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.
Showing posts with label social policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social policy. Show all posts
Sunday, May 10, 2015
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.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Good Riddance Day
Writer's note: This article originally appeared through my work with Helium (www.helium.com) and I felt it was time to share it with my audience here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
People taking pictures, lists, even fully paid mortgages and publicly shredding the documents in what is quickly becoming an annual tradition.
They call it "Good Riddance Day."
THe Good Riddance Day movement is, for all intents and purposes, a type of reverse New Year's resolution. Instead of developing new, improved selves and habits, we are supposed to let go of past mistakes and bad habits. This year one man's list included giving up his addiction to shoplifting.
It sparked me into thinking about things we as a society need to give up in order to move onward into the future.
We need to give up racism. This is probably one of the biggest wastes of human energy in the United States. From wasted energy committing racism to the wasted energy seeing racists behind every tree, car, and building corner. Both extremes must go. They are useless. No ... they are worse ... they corrupt and distract us. They are not useless, they are malicious. The sooner we say good riddance to them, the better.
We need to give up consumerism. This does not mean to stop shopping for food, clothing, etc. What this means is for us to think about what we are buying. Are we buying something because we need it (like food), because we really wnt it (like a computer), or simply because it is the latest thing (like an 8GB iPod when we already own a 4GB iPod that we only have 2GB of music on)? If we settle for a $12 pair of store-brand pants instead of $50 Levi pants, we free up considerable money that we could save in the bank, invest in mutual funds, or afford other things that we really want, like taking our significant other on dates more frequently (yes, mental and emotional goods are important too).
We need to give up credit use, both personally and nationally. Right now we owe so much as a nation it would take an entire year's income from everyone to pay it off. This is not just an economic issue, but an issue of national security. Some of our biggest creditors are China and Saudi Arabia, two countries who have proven to have less than our best interests at heart.
We need to give up or put off pork-barrel projects until, if and when, we can actually afford them. Our government is one of the most wasteful structures and organizations known to modern man. It needs to be put on an economic diet, for the health and safety of us all.
We need to give up selfishness. Think of those who are less fortunate than you. When you see on of the red meters in places like downtown Denver, Seattle, or whatever town or city you are in that let you donate to the homeless programs of your community, put a dollar or two of change into it. If you see someone who is homeless and they ask you for help getting lunch, take them to McDonald's or Taco Bell and buy them lunch if you are worried about them spending the money on drugs or alcohol. And for God's sake, turn off the TV when your kid asks for help with their homework. Stop being so selfish with your resources like time and money. If you give just a little, you help improve our entire society, and it really doesn't hurt you. In fact, you just might end up feeling good about yourself for a day or two.
We need to give up road rage and recklessness. Is it really worth risking killing yourself or someone else, just to get to work five minutes earlier or to "get back" at someone you think cut you off on the freeway? There is a man sitting in the state pen right now in Colorado who thought that it was. He is serving time for murder for causing a road rage related accident on a freeway in Aurora, Colorado that killed two people.
The list could go on and on. Think about all the things wrong with your community, your state, and our nation. Make a list if you have to. Then shred or burn it. Let all those things go. Then join with your fellow citizens and lets make the necessary changes in our society to make those things relics of the past.
Let's work toward the day when our children ask questions like "what was war" or "what do they mean by pollution?" Together we can make it happen. We just have to let go of the past and say good riddance to it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
People taking pictures, lists, even fully paid mortgages and publicly shredding the documents in what is quickly becoming an annual tradition.
They call it "Good Riddance Day."
THe Good Riddance Day movement is, for all intents and purposes, a type of reverse New Year's resolution. Instead of developing new, improved selves and habits, we are supposed to let go of past mistakes and bad habits. This year one man's list included giving up his addiction to shoplifting.
It sparked me into thinking about things we as a society need to give up in order to move onward into the future.
We need to give up racism. This is probably one of the biggest wastes of human energy in the United States. From wasted energy committing racism to the wasted energy seeing racists behind every tree, car, and building corner. Both extremes must go. They are useless. No ... they are worse ... they corrupt and distract us. They are not useless, they are malicious. The sooner we say good riddance to them, the better.
We need to give up consumerism. This does not mean to stop shopping for food, clothing, etc. What this means is for us to think about what we are buying. Are we buying something because we need it (like food), because we really wnt it (like a computer), or simply because it is the latest thing (like an 8GB iPod when we already own a 4GB iPod that we only have 2GB of music on)? If we settle for a $12 pair of store-brand pants instead of $50 Levi pants, we free up considerable money that we could save in the bank, invest in mutual funds, or afford other things that we really want, like taking our significant other on dates more frequently (yes, mental and emotional goods are important too).
We need to give up credit use, both personally and nationally. Right now we owe so much as a nation it would take an entire year's income from everyone to pay it off. This is not just an economic issue, but an issue of national security. Some of our biggest creditors are China and Saudi Arabia, two countries who have proven to have less than our best interests at heart.
We need to give up or put off pork-barrel projects until, if and when, we can actually afford them. Our government is one of the most wasteful structures and organizations known to modern man. It needs to be put on an economic diet, for the health and safety of us all.
We need to give up selfishness. Think of those who are less fortunate than you. When you see on of the red meters in places like downtown Denver, Seattle, or whatever town or city you are in that let you donate to the homeless programs of your community, put a dollar or two of change into it. If you see someone who is homeless and they ask you for help getting lunch, take them to McDonald's or Taco Bell and buy them lunch if you are worried about them spending the money on drugs or alcohol. And for God's sake, turn off the TV when your kid asks for help with their homework. Stop being so selfish with your resources like time and money. If you give just a little, you help improve our entire society, and it really doesn't hurt you. In fact, you just might end up feeling good about yourself for a day or two.
We need to give up road rage and recklessness. Is it really worth risking killing yourself or someone else, just to get to work five minutes earlier or to "get back" at someone you think cut you off on the freeway? There is a man sitting in the state pen right now in Colorado who thought that it was. He is serving time for murder for causing a road rage related accident on a freeway in Aurora, Colorado that killed two people.
The list could go on and on. Think about all the things wrong with your community, your state, and our nation. Make a list if you have to. Then shred or burn it. Let all those things go. Then join with your fellow citizens and lets make the necessary changes in our society to make those things relics of the past.
Let's work toward the day when our children ask questions like "what was war" or "what do they mean by pollution?" Together we can make it happen. We just have to let go of the past and say good riddance to it.
Monday, June 16, 2008
AP Bulldog Bites Bloggers!
On Friday, June 13th, 2008, the Associated Press delivered a DMCA takedown demand to the blog "Drudge Retort," claiming seven copyright violations. The violations, upon investigation, are over headlines and short excerpts of 40 to 80 words. Each blog entry included a link to the AP story on the Associated Press website.
The House Wyldstar position on the issue:
The AP needs to wake up to the reality of today's Internet.
The Associated Press over the years has used clips and quotes from other sources, claiming in their defense that such use is covered under the "fair use" doctrine. This is, in our opinion, a correct use of that doctrine. However, the AP is now demanding bloggers stop doing the same thing when it comes to their material. This is hypocrisy at its finest.
One, the bloggers are making fair use of the materials by only using excerpts and linking to the original article for readers to access, if they should so choose. This is no different than article indexes used in public libraries that point people to the correct article in the correct magazine.
Two, the AP is totally ignoring the fact that bloggers using the material in this manner is FREE PUBLICITY for the Associated Press. What business or organization in their right mind would file a complaint over someone else sending customers their way? This is sheer idiocy and definitely beneath the AP's reputation. In a single day the AP has destroyed the credibility it has taken it decades to build.
Many bloggers have responded by calling for a total boycott of the AP unless and until they change their attitude and drop the idiotic DMCA takedown demands it has issued. As a firm advocate for freedom of the press, public discourse of the issues, and preservation of human knowledge and history, I join in this call.
Organizations like the Associated Press need to rethink what they are doing. DMCA demands can be just as easily filed against them in many cases, undermining the usefulness and mission of their organization in the same way that it is undermining the efforts of bloggers to share information and participate in public debate.
Grow up AP!
The House Wyldstar position on the issue:
The AP needs to wake up to the reality of today's Internet.
The Associated Press over the years has used clips and quotes from other sources, claiming in their defense that such use is covered under the "fair use" doctrine. This is, in our opinion, a correct use of that doctrine. However, the AP is now demanding bloggers stop doing the same thing when it comes to their material. This is hypocrisy at its finest.
One, the bloggers are making fair use of the materials by only using excerpts and linking to the original article for readers to access, if they should so choose. This is no different than article indexes used in public libraries that point people to the correct article in the correct magazine.
Two, the AP is totally ignoring the fact that bloggers using the material in this manner is FREE PUBLICITY for the Associated Press. What business or organization in their right mind would file a complaint over someone else sending customers their way? This is sheer idiocy and definitely beneath the AP's reputation. In a single day the AP has destroyed the credibility it has taken it decades to build.
Many bloggers have responded by calling for a total boycott of the AP unless and until they change their attitude and drop the idiotic DMCA takedown demands it has issued. As a firm advocate for freedom of the press, public discourse of the issues, and preservation of human knowledge and history, I join in this call.
Organizations like the Associated Press need to rethink what they are doing. DMCA demands can be just as easily filed against them in many cases, undermining the usefulness and mission of their organization in the same way that it is undermining the efforts of bloggers to share information and participate in public debate.
Grow up AP!
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.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Unhealthy Fantasies and Misunderstandings
Its been a while since my last post. Afraid my occupation as a freelance writer has kept me busy.
Today I want to talk about two issues that, though separate, have become linked in a way I did not anticipate ... those of "unhealthy sexual fantasies" and "inadvertent misunderstandings."
Let me lay out the situation I found myself in.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A few weeks ago, I began research on the issue of what child pornography is. According to Federal law, child pornography is any visual media (photos, videos, etc) that shows or depicts sexual acts (oral, anal, vaginal) with anyone under the age of majority. In some states, this can be interpreted as anyone under a certain age as high as 21 ... technically.
But does this definition go far enough?
Sex offenders, during sexual offense therapy, learn that sexual offenses begin with a fantasy phase. An attractive girl walks down the street or across the room; men fantasize about her. A man views a Playboy magazine and has fantasies. Men view pornographic films and have fantasies. Normally, these fantasies are nothing to worry about, but for a small percentage of men, they can be a real danger.
But during my research I realized that not all materials that trigger such fantasies are visual. Some of these materials are written stories, called erotica.
On Usenet (accessible through Google Groups) there are a number of erotic short story groups, most under the alt.sex.stories category. The groups, typically, are plagued by frequent advertisements for sexually explicit videos, photos and manipulated graphics. But when these are weeded out, there is still a great deal to be concerned about.
Mixed in with the typical hetero/homosexual fantasies about your neighbor's girlfriend/wife, your best friend's girlfriend/wife, etc. are erotic stories about sex with under aged girls (one story I found the victim was under eight years old), violent rape (including a gang rape of a white bride by black men as her new husband was forced to watch), and even snuff-rape where the victim is slain while being raped.
It made me realize how dangerous the written word can be, and this isn't just available online. In many porn shops there are novels about teen sex with peers and adults with names like "Mandy's Slick Panties."
