Search This Blog

Friday, December 25, 2015

Absence

The emotional process of missing another is odd. There are a variety of ways we can feel it and a variety of ways the feeling can be triggered. More importantly, though, is the variety of different ways absence can be created.

The most common is the lack of physical presence. This absence is self explanatory and requires no analysis. This type of missing someone is alleviated when the two are reunited. Sadly, life is finite and our chances to be reunited are limited by the clutches of death.

More that mere physical absence, though, comes the emotional strain that occurs when someone is missed because a close bond has drifted, often on both ends, to a point where it is no longer recognizable for what it once was. When this happens and either party says they miss the other they are mistaken; they miss what the pair of who they both used to be shared.

Sometimes missing someone happens because one party changes significantly. This, too, is a scenario in which the party who is being missed is no longer available, does not even exist, to the party who is doing the missing.

A variation on the single party change is the revelation that someone whom you appreciated and liked is not really who they appeared to be. This type of missing often manifests with a form of resentment as the missed party for having misrepresented themselves but, often, it is our own fault for evaluating the other party incorrectly.

Furthering that trend becomes a large betrayal. The large betrayal, though, is one we inflict upon ourselves rather than one which is inflicted upon us. This happens when we build a fantasy of a person; design who we want them to be for us; and our design does not match who they really are. We miss not them, but who we imagined them to be; who we needed them to be; who we wanted them to be.

The last form of missing someone that is readily apparent to me is the form that is less severe than jealousy but is, in reality, the same. This is the missing we feel when we see someone is exactly who and what we want but they are that for someone other than ourselves. We miss the person we cannot have and, thus, resent the person and scenario we have instead.

I miss lots of people.
I miss people in all of these categories.

I wish I could stop missing people in the worst of the categories and be present in the lives of the people whose presence would alleviate missing them.
Mostly, though, I wish I could erase the people who I miss because of who I thought they were..... I wish I could erase who I thought they were and see them for who they are from the start.


Saturday, December 12, 2015

Liberalism vs Conservatism

I appreciate reasonable conservatives.
I appreciate reasonable liberals.
I appreciate reasonable people.

When people cease being reasonable I get angry which makes me unreasonable. I dislike being unreasonable.

The United States of America is NOT a Christian nation; it's a secular nation. Freedom of and freedom from religion. The state is, by law, supposed to be completely atheist.

The country was founded on very old ideas that were considered ridiculous by the ruling people of Europe when the US was made. Democracy and a representative Republic are both VERY liberal ideas.

The base laws of this country are a liberal experiment.

The Amendment process was designed with the idea that times change and, therefore, the core foundation of the government may require updates. THAT is a liberal idea that puts forth the idea of continuing change; which is a liberal idea.

With all of that, though, there are core concepts of the far left that over-step the foundational ideas of freedom and liberty. These ideas almost invariably slide into the realm of protecting the overall good at the expense of the individual; what makes them over-stepping is when they are unsustainable.

"To promote the general welfare" is an important liberal idea, and exact passage, in the core foundational documents that can sometimes be at odds with the core ideas of personal liberty.

The reality, though, is that we cannot protect the needs of the many by sacrificing the needs of the few in an unsustainable manner. That is no better than protecting the needs of the few at the expense of the many.
Reasonable Conservatives can see the benefits of protecting the many enough to allow them to all be individual contributors. The reasonable Liberals can see the needs of the individuals and discern where the burden placed on the individuals exceeds the ability of contributors to contribute.
I look at the current political climate and I see a splintering of ideals. I see the growing trend of fright-based neoconservatism that uses the language of the country's foundation in a warped and perverted manner to put forth an agenda of fear and hatred and exclusion rather than the core idea of "all men are created equal."
I want the conservative party that stood for minimalist government where all the government served a purpose that benefitted all. A conservative party that celebrates freedom for all. A party that supports freedom of, and from, religion such that it embraces ALL people from all beliefs. I want the conservative party that examines the bottom-line impact of social programs and implements them when the "safety net" has a net financial benefit to society
- Tiny homes for the homeless rather than shelter? It saves money per person? DO IT.

- Decriminalizing drugs decreases the number of users and abusers AND reduces violent crime AND reduces prison expenses? DO IT.

- Spending more on education shows economic growth and a reduction in prison expenses? DO IT.

- Keeping people from losing their homes when they have an economic hardship prevents them from having to use many more social services and allows them to become a productive member of the economy again faster? DO IT.

