly becoming the most oppressive government in the world.
This means the environment for activists like you and I is becoming increasingly dangerous, which is typical in a society on the verge of collapse. The sad thing is, it doesn't have to happen, but can only be prevented if the government backs off from this campaign of terrorism. Yes, I said it, the United States government has, itself, become a force of terrorism in the world, particularly against its own citizens. Those who don't believe me had best start paying attention to what is happening.
Another part of the threat is, it is not just at the national level that this is happening. Local governments are joining in. Just last September (2007), a student at UCLA was tasered for trying to get a straight answer out of John Kerry. And this was after John Kerry told them it was alright, that he was willing to answer the question. Considering that tasers have been proven to be potentially lethal, this act was irresponsible, dangerous, and oppressive to the student's right to participate in an open-to-the-public event.
The Bush administrations invocation of "free speech zones" that isolate officials from any signs of protest against their policies was expanded in March (2008) to force "Free Tibet" protesters away from the path of the Olympic torch. In Denver, in preparation for the Democratic National Convention, the police department already has an area chosen for a "free speech zone" that all but guarantees convention goers won't be "inconvenienced" by hearing anything from the protest groups. They are already spreading word that even passing out protest fliers may (read will) result in arrest for trespassing ... including the otherwise open-to-the-public sidewalks around the convention center.
Censorship has also raised its ugly head, particularly if the subject matter has to do with global warming or anything that might threaten the strangle hold the oil and coal industry have on our economy. James Hansen, a noted and respected scientist with NASA, was the subject of a recently published book, Censored Science by Mark Bowen
, that reveals his reports and those of other NASA scientists regarding global warming issues have been officially censored for years. Just this past week (July 2008), we have learned that Vice-President Dick Cheney's office intentionally removed EPA testimony about the health impact of global warming from the congressional record, citing concern over the science involved, a decision made by NON-scientists who have done ZERO research.
Individually, the myriad of events may seem insignificant, but when viewed in the broad spectrum of events, a disturbing and dangerous pattern emerges, screaming, as the title of this post says ...
ACTIVISTS BEWARE
This shift has brought violations of free speech, violations of free press, violations of free associations, violations of free trade, violations of free travel, violations of ... well, I think you get the picture ... all in the name of national security. Things that were considered acceptable and normal in a democratic society only a few months ago are now bringing seizures of property by Homeland Security, arrest and disappearances of independent reporters, and a spiraling environment of fear and surveillance by what is rapidly becoming the most oppressive government in the world.
This means the environment for activists like you and I is becoming increasingly dangerous, which is typical in a society on the verge of collapse. The sad thing is, it doesn't have to happen, but can only be prevented if the government backs off from this campaign of terrorism. Yes, I said it, the United States government has, itself, become a force of terrorism in the world, particularly against its own citizens. Those who don't believe me had best start paying attention to what is happening.
Another part of the threat is, it is not just at the national level that this is happening. Local governments are joining in. Just last September (2007), a student at UCLA was tasered for trying to get a straight answer out of John Kerry. And this was after John Kerry told them it was alright, that he was willing to answer the question. Considering that tasers have been proven to be potentially lethal, this act was irresponsible, dangerous, and oppressive to the student's right to participate in an open-to-the-public event.
The Bush administrations invocation of "free speech zones" that isolate officials from any signs of protest against their policies was expanded in March (2008) to force "Free Tibet" protesters away from the path of the Olympic torch. In Denver, in preparation for the Democratic National Convention, the police department already has an area chosen for a "free speech zone" that all but guarantees convention goers won't be "inconvenienced" by hearing anything from the protest groups. They are already spreading word that even passing out protest fliers may (read will) result in arrest for trespassing ... including the otherwise open-to-the-public sidewalks around the convention center.
Censorship has also raised its ugly head, particularly if the subject matter has to do with global warming or anything that might threaten the strangle hold the oil and coal industry have on our economy. James Hansen, a noted and respected scientist with NASA, was the subject of a recently published book, Censored Science by Mark Bowen
, that reveals his reports and those of other NASA scientists regarding global warming issues have been officially censored for years. Just this past week (July 2008), we have learned that Vice-President Dick Cheney's office intentionally removed EPA testimony about the health impact of global warming from the congressional record, citing concern over the science involved, a decision made by NON-scientists who have done ZERO research.Individually, the myriad of events may seem insignificant, but when viewed in the broad spectrum of events, a disturbing and dangerous pattern emerges, screaming, as the title of this post says ...