Now my question is this: If all sexual offenses (rape, molestation, etc) start with a fantasy, aren't these stories just as dangerous? And if we are going to prosecute child pornographers and molesters, shouldn't the manufacture of pedo-erotica be included in our actions?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to the misunderstanding part. During my research, I downloaded and printed two examples of these type articles for my research files. Unfortunately, my fiance found them on my desk while I was in the kitchen getting something to eat. Needless to say, she was VERY concerned. The discovery by her of these definitely did not give her the context in which they had been printed and, to put it lightly, did not look good.
My mind goes back to an incident a friend of mine had to deal with when his parents found links to bomb-making information on the Internet. He was astonished by news reports of how easy such information was to find on the web and decided to check it out for himself. Not only did he find information on making pipe bombs, but also information on making plastic explosives and even an atom bomb. This was shortly after the Columbine High School incident and needless to say, his parents pretty much freaked out on him.
My advice is, if you are doing research on ANYTHING sensitive, make sure you don't leave things laying about. You never know what people might think or what kind of consequences it might cause unnecessarily.
Today I want to talk about two issues that, though separate, have become linked in a way I did not anticipate ... those of "unhealthy sexual fantasies" and "inadvertent misunderstandings."
Let me lay out the situation I found myself in.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A few weeks ago, I began research on the issue of what child pornography is. According to Federal law, child pornography is any visual media (photos, videos, etc) that shows or depicts sexual acts (oral, anal, vaginal) with anyone under the age of majority. In some states, this can be interpreted as anyone under a certain age as high as 21 ... technically.
But does this definition go far enough?
Sex offenders, during sexual offense therapy, learn that sexual offenses begin with a fantasy phase. An attractive girl walks down the street or across the room; men fantasize about her. A man views a Playboy magazine and has fantasies. Men view pornographic films and have fantasies. Normally, these fantasies are nothing to worry about, but for a small percentage of men, they can be a real danger.
But during my research I realized that not all materials that trigger such fantasies are visual. Some of these materials are written stories, called erotica.
On Usenet (accessible through Google Groups) there are a number of erotic short story groups, most under the alt.sex.stories category. The groups, typically, are plagued by frequent advertisements for sexually explicit videos, photos and manipulated graphics. But when these are weeded out, there is still a great deal to be concerned about.
Mixed in with the typical hetero/homosexual fantasies about your neighbor's girlfriend/wife, your best friend's girlfriend/wife, etc. are erotic stories about sex with under aged girls (one story I found the victim was under eight years old), violent rape (including a gang rape of a white bride by black men as her new husband was forced to watch), and even snuff-rape where the victim is slain while being raped.
It made me realize how dangerous the written word can be, and this isn't just available online. In many porn shops there are novels about teen sex with peers and adults with names like "Mandy's Slick Panties."
Now my question is this: If all sexual offenses (rape, molestation, etc) start with a fantasy, aren't these stories just as dangerous? And if we are going to prosecute child pornographers and molesters, shouldn't the manufacture of pedo-erotica be included in our actions?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to the misunderstanding part. During my research, I downloaded and printed two examples of these type articles for my research files. Unfortunately, my fiance found them on my desk while I was in the kitchen getting something to eat. Needless to say, she was VERY concerned. The discovery by her of these definitely did not give her the context in which they had been printed and, to put it lightly, did not look good.
My mind goes back to an incident a friend of mine had to deal with when his parents found links to bomb-making information on the Internet. He was astonished by news reports of how easy such information was to find on the web and decided to check it out for himself. Not only did he find information on making pipe bombs, but also information on making plastic explosives and even an atom bomb. This was shortly after the Columbine High School incident and needless to say, his parents pretty much freaked out on him.
My advice is, if you are doing research on ANYTHING sensitive, make sure you don't leave things laying about. You never know what people might think or what kind of consequences it might cause unnecessarily.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Sharing of Opinions
Today I would like to share a comment I found on the Minnesota Public Radio site.
Mr. Halls raises several good points.
Questions like these are fundamental to our activities and policies as a nation.
Before we jump on the bandwagon on any policy or legislative idea, we need to answer these questions. Only then can we make reasonable and responsible decisions. Many times we pass laws without thinking about their consequences.
In the past there have been many examples of this.
In the 1910s Federal legislation was passed on the premise of protecting the banking industry and expanding its economic potential. The results? The Great Depression. Enough said.
In the 1930s, responding to The Great Depression, legislation was passed to regulate the investment industry and the fundraising of corporations. The result? It costs companies between 10 and 20 percent of their desired funds just to register their intended stocks and changes nothing about the potential risk of investment in new (or even pre-existing) corporations. It also did nothing to address the actual causes of The Great Depression. The answer? More legislation to help finance small businesses through debt-enslavement agreements.
Again in the 1930s, responding to The Great Depression, the welfare program was started, guaranteeing all citizens (supposedly) the basic necessity of food, medicine, and in some cases shelter. The result? Generations of welfare recipients that have been trapped in dependence upon the government. The answer? More legislation to impose arbitrary limits on all recipients as to how long they can be dependents in their entire lifetime.
Yes, those are examples of old legislation, but they are ones we are still reeling from today. And there are plenty of more recent examples, up to and including our so-called USA Patriot Act which has all but stripped us of any assumption that we have a right to privacy and anonymity in our society.
Can we undo the damage caused by these mistakes? Yes. Will it be easy to do? Hell no. It is never easy to undo damage. There is the cost of eliminating what is causing the damage. There is the cost of repairing the damage done. And there is the cost of replacing the damaging policies or laws with better considered policies or laws.
Can't we just take the time to do it right the first time?
Wrong path on MySpace
What a scary place signing the new bill into effect regarding the ban of sex offenders. [MPR News: Bill declares MySpace and the like off-limits to sex offenders] There are a couple of issues that come to mind regarding this and other bills that have recently been signed into effect. Who is a "sex offender"? Convictions carry sentences, it is illegal to add to a sentence after it has been fulfilled. Will this bill effect sex offenders already in the system? Why do we need this bill? Who gains from this bill?
People labeled sex offenders are in very large part not child molesters. The word "sex offender" is scary, just like the word "terrorist". Just like the word "terrorist", "sex offender" is thrown around and used without thought. Crimes such as statutory rape are included. This means that a man or a women of 18 years of age that has sex with a girl/boyfriend under that age and is convicted will be considered a sex offender. "Sex offenders are many times registered as such for 10-20 years or more.
Second, any conviction carries a sentence. The sentence is given by either peers or an appointed judge. This sentence is carried out by the convicted person. Here we have a new bill ready to be signed into effect that prohibits rights of people that have fulfilled their debt to society. The bill is a continuation of punishment beyond the prescribed sentence that has been fulfilled.
This can easily be likened to any person convicted of any felony currently. It is currently legal to deny a job to any person that has been convicted of a crime. It is also now almost mandatory for any person to sign a waiver for a background check for any position. This makes finding work for felony convicts impossible. This is another form of unusual punishment beyond the prescribed and fulfilled sentence. Not only does this effect the person but the community and economy as a whole.
Why is this bill going into effect? There is not a jump in rapes, child molestation, child pornography etc. In fact the numbers have been going down consistently for over a decade. Why would it make sense to increase penalties?
Politicians love to make a name for themselves. Generally these people don't care about the consequences of their actions. Really who can argue with "tougher penalties for sex offenders". Before we act, we must take a hard look at what and why we are doing such things. Is this beneficial for anyone. Children, no. Community, no. Sex offender, no. Economy, no. Mrs. Swanson, ahh yes. [MPR News Archive: Swanson joins call for names of sex offenders using MySpace] If parents can't teach their kids what we all learned when we were kids, "don't talk to strangers," we're in for some bigger problems. Can our politician deal with real problems? Maybe bureaucratic waste?
Finally, this one step by itself is not bad. Great, we will have 1 or 2 less sex offenders using their real names on Facebook in Minnesota. LOL. Though, what are the second, third and fourth steps? A complete ban on Internet usage? I don't know of one job available anywhere that doesn't use the Internet for some part of it.
I'm not advocating sexual offenses, not even a little bit, however we should be wary about where we are going.
Geoff Halls
Bloomington, Minn.
Mr. Halls raises several good points.
- Are such bans effectively additional punishments imposed on sex offenders, thus violating our constitutional rule against ex post facto laws?
- Does anyone really benefit from these bans?
- If they are effectively useless, why waste taxpayers' money and public resources on their enforcement?
- Are politicians really interested in the public good or are they just out to make a name for themselves by passing "sounds good" legislation?
Questions like these are fundamental to our activities and policies as a nation.
- Does the policy or law we are thinking about violate the basis of our free and independent society?
- Does the policy or law actually address the issue we need to work on?
- Could the policy have undesirable consequences that we have not anticipated, perhaps doing more damage to our society than good?
- Does the person advocating the policy or law have alterior motives for supporting it that might be clouding their judgement, making their advocacy suspect, and have they considered the previous three questions?
Before we jump on the bandwagon on any policy or legislative idea, we need to answer these questions. Only then can we make reasonable and responsible decisions. Many times we pass laws without thinking about their consequences.
In the past there have been many examples of this.
In the 1910s Federal legislation was passed on the premise of protecting the banking industry and expanding its economic potential. The results? The Great Depression. Enough said.
In the 1930s, responding to The Great Depression, legislation was passed to regulate the investment industry and the fundraising of corporations. The result? It costs companies between 10 and 20 percent of their desired funds just to register their intended stocks and changes nothing about the potential risk of investment in new (or even pre-existing) corporations. It also did nothing to address the actual causes of The Great Depression. The answer? More legislation to help finance small businesses through debt-enslavement agreements.
Again in the 1930s, responding to The Great Depression, the welfare program was started, guaranteeing all citizens (supposedly) the basic necessity of food, medicine, and in some cases shelter. The result? Generations of welfare recipients that have been trapped in dependence upon the government. The answer? More legislation to impose arbitrary limits on all recipients as to how long they can be dependents in their entire lifetime.
Yes, those are examples of old legislation, but they are ones we are still reeling from today. And there are plenty of more recent examples, up to and including our so-called USA Patriot Act which has all but stripped us of any assumption that we have a right to privacy and anonymity in our society.
Can we undo the damage caused by these mistakes? Yes. Will it be easy to do? Hell no. It is never easy to undo damage. There is the cost of eliminating what is causing the damage. There is the cost of repairing the damage done. And there is the cost of replacing the damaging policies or laws with better considered policies or laws.
Can't we just take the time to do it right the first time?
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?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
God's Criminals
In recent months there have been many examples of Muslims taking offense at the writings of western journalists and the words of western religious and political leaders. In many of these incidents, the words and writings were taken out of context, or worse, were true about a portion of Islamic extremists, but not about Islam in general.
Our conflict is not Christian versus Muslim. It is not the United States against Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. Our conflict is against those who use Islam and, in total honesty, Christianity as excuses by claiming they are doing Allah's/God's work by committing violence, murder, and terrorism. Yes, I said it, Christianity has blood on its hands as well.
I will not go into a discourse of examples standing against either Islam or Christianity. It is unnecessary and a complete waste of time. We both know what crimes I speak of. And they must stop immediately.
If we are to establish peace on Earth, a goal Islam and Christianity both claim to embody by their claims of being peaceful religions, then we must join forces against those who commit heresy and blasphemy in the name of our creator by claiming that their actions are his work. By not fighting against this together, we become accomplices to these very crimes. The blood of innocent victims stains our hands as much as the murder's and terrorist's.
