http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/12/MNG6FP74D61.DTL
While I'm glad this issue is getting more attention and happy to hear California is on board with putting on the pressure for some immediate changes, and while in general I agree (partially) with the governor's take on guilt, I think this kind of approach is too little too late.
It's one thing to avoid beating yourself up with guilt about your choices in the past. It's another to keep on keeping on with your "powering of private airplanes" in Arnold's case and claim neo-environmentalism. You can let go of focusing on the guilt, because that focus can be crippling, but still move forward making different (maybe, better?) choices in the future.
I think global warming is past the "movement" phase that Schwarzenegger is describing and that the facts are out there (from scientists, not just body builders) that we have to make massive changes as far as conservation (on a wide scale). Guilt aside, its just the moral course of action moving forward.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
"The one thing we know is we will outlast him."
Not much time to post lately...not much time today either. But I was reading this article http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/117637558539880.xml&coll=2
and the last quote left me feeling hopeful.
"The one thing we know is we will outlast him." Yay!
and the last quote left me feeling hopeful.
"The one thing we know is we will outlast him." Yay!
Saturday, March 3, 2007
the poor and those who will become poor
Thinking about the current "war" situation reminded me of this letter written by Mother Theresa preceding the Gulf War.
"Dear President George Bush and President Saddam Hussein,
I come to you with tears in my eyes and God's love in my heart to plead to you for the poor and those who will become poor if the war that we all dread and fear happens. I beg you with my whole heart to work for, to labor for God's peace and to be reconciled with one another.
You both have your cases to make and your people to care for but first please listen to *the One who came into the world to teach us peace.* You have the power and strength to destroy God's presence and *image*, his men, his women and his children. Please listen to the will of God. God has created us to be loved by his love and not destroyed by our hatred...."
Wise words from a truly holy person.
"Dear President George Bush and President Saddam Hussein,
I come to you with tears in my eyes and God's love in my heart to plead to you for the poor and those who will become poor if the war that we all dread and fear happens. I beg you with my whole heart to work for, to labor for God's peace and to be reconciled with one another.
You both have your cases to make and your people to care for but first please listen to *the One who came into the world to teach us peace.* You have the power and strength to destroy God's presence and *image*, his men, his women and his children. Please listen to the will of God. God has created us to be loved by his love and not destroyed by our hatred...."
Wise words from a truly holy person.
Monday, February 26, 2007
"Jesus Camp" and memes
Whew...I'm on a roll with the religious stuff tonight. But, the following comments aren't really about religion but about agendas.
If you have not seen "Jesus camp" you have got to see it! The whole film is troubling and interesting, but the most interesting thing from my perspective...and this relates back to the "sheltering" post, is listening to these parents and "preacher" who obviously truly love their kids and believe they have their best interests in mind! Juxtaposing this against what one might consider "more progressive" agendas/values and formulaic approaches to these things is really interesting and thought provoking.
memes: "self replicating ideas passed from brain to brain via behavior and the imitation of behavior. Memes exhibit the features of evolution. They are inherited in that they are copied. They vary in that the copying is not exact, but is subject to subtle and larger mutations through imperfect copying. There is a process of selection in which the memes that survive will tend to be those that are highly MEMORABLE, useful, or PROVOKE AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE."
In "With Consent...", Jan Fortune-Wood makes the statement about memes that "Even when we rebel, we may often find that we are doing little more than buying into the same meme from another angle." She gives an example of Patrick, whose parents were both alcoholics but who believes he has "beaten the meme of alcoholism but in fact he is still playing it out. He sees the world through the lense of this meme..." surrounding his fears that his son will have an interest in drinking alcohol.
She also gives an example of Susan. Susan is greatly influenced by "natural living" in her parenting, but comes to realize that she wants to be treating her children as "unique individuals rather than according to a...stereotype of what may or may not be 'natural.'" She begins to question the "natural living" memeplex and starts to feel "disenchanted." However "there are some important insights within the natural living memeplex" and Susan starts to be able to see...that although this "memeplex" of natural living does not have all the answers that there are some "very valuable insights" there, along with some "very coercive ideas."
This relates to what I was saying about "living by avoidance." Like, maybe the focus on avoidance of these things (like, say, behaviorism out in the world or...hmmm...not wanting to be around kids with spider man clothes on...lol, I'm kidding for sake of example!) is living out the same meme from another angle. I think it's so important for focus to be on the bigger picture in the relationship, what it is that we do want to do...what we are bringing to/giving in the relationship. How we are an advocate, a support system. The people in the relationship and what they want and need.
