A question about policy...

Let's preface with acknowledging that I don't have the answers. And I'm neither endorsing nor condemning (per se...) any of the following. I'm simply trying to look at the current state, compare to the proposed future state, and ask what I think are relatively common sense questions...

So on the one hand, we have some calls for a raise in the federal minimum wage to $15 and hour. Admittedly I'm not an economist, so I'm not an authority on predicting negative outcomes. So let's just go with the loudest detractor: an increase in income will create an uptick in purchasing, which will lower supply (less stuff on the shelves), increase demand (people still want the stuff), and drive up prices. In essence, more money in the economy=higher prices for everything. Fair enough.  Right off the bat, I feel compelled to ask why supply and demand never seems to go the other way.  Prices always seem to rise, but never really fall. Sure, a couple cents on gas here and there, but I don't think the economic doomsday mentality is worried about pennies...

The other big issue people seem to have with a higher minimum wage is that "minimum wage jobs aren't meant to provide a living wage". As one commentor put it, minimum wage jobs are intended to inspire people to work harder and better their position. (Of course, I feel as though I've been fairly open regarding my perspective on this mentality - A Self-Made Man, Just Get a Job, I think I can I think I can etc.)

Okay, either way, let's just keep that argument in mind, that if some people have more money, everyone has to spend more.

Now, let's change gears. Recent presidential candidates have been (loudly) voicing immigration reform, up to and including deporting everyone. A pinnacle argument they make is that these people, this "other", are taking not only our federal support money (read: welfare and subsidized housing), but "stealing" jobs that would otherwise have "hardworking" Americans.

[Just a quick aside on the "other" that's living off the system: funny that the very crowd these candidates are trying to incite with their rhetoric about the sin of handouts are, well...here's the top five articles that address that idea. Since I'm not sure about copyright and such, they're listed generically: first article, second, third, fourth, fifth]

Beside the point.

Anyway, okay, let's roll with the premise. Now, they also admit that these "undocumented workers" have these jobs because employers can pay them less. Five bucks an hour, twelve hours a day, seven days a week with no overtime or benefits? I hate to say it, but that's just the free market at work. Again, beside the point.

So now we can put American citizens into these jobs.with the full protections afforded them (check out Imposed Regulations if you're wondering my thoughts on true free market capitalism. However, the very idea that the same people are advocating imposing more rules on employers while simultaneously touting the free market is just hilarious to me).

Again, beside the point.

So now these workers make at least minimum wage, OT after 40 hours, benefits, maternity leave, the potential to *gasp* unionize... So, wouldn't, um, this, erm, add money into the consumer's pocket? In effect, wouldn't this do the same thing increasing the minimum wage?

Now again, I'm not an authority on the subject. I don't have any answers, only questions.

The Spirit vs. the Letter

Found this from February 2013:

Which is more important: the spirit or the letter of the law?  On one hand, laws and regulations have been created to protect and serve citizens to the greatest extent allowed and based on the knowledge, beliefs, and traditions of the time they were written.  On the other hand, and especially regarding laws with significant gray area, as well as those that pose a greater impact on the needs of the few vs. the beliefs of the many, don't we have the responsibility as citizens to uphold mutually-beneficial regulations and disregard those that have become out-dated?

In the paper this morning, an editorial sparked my interest in the topic.  A school district had recently adopted a policy regarding the residency of administrators, requiring they live within the district.  This formalized a practice for the past several years, and the school board decided to continue granting a waiver to allow one principal to live outside the area.  Now, apparently while discussing it, the superintendent had raised three points for discussion: the importance of administrator residency, the importance of continuity in leadership, and the importance of honoring contractual obligations.

With that in mind, one board member opted to write a personal editorial, that in his eyes, the last point was the most important, and voted against the waiver on the grounds that living in the district was the rule, and rules must be followed.  Indeed, another letter was written to the paper, expressing her disappointment that more board members didn't vote against the waiver: "I am disappointed that only three School Board members showed commitment, integrity, and knowledge to vote based on the rules in place.  This is leadership.  These are the kind of people that are truly responsible..."

Personally, I find the views of these editorial-writers to be short-sighted and far too rigid to allow for growth and progress.  Neither address the situation of the school, the performance of the teachers or students, of the relationship the administrator has within the community.  Their over-emphasis on the letter of law ignores a significant amount of data necessary to make an informed decision.  

As we weigh any option prior to making a decision, aren't we almost required to consider all aspects?  Don't we have that responsibility, specifically when our decision affects people beyond ourselves, to look at the larger picture?  Now, I could rattle off a laundry list of past examples of the letter of the law becoming out of touch, if not downright immoral, but I think this one example is enough to keep our attention on the issue at hand: do we look at what is written or consider if it's right?

I found this quote last week, and I think I'll be using it more and more:

Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it's the only one you have.
-Emile Chartier

Changing History

This story came across the news this morning:

http://time.com/3428238/denver-students-history-curriculum-respect-for-authority-jefferson-county-school-board/

The school board proposed editing history texts to only highlight the positive aspects of American history and eliminate "social strife".  Frankly I'm speechless.  Is it fair for me to say that one simply cannot pick and choose which pieces of history to teach?  How can we develop an understanding of how we got to where we are now (for better or worse) if we omit fundamental elements?  History is not a string of unrelated occurrences.  It is an interconnected web - things don't just happen.  And throughout history that social strife, civil disobedience, and outright aggression has, ultimately, affected the greatest changes.  I would also encourage you to check out the Twitter feed.  Some of those are hilarious.  