If someone speaks true insults against us (Muslim or Christian), do not prove them right with a violent response, least they use that to justify escalating the incident against us or using our conduct as proof of their idiocy.
If there are Islamic and Christian communities near one another, do not tolerate violence against each other, let the criminals suffer the appropriate consequences for their crimes, regardless of them being Muslim or Christian claimants.
There is no need for us to protect them, just because they claim, blasphemously, to be doing Allah's, or Christ's, work.
Our conflict is not Christian versus Muslim. It is not the United States against Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. Our conflict is against those who use Islam and, in total honesty, Christianity as excuses by claiming they are doing Allah's/God's work by committing violence, murder, and terrorism. Yes, I said it, Christianity has blood on its hands as well.
I will not go into a discourse of examples standing against either Islam or Christianity. It is unnecessary and a complete waste of time. We both know what crimes I speak of. And they must stop immediately.
If we are to establish peace on Earth, a goal Islam and Christianity both claim to embody by their claims of being peaceful religions, then we must join forces against those who commit heresy and blasphemy in the name of our creator by claiming that their actions are his work. By not fighting against this together, we become accomplices to these very crimes. The blood of innocent victims stains our hands as much as the murder's and terrorist's.
If someone speaks true insults against us (Muslim or Christian), do not prove them right with a violent response, least they use that to justify escalating the incident against us or using our conduct as proof of their idiocy.
If there are Islamic and Christian communities near one another, do not tolerate violence against each other, let the criminals suffer the appropriate consequences for their crimes, regardless of them being Muslim or Christian claimants.
There is no need for us to protect them, just because they claim, blasphemously, to be doing Allah's, or Christ's, work.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The Hidden War
America is dying. It is suffering the death of a thousand cuts.
And it is not alone.
Across the globe human rights are being undermined in the name of globalization and, most insulting, in the name of security.
Since I know best what is happening in the United States, I shall focus my attention there, but as I said, we are not the only ones suffering.
We have for the last few generations verbally rejected the idea of internal passports, we do not (as yet) have gestapo-like forces roaming the streets asking us "Papers, please" but we are not far from it.
Thanks to secret legislation (defined as legislation whose existence and purpose are intentionally hidden or cloaked from public knowledge) the Federal government has in place requirements of computer readable identification for banking, government services, and employment verification, though they have not (as yet) begun to enforce these requirements. A small handful of Congressmen are responsible for this.
What is wrong with it you might ask? It puts us just a few paces from being required to carry internal passports that can be used to monitor everything we do everyday. It isn't hard for them to start requiring RFID chips embedded that can be read from yards away, most likely without us ever knowing.
So far most states have interpreted the legislation in such a way that they have incorporated magnetic strips and barcodes that must be read at close range, making it obvious when they are being examined - or does it?
Without thinking about it we allow employers to link our Social Security Number (SSN) to our identity, using it as our employee ID number. Without thinking about it we allow hospitals to use our SSN as our patient ID number. Without thinking about it we allow banks to link our SSN to our bank account. Without thinking about it we allow schools and colleges to link our SSN to our educational records. Without thinking about it we allow our state governments to link our driver's licenses to our SSN, frequently printing it right on the front of our ID cards.
Lets see, that means with our SSN the government (and hackers by the way) can access our driving records, our educational credentials, our financial records, our health records, and our employment history. Do you want the government having that kind of access to your life???
The Federal government passed the USA Patriot Act. This fact alone seems innocent enough - until you actually examine the powers it grants the Federal government. It too qualifies as secret legislation even though everyone has heard of it. It qualifies because the law that was signed by the President is not what Congress agreed upon. During the debates and negotiations Congress had inserted safeguards seeking to protect the rights of American citizens. The night before the formal vote of Congress the altered legislation was replaced by the original legislation the President wanted. The majority of Congress was never told and to this day have no clue about this. Unwittingly, Congress voted to pass the law before them and it was promptly signed into law by the President.
Among the more insidious measures of the USA Patriot Act is the Federal government having the power to seize bookstore purchase records and library patronage records. Are you sure you have never read anything the government might find questionable?
It also allows the government to perform covert searches of our businesses and homes, seizing anything within them, without warrant or notification. Imagine going to work or school one day and returning to find your house ransacked and your beloved computer missing. The first thought in your mind? One, this violates our constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. There is a reason we have required law enforcement to get search warrants from the courts. They are a safeguard against governmental corruption. This type of search will also cause local law enforcement resources to be wasted when the victim calls police to report a burglary because they do not know it was the government who did it.
Probably the most well known violation is the governments secret domestic surveillance program which, in fact, was either in place well before the USA Patriot Act or was planned for in advance. The government already had the equipment ready to go when the law was passed. Conspiracy theorists have accused the government for years of covert domestic surveillance of telephone and computer communications. The facts about the government's current surveillance program and the speed it was instituted makes me wonder, though I am not ready to throw my hat in with the theorists quite yet.
And telephone and computer communications are not the only thing under surveillance. It is well known that the government has and continues to use covert operatives to monitor any organization (including third political parties) who dare to question or campaign against governmental and corporate misconduct. The SS did not die during World War II, they just changed sides - or so it seems.
Historically, I have never been one to be very political. I was indoctrinated, like most of America, to believe the government was benevolent - protecting our country and our rights as citizens. But I was also raised to keep my eyes open and to think for myself. Unfortunately, the more I see of issues like these, the more it undermines my confidence and belief in the U.S. government.
I have been told by many that my viewpoints about our government and big business will probably end up with me on the no-fly list and subject myself to governmental surveillance and harrassment. They are probably right. I have just one thing to say about that.
"Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a damn."
And it is not alone.
Across the globe human rights are being undermined in the name of globalization and, most insulting, in the name of security.
Since I know best what is happening in the United States, I shall focus my attention there, but as I said, we are not the only ones suffering.
We have for the last few generations verbally rejected the idea of internal passports, we do not (as yet) have gestapo-like forces roaming the streets asking us "Papers, please" but we are not far from it.
Thanks to secret legislation (defined as legislation whose existence and purpose are intentionally hidden or cloaked from public knowledge) the Federal government has in place requirements of computer readable identification for banking, government services, and employment verification, though they have not (as yet) begun to enforce these requirements. A small handful of Congressmen are responsible for this.
What is wrong with it you might ask? It puts us just a few paces from being required to carry internal passports that can be used to monitor everything we do everyday. It isn't hard for them to start requiring RFID chips embedded that can be read from yards away, most likely without us ever knowing.
So far most states have interpreted the legislation in such a way that they have incorporated magnetic strips and barcodes that must be read at close range, making it obvious when they are being examined - or does it?
Without thinking about it we allow employers to link our Social Security Number (SSN) to our identity, using it as our employee ID number. Without thinking about it we allow hospitals to use our SSN as our patient ID number. Without thinking about it we allow banks to link our SSN to our bank account. Without thinking about it we allow schools and colleges to link our SSN to our educational records. Without thinking about it we allow our state governments to link our driver's licenses to our SSN, frequently printing it right on the front of our ID cards.
Lets see, that means with our SSN the government (and hackers by the way) can access our driving records, our educational credentials, our financial records, our health records, and our employment history. Do you want the government having that kind of access to your life???
The Federal government passed the USA Patriot Act. This fact alone seems innocent enough - until you actually examine the powers it grants the Federal government. It too qualifies as secret legislation even though everyone has heard of it. It qualifies because the law that was signed by the President is not what Congress agreed upon. During the debates and negotiations Congress had inserted safeguards seeking to protect the rights of American citizens. The night before the formal vote of Congress the altered legislation was replaced by the original legislation the President wanted. The majority of Congress was never told and to this day have no clue about this. Unwittingly, Congress voted to pass the law before them and it was promptly signed into law by the President.
Among the more insidious measures of the USA Patriot Act is the Federal government having the power to seize bookstore purchase records and library patronage records. Are you sure you have never read anything the government might find questionable?
It also allows the government to perform covert searches of our businesses and homes, seizing anything within them, without warrant or notification. Imagine going to work or school one day and returning to find your house ransacked and your beloved computer missing. The first thought in your mind? One, this violates our constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. There is a reason we have required law enforcement to get search warrants from the courts. They are a safeguard against governmental corruption. This type of search will also cause local law enforcement resources to be wasted when the victim calls police to report a burglary because they do not know it was the government who did it.
Probably the most well known violation is the governments secret domestic surveillance program which, in fact, was either in place well before the USA Patriot Act or was planned for in advance. The government already had the equipment ready to go when the law was passed. Conspiracy theorists have accused the government for years of covert domestic surveillance of telephone and computer communications. The facts about the government's current surveillance program and the speed it was instituted makes me wonder, though I am not ready to throw my hat in with the theorists quite yet.
And telephone and computer communications are not the only thing under surveillance. It is well known that the government has and continues to use covert operatives to monitor any organization (including third political parties) who dare to question or campaign against governmental and corporate misconduct. The SS did not die during World War II, they just changed sides - or so it seems.
Historically, I have never been one to be very political. I was indoctrinated, like most of America, to believe the government was benevolent - protecting our country and our rights as citizens. But I was also raised to keep my eyes open and to think for myself. Unfortunately, the more I see of issues like these, the more it undermines my confidence and belief in the U.S. government.
I have been told by many that my viewpoints about our government and big business will probably end up with me on the no-fly list and subject myself to governmental surveillance and harrassment. They are probably right. I have just one thing to say about that.
"Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a damn."
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Good Riddance
It sounds like a joke.
People taking pictures, lists, even fully paid mortgages and publicly shredding the documents in what is quickly becoming an annual tradition.
They call it "Good Riddance Day."
The Good Riddance Day movement is, for all intents and purposes, a type of reverse New Year's resolution. Instead of developing new, improved selves and habits, we are supposed to let go of past mistakes and bad habits. This year one man's list included giving up his addiction to shoplifting.
It sparked me into thinking about things we as a society need to give up in order to move onward into the future.
We need to give up racism. This is probably one of the biggest wastes of human energy in the United States. From wasted energy committing racism to the wasted energy seeing racists behind every tree, car, and building corner. Both extremes must go. They are useless. No - they are worse - they corrupt and distract us. They are not useless, they are malicious. The sooner we say good riddance to them, the better.
We need to give up consumerism. This does not mean to stop shopping for food, clothing, etc. What this means is for us to think about what we are buying. Are we buying something because we need it (like food), because we really want it (like a computer), or simply because it is the lastest thing (like an 8GB iPod when we already own a 4GB iPod that we only have 2GB of music on)? If we settle for a $12 pair of store-brand pants instead of $50 Levi pants we free up considerable money that we could save in the bank, invest in mutual funds, or afford other things that we really want, like taking our significant other on dates more frequently (yes, mental and emotional goods are important too).
We need to give up credit use, both personally and nationally. Right now we owe so much as a nation it would take an entire year's income from everyone to pay it off. This is not just an economic issue, but an issue of national security. Some of our biggest creditors are China and Saudi Arabia, two countries who have proven to have less than our best interests at heart.
We need to give up or put off pork-barrel projects until, if and when, we can actually afford them. Our government is one of the most wasteful structures and organizations known to modern man. It needs to be put on an economic diet, for the health and safety of us all.