- We suspect people on social assistance are abusing the program in mass numbers and using the money to buy drugs so we want to test them. DO IT.......

- Umm. we found that 2% of the people tested actually had drugs in their system and the testing program costs significantly more than eliminating those benefits.... STOP IT.

- Rehab programs allow people to get off drugs and remain functional members of the economy? FUND THEM

- Tax funded healthcare costs less per capita than our current system and has superior performance on a maintenance level of care in every country it is used in? DO IT.

- Banking regulations being lifted causes a siphon that pulls capital out of the middle and lower classes and causes the consumer economy to shrink on a per-person-hour basis? BRING BACK THE REGS.

- Making free and compulsory high schools boosted the economy overall and we need college educations in today's world to move forward? MAKE IT HAPPEN.

- Kids are graduating college with 5-10 years' pay in school debt, crippling their ability to make a living and contribute to the economy? DON'T MAKE IT HAPPEN LIKE THAT, DO BETTER

- Guns are a major drain on the economy? LET'S WORK TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE


All of these ideas are NOT liberal when examined from a fiscal view. EVERY idea, when examined fiscally and without regard to whether or not someone is going to "get away with it" can be examined from the VERY conservative view of "show me the data."

When we make data-driven policies and laws we make progress that is responsible. We make the lives better for everyone. We follow the core ideas of making "the American Dream" a reality for everyone. Data-driven ideas and policies are how we temper our ethics, morality, and desire to help against our collective ability to actually help.

I'm glad that most of my friends get this (even when we tend to bicker over some of the specific points); I wish EVERYONE did.

SOME references on these topics:

Tiny Homes:
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/tiny-houses-big-idea-end-homelessness-n39316

Decriminalizing drugs:
http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.jBvMUMwJ8

Education prevents prison:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_25771303/schools-v-prisons-educations-way-cut-prison-population

Keeping people in their homes:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/10/09/3577980/end-homelessness/

Welfare drug testing:
"The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. "
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/

Rehab to cut prison costs:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/inmates-194495-prison-programs.html

Health care expenditures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Banking regulations:
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gutting-regulation-may-help-the-banker-but-harm-society-1057323-1.html
http://www.history.com/topics/great-depression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Creating public high schools improved the economy:
Citation Needed

College education is needed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-college-is-necessary_b_6215668.html

College debt is crippling:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/specialfeatures/2013/08/07/how-the-college-debt-is-crippling-students-parents-and-the-economy/

Cost of gun crime:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-violence-costs-america-more-than-229-billion-every-year-2015-4

I AM the Credible Hulk

Friday, June 26, 2015

Why I hate the terms "white privilege" and "male privilidge"

No, it's not because I am a white male...

Well, it is and it isn't.

I hate the term because it does NOT reflect actual meaning of the word.

priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/
noun
noun: privilege; plural noun: privileges
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
"education is a right, not a privilege"
As a middle class, white male with nearly crippling student debt that I am putting off by acquiring more I can tell you that I am NOT awarded any special rights. My life has been a life that I would consider the baseline of what EVERYONE should be able to have: I had two parents that cared for me; I had enough food to eat; I was warm enough in the winter; I was able to get a good public education; I had a dog; etc. These basics are NOT a privileged state in this country: they are the baseline of what SHOULD be.

Tangential side note: EVERYONE in this country is privileged compared to the world baseline.

Is there privilege in this country? Yes, absolutely. But it is NOT tied directly to skin color or gender. It's tied to cash. Is that cash tied to skin color and gender? In most cases it is because it has been accumulated and handed down.

I am NOT among the elite few who have privilege. I am the "zero line."
Therefore, everyone below "my station" is actually something else: they're oppressed.

op·pres·sion
əˈpreSH
noun
noun: oppression; plural noun: oppressions
  1. prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
    "a region shattered by oppression and killing"

    synonyms:persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill-treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation; More
    "the young people in this country have known nothing but oppression"
    antonyms:freedom, democracy
This is where my real hatred of the terms comes into play.
By calling ME privileged we, as a society, are actually deemphasizing the true problem; we're taking away from the seriousness of what our society is doing to a rather large segment of the population. We're devaluing them even more by applying a false label to "my station" in life.

Anyone who lacked the meager, but sufficient, financial resources that I had in my youth is being oppressed.
Anyone who gains additional scrutiny from law enforcement because of their skin color is being oppressed.
Anyone who has more trouble finding a job because of their gender or race is being oppressed.