*I'm choosing to move past the clear connection to all the historical examples of the government trying to alter history.  It's certainly not a new phenomenon so hopefully we just won't have to teach that to kids and no one will be the wiser....

Apparently because I'm tall...

I deserve less consideration.  According to a (relatively) recent article in the New York Times regarding the airline-seat-reclining-fiasco not too long ago, tall people shouldn't be thought of as any different than short - excuse me: "vertically challenged" - people.  And I would never argue that point.  As a vertically gifted person (6'6"), I've long accepted that, contrary to the American Myth, I cannot do whatever I set my mind to.  I will never be an undercover espionage agent (I don't blend).  I will never be a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force nor an astronaut (height restrictions) nor a very good jockey (unless I'm on a Clydesdale taking a break from pulling the Budweiser wagon) .  I will always be asked "how's the weather up there?". I will never excel at hide-and-seek.  I will forever be self-conscious on the dance floor because I can say without a doubt that everyone will be keeping close tabs on the gargantuan flailing around for fear for their personal safety.  These are things I've learned to live with.  I know.  The trials and tribulations my people face.

But in the article, the author cites statistics that we shouldn't really complain.  After all, tall people earn more each year and have more sexual partners than our "average" brethren. Ergo, I mean, obviously, we don't deserve the same consideration; indeed, having some dude gain 3 inches of "comfort" compared to my suddenly feeling like I'm in a toy version of a Geo Metro is almost justified!  Who cares that I can't walk down the aisle of a plane without hitting my head on every damn thing around. Or have to walk sideways because my shoulders don't fit between the luggage racks.  Or not even be able to put my tray table down without it sitting on my knees regardless (always a good test of character when the guy in front of you reclines and sitting next to you is a socially-conscious individual who lets you use a corner of their table so you don't have to worry about gravity defeating your flimsy cup of ginger ale). But no, we have it coming.  I see that now.  It's karma for the life decision I made years ago to be tall.  Damn my short-shortsightedness!   

Don't worry though, the author does go on to point out that he wouldn't recline if he was paid to do so.  Quoting another author, he asks if his kind were such "monsters", why is no one willing to pay him to stop?  And, admittedly, even as a relatively intelligent individual, I find myself dumbfounded by this argument.  That someone could even dream of opening that door.  Because let's stop for a second and think about the vast array and extremes of applications for the logic that "if we don't want someone doing something, we should pay them not to".  I hope you're there by now. I mean, he might as well go on to consult our corrections programs.  Turns out we've had it wrong all along!

In essence, instead of bribing people to be decent, why not just be decent?  This is a very simplistic example, but let's see if he could follow it: if you know that people don't like the seat in front of them reclining, wouldn't it appropriate to either a.) not recline the stupid damn seat or b.) have the common decency to at least turn around and ask?  It's just a seat.  Don't be a jerk.  It's not hard.

Unless of course the person behind you has it coming.  Like if their tall.

I think I can, I think I can, I think I can...

As the relatively recent "psychological" movement of Positive Thinking would have you believe, positive thinking will bring one wealth, friends, and wealth.  That simply thinking happy thoughts will help you ace that job interview, land the perfect partner, win friends, sway any argument, and generally come out a winner.  Apparently, if I wake up every morning with a daily affirmation that "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, by golly, people like me!", I can land whatever I want!  If I repeatedly tell myself "I will get the job, I will get the job, I will get the job", and perhaps click my heels together three times, I, in fact, WILL get the job!

What a load of hooey.  Positive Thinking seems to be very based on the idea of getting more stuff.  A bigger house.  A better job.  More money.  More happiness.  All without reflecting on and being content with what you have.  Ambition isn't a four-letter word, but a continual battle to acquire more stuff eventually hits a roadblock, and that's where we get down on ourselves.  Coincidentally enough, such a movement really provides another opportunistic avenue to lay fault squarely on YOU for many systemic issues keeping people behind.  Now, I'm not saying that all bad things that happen to a person are outside of their control, or that people shouldn't take responsibility for the circumstances in which they may find themselves.  I'm simply of the mind that saying someone isn't wealthy because they didn't want it enough, or because they didn't believe in themselves.  Not happy?  Not successful?  It's YOUR fault.  All your fault.  You should be ashamed.

And, see, I don't buy it.  I am absolutely sure that people do have a say in their future, that each one of us has the ability to influence the outcomes of daily circumstances.  But I don't think that simply thinking happy thoughts will get you there as some would have you believe.  Rather, I believe that by closely monitoring our perspective of daily hurdles, we can essentially affect our attitude, which in turn may potentially lessen the burden.

"Influence" vs. "Manipulation"

I suppose, at the very least, if I can't talk about anything of use, I may as well point you in the direction of something, anything, interesting: something I have been reading up a bit more on in what precious little spare time I have is Neuro-Linguistic Programming.  A fast becoming favorite of mine of late, this entire field appears to be nothing more than not-so-thinly-veiled manipulation.  It's a funny to think about, coming up quite a bit in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, the subtle, possibly non-existent difference between "motivation", "influence", "manipulation", and "coercion".   Covey, for instance, often speaks of the positive effects of the "influence" the 7 Habits can have over you personally as well as the people around you, but often includes examples that run against a Habit, summing those up as "manipulation", as if the Light Side of the Force puts these into practice in one way while the Dark Side does the same thing, but since their hearts aren't pure, it brings a completely different connotation.  Just the entire concept of "coercion" is hilarious to me - teachers coerce students to do well, using stickers, candy, and positive and negative rewards (a positive reward is offering a good thing, a negative reward would be removing a bad thing - similarly a negative punishment is taking away a good thing and a positive punishment is introducing a bad thing...get it?), but we never call that "coercion".  We've all seen enough bully-prevention shticks to know that "power in numbers" can keep kids safer because bullies probably won't go against a crowd...but explain to me exactly how this is different than controlled peer pressure?  "Don't do it again or I'll call home!", "Watch it or you'll get sent to the principals office!" (alright, these may be a bit outdated but I'm not as hip to the exact lingo anymore) - are these nothing more than intimidation principles?