We need to give up selfishness. Think of those who are less fortunate than you. When you see one of the red meters in places like downtown Denver, Seattle, or whatever town or city you are in that let you donate to the homeless programs of your community, put a dollar or two of change into it. If you see someone who is homeless and they ask for help getting lunch, take them to McDonald's or Taco Bell and buy them lunch if you are worried about them spending the money on drugs or alcohol. And for God's sake, turn off the TV when your kid asks for help with their homework. Stop being so selfish with your resources like time and money. If you give just a little, you help improve our entire society, and it really doesn't hurt you. In fact, you just might end up feeling good about yourself for a day or two.
We need to give up road rage and recklessness. Is it really worth risking killing yourself or someone else, just to get to work five minutes earlier or to "get back" at someone you think cut you off on the freeway? There is a man sitting in the state pen right now in Colorado who thought that it was. He is serving time for murder for causing a road rage related accident on a freeway in Aurora, Colorado that killed two people.
The list could go on and on. Think about all the things wrong with your community, your state, and our nation. Make a list if you have to. Then shred or burn it. Let all those things go. Then join with your fellow citizens and lets make the necessary changes in our society to make those things relics of the past.
Lets work toward the day when our children ask questions like "what was war" or "what do they mean by pollution". Together we can make it happen. We just have to let go of the past and say good riddance to it.
People taking pictures, lists, even fully paid mortgages and publicly shredding the documents in what is quickly becoming an annual tradition.
They call it "Good Riddance Day."
The Good Riddance Day movement is, for all intents and purposes, a type of reverse New Year's resolution. Instead of developing new, improved selves and habits, we are supposed to let go of past mistakes and bad habits. This year one man's list included giving up his addiction to shoplifting.
It sparked me into thinking about things we as a society need to give up in order to move onward into the future.
We need to give up racism. This is probably one of the biggest wastes of human energy in the United States. From wasted energy committing racism to the wasted energy seeing racists behind every tree, car, and building corner. Both extremes must go. They are useless. No - they are worse - they corrupt and distract us. They are not useless, they are malicious. The sooner we say good riddance to them, the better.
We need to give up consumerism. This does not mean to stop shopping for food, clothing, etc. What this means is for us to think about what we are buying. Are we buying something because we need it (like food), because we really want it (like a computer), or simply because it is the lastest thing (like an 8GB iPod when we already own a 4GB iPod that we only have 2GB of music on)? If we settle for a $12 pair of store-brand pants instead of $50 Levi pants we free up considerable money that we could save in the bank, invest in mutual funds, or afford other things that we really want, like taking our significant other on dates more frequently (yes, mental and emotional goods are important too).
We need to give up credit use, both personally and nationally. Right now we owe so much as a nation it would take an entire year's income from everyone to pay it off. This is not just an economic issue, but an issue of national security. Some of our biggest creditors are China and Saudi Arabia, two countries who have proven to have less than our best interests at heart.
We need to give up or put off pork-barrel projects until, if and when, we can actually afford them. Our government is one of the most wasteful structures and organizations known to modern man. It needs to be put on an economic diet, for the health and safety of us all.
We need to give up selfishness. Think of those who are less fortunate than you. When you see one of the red meters in places like downtown Denver, Seattle, or whatever town or city you are in that let you donate to the homeless programs of your community, put a dollar or two of change into it. If you see someone who is homeless and they ask for help getting lunch, take them to McDonald's or Taco Bell and buy them lunch if you are worried about them spending the money on drugs or alcohol. And for God's sake, turn off the TV when your kid asks for help with their homework. Stop being so selfish with your resources like time and money. If you give just a little, you help improve our entire society, and it really doesn't hurt you. In fact, you just might end up feeling good about yourself for a day or two.
We need to give up road rage and recklessness. Is it really worth risking killing yourself or someone else, just to get to work five minutes earlier or to "get back" at someone you think cut you off on the freeway? There is a man sitting in the state pen right now in Colorado who thought that it was. He is serving time for murder for causing a road rage related accident on a freeway in Aurora, Colorado that killed two people.
The list could go on and on. Think about all the things wrong with your community, your state, and our nation. Make a list if you have to. Then shred or burn it. Let all those things go. Then join with your fellow citizens and lets make the necessary changes in our society to make those things relics of the past.
Lets work toward the day when our children ask questions like "what was war" or "what do they mean by pollution". Together we can make it happen. We just have to let go of the past and say good riddance to it.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Common Sense? Or Corporate Neglect?
This week a promising young girl died from liver failure that followed a leukemia bone marrow transplant.
The insurance company, managing a self-insuring employer, claims it consulted with an in-house transplant expert and two outside doctors about her situation, then determined that the liver transplant she desperately needed was experimental and not covered under the insurance policy of her father's employer.
Then, supposedly out of the goodness of their hearts, they decided to pay for the procedure themselves, but only after family and friends of the girl began picketing outside their offices. Nothing gets the attention of companies like that quicker than bad publicity and public relations. But it was too late.
At the funeral, no one mentioned the insurance company's name, but apparently they will in court.
From what I have learned of such matters, once an organ fails a leukemia patient, their chances of living, even after such a transplant, are slim. We, as a society want to be compassionate, yet we must many times draw a line to this compassion. Doctors have to decide if one patient who needs the same organ might have a better chance of survival, for example. At this very moment, in an apartment across from mine, lives a child who is not even two years old who is awaiting a liver transplant. The doctors say, if they can find one in time, she has an excellent chance of getting to see her grandchildren.
It is not an easy choice to decide who lives and who dies. I for one do not envy any doctor who has to make such a decision, but it is the doctors caring for the patient who should make such decisions in cases like this, not insurance providers.
The insurance company, managing a self-insuring employer, claims it consulted with an in-house transplant expert and two outside doctors about her situation, then determined that the liver transplant she desperately needed was experimental and not covered under the insurance policy of her father's employer.
Then, supposedly out of the goodness of their hearts, they decided to pay for the procedure themselves, but only after family and friends of the girl began picketing outside their offices. Nothing gets the attention of companies like that quicker than bad publicity and public relations. But it was too late.
At the funeral, no one mentioned the insurance company's name, but apparently they will in court.
From what I have learned of such matters, once an organ fails a leukemia patient, their chances of living, even after such a transplant, are slim. We, as a society want to be compassionate, yet we must many times draw a line to this compassion. Doctors have to decide if one patient who needs the same organ might have a better chance of survival, for example. At this very moment, in an apartment across from mine, lives a child who is not even two years old who is awaiting a liver transplant. The doctors say, if they can find one in time, she has an excellent chance of getting to see her grandchildren.
It is not an easy choice to decide who lives and who dies. I for one do not envy any doctor who has to make such a decision, but it is the doctors caring for the patient who should make such decisions in cases like this, not insurance providers.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Growing Up
Helping someone research materials for a major term paper this week, I have had the extraordinary opportunity to learn more about an amazing leader of the civil rights movement. He is a greatly misunderstood and inaccurately depicted figure, cursed by some, be knighted with sainthood by others. I speak of none other than Malcolm X.
Malcolm's beginnings were somewhat less than inspiring. In his earlier years he went from a misunderstood and socially brutalized youth to a womanizing, drug-addicted street thug. This life of debauchery and criminality culminated in his being sent to prison for burglary, though it could just as easily ended with a bullet in his back, according to his descriptions in "The Autobiography of Malcolm X."
Being sent to prison actually turned into the turning point of his life. While in prison he continually wrote to his siblings, a habit they had all gotten into after the physical (but not spiritual or emotional) breakup of their family in the 1930s. During these correspondences, Malcolm's older siblings introduced him to the teachings of Elijah Muhammad, founder of the Nation of Islam.
Muhammad did not immediately embrace these teachings, but instead found his difficulties in reading and writing (caused by years of participation in what was then black society's counterculture) inspired him to seek self-improvement. Gradually, he came to accept Islam's teachings, choosing to embrace the peaceful nature taught by it as an antithesis to his previous life.
Upon his release, he became more involved in the Nation of Islam, taking first a humble position as an assistant at one of the mosques in the U.S., becoming later a key spokes person and advocate for the Nation of Islam and Islamic teachings in general. During this time, his animosity for white society became a prevailing feature in his life and public speaking, calling white people devils and blaming them exclusively for the plight of black society.
It was only after he began learning about significant corruption within the Nation of Islam and the Nation's censure of him for remarks made regarding President Kennedy's assassination that Malcolm broke his association with them. This break sparked his desire to more fully understand the teachings of Islam, leading him to partake in a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. There he encountered Muslims from many different countries and ethnicity, altering his perception and understanding of black-white relationships.
When he returned from his pilgrimage, he became an outspoken critic of the Nation of Islam and its increasing militancy against white society, advocating respect for the cultural differences between blacks and whites. He further urged black Americans to accept personal responsibility for their own failings, not to simply blame their plight on white Americans. This advocacy earned him a death sentence from the Nation of Islam which they were successful in executing in early 1965.
One thing that strikes me about what I have learned about Malcolm X was his candor in admitting and accepting responsibility for his earlier conduct. He gave credit for the good he was able to do in society to Allah, but retained responsibility for his own mistakes.
I draw several fundamental lessons from Malcolm's autobiography (not the 1992 Spike Lee movie):
My newly formed image and opinion of Malcolm X has further fueled my dedication to House Wyldstar and to this blog. I pledge here and now to be more responsible in the maintenance of this blog and in my efforts to establish websites for House Wyldstar and the Social Policy Center and to work harder at my participation in the social change movement.
Stay tuned for further developments!
Malcolm's beginnings were somewhat less than inspiring. In his earlier years he went from a misunderstood and socially brutalized youth to a womanizing, drug-addicted street thug. This life of debauchery and criminality culminated in his being sent to prison for burglary, though it could just as easily ended with a bullet in his back, according to his descriptions in "The Autobiography of Malcolm X."
Being sent to prison actually turned into the turning point of his life. While in prison he continually wrote to his siblings, a habit they had all gotten into after the physical (but not spiritual or emotional) breakup of their family in the 1930s. During these correspondences, Malcolm's older siblings introduced him to the teachings of Elijah Muhammad, founder of the Nation of Islam.
Muhammad did not immediately embrace these teachings, but instead found his difficulties in reading and writing (caused by years of participation in what was then black society's counterculture) inspired him to seek self-improvement. Gradually, he came to accept Islam's teachings, choosing to embrace the peaceful nature taught by it as an antithesis to his previous life.
Upon his release, he became more involved in the Nation of Islam, taking first a humble position as an assistant at one of the mosques in the U.S., becoming later a key spokes person and advocate for the Nation of Islam and Islamic teachings in general. During this time, his animosity for white society became a prevailing feature in his life and public speaking, calling white people devils and blaming them exclusively for the plight of black society.
It was only after he began learning about significant corruption within the Nation of Islam and the Nation's censure of him for remarks made regarding President Kennedy's assassination that Malcolm broke his association with them. This break sparked his desire to more fully understand the teachings of Islam, leading him to partake in a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. There he encountered Muslims from many different countries and ethnicity, altering his perception and understanding of black-white relationships.
When he returned from his pilgrimage, he became an outspoken critic of the Nation of Islam and its increasing militancy against white society, advocating respect for the cultural differences between blacks and whites. He further urged black Americans to accept personal responsibility for their own failings, not to simply blame their plight on white Americans. This advocacy earned him a death sentence from the Nation of Islam which they were successful in executing in early 1965.