ACTIVISTS BEWARE
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Building a Supportive Environment
The story is told of a man who came home one day and informed his wife that he had just lost his job. The wife, instead of being upset, smiled and said that it was good, he would now have time to write the book he had talked about. The man was confused and asked how the bills would be paid if he took time off to write his book.
The wife smiled again and informed him that she believed in him. Over the past few years she had tucked away money from each week's pay and had enough to last them a year. Over that year, the book was written and began selling well, enough that the author was able to continue his new career.
"The Scarlet Letter" was the first novel of Nathaniel Hawthorne and is considered one of the all-time classic novels. It raised an unknown man to literary prominence, a recognition that last to this very day.
And it all started with the loving support of Hawthorne's wife.
This is not the only case of success in which such support can be cited as the influencing force. Over the years nearly every Olympic medalist has cited the support of their family and friends as the driving force in their success. I could continue with examples ad nauseum, but you get the picture.
This same rule of support applies to our social, environmental and political movements as well. Our leaders need a level of faithful support to achieve success in their endeavors, just as Hawthorne needed it from his wife.
It is frequently easier to criticize an idea or proposal than to support it, yet if we are going to make any headway in finding solutions to the problems we face today, we must overcome this pattern of criticism.
Case at point:
Governor Ritter of Colorado proposed massive changes for Colorado to position it as a leader in the fight against global warming and environmental destruction. Yet critics have openly condemned the proposals. They did not do so because the changes would have been bad for Colorado. They condemned them because Colorado alone executing the changes would have little impact on the problems.
I have just one thing to say about this:
DUH!
The whole idea was, and remains, for Colorado to become a leader in these issues. By setting the example, Colorado can inspire others to take up the changes, spreading the effects of those changes across the nation and, hopefully, around the world. It is not easy to be a leader. The one who would be leader must take bold stands and push for common sense changes to social policies. When such leadership is presented, we as citizens must show our support.
I am not talking about blind obedience to political figures, but faith that such ideas can work, that we as a community can make a difference. I am talking about faith in ourselves and about taking personal responsibility for solving the crisis that looms before us.
When Ritter took office, I initially had my doubts about him. I am proud to say that at least some of my concerns were washed away when he stepped up with his proposals. I see him today as a leader. As such, he is exactly what Colorado, and our nation, needs.
All he needs is a little support from his friends and family.
I know he has mine.
The wife smiled again and informed him that she believed in him. Over the past few years she had tucked away money from each week's pay and had enough to last them a year. Over that year, the book was written and began selling well, enough that the author was able to continue his new career.
"The Scarlet Letter" was the first novel of Nathaniel Hawthorne and is considered one of the all-time classic novels. It raised an unknown man to literary prominence, a recognition that last to this very day.
And it all started with the loving support of Hawthorne's wife.
This is not the only case of success in which such support can be cited as the influencing force. Over the years nearly every Olympic medalist has cited the support of their family and friends as the driving force in their success. I could continue with examples ad nauseum, but you get the picture.
This same rule of support applies to our social, environmental and political movements as well. Our leaders need a level of faithful support to achieve success in their endeavors, just as Hawthorne needed it from his wife.
It is frequently easier to criticize an idea or proposal than to support it, yet if we are going to make any headway in finding solutions to the problems we face today, we must overcome this pattern of criticism.
Case at point:
Governor Ritter of Colorado proposed massive changes for Colorado to position it as a leader in the fight against global warming and environmental destruction. Yet critics have openly condemned the proposals. They did not do so because the changes would have been bad for Colorado. They condemned them because Colorado alone executing the changes would have little impact on the problems.
I have just one thing to say about this:
DUH!