Now, this isn't by any means a condemnation of any of these things.  I think coercion, manipulation, intimidation, and deception are universal traits found throughout much of human interaction.  I think these are somewhat even necessary for functioning society.  Liminal or subliminal, overt or covert, conscious and intended or unconscious and unintended, these concepts exist all around us, we just have to be aware of how and when we use them and when they're being used on us.

The Corporate Structure

Scrolling through drafts in this here blog, I stumbled across this tale, obviously hastily written in an attempt to get it down while the frustration was still fresh.  So I reread it, polished it up, and figured I'd share it with all ya'll!

A few months ago, I was in the process of changing my phone provider but attempting to keep my same number.  I had frankly started to think that the snafus down the road due to a new number may, in fact, be less troublesome than undertaking this process.  Here's the bright-side though: it certainly gave me a hands-on, concrete experience regarding corporate structure, and, more importantly, the sometimes ridiculous setup some (sadly, probably many, if not most) have.

So here's how it went down: each time I called customer service of this new provider, I follow the voice commands to get to my answers, pressing one for English, pressing five for more options, so on and so on.  All in all, I ended up calling seven times. Count 'em, seven.  On that seventh attempt, I was informed that the person on the other end could not help, but would, in fact, transfer me to another department.

Fair enough, super duper.

Shortly thereafter, I received an email (from the transferred-to department) explaining that the zip code I had provided for my old billing address was incorrect, and was given a number to call as well as my case number for reference.  On to lucky call number eight.  Again, following the command prompts, I followed the breadcrumbs to the department where I was told the issue was something completely different.  I gently explained the email I received.

Aha, the email was correct and it was mistaken zip code.  The service rep misspoke.  

Okay, I can handle that.

So I asked what I needed to do to move this process forward.  At this point it's been well over fifteen minutes (I realize it doesn't sound like much, but that was fifteen minutes well-spent sitting and waiting while the rep on the other end struggled to believe the apparently far-fetched story I was selling).  I was told that I would need to provide the correct zip code.

Okay, and I gave my old zip code.

"No, no, no, I'm sorry sir, I can not change that information.  I will transfer you to the blah blah blah department."

After explaining to the rep my confusion (and hiding the frustration as best I could) that I received this email and followed it to a tee to solve the problem, so why I was being transferred to a different department?  Why I wasn't just sent to the problem-solving department right off the bat instead of the problem-reporting department?  There was no real answer to that.

By the end of the half hour call, I had been transferred one more time before the issue was solved.  Though I'm not entirely sure how.  I don't know what kind of computers they're using, but by the sound of it they had to type in each number and letter in binary code.

So here's the question: what exactly are the cost-saving measures of having multiple departments that can't really do anything to help?  How many of us have worked under layers of bureaucracy, stifling creativity, smothering productivity, and sending clients on a round-about chase?  Is that really a Lean organization?

I mean really. 

Logic?

So I was having a great conversation the other night about logic as I posited that I don't particularly believe in it.  As I see it, "logic" really boils down to nothing more than having the answer already.  I think about so-called "logic puzzles", and, having read more than my fair share, would I be able to assert that I am more logical than someone who hasn't experienced as many?  For instance, a relatively well-known puzzle goes like this: you're in an otherwise empty room with a candle, a book of matches, and a box of small thumbtacks.  Your challenge is to light the candle in such a way that the flame is six feet off the ground.  Spoiler alert: empty the box of tacks and pin it to the wall.  From there, simply set the candle on the box.  Boom.  Now, I know that answer.  No, I did not initially come to that conclusion on my own, but I have it now, so who's to say any different?  So am I currently more "logical" than anyone else?  I would say no.

Now, through the course of the debate, some interesting counter-points were made that really got the ol' brain box working.  One such argument would be that logic, as it were, comes down to the ability to connect prior knowledge with new and novel challenges.  Touche.  However, I would say that that is the definition of intelligence - the ability to take previous education, experience, and background and reapply concepts in different situations to reach a conclusion which then gets assimilated into your working memory once more for future situations.  Now even this isn't my own thought.  Over the course of my own experience I've been fortunate enough to be exposed to a cornucopia of others and this paradigm comes from the works of Daniel Willingham (the article can be found here).  So again I would argue that much of what we "know" is a direct product of external stimuli.

A bit off topic I realize, but by now the conversation had shifted slightly this direction anyway so we ran with it.  So, I asked, what would the difference be between logic and intelligence? How does knowledge factor in? What about common sense? I would say that there wouldn't really be a difference per se, but that logic is a misused synonym for intelligence.  I've often thought about logic (and I would assume you have as well) as a black or white issue.  Either you're logical or you're not, whereas more and more we've broken down intelligence into different types (read more about multiple intelligence) and "objective" levels.  I think about Spock, often commenting whether or not a decision was logical, not whether or not it carried any level of intelligence.