One thing that strikes me about what I have learned about Malcolm X was his candor in admitting and accepting responsibility for his earlier conduct. He gave credit for the good he was able to do in society to Allah, but retained responsibility for his own mistakes.
I draw several fundamental lessons from Malcolm's autobiography (not the 1992 Spike Lee movie):
- One - that people can change regardless of their past
- Two - that people must take personal responsibility for their lives and the development of their communities
- Three - that even good people can be mistaken in their beliefs
- Four - that those who seek to change society are, without a doubt, going to make dangerous enemies
- Five - those that are truly dedicated to their beliefs and desire for change won't give a damn about how dangerous the opposition is
My newly formed image and opinion of Malcolm X has further fueled my dedication to House Wyldstar and to this blog. I pledge here and now to be more responsible in the maintenance of this blog and in my efforts to establish websites for House Wyldstar and the Social Policy Center and to work harder at my participation in the social change movement.
Stay tuned for further developments!
Thursday, November 22, 2007
A Call for Parlay
Greetings, friends.
I know, it has been a while since I last posted. Time gets away from you when you are a** deep in research.
Pursuant to the cause of the Social Policy Center I am preparing manuscripts that will soon be published and available through CafePress.com and/or Lulu.com. Titles to be announced soon.
Today I would like to offer an idea.
With the recent popularity of the Pirates of the Carribean, I began to think about the concept of the pirate's right of parlay. The concept was supposed to be a type of peace talks between pirate leaders, a chance to come to mutually satisfactory agreement and to avoid bloodshed.
This concept reflects, in a way, my envisionment of House Wyldstar. House Wyldstar, in part, seeks to unify and coordinate the efforts of the organizations seeking to improve our society, either by direct action or by advocacy. Pursuant to the aim, I invite the staff and directors of other organizations to join me in a virtual parlay. Tomorrow I will establish the House Wyldstar Parlay on Google Groups to open the floor for discussion of the issues, negotiations for multi-organization partnerships, and coordinated fundraising efforts.
I look forward to learning from each of you, until then, be well.
I know, it has been a while since I last posted. Time gets away from you when you are a** deep in research.
Pursuant to the cause of the Social Policy Center I am preparing manuscripts that will soon be published and available through CafePress.com and/or Lulu.com. Titles to be announced soon.
Today I would like to offer an idea.
With the recent popularity of the Pirates of the Carribean, I began to think about the concept of the pirate's right of parlay. The concept was supposed to be a type of peace talks between pirate leaders, a chance to come to mutually satisfactory agreement and to avoid bloodshed.
This concept reflects, in a way, my envisionment of House Wyldstar. House Wyldstar, in part, seeks to unify and coordinate the efforts of the organizations seeking to improve our society, either by direct action or by advocacy. Pursuant to the aim, I invite the staff and directors of other organizations to join me in a virtual parlay. Tomorrow I will establish the House Wyldstar Parlay on Google Groups to open the floor for discussion of the issues, negotiations for multi-organization partnerships, and coordinated fundraising efforts.
I look forward to learning from each of you, until then, be well.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Tales Our Fathers Told
There have been great societies that did not use the wheel, but there have been no societies that did not tell stories.
Ursula K. LeGuin
It is surprising where we as activists get our inspiration sometimes. One of the best sources is from the stories our parents told us as children. Be it tall tales of the big fish in the river to dramatic stories of survival in the face of adversity. The movie ''Big Fish'' gives insight into the sources of such stories.
We have no doubt all heard the stories about our fathers and grandfathers having to walk five miles to school, in the snow, across a river, uphill both ways. But have you ever really listened to the stories they tell? If you have, have you thought about what lessons you could draw from them?
Take my father for example. I have know since I was a young boy that my father was in the Vietnam War and repaired helicopters there. But I learned something new about him my senior year in high school.
He was taking college courses at the time at San Jacinto Junior College in Pasadena, Texas, and was naturally required to complete an english class as part of his curriculum. I recall it was our ''Senior Skip-Day'', but my father needed help in typing up an english assignment. I took him up to the high school where I had access to computers, being a data processing student. I felt so special, having my father ask for my help like that. Little did I realize it was a day that would change my view of my father.
My father and his buddies were relaxing in their barracks, playing cards, talking about their families that they missed, the usual stuff guys thousands of miles from home talk about. Then the alarms sounded, the base was under attack.
My father and his buddies grabbed their weapons and dashed out to their defense positions. His position was located in the third defensive line, the last line before the base would be considered overrun by the enemy.
He could see the enemy approaching the base and hear the bullets flashing past him. The first line was wiped out within moments, left dead or dying as the enemy penetrated. The fighting was so fierce, he didn't have time to think. Round after round was fired from his rifle, trying to stave off the onslaught of Vietnamese soldiers. The second line of defense was forced to fall back, joining my father and his buddies at the third line. The base was in danger of being totally routed.
Suddenly, as quickly as it had begun, it ended. The enemy withdrew for unknown reasons and retreated back into the jungle.
My father returned to the barracks which had taken a mortar hit at one corner. Picking up his watch from his bunk he realized the whole thing had only taken fifteen minutes.
It was the first time I ever knew my father had actually seen combat. It had been over twelve years, yet he remembered. I felt honored to have him share this story with me.
Now you may ask ''what lessons could this man draw from such a story? How does this relate to social policies and activism?''
The answer is, several ways.
First, we as Americans are well known to face untold adversity when we are fighting for a good cause. We are willing to endure being separated from our families, deprive ourselves of even the most basic comforts, and even put our very lives on the line when fighting for something we truly believe in or in the defense of our families. Our national forefathers swore their lives and fortunes to the cause of American freedom. Can we say the same for our causes? Do we believe in them enough to risk everything we have and are to see them through?
Second, we are a nation truly at war, not just in Iraq, but throughout the world. It is mostly a war of beliefs and economics, but a war none the less. Our first line of defense has all but crumbled, giving in to the powers of globalization and corporate profiteering at the expense of our society and communities. Our second line of defense is our non-governmental organizations, our charities, schools, and churches. They are, even as we speak, under seige by organizations and movements that are undermining our American way of life. They have been infiltrated by subversives. Our organizations have been turned into bastions not of knowledge, compassion, or enlightenment, but of multiculturalism at the cost of knowledge, programs that encourage irresponsibility and self-victimization, and citadels of divisivenesss and conflict within our communities. It is up to us, the citizens of the United States, to stamp out these problems. A handful of organizations have fallen back with us in the third and final line of defense. Are we ready to pick up arms to defend what made America great?
Lastly, listening to such stories, we learn to never give up. It would have been easy for my father and his buddies to retreat, leaving the base for the enemy to take, but they were defending their home, what there was of it. Should we be doing any less, simply because all too often the face of the enemy is someone of our own nation? Or that wears the badge of a governmental agency?
Thomas Jefferson once said, "the price of liberty is eternal diligence." To ensure the strength and continuation of America, we must defend it and its founding principles against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If our government has failed us, then it is up to us to change things. If big businesses no longer serve the economic interests of our country, they are no longer worthy of our patronage. If any nonprofit foundations or organizations are taking actions that we disapprove of, then they should no longer benefit from our contributions.
Just as my father and all the other veterans of our conflicts have stood up for American values, so too must we today in our own society. If America falls because of us sticking to our values, then at least we have fought honorably for what we believe in. If it falls because we betray it and/or allow traitors to undermine it, then we are all dishonored and unworthy of anything more than slave collars about our throats.
Ursula K. LeGuin
It is surprising where we as activists get our inspiration sometimes. One of the best sources is from the stories our parents told us as children. Be it tall tales of the big fish in the river to dramatic stories of survival in the face of adversity. The movie ''Big Fish'' gives insight into the sources of such stories.
We have no doubt all heard the stories about our fathers and grandfathers having to walk five miles to school, in the snow, across a river, uphill both ways. But have you ever really listened to the stories they tell? If you have, have you thought about what lessons you could draw from them?
Take my father for example. I have know since I was a young boy that my father was in the Vietnam War and repaired helicopters there. But I learned something new about him my senior year in high school.
He was taking college courses at the time at San Jacinto Junior College in Pasadena, Texas, and was naturally required to complete an english class as part of his curriculum. I recall it was our ''Senior Skip-Day'', but my father needed help in typing up an english assignment. I took him up to the high school where I had access to computers, being a data processing student. I felt so special, having my father ask for my help like that. Little did I realize it was a day that would change my view of my father.
My father and his buddies were relaxing in their barracks, playing cards, talking about their families that they missed, the usual stuff guys thousands of miles from home talk about. Then the alarms sounded, the base was under attack.
My father and his buddies grabbed their weapons and dashed out to their defense positions. His position was located in the third defensive line, the last line before the base would be considered overrun by the enemy.
He could see the enemy approaching the base and hear the bullets flashing past him. The first line was wiped out within moments, left dead or dying as the enemy penetrated. The fighting was so fierce, he didn't have time to think. Round after round was fired from his rifle, trying to stave off the onslaught of Vietnamese soldiers. The second line of defense was forced to fall back, joining my father and his buddies at the third line. The base was in danger of being totally routed.
Suddenly, as quickly as it had begun, it ended. The enemy withdrew for unknown reasons and retreated back into the jungle.
My father returned to the barracks which had taken a mortar hit at one corner. Picking up his watch from his bunk he realized the whole thing had only taken fifteen minutes.
It was the first time I ever knew my father had actually seen combat. It had been over twelve years, yet he remembered. I felt honored to have him share this story with me.
Now you may ask ''what lessons could this man draw from such a story? How does this relate to social policies and activism?''
The answer is, several ways.
First, we as Americans are well known to face untold adversity when we are fighting for a good cause. We are willing to endure being separated from our families, deprive ourselves of even the most basic comforts, and even put our very lives on the line when fighting for something we truly believe in or in the defense of our families. Our national forefathers swore their lives and fortunes to the cause of American freedom. Can we say the same for our causes? Do we believe in them enough to risk everything we have and are to see them through?
Second, we are a nation truly at war, not just in Iraq, but throughout the world. It is mostly a war of beliefs and economics, but a war none the less. Our first line of defense has all but crumbled, giving in to the powers of globalization and corporate profiteering at the expense of our society and communities. Our second line of defense is our non-governmental organizations, our charities, schools, and churches. They are, even as we speak, under seige by organizations and movements that are undermining our American way of life. They have been infiltrated by subversives. Our organizations have been turned into bastions not of knowledge, compassion, or enlightenment, but of multiculturalism at the cost of knowledge, programs that encourage irresponsibility and self-victimization, and citadels of divisivenesss and conflict within our communities. It is up to us, the citizens of the United States, to stamp out these problems. A handful of organizations have fallen back with us in the third and final line of defense. Are we ready to pick up arms to defend what made America great?
Lastly, listening to such stories, we learn to never give up. It would have been easy for my father and his buddies to retreat, leaving the base for the enemy to take, but they were defending their home, what there was of it. Should we be doing any less, simply because all too often the face of the enemy is someone of our own nation? Or that wears the badge of a governmental agency?