The whole idea was, and remains, for Colorado to become a leader in these issues. By setting the example, Colorado can inspire others to take up the changes, spreading the effects of those changes across the nation and, hopefully, around the world. It is not easy to be a leader. The one who would be leader must take bold stands and push for common sense changes to social policies. When such leadership is presented, we as citizens must show our support.
I am not talking about blind obedience to political figures, but faith that such ideas can work, that we as a community can make a difference. I am talking about faith in ourselves and about taking personal responsibility for solving the crisis that looms before us.
When Ritter took office, I initially had my doubts about him. I am proud to say that at least some of my concerns were washed away when he stepped up with his proposals. I see him today as a leader. As such, he is exactly what Colorado, and our nation, needs.
All he needs is a little support from his friends and family.
I know he has mine.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Words as Weapons
Interesting ... I got called a racist for my position on irresponsible government programs and growth. Oh well. Those who truly know me know better.
It did cause me to start thinking how we use words as weapons in our society.
Want to dismiss thought on someone's complaints? Call them a "bi**h" or "a**hole" who just wants to complain. No more thought needed.
Want to ignore someone's points about people taking responsibility for themselves and to quit depending on the Government to fix everything? Let's see ... racist sounds like a good word.
I was also called "afraid of change."
Me?
Hmmm.
I speak out in favor of responsibility. A little old-fashioned I guess.
I speak out in favor of social activism. Hardly someone afraid of change there.
I speak out in favor of protecting human rights. Definitely not afraid of change there.
I speak out against wholesale consumerism and waste. Another change I do not fear.
My entry about Malcolm X speaks for itself.
I am a strong supporter for ideas like those of Ernest Callenbach. Simply cannot be afraid of change there, his ideas would completely overturn our society if instituted all at once.
I'm an advocate for light rail, alternate energy and biofuels. Okay, now I have to laugh at the idea that I am afraid of change.
As an activist author, I am definitely not afraid of change. Since I am an advocate for the empowerment of marginalized citizens (homeless, disabled and minorities) the racist label doesn't fit either.
Sorry, Sheilah, but you are way off base calling me those things. Guess something I said hit a nerve with you.
Good, means I'm doing my job.
It did cause me to start thinking how we use words as weapons in our society.
Want to dismiss thought on someone's complaints? Call them a "bi**h" or "a**hole" who just wants to complain. No more thought needed.
Want to ignore someone's points about people taking responsibility for themselves and to quit depending on the Government to fix everything? Let's see ... racist sounds like a good word.
I was also called "afraid of change."
Me?
Hmmm.
I speak out in favor of responsibility. A little old-fashioned I guess.
I speak out in favor of social activism. Hardly someone afraid of change there.
I speak out in favor of protecting human rights. Definitely not afraid of change there.
I speak out against wholesale consumerism and waste. Another change I do not fear.
My entry about Malcolm X speaks for itself.
I am a strong supporter for ideas like those of Ernest Callenbach. Simply cannot be afraid of change there, his ideas would completely overturn our society if instituted all at once.
I'm an advocate for light rail, alternate energy and biofuels. Okay, now I have to laugh at the idea that I am afraid of change.
As an activist author, I am definitely not afraid of change. Since I am an advocate for the empowerment of marginalized citizens (homeless, disabled and minorities) the racist label doesn't fit either.
Sorry, Sheilah, but you are way off base calling me those things. Guess something I said hit a nerve with you.
Good, means I'm doing my job.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
High Stakes Activism - Accepting Risk
Talking with others today, I suddenly realized that my path to activism started significantly before my graduation from high school. I learned certain lessons then that I find applicable to activism in our modern world. Let me explain.
It started early one brisk, autumn morning. My friend (for privacy sake I shall call him Jake) and I were horsing around while waiting for our school bus. A man who lived in the house nearest our bus stop came out and started yelling at us. Needless to say, things got a bit heated.
Jake, by this point becoming quite irrational, told the man "Shut up and leave us alone motherf****r!"
The man growled at him "I ain't no motherf****r"
A thought suddenly crossed my mind. A way I might get these too angry individuals to step back and allow the situation to defuse. The problem was, it could also escalate the entire situation and draw me into the middle of it. In an instant, I made my decision.
"Sure you are, why lie about it?"