So then where exactly are we?  Here I tried to summarize my argument about the whole ordeal: if intelligence is the product of years and years of external stimuli being processed and rearranged into new a different situations, and we want to say whether something is logical (or common sense) wouldn't that very logic be entirely subjective and different from one person to another?  And if it's subjective, how could we ever assume logic as a constant?  See, I received a very different educational experience than even those I went to school with. Just as they had a very different experience than me. I've had life experiences others haven't or experiences in a different order, crossing a bridge before or after others have long since been there, done that. And everyone, you included, have experienced things I never have, and often, never will.  So where does that take us?  And consider the ramifications of this interculturally and globally!

Here's another puzzle for you: In an otherwise empty, windowless room, with only one locked door in and out, you have a saw, a baseball bat, and a piano.  There exist three ways out of the room using only these materials (no, you can't break down the door or saw through it).  This one I won't spoil for you.

But if you figure out the three exits, consider if it's "logical" or simply a product of your experiences.

And whether or not it actually matters.

The Economics Class Socialist Experiment

As I'm sure many of us have read already, there's a continually circulating tale on the internet about an economics professor failing an entire class through an experiment in socialism.  Just in case you haven't read it (and because I'm not going to transcribe the whole story here), here's a link to several variations: Social Injustice.  Take a second and read through it again so it's fresh in your mind.

Now, I know you may be worried that this post may become a long-winded diatribe about socialism (or capitalism), or even advocating for one economic system over another, but I hope to write this as neither.  This is to be simply my reaction to what I see as an over-simplification of complex systems.

In the story, the professor takes all the students grades and averages them together and provides each student the same grade, regardless of effort.  If he were a true economist, wouldn't he recognize that in any system, at least at the onset, each individual arrives at various levels?  Think for a minute of the ten people with whom you most associate.  Your friends, colleagues, etc.  Are you all on an even keel regarding income?  Home-ownership? Equity?  Net value?  Educational level?  I would image that if this was to be an effective lesson, the professor would have noted that every society has certain systemic inequalities - whether those be income, ethnicity, gender, heritage, and so on.  Should these not be factors in any experiment?  In setting it up, then, I believe the instructor should have provided some students "A"s before class even began because their parents earned really good grades in school already.

I also wonder how he would have constructed this experiment to reflect the benefits of capitalism.  Since capitalism is, essentially, one person selling their labor to another person, would this new experiment consist of 80% of the class studying really hard then providing crib sheets to 20%.  That 20% then gets an "A" and the other 80% gets "C"s.  Now some of those 80% may also study really really hard and eventually get a "B", sure, and more power to them.  But don't forget that because half of that 20% are going to get an "A" anyway because of their parent's really good grades, so it really doesn't matter if some people don't want to study for him/her (although, let's face it, it's pretty much "him").  Oh, and if we want to exalt the American system, for every score of 100% a male student gets, we should certainly award an even proportion of female students who studied just as hard a 81%.  Right? (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, page 55)

I believe this to be an incredibly vast oversimplification of a societal system - both mine and theirs - to the extent that the story serves little more than a McCarthyist legend, the same propaganda that has shaded American beliefs of anything other than republic governments and capitalist mentalities.

Am I saying one is better than the other?  I am not.

Do I regardless recognize that any economic system and governmental structure has flaws?  Of course.

But if we are to begin falling behind anecdotes as arguments, then our partisanship surely has completely left the harbor (pun intended).  It's stories such as these that erode our ability to maintain civilized dialogue and empathetic listening.

Just Get a Job!

How many times have you heard this as an argument to reduce government spending on welfare benefits?  Many of the loudest critics of our nation of "takers" claim that spending on programs such as welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare are allowing citizens to develop a something for nothing mentality.  Some figures even estimate that 49% of American households now receive some sort of social welfare.

Well, fair enough.  Why exactly is it that so many people abuse services intended to help them get back on their feet? Why don't more people realize their own "American Dream", work hard, and find financial security on their own?

Because this issue is not in a vacuum, that's why.  If we're to talk about welfare reform (which I believe we should), why would not also, in the same breath, bring up the vast income disparity afflicting U.S. workers?  Wouldn't it make sense to talk about what people are getting paid hand-in-hand with why they need these benefits in the first place?

Conservative estimates put the number of "working poor" in the range of 146 million Americans.  That is, workers - with jobs - generally with no savings, no retirement fund, living paycheck to paycheck and hoping no sudden cost springs up such as a sick child, their car breaking down, or housing repair.  Some businesses thrive on the labor of their low-paid employees, with the typical worker receiving a paltry $13,900 a year.  Executives, on the other, wrangled an average of $9.4 million in annual income, with an additional $175 billion - billion - going to shareholders.  But hey! It's the shareholders that invested in the company in the first place!  Their holdings allow the company to grow and expand and so they deserve their dividend! And the executives set the strategy and vision for the company to post a profit!  They deserve it too!  Ok.  Fair enough.  In that case, since it's the shareholders and executives that make dreams come true, let them roll up their sleeves and stock the shelves.

Wouldn't it, instead, make sense to take care of those individuals that actually do work?  Those that actually make the company move forward?

Since 2008, 60% of the jobs created in the U.S. have been low-wage jobs.  Now, I'm not saying anyone should claim to be "above" certain industries, regardless of education or background.  If you need a job, get a job.  Flipping burgers is a job.  Get out, provide a service to the greater society.