Thomas Jefferson once said, "the price of liberty is eternal diligence." To ensure the strength and continuation of America, we must defend it and its founding principles against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If our government has failed us, then it is up to us to change things. If big businesses no longer serve the economic interests of our country, they are no longer worthy of our patronage. If any nonprofit foundations or organizations are taking actions that we disapprove of, then they should no longer benefit from our contributions.
Just as my father and all the other veterans of our conflicts have stood up for American values, so too must we today in our own society. If America falls because of us sticking to our values, then at least we have fought honorably for what we believe in. If it falls because we betray it and/or allow traitors to undermine it, then we are all dishonored and unworthy of anything more than slave collars about our throats.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Loyalty, Honor and Integrity
In my research, I have come across many complaints about the lack of loyalty in employees. This lack of loyalty is cited as a factor in the increased costs to businesses of hiring and training new employees. Due to this, many employers are today requiring a Bachelors degree or higher and/or three to five years work experience in hopes of limiting the amount of training they must do with a new employee.
The net effects of such educational requirements effectively shuts out a majority of newly educated or non-degreed employees who might otherwise be fully qualified to do the job. It has long been acknowledged that many potential employees who have a degree may or may not be ready for the job, being book-smart but not world-smart. It is also acknowledged by many that the lack of a degree does not necessarily mean the potential employee doesn't already have the skills for the job. Add to this the fact that most employers expect these highly educated/skilled employees to begin at the lowest pay rates in the company and one quickly begins seeing employee loyalty being undermined. Why should the employee show loyalty to a company that is disrespecting their skills, education and experience by not paying them livable wages?
For example, a new employee earning $8 an hour would have to work 40 hours normal time, plus 40 hours overtime, just to earn $40,000 a year, slightly over the amount the Colorado State government cites as being necessary for an acceptable quality of life here. This is based on a 2000 hour work year assuming 50 work weeks at 40 hours per week with two weeks unpaid vacation. The majority American workers do not get that many hours and many never qualify for the vacation time. As is my custom, let us turn to the words of our ancestors.
Rule #1 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must be willing to pay a fair wage for them.
Another area of loyalty undermining is the practice of arbitrary and discriminatory promotion and firings. How many times have we heard of an employee getting promoted not based on skill or experience, but on currying favor by taking undue credit for themselves? Or a highly skilled employee getting passed over for promotion or even fired over getting sick and not being able to work for a short time? Or a seasoned, skilled woman getting overlooked for a management position because of her gender or age? Or a loyal white male employee who is highly qualified getting passed over because the company must show themselves diversified by promoting a less qualified woman or minority.
Throw in employers outsourcing good paying jobs to third world countries and laying off thousands of American workers and I think you get the point. Loyalty earns loyalty.
Rule #2 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must treat them fairly and reward their hard work and loyalty.
I read an article recently about a Japanese technology development company. Employees were encouraged to take naps when they needed them and to take activity breaks throughout the day. They must have been doing something right because they had a third the amount of employee sick days as we have in America and about twice the productivity. I'll let you read into that what you will.
Here in America we balk at being required by law to give our employees a couple fifteen minute breaks and a half-hour for lunch each day. Forget about naps, we'll just fire them if they make mistakes due to fatigue. God forbid an employee plays solitaire on our computers, even if it is during their fifteen minute break.
The companies that are more flexible on such issues laud the increase in productivity and profitability, yet most companies still don't get it.
Rule #3 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must never patronize nor underestimate the abilities or willingness of their employees.
In summary, if American corporate society wants American workers to be more loyal, they must be more loyal and respectful to the employees. When we ignore the needs of our workers, disloyalty and betrayal are the least of our worries.
The net effects of such educational requirements effectively shuts out a majority of newly educated or non-degreed employees who might otherwise be fully qualified to do the job. It has long been acknowledged that many potential employees who have a degree may or may not be ready for the job, being book-smart but not world-smart. It is also acknowledged by many that the lack of a degree does not necessarily mean the potential employee doesn't already have the skills for the job. Add to this the fact that most employers expect these highly educated/skilled employees to begin at the lowest pay rates in the company and one quickly begins seeing employee loyalty being undermined. Why should the employee show loyalty to a company that is disrespecting their skills, education and experience by not paying them livable wages?
For example, a new employee earning $8 an hour would have to work 40 hours normal time, plus 40 hours overtime, just to earn $40,000 a year, slightly over the amount the Colorado State government cites as being necessary for an acceptable quality of life here. This is based on a 2000 hour work year assuming 50 work weeks at 40 hours per week with two weeks unpaid vacation. The majority American workers do not get that many hours and many never qualify for the vacation time. As is my custom, let us turn to the words of our ancestors.
A wealthy landowner cannot cultivate and improve his farm without spreading comfort and well-being around him. Rich and abundant crops, a numerous population and a prosperous countryside are the rewards for his efforts.
Antoine Lavoisier
Rule #1 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must be willing to pay a fair wage for them.
Another area of loyalty undermining is the practice of arbitrary and discriminatory promotion and firings. How many times have we heard of an employee getting promoted not based on skill or experience, but on currying favor by taking undue credit for themselves? Or a highly skilled employee getting passed over for promotion or even fired over getting sick and not being able to work for a short time? Or a seasoned, skilled woman getting overlooked for a management position because of her gender or age? Or a loyal white male employee who is highly qualified getting passed over because the company must show themselves diversified by promoting a less qualified woman or minority.
Throw in employers outsourcing good paying jobs to third world countries and laying off thousands of American workers and I think you get the point. Loyalty earns loyalty.
Sometimes, I feel discriminated against, but it does not make me angry. It merely astonishes me. How can any deny themselves the pleasure of my company? It's beyond me.
Zora Neale
Rule #2 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must treat them fairly and reward their hard work and loyalty.
I read an article recently about a Japanese technology development company. Employees were encouraged to take naps when they needed them and to take activity breaks throughout the day. They must have been doing something right because they had a third the amount of employee sick days as we have in America and about twice the productivity. I'll let you read into that what you will.
Here in America we balk at being required by law to give our employees a couple fifteen minute breaks and a half-hour for lunch each day. Forget about naps, we'll just fire them if they make mistakes due to fatigue. God forbid an employee plays solitaire on our computers, even if it is during their fifteen minute break.
The companies that are more flexible on such issues laud the increase in productivity and profitability, yet most companies still don't get it.
Pleasure in the job put perfection in the work.
Aristotle
Rule #3 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must never patronize nor underestimate the abilities or willingness of their employees.
In summary, if American corporate society wants American workers to be more loyal, they must be more loyal and respectful to the employees. When we ignore the needs of our workers, disloyalty and betrayal are the least of our worries.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Supporting the Cause
Al Gore has received a lot of criticism about his relatively new-found role as a 'planetary' advocate, but this week he put his money where his mouth is.
As a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore received a considerable sum of money along with it, but announced Friday (10/12/07) that the money would be given to the Alliance for Climate Protection (www.climateprotect.org), a year-old advocacy group fighting the effects of global warming and climate change.
Mr. Gore is truly setting a good example for any advocate. It would be easy for him to just keep the award money for himself, but he is putting it to good use. The first thing we as advocates must do is prove that we are truly behind our cause. We must be willing to dedicate considerable time campaigning for and be willing to financially support our cause.
It is not cheap to support a cause if you truly want to make a difference in the world. In the United States, even establishing your nonprofit/non-governmental status can cost 1000 USD or more. Add to this the expense of registering for donation solicitation with one or more states, the cost of organizational material publishing, and the cost of fundraising postage and it adds up very quickly.
If you have financial constraints, there is an option to get your project going without incurring this sizable expense. It is called a 'fiscal sponsorship' and can allow you to start your project by negotiating the sponsorship with an existing organization. In essence, the sponsoring organization would agree to accept accounting and management responsibilities over the project in exchange for a (usually) small percentage of revenues the project attracts. By entering into a fiscal sponsorship agreement, your small organization might also be able to attract foundation funding that it might otherwise not have access to before registering as an independent organization.
There are several nationally and internationally known organizations who act as fiscal sponsors, such as the United Way, but many of them require that you have a one to five year previous track record as an unregistered organization before they will accept your new organization or project.
Even beyond the idea of a fiscal sponsor, there are other avenues to potentially fund a fledgling organization. Fundraising-Ideas.org (http://www.fundraising-ideas.org) has an incredible list of creative fundraising ideas that small organizations can use. DIY Fundraising (http://www.diyfundraising.com) also has a great list. You can get some additional ideas and tips from the Squidoo Fundraising Lens (http://www.squidoo.com/diyfundraising).
As a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore received a considerable sum of money along with it, but announced Friday (10/12/07) that the money would be given to the Alliance for Climate Protection (www.climateprotect.org), a year-old advocacy group fighting the effects of global warming and climate change.
Mr. Gore is truly setting a good example for any advocate. It would be easy for him to just keep the award money for himself, but he is putting it to good use. The first thing we as advocates must do is prove that we are truly behind our cause. We must be willing to dedicate considerable time campaigning for and be willing to financially support our cause.
It is not cheap to support a cause if you truly want to make a difference in the world. In the United States, even establishing your nonprofit/non-governmental status can cost 1000 USD or more. Add to this the expense of registering for donation solicitation with one or more states, the cost of organizational material publishing, and the cost of fundraising postage and it adds up very quickly.
If you have financial constraints, there is an option to get your project going without incurring this sizable expense. It is called a 'fiscal sponsorship' and can allow you to start your project by negotiating the sponsorship with an existing organization. In essence, the sponsoring organization would agree to accept accounting and management responsibilities over the project in exchange for a (usually) small percentage of revenues the project attracts. By entering into a fiscal sponsorship agreement, your small organization might also be able to attract foundation funding that it might otherwise not have access to before registering as an independent organization.
There are several nationally and internationally known organizations who act as fiscal sponsors, such as the United Way, but many of them require that you have a one to five year previous track record as an unregistered organization before they will accept your new organization or project.
Even beyond the idea of a fiscal sponsor, there are other avenues to potentially fund a fledgling organization. Fundraising-Ideas.org (http://www.fundraising-ideas.org) has an incredible list of creative fundraising ideas that small organizations can use. DIY Fundraising (http://www.diyfundraising.com) also has a great list. You can get some additional ideas and tips from the Squidoo Fundraising Lens (http://www.squidoo.com/diyfundraising).
Friday, October 12, 2007
Dude, Where's My Country?
When I started this blog, I had genuine concerns that we, as a nation, were bordering on becoming a de facto fascist nation. Little did I realize that it has already happened.
President Bush has, over the course of his presidency, signed over 700 new laws, and almost every time has included a presidential statement to the effect that he will follow the new law only if he thinks it is constitutional (regardless of what the Supreme Court says) and only if it does not impede his agenda for making the United States safer from terrorism.
The Brady bill, signed years ago, already made it possible for the government to track every gun owner in the nation and to deny gun ownership to anyone the Federal government deems undesirable. Several states have also made it a felony to militarily train yourself or to belong to a paramilitary organization not sanctioned by the state or Federal governments, whether you train with them or not.
The Federal government passed the Real ID Act two years ago, not by virtue of its merits, but by hiding it in a bill to reauthorize budgeting for the Department of Justice. Add to this the Federal courts' rejection of our long accepted right not to be required to carry an identification document and the increasing arrogance of and detainment of citizens by our law enforcement community, it may not be too long before someone with a hat and overcoat steps up to you and says, "Papers, please," just like Nazi Germany in the movies.