If you have not seen "Jesus camp" you have got to see it! The whole film is troubling and interesting, but the most interesting thing from my perspective...and this relates back to the "sheltering" post, is listening to these parents and "preacher" who obviously truly love their kids and believe they have their best interests in mind! Juxtaposing this against what one might consider "more progressive" agendas/values and formulaic approaches to these things is really interesting and thought provoking.
memes: "self replicating ideas passed from brain to brain via behavior and the imitation of behavior. Memes exhibit the features of evolution. They are inherited in that they are copied. They vary in that the copying is not exact, but is subject to subtle and larger mutations through imperfect copying. There is a process of selection in which the memes that survive will tend to be those that are highly MEMORABLE, useful, or PROVOKE AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE."
In "With Consent...", Jan Fortune-Wood makes the statement about memes that "Even when we rebel, we may often find that we are doing little more than buying into the same meme from another angle." She gives an example of Patrick, whose parents were both alcoholics but who believes he has "beaten the meme of alcoholism but in fact he is still playing it out. He sees the world through the lense of this meme..." surrounding his fears that his son will have an interest in drinking alcohol.
She also gives an example of Susan. Susan is greatly influenced by "natural living" in her parenting, but comes to realize that she wants to be treating her children as "unique individuals rather than according to a...stereotype of what may or may not be 'natural.'" She begins to question the "natural living" memeplex and starts to feel "disenchanted." However "there are some important insights within the natural living memeplex" and Susan starts to be able to see...that although this "memeplex" of natural living does not have all the answers that there are some "very valuable insights" there, along with some "very coercive ideas."
This relates to what I was saying about "living by avoidance." Like, maybe the focus on avoidance of these things (like, say, behaviorism out in the world or...hmmm...not wanting to be around kids with spider man clothes on...lol, I'm kidding for sake of example!) is living out the same meme from another angle. I think it's so important for focus to be on the bigger picture in the relationship, what it is that we do want to do...what we are bringing to/giving in the relationship. How we are an advocate, a support system. The people in the relationship and what they want and need.
"Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17314883/site/newsweek/
The buzz around this pseudo science/religion/self help/how to get rich marketing campaign has amazed me! I have been so perplexed by this, and the following surrounding it, that I actually watched the movie! For a couple of weeks there I wasted way too much time on this.
I've thought about this from all kinds of angles, and I think what is one of the most brilliant things about this marketing is the absence of having to wait until "the next life" for your efforts to be fruitful. But the most brilliant, hands down, thing of all is...according to the inherent philosophy...you only have yourself to blame if you do not attract what you want! It's hardly a new idea, but a smart "think" (you know, the thinks that you think-Dr. Seuss) to package up and sell afresh all the same. This is way more intelligent than this fellow marketing campaign http://www.wayofthemaster.com/ in my opinion. Although...it shares many of the same characteristics.
Either way...most of Marx's points still apply. More opium for the modern day masses (and the smarty pants drug dealers are raking it in)! I'm fantasizing about writing about fraud...
The buzz around this pseudo science/religion/self help/how to get rich marketing campaign has amazed me! I have been so perplexed by this, and the following surrounding it, that I actually watched the movie! For a couple of weeks there I wasted way too much time on this.
I've thought about this from all kinds of angles, and I think what is one of the most brilliant things about this marketing is the absence of having to wait until "the next life" for your efforts to be fruitful. But the most brilliant, hands down, thing of all is...according to the inherent philosophy...you only have yourself to blame if you do not attract what you want! It's hardly a new idea, but a smart "think" (you know, the thinks that you think-Dr. Seuss) to package up and sell afresh all the same. This is way more intelligent than this fellow marketing campaign http://www.wayofthemaster.com/ in my opinion. Although...it shares many of the same characteristics.
Either way...most of Marx's points still apply. More opium for the modern day masses (and the smarty pants drug dealers are raking it in)! I'm fantasizing about writing about fraud...
old testament garbage
I've been feeling frustrated by the uproar surrounding this proposed anti-spanking legislation in California...and the fact that I haven't posted on this yet is 1) an indication of how busy I've been lately 2) the realization that there is no way I can adapt to an audience that thinks it's okay to hit kids...and any response to this is pretty much just nodding heads with folks that agree with me! But...what do you say? Ready to nod heads?