But when 1 in 4 Americans are now earning less that $10/hour, we can't also assume that people are abusing the welfare system.  At some point we have to realize that the system is abusing the people.  Walmart, for instance, has been under the microscope for moving to "Flexible shifts", a move that critics say was designed to force full-time employees down to part-time, losing their benefits at the same time.  One study estimated that workers for Walmart alone cost taxpayers more than $1 billion every year because of the giant's lack of benefits. At some point, we have to realize that when wealthy people set the salaries for other wealthy people, the social distance between rich and poor will only continue to grow.  I say let the employees decide the reimbursement for the executives - then we might see change.

For more fun reading, check out these exciting pages!

A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)
CEO Pay and the Top 1% (Economic Policy Institute)
Fortune 50 CEO Income Compared to Average Worker at Company (Payscale.com)

"Real-World" Preparation

Here's a little something I found interesting:

The child is constantly confronted with the nagging question: "What are you going to be?" Courageous would be the youngster who could look the adult squarely in the face and say, "I'm not going to BE anything; I already am." We adults would be shocked by such an insolent remark, for we have forgotten, if indeed we ever knew, that a child is an active, participating and contributing member of society from birth. Childhood isn't a time when he is molded into a human who will then live life; he is a human who is living life. No child will miss the zest and joy of living unless these are denied him by adults who have convinced themselves that childhood is a period of preparation.(attributed to Professor T. Ripaldi)

Man, this guy makes a great point.  I had a professor in undergrad who espoused the same idea.  He would open each semester explaining that college wasn't so much "preparation for the real world", but a part of it.  After all, handing in a assignment late or failing a test did, in fact, result in actual consequences.  However, is that really the overarching idea we're establishing in youth?

Today, thousands of kids are being signed up for youth soccer, presumably to be learning the values of teamwork, perseverance, and winning and losing graciously.  Unfortunately, and I hate to break it to you, but only mountains speak for themselves - just because a kid plays a sport doesn't automatically mean they'll learn anything.  Second bummer: how on earth can they learn about how hard work pays off, or that persevering to the end and leaving it all on the field - win or lose - is better than having never even tried in the first place?  How can we expect anyone to pick up on these things when every single player on every team wins a medal just for showing up?  Isn't the new message "As long as you're here, you win!"?

Did you know that there are states, counties, and districts with "No-Zero" grading policies?  In a nutshell, students will never be given a zero on an assignment, an incomplete in some places, but never a failing grade. Students have the opportunity try it over and over and over until either they finally understand the material, their teacher realizes there are other students packed into the classroom and just stamps a "C" on their, or money runs out before that 16-year-old ever finishes fourth grade.

So not only are we teaching kids that all they have to do is show up, but also that we're here to protect them, to gently guide and shelter them until that fateful day when they have to step out into the "real world".

"Don't worry", we inadvertently tell our youth,"you're a winner even though you didn't actually accomplish anything.  All you have to do is be yourself and the world will fall into your hands. We'll solve all your problems and take care of you."

So we keep our kids safe and sound, hovering around, ready to swoop down on any potential challenge that may accost our delicate and frail children.  We tiptoe around frail egos, keeping them safe from failure and making sure they never have to face personal shortcoming.  As it turns out, after a bit more research, we already have a word for this process.

It's called domestication.

And it's no known for making animals smarter.

For more fun reading, I think this article sums it up nicely: Why Teenagers Are Growing Up So Slowly Today

Opening the Partisan Doors

Are we even more partisan than ever?  I think I may think so.  But I haven't quite figured out why.

I think, taking a shot in the dark, a large part of it may be our incredible and unrestricted access to information and incessant communication with a larger scope of like-minded individuals.  Hear me out: Before Facebook, Twitter, newsfeeds, daily updates, and bloggers of all shapes and forms (the Dark Ages, if you will), most information was gathered from magazines, books, the news (on the television...), and our own circle of influence.  We were able to develop our own thoughts and beliefs, defining "liberal" and "conservative" based on our own beliefs, agreeing with some aspects of one group, some from the other, and crafting them into a finely-tuned encyclopedia of personal values.  Issues, I believe, were at the forefront - education, taxation, government spending, religion, and interpretations of the Constitution weren't mutually inclusive, where your beliefs regarding one didn't always guarantee where you stood on another.  And because of this, cooperation wasn't a four-letter word.  Because we each, individually, say across lines and parties, it only made sense that this would continue into the public sector.

Now, however, there's a different situation.  Today, we are assaulted with a constant barrage of stimuli.  Everyday, wherever we happen to be, we have such unprecedented access to whatever anyone cares to say, no matter how crass, short-sighted, or immature it may be, and we've lost that individual sense of self.  I don't recall any traffic law specifying that driver's should not read a newspaper while driving.  Now, however, we've all driven down the highway and glanced at the car next to us wherein the driver is completely engrossed in their phone.  What this also entails, I believe, is that we're now confronted with what parties are "supposed" to look like.  What a good Republican or Democrat should be for.  After all, once upon a time, one had to be an actual journalist to reach even one hundred people.  Now any average joe can start a blog and spout whatever nonsense he or she thinks people want to read (case in point...).  So now, rather than a handful of inputs to consider and bounce off our social circle, we face hundreds, if not thousands every week.  Slowly but surely, we are becoming more and more ingrained to what we're "supposed" to believe and the labels that come with one idea or another.  And, in an effort to avoid becoming an outcast, we begin to affiliate, gradually, with other concepts linked (somehow) to one or two with which we first sided.  And I believe this works both ways: reading a post written to (more often than not) an extreme 180 degrees of your perspective, the less you affiliate with those beliefs to any extent - and push us further into partisan positions.