Am I over-reacting? I think not. There have been countless cases in the past five years especially where citizens have been arrested for refusing to show identification when arbitrarily demanded by law enforcement officers. After the Oklahoma City bombing, all the members of an otherwise peaceful paramilitary group in Colorado were arrested, most for simply being associated with the group, some for merely being on their mailing list. Several Arab-Americans have been arrested in the past six years, detained for months, subjected to brutal interrogations. Some of them have been released without so much as an apology, others are still MIA. Congress recently passed a law requiring the president to cooperate with Congressional investigations, a law which the president signed, then summarily declared he was going to ignore with or without the Supreme Court declaring whether it was constitutional or not.
Add to all that the administration's labeling of anyone daring to oppose them as unAmerican or potential insurgents and the governments long standing position that Federal laws supercede state laws, especially when the state laws seek to protect the rights of American citizens, and the recipe is almost complete for the United States to become the Fourth Reich.
To understand why I say these things are evidence, let's look at the typical characteristics of a fascist society. A fascist state is one where the needs of the state are viewed as outweighing the rights and needs of individuals and local communities. The following points are symptomatic of a fascist state:
#1 - Powerful and continuing nationalism
Fascists try to wrap themselves in symbols of the nation and encourage others to do the same. Flags end up everywhere and anyone who resists this trend is looked upon with suspicion of seditious tendencies. In the United States, this comes in the form of politicians rallying people behind ideas like a Constitutional Amendment making flag burning or desecration a Federal offense.
#2 - Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Read "approval of torture, extended imprisonment without charges, and denial of habeas corpus" in this one. All things our current administration is guilty of. Might as well throw in President Bush's effectively ignoring our right of representation by ignoring the laws passed by our duly elected Congress here, too.
#3 - Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Okay, this one is blatant. Let me think ... Iranians, terrorists, latent communists, sex offenders (all of them), anyone opposing the administration's policies, anyone who objects to the war in Iraq, and anyone wearing tennis shoes on planes. Oh, and let's not forget anyone who dares spank their kids for misbehaving.
#4 - Supremacy of the Military
What does that mean? In part it means the build-up of military forces and weapons at the expense of social support services, especially the cutting of funding for them that is diverted into military spending. Plenty of that going on these days.
#5 - Rampant Sexism
This includes "strengthening" gender roles, discouragement of alternate lifestyles including homosexuality, bisexuality, and BDSM, which the administration all considers deviant or asocial behaviors. None of that going on you say? What about the push for gender-specific education and gender-segregation in education? Or the push to outlaw same-sex unions? Pink and black triangles anyone?
#6 - Controlled Mass Media
Let's see here, control over the media ...
Shall I go on?
#7 - Obsession with National Security
Does this really need any explanation or examples? Look at today's newspaper. Bet there is a story related to this issue again today.
#8 - Religion and Government are Intertwined
Officially they deny this has happened, but many years ago the Supreme Court recognized humanism as fitting the legal definition of a religion. Humanism is, for all intents, the refusal of religious icons as inspiring the concepts of right and wrong in favor of humans themselves embodying such concepts. Just look at how atheists have influenced our social policies over the past 40 years.
#9 - Corporate Power is Protected
Okay, several points on this one:
No doubt there is more, but I am getting tired here.
#10 - Labor Power is Suppressed
Herein lies our dearly departed unions ... and any rights we had as corporate employees. (Walmart again, anyone?)
#11 - Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Okay, one side of this is obvious, the other, well, almost as obvious. On one hand we have multiple professors and teachers loosing their jobs or getting arrested for politically incorrect views and on the other we have "art" that insults the meaning of the word, entering into the realm of total obscenity in many cases while true, meaningful art languishes near death for funding.
#12 - Obsession with Crime and Punishment
How long have our politicians cried out every election "I'm tougher on crime than my opponent is!" Our jails and prisons are bursting at the seams and our leaders are all-too-ready to put more in them.
#13 - Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Don't get me started on this one, you will be reading for the next three days.
#14 - Fraudulent Elections
Want some real insights into this issue? Read Arianna Huffington's "How to Overthrow the Government" and you will learn more than you want to know, I promise you.
Most lists like this stop here, but I am going to add one more to give you something to think about.
#15 - Charismatic/Popular Leader/Dictator
When Hitler and Mussolini came to power, they did so on the backs of peasants and down-trodden citizens whom they wooed with promises of a better future under their "benign" rule. I think this is the only thing missing before the United States becomes totally fascist.
From here, I leave you to think about all this, but first, I shall give you some sources for additional information.
First, Old American Century is the source of the original list I used in writing this blog entry. They have many links to support articles and information. I highly recommend them.
And second, a wonderful article from CommonDreams.org, The Rise of Fascism in America
And lastly, The Dawning of Fascism in America, an article from SpiritOne.com.
As our good Lord said more than once, "He that hath ears, let him hear."
President Bush has, over the course of his presidency, signed over 700 new laws, and almost every time has included a presidential statement to the effect that he will follow the new law only if he thinks it is constitutional (regardless of what the Supreme Court says) and only if it does not impede his agenda for making the United States safer from terrorism.
The Brady bill, signed years ago, already made it possible for the government to track every gun owner in the nation and to deny gun ownership to anyone the Federal government deems undesirable. Several states have also made it a felony to militarily train yourself or to belong to a paramilitary organization not sanctioned by the state or Federal governments, whether you train with them or not.
The Federal government passed the Real ID Act two years ago, not by virtue of its merits, but by hiding it in a bill to reauthorize budgeting for the Department of Justice. Add to this the Federal courts' rejection of our long accepted right not to be required to carry an identification document and the increasing arrogance of and detainment of citizens by our law enforcement community, it may not be too long before someone with a hat and overcoat steps up to you and says, "Papers, please," just like Nazi Germany in the movies.
Am I over-reacting? I think not. There have been countless cases in the past five years especially where citizens have been arrested for refusing to show identification when arbitrarily demanded by law enforcement officers. After the Oklahoma City bombing, all the members of an otherwise peaceful paramilitary group in Colorado were arrested, most for simply being associated with the group, some for merely being on their mailing list. Several Arab-Americans have been arrested in the past six years, detained for months, subjected to brutal interrogations. Some of them have been released without so much as an apology, others are still MIA. Congress recently passed a law requiring the president to cooperate with Congressional investigations, a law which the president signed, then summarily declared he was going to ignore with or without the Supreme Court declaring whether it was constitutional or not.
Add to all that the administration's labeling of anyone daring to oppose them as unAmerican or potential insurgents and the governments long standing position that Federal laws supercede state laws, especially when the state laws seek to protect the rights of American citizens, and the recipe is almost complete for the United States to become the Fourth Reich.
To understand why I say these things are evidence, let's look at the typical characteristics of a fascist society. A fascist state is one where the needs of the state are viewed as outweighing the rights and needs of individuals and local communities. The following points are symptomatic of a fascist state:
#1 - Powerful and continuing nationalism
Fascists try to wrap themselves in symbols of the nation and encourage others to do the same. Flags end up everywhere and anyone who resists this trend is looked upon with suspicion of seditious tendencies. In the United States, this comes in the form of politicians rallying people behind ideas like a Constitutional Amendment making flag burning or desecration a Federal offense.
#2 - Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Read "approval of torture, extended imprisonment without charges, and denial of habeas corpus" in this one. All things our current administration is guilty of. Might as well throw in President Bush's effectively ignoring our right of representation by ignoring the laws passed by our duly elected Congress here, too.
#3 - Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Okay, this one is blatant. Let me think ... Iranians, terrorists, latent communists, sex offenders (all of them), anyone opposing the administration's policies, anyone who objects to the war in Iraq, and anyone wearing tennis shoes on planes. Oh, and let's not forget anyone who dares spank their kids for misbehaving.
#4 - Supremacy of the Military
What does that mean? In part it means the build-up of military forces and weapons at the expense of social support services, especially the cutting of funding for them that is diverted into military spending. Plenty of that going on these days.
#5 - Rampant Sexism
This includes "strengthening" gender roles, discouragement of alternate lifestyles including homosexuality, bisexuality, and BDSM, which the administration all considers deviant or asocial behaviors. None of that going on you say? What about the push for gender-specific education and gender-segregation in education? Or the push to outlaw same-sex unions? Pink and black triangles anyone?
#6 - Controlled Mass Media
Let's see here, control over the media ...
- Imprisonment of reporters for refusing to divulge sources
- Governmental censorship of key events by failure to make public notices
- Illegal propoganda aimed at American citizens
- Official denial of official actions
- Arrest of reporters who "get too close" to the truth
Shall I go on?
#7 - Obsession with National Security
Does this really need any explanation or examples? Look at today's newspaper. Bet there is a story related to this issue again today.
#8 - Religion and Government are Intertwined
Officially they deny this has happened, but many years ago the Supreme Court recognized humanism as fitting the legal definition of a religion. Humanism is, for all intents, the refusal of religious icons as inspiring the concepts of right and wrong in favor of humans themselves embodying such concepts. Just look at how atheists have influenced our social policies over the past 40 years.
#9 - Corporate Power is Protected
Okay, several points on this one:
- Corporate welfare (bailing out bankrupt corporations, subsidies, etc.)
- Immunity to Constitutional provisions (freedom of speech/privacy)
- Deregulation of industries (lowering safety and other expectations)
- Tax breaks of shipping jobs overseas
- Ignoring of anti-trust and monopolistic action laws (wanna go to Walmart anyone?)
No doubt there is more, but I am getting tired here.
#10 - Labor Power is Suppressed
Herein lies our dearly departed unions ... and any rights we had as corporate employees. (Walmart again, anyone?)
#11 - Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Okay, one side of this is obvious, the other, well, almost as obvious. On one hand we have multiple professors and teachers loosing their jobs or getting arrested for politically incorrect views and on the other we have "art" that insults the meaning of the word, entering into the realm of total obscenity in many cases while true, meaningful art languishes near death for funding.
#12 - Obsession with Crime and Punishment
How long have our politicians cried out every election "I'm tougher on crime than my opponent is!" Our jails and prisons are bursting at the seams and our leaders are all-too-ready to put more in them.
#13 - Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Don't get me started on this one, you will be reading for the next three days.
#14 - Fraudulent Elections
Want some real insights into this issue? Read Arianna Huffington's "How to Overthrow the Government" and you will learn more than you want to know, I promise you.
Most lists like this stop here, but I am going to add one more to give you something to think about.
#15 - Charismatic/Popular Leader/Dictator
When Hitler and Mussolini came to power, they did so on the backs of peasants and down-trodden citizens whom they wooed with promises of a better future under their "benign" rule. I think this is the only thing missing before the United States becomes totally fascist.
From here, I leave you to think about all this, but first, I shall give you some sources for additional information.
First, Old American Century is the source of the original list I used in writing this blog entry. They have many links to support articles and information. I highly recommend them.
And second, a wonderful article from CommonDreams.org, The Rise of Fascism in America
And lastly, The Dawning of Fascism in America, an article from SpiritOne.com.
As our good Lord said more than once, "He that hath ears, let him hear."
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Hope for Expansion
I have sent several invites to people I respect in hopes that they will join me in publishing articles to the Social Policy Center.