Privilege is not the problem: oppression is.

A lot of white people are uncomfortable with the term "white privilege" because it makes them feel "white guilt" but some feel angry at it for reasons they cannot label. I believe that they see the explanation I am laying out but have not found the words to apply to it. Meanwhile, those who support the term "privilege" would prefer to attack those who dislike the term rather than actually examine the situation as what it really is.

Some minimal research indicates that the term "white privilege" appeared in academia when people where studying the differences in the racial profiles in this country. This, in itself, tells me all I need to know about why the term was selected. Academia is controlled by older white men. The farther back in time you go the more true this is. Everyone likes privileges. To write academic papers that outlines that white men are privileged to be such would, at first, make those in charge of funding and grants very happy. They are, in the eyes of their researchers, the elite of the elite.

Why do we keep the term?
There is no proof on why the term is kept, except that momentum is hard to change.
My thoughts, however, are that keeping the term is beneficial to those who are truly privileged.
The rich are the only ones who carry legitimate privilege and extra rights. They have their way paved for them on a road of money.

I'm not the only one who sees this; there are many comics that highlight this reality. Here is one that does it exceptionally well:




This is a FANTASTIC explanation on how the little things that shape our lives change them. The comic calls it Privilege it partly is; but, it is also highlighting the oppression in our society. Even though I disagree with the terminology being used the way it is I think EVERYONE needs to read it.

But, I will now tear it apart; not for the content but to show where our terminology is terribly misguided. The yellow annotations indicate what I consider to be a regular baseline circumstance that EVERYONE should experience. The green is where actual privilege is being bestowed and, correspondingly, the red demonstrates where oppression is occurring; the orange is partway between active oppression and a normal experience that everyone should have. The blue is clearly labeled.

[Please pardon my terrible annotation on these graphics.... the only tool I have available as I write this is MS Paint]





The way we're using the term "Privilege" is an illusion. It is a smokescreen that allows those with the real privilege to go unnoticed. It's another tool to pit the "lower classes" against each other rather than having the bottom 99.9% see who the real enemy is. The usage of the word, is a tool to further the "class warfare" that is being applied to all of us; the very process of crushing the middle class and systematically oppressing the poor is a state that keeps the rich in their position (up to the very collapse of a financial society.... but that is another topic).

If you use the term "privilege" in this way you are not only being a foot soldier against the oppressed people but, also, against yourself.
I would love to see us change this pattern and start acknowledging that our system OPPRESSES women and all of the races other than white. The system crushes them systematically.

I am not privileged; I merely escaped the oppression engine so that I can struggle through this life.

If I were privileged I could use this:



To avoid this:


But, given that I had to move home after college and I have a year's salary in student loan debt I'd say I haven't been able to avoid this last picture.

That's NOT privilege; it's merely NOT being totally oppressed.


EDIT / UPDATE:
The more I think about this the more I believe it to be true.
If one examines the roots of culture in European-centric countries (e.g. countries, like the United States of America, which were colonized by Caucasian Europeans) it becomes apparent that there is a base expectation of barely sustainable, almost-poverty among the peasant classes. A level of economic freedom to be able to sustain oneself but not enough to "rise above one's station."
This is the baseline expectation that was brought to the colonies. The idea of an aristocracy that is better than the peasantry was an inherent part of the cultures that the colonists all brought with them.
This also included the idea that women are property rather than people.
Stack onto this the idea of slavery, which existed in much of the "civilized" world into the 19th century (and exists still in some parts of the world) and an idea of property is applied to anyone with a different skin color from those in the aristocracy.
The abject poverty of the minorities reinforces the perception that they are less than human. Their inability to escape the poverty reinforces the idea that they are all criminals because crime and poverty are linked. Desperate people do desperate things JUST TO SURVIVE.
Anyone who is having to turn to crime to survive their society is oppressed by that society.
When entire groups of people are stuck in poverty and the system makes it nearly impossible to escape they are as surely enslaved as if they were still considered property.

To call being recognized as an individual with individual rights and freedoms "privileged" is to declare that being considered property and/or worthless and/or trash is an acceptable NORM.

I reject this idea.

No one is property. No one is trash by default. No one is worthless unless they make themselves that way.

The oppression is systemic and reaches all the way back to indisputable oppression.

So why are we choosing to change the name, and the perspective, of this system now to make the people struggling to barely live the "American Dream" the enemy by calling them privileged when there are people of true privilege sustaining the overall system with their greed?