Just look at Facebook.  Go on, scroll through a few posts.  Chances are, there's at least one talking politics (in some way, shape, or form).  Soon, this may just become a full-blown virtual battle, and, if you pay close enough attention, often you'll find people chiming in, people you know, who, you realize, don't actually have a horse in this race.  Gun control is a great example.  On the left, we need more restriction.  On the right, less.  It doesn't really matter what you actually think about guns anymore.  It's about maintaining your loyalty to your chosen brand.

Go on, ask any Mac user if they're willing to trade in for a PC.  And vice versa.  The Mac user will most certainly decline, citing the simplicity of the operating system, the ability to sync it with other Mac devices, and/or the Mac software.  And PC will argue that they've got the better deal as well, of course.  Now, sifting through all the B.S., unless you're using one or the other for work-related reasons (I hear Mac has better video editing software), is one inherently better than the other?  Of course not.  But we've invested so much of ourselves into the idea that we're right that anything to contrary must be wrong.

And so it goes with politics.  How about we stop thinking about which brand we've invested in, and actually start looking at the issues.  I know it's a big step, but how about a dialogue - not a debate, not a right vs. wrong argument, but an actual dialogue in which we try to understand opposing view points.  Surrounding ourselves with the same perspective will most certainly leave us seeing the same thing.

Post Script: Seeking to understand one another is not as simple as waiting for your turn to talk.  Please, stop nodding your head, shrugging your shoulders, and responding "well, it's the way I feel."  They say that when you stop learning, you should be six feet under.  Well, until you actually listen, you're as good as entombed.

My Favorite Reality Show

It's that time again!  Every four years, my favorite reality show makes it's way around once again.  I'll admit, it is more of a guilty pleasure as there far-and-away characters, resembling in no way a normal life, argue and bicker back and forth.  I do believe that those are the best shows: those with "regular people"...just the best. I mean, you listen to the talk and just can't help but wonder who they think they're resonating with.  And isn't that perhaps one of the best things about reality TV?  We get to watch these people, these regular joes, televise their exploits, and the irony is that they somehow maintain the idea that they are just like everyone else, while those of us back here on earth watch and shake our heads.  With the exception of those that actually believe some of the things these characters are saying (there's always a few), the rest of us rush home from work, hastily drop our bags and coats, and hunker down in front of the TV to tune in, trying to not miss a single beat.

In the last episode, they characters traveled to Florida to hash out some differences, and what an episode that made for!  Such things as "facts" or "real numbers" somehow don't actually apply.  The back-and-forth "It's true" "No it's not" "It absolutely is", paired with subtle as well as not-so-tongue-in-cheek digs and insults hurled back and forth...  It's like children, going back and forth as the host of the show sits impotently by, like a downtrodden parent who's lost control of their kids.

I mean really.  Where do these people come from?  Where do they get their "facts"? With whom do they believe they're resonating?  And the best part is, I was watching reruns of episodes from 30 some-odd years ago, and their arguments were about the same things!  It's like 'Survivor': every week, every season, we tune in to see who's the backstabber, who's allying with whom, and who's getting voted off.  Every season is like a mild repeat of the very same issues that previously surfaced last season.  All that seems to change (and the same holds true for American Idol, Jersey Shore, and, admittedly, those are the only ones I can name...) is the faces of the competitors.  The only difference is that none of us can possibly imagine watching Jersey Shore intermittently for 30 years.  At some point, people should grow out of it.

One-time contestants, back in 1980, had a great episode wherein contestants went back and forth over jobs, unemployment, military spending, taxes...nice to see how far we've come, eh?  And in this day and age, the audience seems to be more polarized by the mantle their contestants has donned over what they're saying.  There is a "right" and a "wrong", a difference that appears to based more on truth than "fact". Alliances are a sure-fire way to lose ground.  "Compromise" is the latest four-letter word.  Everyone is against outsourcing and off-shoring, and no one (yet everyone) has contributed to both.  Both sides are cutting our access to healthcare, Medicaid, and Medicare, yet both sides are actively protecting them.  Neither side (yet both sides) are raising taxes.  Everyone is somehow both for and against women.  Everyone is both for and against job creation.  See where I'm going with this?

Welcome to the future.  Welcome to numbers and figures that only exist if we want them to.  Where data and facts are hotly debated and even open to interpretation.  There is no such thing as a number anymore.  Here's a list...choose your favorite and laud it as FACT.  Everyone else is WRONG.

Oh, and don't forget to vote today.  I hear it's the most important election of our lives.  But don't worry.  In four years, it will be the most important election once again.

Thoughts on snacking

There was a news story I just read about a certain snack being banned at some schools, and the comments below were just raring to go on how the government shouldn't be dictating what our kids eat.  “What my kid eats is MY business” said one alias-emboldened commentator.  And yet none seemed to appreciate the irony in the fact that this occurrence is taking place in a public school…an educational system created and functioning because of government involvement.  We demand our children go to school, adhere to laws that decree they can read at or above grade level, and appreciate that everyone, even those without children in that particular school, pay for it.  But suddenly the fight is against government involvement.  Please let me into your reasoning.  We have the responsibility to educate our children, but bear no such onus to stop them from getting fat.  Lovely.  