Today I have invited Ernest Callenbach, author of Ecotopia, Ecotopia Emerging, Ecology: A Pocket Guide, Living Cheaply With Style, Bring Back the Buffalo,Humphrey the Wayward Whale (with Christine Leefeldt) and A Citizen Legislator (with Michael Phillips). Mr. Callenbach is a wonderful, intelligent man that I sincerely hope will accept my invitation to participate in the Social Policy Center.
I am also attempting to invite Joel Garreau, author of The Nine Nations of North America, Radical Evolution, and Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. Mr. Garreau is also a wonderful, intelligent man that I feel would make a wonderful contributor to the Social Policy Center
The third person I am trying to get on board is Arianna Huffington, political commentist and author of multiple books, not the least of which was How To Overthrow the Government, a book I have just finished reading and was impressed enough by it to include Mrs. Huffington in my invitations to the Social Policy Center.
If any of them are reading this blog to check it out before responding, I will state my solemn oath now that I will never censor a contributing author. I want your views and ideas to come through so that we can develop a dialog with the public about the truly important issues that are all too frequently ignored by mainstream politics.
Today I have invited Ernest Callenbach, author of Ecotopia, Ecotopia Emerging, Ecology: A Pocket Guide, Living Cheaply With Style, Bring Back the Buffalo,Humphrey the Wayward Whale (with Christine Leefeldt) and A Citizen Legislator (with Michael Phillips). Mr. Callenbach is a wonderful, intelligent man that I sincerely hope will accept my invitation to participate in the Social Policy Center.
I am also attempting to invite Joel Garreau, author of The Nine Nations of North America, Radical Evolution, and Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. Mr. Garreau is also a wonderful, intelligent man that I feel would make a wonderful contributor to the Social Policy Center
The third person I am trying to get on board is Arianna Huffington, political commentist and author of multiple books, not the least of which was How To Overthrow the Government, a book I have just finished reading and was impressed enough by it to include Mrs. Huffington in my invitations to the Social Policy Center.
If any of them are reading this blog to check it out before responding, I will state my solemn oath now that I will never censor a contributing author. I want your views and ideas to come through so that we can develop a dialog with the public about the truly important issues that are all too frequently ignored by mainstream politics.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Barnes Business College
The (non)Education That Keeps on Giving.
Over 20 years ago I made several major mistakes.
One was getting into trouble with the law, a mistake I am paying for to this day because so many potential employers slam the door in your face if you have ever had a felony conviction.
Another was signing up to attend Barnes Business College which is now defunct. Ironic, a business college that went bankrupt. I don't even bother to tell most people I ever went there out of sheer embarrassment.
Anyway, when I signed up for Barnes I was given many sweet-sounding promises. Full accreditation that would be transferrable to higher schools. To sum it up, a pack of salesman lies. I was just out of high school and was very naive. I started classes okay, but then I met a young lady with whom I ended up in serious legal trouble.
About half way through my training at Barnes, I was arrested and held in jail for almost six months. When I was released on probation, I was told by my probation officer that I would not be allowed out of my house past nine at night for the first six months of my probation unless it was for work. No sleep-overs at a friends, no nightclubs or concerts, and no night school until after the six months was over.
I finished the six months of intensive supervision totally without incident. The day after it was over and I was finally on regular probation, I contacted Barnes Business College to get back into classes as soon as possible. That was when I was given the bad news.
Because I had been out of classes for more than six months, Barnes Business College had closed out my contract with them, supposedly giving a refund of the unused tuition back to the bank. The problem with that was they also claimed I owed them close to $1,000 that I would have to pay before they would even talk about me getting back into classes. In addition, I would have to pay the new tuition rates that had increased by 20-25% just days before I called them.
So, here I was, unemployed and unable to complete my education to get a decent paying job in the first place. Over the years, my student loan with the bank sat collecting interest because of my inability to pay.
Finally last year the bank turned the loan over to the Department of Education and I began receiving collection calls, first from a company called Windham. I tried repeatedly to explain that by this time I was on total disability and was receiving only SSI as income. They kept insisting that I would have to pay at least 20% of the loan before we could even talk about rehabilitating the loan. By that time, 20% was like $2,000. No way in hell I had that kind of money and being on SSI there wasn't any bank that would lend me the money. After about two months, they finally took some information from me about my disability and told me I would hear from the Department of Education shortly about possibly getting the loan discharged due to my disability. That was like nine months ago.
Finally, I get a call from a new collection agency called Progressive starting the whole collection process over again last week. This time they started claiming they could seize my SSI payments if I didn't start paying at least 1/6th of my income to them immediately. Understand that on SSI the payment is currently $623 a month. 1/6th of that would be equal to half my food budget for the month. Because of my income and assumed expenses, food stamps would only give me $32 a month, even with me paying over $100 a month on my student loan. I went round and round with the collector for almost a half-hour over the phone about this, trying to get him to see reason to no avail. He insisted that I would have to make such payments for at least 9 months before I could even apply for a hardship consideration. Reluctantly I told him, before hanging up, that I would see what I could do.
Then I called the Department of Education.
I was informed that I would have to fill out a form to request discharge of the loan based on total and permanent disability and was told it would be 10 to 14 days before the form would arrive. Once the form was in (after being signed by my doctor) then it would be reviewed by them for approval. Never mind the fact I have been receiving SSI for the past four years after going through hell to prove I was disabled in the first place, they want confirmation from my doctor. Even then, it would only be a tenative discharge. The final discharge could take up to three years to finally be approved, during which time, as I understand it, they would monitor my disability to see if I improved enough to go back to work.
In the meantime, any tax returns I might be eligible to receive would be confiscated by them. Fine, let 'em. Maybe they will get an idea of how little I have been earning each year for the past twenty years because of this. Hard to pay $80-100 a month when you are earning minimum wage because you have a half-finished, worthless education.
Anyway, to top it all off, I discover that they can not take my SSI payments. Seems the Department of Education representatives and collectors need a lesson in Federal law. According to 31 CFR 285.4(2)(b), SSI payments are exempt from seizure. Section 285.4 is entitled 'Offset of Federal benefit payments to collect past-due, legally enforceable nontax debt' and describes various provisions and definitions that regulate what Federal benefits departments like the Department of Education can seize to pay things like defaulted student loans. The relevant portion reads:
There are two interesting points here. One is that SSI payments are not included in the definition of a seizable Federal benefit payment. The second is, even if it were, then the limitation requirement would come into play. Guess what. SSI payments are less than the limitation amount in the first place and would thus not be touchable anyway.
Federal bureaucrats would do well to educate themselves on what the laws that apply to their activities actually say. Perhaps it would make them look less like heartless bastards.
One was getting into trouble with the law, a mistake I am paying for to this day because so many potential employers slam the door in your face if you have ever had a felony conviction.
Another was signing up to attend Barnes Business College which is now defunct. Ironic, a business college that went bankrupt. I don't even bother to tell most people I ever went there out of sheer embarrassment.
Anyway, when I signed up for Barnes I was given many sweet-sounding promises. Full accreditation that would be transferrable to higher schools. To sum it up, a pack of salesman lies. I was just out of high school and was very naive. I started classes okay, but then I met a young lady with whom I ended up in serious legal trouble.
About half way through my training at Barnes, I was arrested and held in jail for almost six months. When I was released on probation, I was told by my probation officer that I would not be allowed out of my house past nine at night for the first six months of my probation unless it was for work. No sleep-overs at a friends, no nightclubs or concerts, and no night school until after the six months was over.
I finished the six months of intensive supervision totally without incident. The day after it was over and I was finally on regular probation, I contacted Barnes Business College to get back into classes as soon as possible. That was when I was given the bad news.
Because I had been out of classes for more than six months, Barnes Business College had closed out my contract with them, supposedly giving a refund of the unused tuition back to the bank. The problem with that was they also claimed I owed them close to $1,000 that I would have to pay before they would even talk about me getting back into classes. In addition, I would have to pay the new tuition rates that had increased by 20-25% just days before I called them.
So, here I was, unemployed and unable to complete my education to get a decent paying job in the first place. Over the years, my student loan with the bank sat collecting interest because of my inability to pay.
Finally last year the bank turned the loan over to the Department of Education and I began receiving collection calls, first from a company called Windham. I tried repeatedly to explain that by this time I was on total disability and was receiving only SSI as income. They kept insisting that I would have to pay at least 20% of the loan before we could even talk about rehabilitating the loan. By that time, 20% was like $2,000. No way in hell I had that kind of money and being on SSI there wasn't any bank that would lend me the money. After about two months, they finally took some information from me about my disability and told me I would hear from the Department of Education shortly about possibly getting the loan discharged due to my disability. That was like nine months ago.
Finally, I get a call from a new collection agency called Progressive starting the whole collection process over again last week. This time they started claiming they could seize my SSI payments if I didn't start paying at least 1/6th of my income to them immediately. Understand that on SSI the payment is currently $623 a month. 1/6th of that would be equal to half my food budget for the month. Because of my income and assumed expenses, food stamps would only give me $32 a month, even with me paying over $100 a month on my student loan. I went round and round with the collector for almost a half-hour over the phone about this, trying to get him to see reason to no avail. He insisted that I would have to make such payments for at least 9 months before I could even apply for a hardship consideration. Reluctantly I told him, before hanging up, that I would see what I could do.
Then I called the Department of Education.
I was informed that I would have to fill out a form to request discharge of the loan based on total and permanent disability and was told it would be 10 to 14 days before the form would arrive. Once the form was in (after being signed by my doctor) then it would be reviewed by them for approval. Never mind the fact I have been receiving SSI for the past four years after going through hell to prove I was disabled in the first place, they want confirmation from my doctor. Even then, it would only be a tenative discharge. The final discharge could take up to three years to finally be approved, during which time, as I understand it, they would monitor my disability to see if I improved enough to go back to work.
In the meantime, any tax returns I might be eligible to receive would be confiscated by them. Fine, let 'em. Maybe they will get an idea of how little I have been earning each year for the past twenty years because of this. Hard to pay $80-100 a month when you are earning minimum wage because you have a half-finished, worthless education.
Anyway, to top it all off, I discover that they can not take my SSI payments. Seems the Department of Education representatives and collectors need a lesson in Federal law. According to 31 CFR 285.4(2)(b), SSI payments are exempt from seizure. Section 285.4 is entitled 'Offset of Federal benefit payments to collect past-due, legally enforceable nontax debt' and describes various provisions and definitions that regulate what Federal benefits departments like the Department of Education can seize to pay things like defaulted student loans. The relevant portion reads:
Covered benefit payment means a Federal benefit payment payable to an individual under the Social Security Act (other than SSI payments), part B of the Black Lung Benefits Act, or any law administered by the Railroad Retirement Board (other than payments that such Board determines to be tier 2 benefits). The amount of the covered benefit payment payable to a debtor for purposes of this section will be the amount after reduction or deduction required under the laws authorizing the program. Reductions to recover benefit overpayments are excluded from the covered benefit payment when calculating amounts available for offset.
There are two interesting points here. One is that SSI payments are not included in the definition of a seizable Federal benefit payment. The second is, even if it were, then the limitation requirement would come into play. Guess what. SSI payments are less than the limitation amount in the first place and would thus not be touchable anyway.
Federal bureaucrats would do well to educate themselves on what the laws that apply to their activities actually say. Perhaps it would make them look less like heartless bastards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)