The man blinked a moment, then growled "I AIN'T no motherf****r!"
A smile crossed my lips. He had fallen for my trap.
I shifted my expression as if I was about to state a fact. "Oh really? Don't you have kids?"
The man blinked in sudden dismay, confused for the moment. A glance at Jake and I could see he was equally confused. I let silence rule for a few seconds, waiting.
The man's face sudden grimaced, "For the love of Christ"
He leaned against the tree behind him and let out a belly roar of laughter. I looked to Jake, who's face attested to his sudden understanding of what I had said. Unfortunately, he did not have a tree behind him and ended up on his butt in the grass, laughing until he could barely breath.
Once they stopped laughing, I smiled at the man and said "Look, you are obviously upset about our noise, but we don't understand why you are so upset, what's going on?"
The man explained to us that he was a graveyard security guard and was just getting into bed when we started making so much noise. Jake and I apologized and promised we would show him due consideration, now that we knew the circumstances.
Now the question is, how does this apply to activism?
The answer is simple. We are dealing with a lot of highly complex issues. There are usually two sides to an issue with some issues having three or more sides. We get so involved with our advocacy of this solution or that solution or arguing that the other side(s) aren't seeing the whole picture of the issue. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't
The point is, our discussions become debates, debates become arguments, arguments become fighting, and fighting becomes all-out war. As this escalation grows, it becomes more and more difficult to negotiate middle grounds and happy mediums. Often times it takes a risky move to bring people back to the negotiation table. The higher the conflict has escalated, the riskier the move to bring things back into progressive equilibrium.
As activists, we must evaluate the events and situations affecting our issue(s) to see where such risks can, should, or must be taken for the sake of progress. In the game of high-stakes activism, there is no room for wimps. Now ... who's turn is it to shuffle?
It started early one brisk, autumn morning. My friend (for privacy sake I shall call him Jake) and I were horsing around while waiting for our school bus. A man who lived in the house nearest our bus stop came out and started yelling at us. Needless to say, things got a bit heated.
Jake, by this point becoming quite irrational, told the man "Shut up and leave us alone motherf****r!"
The man growled at him "I ain't no motherf****r"
A thought suddenly crossed my mind. A way I might get these too angry individuals to step back and allow the situation to defuse. The problem was, it could also escalate the entire situation and draw me into the middle of it. In an instant, I made my decision.
"Sure you are, why lie about it?"
The man blinked a moment, then growled "I AIN'T no motherf****r!"
A smile crossed my lips. He had fallen for my trap.
I shifted my expression as if I was about to state a fact. "Oh really? Don't you have kids?"
The man blinked in sudden dismay, confused for the moment. A glance at Jake and I could see he was equally confused. I let silence rule for a few seconds, waiting.
The man's face sudden grimaced, "For the love of Christ"
He leaned against the tree behind him and let out a belly roar of laughter. I looked to Jake, who's face attested to his sudden understanding of what I had said. Unfortunately, he did not have a tree behind him and ended up on his butt in the grass, laughing until he could barely breath.
Once they stopped laughing, I smiled at the man and said "Look, you are obviously upset about our noise, but we don't understand why you are so upset, what's going on?"
The man explained to us that he was a graveyard security guard and was just getting into bed when we started making so much noise. Jake and I apologized and promised we would show him due consideration, now that we knew the circumstances.
Now the question is, how does this apply to activism?
The answer is simple. We are dealing with a lot of highly complex issues. There are usually two sides to an issue with some issues having three or more sides. We get so involved with our advocacy of this solution or that solution or arguing that the other side(s) aren't seeing the whole picture of the issue. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't
The point is, our discussions become debates, debates become arguments, arguments become fighting, and fighting becomes all-out war. As this escalation grows, it becomes more and more difficult to negotiate middle grounds and happy mediums. Often times it takes a risky move to bring people back to the negotiation table. The higher the conflict has escalated, the riskier the move to bring things back into progressive equilibrium.
As activists, we must evaluate the events and situations affecting our issue(s) to see where such risks can, should, or must be taken for the sake of progress. In the game of high-stakes activism, there is no room for wimps. Now ... who's turn is it to shuffle?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)