Teachers Strike

I realize it's been quite some time since my last post, but the news in Chicago these last few days galvanized me into action.  I can't help but notice a severe failing in logic as I scroll through message boards:

The going opinion is to demonize the teachers for failing to do their jobs.  Angry posts abound, talking about how teachers make too much money, don't work that hard, how the US is lagging drastically behind the rest of the developed world in test scores, and that currently the students are the ones suffering.  That last part is what hits me as incongruent with the rest of their arguments... 

As the teachers are on stirke, they're obviously not in the classrooms.  If they're not in the classrooms, obviously the students are missing a teacher.  If the students are missing their teachers, they're not learning.  But if you listen to some of these arguments, one can almost ascertain that they weren't learning in the first place.  It doesn't really click in my head.  We say that the students suffer because they're missing their education, but follow it up with what a terrible job teachers are doing...are we saying that a bad education is better than no education?  Hmmm.  God I hope not...

Now, we can look at this from a different angle as well: the students suffer because the teachers aren't doing their jobs right?  No one talks about how garbage suffers if Waste Managment goes on stirke.  Or that cars are somehow wronged if steel workers picket.  But if teachers aren't doing their job, it's the youth of the nation that lose.  Correct?  If teachers don't do their job, students lose.  Therefore, if teachers do their job, shouldn't the students win?  Therefore, couldn't one say that teachers doing their job benefits the next generation?  Now, how many other professions could make the argument that they directly impact the quality of a child's upbringing with that level of certainty?  And, therefore, if teachers do in fact play such a weighty role, then don't they indeed deserve higher pay and better benefits?  Doctors go on stirke and the patients suffer.  Teachers strike and the students suffer.  Doctors make, well, let' just say a lot.  Teachers?  Well...

Again, not saying who's right and wrong, just pointing out that if we're arguing that teachers being on strike hurts the students, it makes sense that if they do their jobs, they benefit the students.  So isn't the profession worth it?

Struggling to Get By

"I have guys who qualify for food stamps now," he said. "I have guys who don't know how they are going to pay their mortgage. There are kids working at ice cream stands earning more than their fathers, which is ridiculous."

This is pulled from an article in the Bradenton Herald regarding the latest government action to scrimp and save.  The story goes something like this: with no money in the bank, the mayor of Scranton, PA, cut public employee wages to minimum wage for the foreseeable future.  Politics aside (although the article, which can be found at the bottom of this post, makes a great point of the necessity for bipartisan cooperation), I think this issue brings to light an extreme issue plaguing millions of people: minimum wage is not enough to live on.  In the wealthiest nation in the world, a topic brought up in every election is what to do with welfare and social programs - do we fund them or cut them?  Well, long story short, as long as minimum wage is not enough to stay off of welfare programs.  At $7.25 an hour (as it is in PA and WI, at least), one can expect to make only $13,000 a year, which comes about $100 under the maximum monthly income to qualify someone for food stamps (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm).

Now, if we were to look as this systemically, one may agrue that welfare and social services will always be an issue as long as people aren't making enough to stay off of them.  Seems pretty straightforward, right?  Apparently not.  All we talk about is the Band-Aid we put on the issue - welfare, food stamps, reduced-price lunch - without delving into the actual issue: people don't make enough NOT to use them.  I should think that this situation in Scranton, PA may be a wakeup call to policy makers.  But, alas, I won't get my hopes up.

Find the entire article here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/07/10/4109205/pa-mayor-cuts-city-workers-pay.html

Hiding Online

What is it about social networking sites that provides people an illusion of anonymity?  I can see how that may come into effect on message boards, where an individuals name and personal information is secured behind a screen name and avatar, but places like Facebook, Twitter, and others are created specifically to display a portrait of a person - who they are, who they know, even where they're from and currently live.  In this aspect, it's not so much a "message board" that shows up on your feed, but an extended conversation consisting of people spouting whatever comes to mind - the inane, the insightful, and everything in between - wherever and whenever they feel so inclined.  However, shouldn't this raise a red flag disclaimer before posting?  Not an official or actual, but a personal aside to think before we speak?  Isn't that something we're told when we're young, to think about what we say and who we say it to?

Now, I'm not a heavy advocate for any kind of censorship, personal or otherwise, for fear of offending someone.  An opinion is a great thing, and I encourage people to find their own truth and things to believe in.  However, in what way does it become alright to spout these opinions to the wide world?  Scrolling through my feed this morning, I wondered how adamant some of these people would be if they were expected to make such wide, sweeping, declarative statements in a tavern somewhere.  Is this something they would exult in mixed company?  With friends?  With family?  With strangers?  Sure, there will undoubtedly be those who agree, but surely several that don't.  Would someone be impertinent enough to sit and argue?  To what end?  I have never encountered a situation in which a person has been swayed by a clashing lecture with someone of a differing opinion.  Namely on politics and religion.  And yet we use our social media for exactly this forum.

Again, I'm not saying that people shouldn't make their beliefs known, or that somehow aren't entitled to them, but what are we tyring to prove by pushing these opinions on other people?  What is the hoped for end result of throwing our beliefs in the faces of others?  Wouldn't we be much better served to begin a dialogue, an opportunity to listen and learn?  Sure, we may disagree with what someone is saying, but isn't it entirely possible to still (in this very partisan day and age) have a clear, level-headed conversation?

The way I see it, anger, resentment, and  sheer bullheadedness - taking the place of level-headed and logical, albeit impassioned defenses for our beliefs - are a facade, behind which we hide our own insecurities and doubts of our personal truths.