What really has my stomach turning is the indignation from people who want to be assured of the right to hit children under the age of three! With studies/experts overwhelming agreeing that spanking is harmful and not helpful...and a predecessor to what is acceptably defined as "child abuse!" It's not acceptable to hit your partner, your friends, people who piss you off in traffic, but people think it's okay to hit defenseless little children because they are "my kids!"
It just seems to me that if you asked the question "Are people free to physical hurt other people" without the word "child" as part of the equation, overwhelming people of all walks of life would largely agree that hurting others is not okay!
As far as this argument/concern I keep hearing about people making a mistake and losing their kids...that's such a bunch of crap! Someone who has a temporary lapse in judgment...a one time offender...is unlikely to cause an injury or do this in front of a witness! People who hit their kids in public hit them much harder, and much more frequently, when other people aren't around! The people who make a "mistake," or the one time offender...are overwhelming not the people who have to worry about these types of consequences.
And some people think it's about the government telling people how to raise their kids, well yay! yay! yay! when it comes to hitting defenseless people! I'm all about freedom...but we are not free to hurt others. Our freedom ends as soon as it infringes on the safety of others. What could be a more important role of government than protecting children from physical harm?
And then you hear the religious arguments..."spare the rod, spoil the child" garbage. If you are going to base your parenting on an old testament bible verse, why not stone adulteresses to death, stone your rebellious teenager, sacrifice animals to atone for your sins, demand that unmarried women continue living in their father's houses, require women to wear head coverings when they leave the house and ban them from teaching positions or from talking to strangers...or loads of other old testament garbage that are overlooked by sane people. It's the old testament folks...for Christ's sake!
What really has my stomach turning is the indignation from people who want to be assured of the right to hit children under the age of three! With studies/experts overwhelming agreeing that spanking is harmful and not helpful...and a predecessor to what is acceptably defined as "child abuse!" It's not acceptable to hit your partner, your friends, people who piss you off in traffic, but people think it's okay to hit defenseless little children because they are "my kids!"
It just seems to me that if you asked the question "Are people free to physical hurt other people" without the word "child" as part of the equation, overwhelming people of all walks of life would largely agree that hurting others is not okay!
As far as this argument/concern I keep hearing about people making a mistake and losing their kids...that's such a bunch of crap! Someone who has a temporary lapse in judgment...a one time offender...is unlikely to cause an injury or do this in front of a witness! People who hit their kids in public hit them much harder, and much more frequently, when other people aren't around! The people who make a "mistake," or the one time offender...are overwhelming not the people who have to worry about these types of consequences.
And some people think it's about the government telling people how to raise their kids, well yay! yay! yay! when it comes to hitting defenseless people! I'm all about freedom...but we are not free to hurt others. Our freedom ends as soon as it infringes on the safety of others. What could be a more important role of government than protecting children from physical harm?
And then you hear the religious arguments..."spare the rod, spoil the child" garbage. If you are going to base your parenting on an old testament bible verse, why not stone adulteresses to death, stone your rebellious teenager, sacrifice animals to atone for your sins, demand that unmarried women continue living in their father's houses, require women to wear head coverings when they leave the house and ban them from teaching positions or from talking to strangers...or loads of other old testament garbage that are overlooked by sane people. It's the old testament folks...for Christ's sake!
privacy, perspective about others
One of my goals with this blog is to avoid providing specific, personal information about other people in my life. I'm wanting to talk/publicly journal I guess, about my thinking and ideas about things but in a way thats somewhat abstract/coded.
Since my posts are about how I'm making sense of things in my life, or with what I'm thinking about the things in my life or what is influencing me etc...this can be tricky (especially when talking about parenting, or about why I think what I think and knowing how much that is influenced by my own experiences parenting or being parented or otherwise). I'll likely use hypothetical examples that hopefully aren't too obvious and also kind of springboard off movies and news stories and such that help formulate my thoughts in a way that I can do so without personal examples.
Anyway...I just wanted to put this in writing because it feels like more of a commitment to post with the spirit of the privacy of other's in mind.
Since my posts are about how I'm making sense of things in my life, or with what I'm thinking about the things in my life or what is influencing me etc...this can be tricky (especially when talking about parenting, or about why I think what I think and knowing how much that is influenced by my own experiences parenting or being parented or otherwise). I'll likely use hypothetical examples that hopefully aren't too obvious and also kind of springboard off movies and news stories and such that help formulate my thoughts in a way that I can do so without personal examples.
Anyway...I just wanted to put this in writing because it feels like more of a commitment to post with the spirit of the privacy of other's in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)