Common Sense

Thomas Paine first published his short, 48-page pamphlet "Common Sense" in 1776.  At that time is one of the most widely read and distributed pieces of literature throughout the American colonies.  From there, it helped fuel the fires of revolution, swaying readers to buy into the argument that those colonies should be free and independent from British rule, portraying a vivid picture of an American identity.

1852 witnessed the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe.  A best-selling abolitionist novel, the book eventually led President Abraham Lincoln to reference Stowe as "the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war" - the American Civil War.

In our present day, the fires of revolution are still stoked by the spread of the written word.  Egyptian revolutionaries successfully disposed of long-time president Hosni Mubarak in 2011, aided by significant use of social networking sites such as Twitter to coordinate efforts and disseminate information.

We currently live in a globally-interdependent society featuring the most available information, the fastest modes of communication, and the highest level of education in the history of the world.  The world population, thought by some to represent a higher number of living people than the total that have died throughout human history.  At 8 billion, there are more people living on Earth than ever before, and of these 8 billion, more people live in urban areas than ever before as well (up to roughly 50%).  All these modes of communication - cell phones, the internet, and person-to-person - have been used today to put more people in touch with others around the globe that it's difficult to imagine functioning without instant access.  We are able to access - at our fingertips - to have a conversation with someone on the opposite side of the PLANET.

I labelled this post "Common Sense" not only in reference to Thomas Paine's opus, but also because I find it frightening how people have grown to use this information and communication technology in such erroneous ways.  On a social networking site, I was scrolling through posts and came across one from a friend lamenting that a new couch wouldn't fit through their front door.  All I could think about was in what way was informing your hundreds of connections of this piece of trivia relevant or useful?  Take a moment to scroll through your social network of choice and count the number of trivial posts and updates.  I see these and wonder why.

In a world of unprecedented growth, revolution, change, and advances, how much are we taking for granted?  We've corrupted it into an incessant buzz of random thoughts in the heat of moment, void of value or thought, consumed, indeed, asked for on a minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day basis.  Snooki has almost 5 million followers on Twitter but I'm the one people gawk at when they learn I don't have cable or even a smart phone.  When did so much interaction become just noise?

Smart Phones

So I’ve decided on a New Year’s resolution.  It had been a long time coming, but I couldn’t quite figure out what I needed to work on.  I maintain that it’s not so much a problem to be fixed as much as a noble experiment on my part: I’m resolving to spend less time on my phone.  Now I realize that with QR codes, internet browsing, and all of my awesome apps, I can do just about everything with this minicomputer I keep in my pocket.  It truly is amazing how far technology has come.  Again, I can’t stress enough how much this ISN’T a problem – just a curiosity, a thought as to what life is like beyond the front of my screen.  And it’s not even something I think I HAVE to do – after all, I have the world’s information at my finger tips, I can look for and find anything I’m curious about.  Books?  Magazines?  Memory?  And how on earth do I read a map?  These are all things of the past.  I need not burden my finite intellectual capacity with useless information like the past presidents, the Bill of Rights, contemporary news stories, or eve who starred in that movie…I can just look it up!  I understand that at the dinner table – at home or away – people used to have to sit awkwardly, silently staring at one another until the unbearable tension was finally broken by the arrival of their food.  I acknowledge and respect the long ago traditions of conversation and “small talk”.  But it’s a different time now.  When we go out to eat, all my friends will be checking Facebook, and the topic of talk will be different statuses, who posted what, and hilarious video clips.  And where will my experiment leave me?  High and dry.  Ostracized.  Outcast from the group.  And yet I feel the desire to try it.  I want to see if I can return my mental abilities to intra-cranial ability.  But the more I think about it, the more I wonder why I’m subjecting myself to this?  How will I entertain myself when I’m around uninteresting people?  Without my game apps or my social networking activities, how will I delay boredom?  How will I avoid face-to-face, interpersonal human interaction?  What on earth will I do when we, collectively, cannot remember some trivial fact?  What, should we sit and struggle, wracking our brains?  And how do we make it through social situations?  How will I be able to ignore my fellow human beings?  What, am I expected to make eye-contact with people?  Talk about weird…

On the other hand, perhaps it’s safer for me to stay sheltered within my phone.  Perhaps it’s better I bury my nose in instant, to-the-second updates.  Perhaps I’m not ready to rejoin society.  

Then again, perhaps I don’t have a smart phone.  Perhaps I’m still living in 2002, when people actually had to talk to, acknowledge, and even, (*gasp!*) rely on fellow people in the very same room.  It’s been ten years.  A single decade.  Not even a generation.  Technology has progressed in leaps and bounds.  But when was the last time you wondered something, but rather than allow it to stir up a lively discussion, wherein people exercised the muscle called a “brain”, you or someone sitting next to you whips out the phone (or tablet!) and has the answer without a moment’s notice? 

If you're looking for further reading, here are a couple rather interesting posts and articles:

• The Google Effect: New evidence of the Internet’s impact on brain and memory recalls Plato’s ancient warning
• Google Effect: Changes to our Brains
• Study Shows Internet Alters Memory
• Google turning us into forgetful morons

Post Script: I do also realize such technology has allowed us to do more things, given us the ability to reach further, close the intercontinental gap, and increase collaboration.  Such technology has allowed more information, more knowledge, to more people.  And yet, such technology necessitates increased social responsibility, greater levels of technology education, and significantly greater digital citizenship.  In the words of Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben…