To my fellow Kansans:
Taxes – a word that generates loathing among many; at best it’s often portrayed as a necessary evil. George Lakoff, linguist and UC Berkeley professor, has pointed out that politicians like to promise us “relief” from taxes, as if they’re providing relief from a headache. But that relief comes with the price of cutting our services and benefits.
Taxes fund our police and fire departments, parks, public libraries, armed forces, and the list goes on. Particularly important is public education, one of the bedrocks of U.S. democracy. Every time we cut taxes we degrade the quality of these services. “Taxes, after all,” as Franklin D. Roosevelt stated, “are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.”
While we Americans subscribe to the ideal of pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps, we never-the-less are social creatures. We live in large groups, relying on others for many of our needs. We don’t build or maintain our own roads, we have but to turn on a faucet for good quality water, and most of us don’t school our own children. This pooling of resources and the resulting services and benefits (and jobs) provided, are part of our written and unwritten norms; they help bind our society together.
To be sure, balance must be maintained between inadequate vs. overbearing taxation. However, our state has generally moved farther into the inadequate side over the last decade. During that time, according to Rep. Jim Ward, our legislature has cut taxes by $12 billion, with an additional $4 billion in sales tax exemptions.
Yet many in the legislature refuse to consider that additional revenues are required to maintain needed services and benefits. Instead we are to rely on additional cuts and a reduction of state employee salaries and benefits. And since the majority of our state’s budget goes to education and social services, you can see where the brunt of the burden will fall – squarely on the backs of those with the least say.
Whether tax cuts and exemptions generate jobs is debatable. At best it’s a highly contextual outcome dependent on a mix of factors – social/cultural, economic, and otherwise. What isn’t debatable, however, is the job loss resulting from continued cuts and exemptions. According to a February 28th Wichita Eagle article, Wichita estimates it would cut 320 full-time education positions. And tragically such scenarios are being repeated all over the state.
As a Kansan, I’m willing to pay for the service of quality education for my children and for my neighbors’ children. I’m willing to pay for the benefit of higher property values resulting from having good quality neighborhood schools. And the last decade of cuts and exemptions surely has allowed for revenue generation that distributes the burden fairly across the state relative to income, and minimizes negative impacts on business creation and growth. If you feel the same, I urge you to contact your legislators with this message – otherwise we’re putting our state’s future, and that of our children, at risk.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
We Must Have Health Care Reform
With all of the evidence out there regarding the dire need for health care reform, I find it extremely distressing that pundits, certain corporate interests, some politicians, and a portion of our misguided public seem to be having their way in killing the current effort at reform.
See the following graphic to hit it home: Infographic of the Day: How Bad Is U.S. Health Care?
And see the following article for the personal side of what the status quo will continue to give us: A day at Lawrence’s Health Care Access clinic reveals need for affordable medical care
See the following graphic to hit it home: Infographic of the Day: How Bad Is U.S. Health Care?
And see the following article for the personal side of what the status quo will continue to give us: A day at Lawrence’s Health Care Access clinic reveals need for affordable medical care
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Increase in Diabetes Symptomatic of the Problems that Plague our Society
Diabetes in Kansas: A pending tidal wave by Christine Metz, Lawrence Journal World
"The number is so large — $174 billion — that if what Americans spend on diabetes were a country, its economy would rank 45th in the world.
To treat a diabetic costs $11,744 a year. Much of that cost is picked up by health insurance and Medicaid or Medicare. In the end, it is estimated that every Kansan has to pay $566 a year for diabetes through higher health insurance premiums and the added burden on the Medicaid and Medicare system. That cost has gone up by 32 percent in the past six years, Eberhart-Phillips said.
'Don’t tell me that you don’t want to raise taxes. By not doing something about the diabetes problem, your constituents are already paying a higher and higher tax,' he said."
"If the entire American population could shift its weight downward by 10 to 20 pounds, it would prevent 60 percent of future diabetes cases, Eberhart-Phillips said.
'If we could solve that, if we could get people’s weights back to where they belong, to what is natural and normal for human species … then we will be going a long way to control not only diabetes, but heart disease, stroke, cancer, all the major killers,' he said."
"'The decisions that most impact people’s health are made by people who have nothing to do with health, nothing to do with medicine directly,” he said. “It is people who run school systems, it is people who run transportation systems, it is people who plan and design our cities. They are the people who place shopping centers three miles from where anyone can walk to them.'
On the pyramid of what prevention methods work the best, the one with the smallest impact is telling people they need to change their behavior. Creating environments that lead to healthier lifestyles is more effective, Eberhart-Phillips said. That will require getting public health officials involved in local politics."
My comments: The problems are society face are all linked together to various degrees and are going to require some systematic, wide ranging shifts in behavior and attitude to address. Increasing diseases such as diabetes, rising health care costs, a focus on defense spending vs. education, closing neighborhood schools, urban sprawl, use of personal vehicles vs. public transporation and/or walking, lack of exercise/growing demands of our time that must be dedicated to working, energy consumption, GHG emmissions, global warming, environmental degradation - this and more are all linked.
"The number is so large — $174 billion — that if what Americans spend on diabetes were a country, its economy would rank 45th in the world.
To treat a diabetic costs $11,744 a year. Much of that cost is picked up by health insurance and Medicaid or Medicare. In the end, it is estimated that every Kansan has to pay $566 a year for diabetes through higher health insurance premiums and the added burden on the Medicaid and Medicare system. That cost has gone up by 32 percent in the past six years, Eberhart-Phillips said.
'Don’t tell me that you don’t want to raise taxes. By not doing something about the diabetes problem, your constituents are already paying a higher and higher tax,' he said."
"If the entire American population could shift its weight downward by 10 to 20 pounds, it would prevent 60 percent of future diabetes cases, Eberhart-Phillips said.
'If we could solve that, if we could get people’s weights back to where they belong, to what is natural and normal for human species … then we will be going a long way to control not only diabetes, but heart disease, stroke, cancer, all the major killers,' he said."
"'The decisions that most impact people’s health are made by people who have nothing to do with health, nothing to do with medicine directly,” he said. “It is people who run school systems, it is people who run transportation systems, it is people who plan and design our cities. They are the people who place shopping centers three miles from where anyone can walk to them.'
On the pyramid of what prevention methods work the best, the one with the smallest impact is telling people they need to change their behavior. Creating environments that lead to healthier lifestyles is more effective, Eberhart-Phillips said. That will require getting public health officials involved in local politics."
My comments: The problems are society face are all linked together to various degrees and are going to require some systematic, wide ranging shifts in behavior and attitude to address. Increasing diseases such as diabetes, rising health care costs, a focus on defense spending vs. education, closing neighborhood schools, urban sprawl, use of personal vehicles vs. public transporation and/or walking, lack of exercise/growing demands of our time that must be dedicated to working, energy consumption, GHG emmissions, global warming, environmental degradation - this and more are all linked.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Saving Our Neighborhood Schools
Sending out an S.O.S.: Save Our Schools exhibit set up to help prevent New York, Cordley from closure - Lawrence, KS
Our neighborhood schools are part of our local identities, helping to bind us together - tie us to our neighbors and helping to form the basis for integration into our larger communities. When they close, a part of our identities die with them and we have less in common with our neighbors, whether it be through our children, nephews/nieces, god-chilren, friends, etc. who attend (or attended) these schools, or the memories of attending these schools ourselves. Our bonds grow weaker and our community suffers. We become less than we were before.
This event is "a day of imagination, creation, and possibility for our neighborhood schools." Please attend if you can.
When: Saturday, January 30, 2010, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Where: The Lawrence Percolator, Ninth and New Hampshire, Lawrence
Cost: Free
Our neighborhood schools are part of our local identities, helping to bind us together - tie us to our neighbors and helping to form the basis for integration into our larger communities. When they close, a part of our identities die with them and we have less in common with our neighbors, whether it be through our children, nephews/nieces, god-chilren, friends, etc. who attend (or attended) these schools, or the memories of attending these schools ourselves. Our bonds grow weaker and our community suffers. We become less than we were before.
This event is "a day of imagination, creation, and possibility for our neighborhood schools." Please attend if you can.
When: Saturday, January 30, 2010, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Where: The Lawrence Percolator, Ninth and New Hampshire, Lawrence
Cost: Free
Friday, January 29, 2010
Charles Darwin Movie May Have Limited US Distribution
"Creation: The good, the bad, and the ugly
A new movie about Charles Darwin's life and work struggles for distribution in the US, where many refuse to subscribe to the theory of evolution
[Published 29th January 2010 04:43 PM GMT] by Sarah Greene
It's a given: we're diehard Charles Darwin fans. So how can we resist a film that projects his life onto the big screen -- his study filled with flasks and beakers, stuffed birds, fountain pens, giant beetles, and a locked treasure chest with the beginnings of On the Origin of Species? ...
The ugly news is that Creation had difficulty finding a US distributor and it remains uncertain whether it will be widely screened before American audiences. Not only does a recent Gallop poll reveal that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution (a "half-baked theory" that informed Adolph Hitler's genocide, according to the Christian-influenced Movieguide.com ), but apparently the majority of US moviegoers prefer flying dragon-vampires to historical drama. According to director Jon Amiel in a Wired.com interview, "The fact is that any independent movie that's A) about something, B) period and C) a drama, is likely to have a very hard time finding distribution these days."
Did this sad commentary on American society not only limit distribution, but also inform the distracting, ghost-infused story line of Creation? Regardless of the film's few letdowns, it succeeds at portraying a smooth-faced Darwin in love with ideas and with life, grappling with a question (often with his actual words! eloquent!) that remains impossibly frightening to many, a century-and-a-half later. One can only pray (to whomever) that Creationists and their children have ample opportunity to see this movie and many more of its ilk, conveying the beauty and complexity of science and evolution ..."
Rest at http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57125/.
The lack of understanding and downright hostility toward evolutionary theory, the state of education in America, our obesity epidemic, skyrocketing health care costs, the increasing gap between the haves and have-nots, and the list goes on. It certainly can be depressing.
A new movie about Charles Darwin's life and work struggles for distribution in the US, where many refuse to subscribe to the theory of evolution
[Published 29th January 2010 04:43 PM GMT] by Sarah Greene
It's a given: we're diehard Charles Darwin fans. So how can we resist a film that projects his life onto the big screen -- his study filled with flasks and beakers, stuffed birds, fountain pens, giant beetles, and a locked treasure chest with the beginnings of On the Origin of Species? ...
The ugly news is that Creation had difficulty finding a US distributor and it remains uncertain whether it will be widely screened before American audiences. Not only does a recent Gallop poll reveal that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution (a "half-baked theory" that informed Adolph Hitler's genocide, according to the Christian-influenced Movieguide.com ), but apparently the majority of US moviegoers prefer flying dragon-vampires to historical drama. According to director Jon Amiel in a Wired.com interview, "The fact is that any independent movie that's A) about something, B) period and C) a drama, is likely to have a very hard time finding distribution these days."
Did this sad commentary on American society not only limit distribution, but also inform the distracting, ghost-infused story line of Creation? Regardless of the film's few letdowns, it succeeds at portraying a smooth-faced Darwin in love with ideas and with life, grappling with a question (often with his actual words! eloquent!) that remains impossibly frightening to many, a century-and-a-half later. One can only pray (to whomever) that Creationists and their children have ample opportunity to see this movie and many more of its ilk, conveying the beauty and complexity of science and evolution ..."
Rest at http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57125/.
The lack of understanding and downright hostility toward evolutionary theory, the state of education in America, our obesity epidemic, skyrocketing health care costs, the increasing gap between the haves and have-nots, and the list goes on. It certainly can be depressing.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Marriage Metamorphosis and Prop 8 Continued
Listen to Fresh Air w/ Terry Gross' show from Jan. 20, "Courting Attention: Covering Calif.'s Marriage Trial" for an overview of the federal court case challenging California's Proposition 8.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Marriage Metamorphosis
In light of what is going on with Proposition 8 in California, a little perspective on the history of marriage is in order. The article I wrote below was originally published in the now defunct Albuquerque Tribune on April 8th, 2004.
As the service nears completion, the priest leads the couple, hand-in-hand, around the lectern. The three find themselves enveloped in the voices of the assembled, who fill the church nave with song.
Slowly, the two raise their heads. Their breath quickens as they anticipate the final pronouncement. After a nod from the priest, they gently kiss. The priest presents the couple to those assembled, reciting Psalm 133:1: "Behold how good and sweet it is for brothers to live as one."
And with that, the union of the two men is complete.
While the above narrative might be a dream of many same-sex couples in the United States, it is based on a type of same-sex union ceremony - one might say marriage ceremony - that was occasionally performed in Europe between at least the fifth century and through the middle ages, if not later.
This ceremony was part of an Orthodox Roman Catholic and Greek institution that combined the idea of a spiritual companionship with the desire of some church members to bond with people of the same sex. These "brother-making" rituals were recorded in perhaps hundreds of church liturgies. And within the church's stored collections of liturgies, they were typically placed immediately following those of different-sex ceremonies.
John Boswell, a medieval historian, has argued the similarities between these early same- and different-sex ceremonies imply both were seen as a form of marriage. But other scholars limit their view of these same-sex ceremonies to formal church recognitions of very deep bonds of platonic friendship.
However, the ceremonies were often performed between monks and missionaries, and the same-sex, tightly knit environments of schools, monasteries and nunneries helped foster a degree of intimacy. It is possible that some of these same-sex unions consisted of deep, monogamous, homosexual relationships.
So, it would appear that the intellectual tradition of marriage has not been as unchanging as many believe, including [former] President [George W.] Bush. In proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Bush said: "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."
The institution of marriage has primarily been centered on the union of a man and woman for the obvious reason of propagation of the species. But it certainly hasn't been limited to this over the course of human history, including religious history, contrary to what he and others might say.
Socially acceptable "marriages" between same-sex couples have been a part of many cultures, including, but not limited to, ancient Rome, Hellenic Greece, the Yuan and Ming dynasties of China, several African cultures, and many native tribes within the New World.
The definition of marriage for different-sex couples has not remained constant throughout history. Among U.S. changes: abolishment of laws forbidding interracial marriage. Earlier Christian practice included a prohibition of second marriages and strong discouragement of marital sex beyond what was needed for procreation.
The point is the definition of marriage as an institution and tradition has varied over time and across space. We are born, then live and die; and our traditions, including marriage, change as the generations do.
As the service nears completion, the priest leads the couple, hand-in-hand, around the lectern. The three find themselves enveloped in the voices of the assembled, who fill the church nave with song.
Slowly, the two raise their heads. Their breath quickens as they anticipate the final pronouncement. After a nod from the priest, they gently kiss. The priest presents the couple to those assembled, reciting Psalm 133:1: "Behold how good and sweet it is for brothers to live as one."
And with that, the union of the two men is complete.
While the above narrative might be a dream of many same-sex couples in the United States, it is based on a type of same-sex union ceremony - one might say marriage ceremony - that was occasionally performed in Europe between at least the fifth century and through the middle ages, if not later.
This ceremony was part of an Orthodox Roman Catholic and Greek institution that combined the idea of a spiritual companionship with the desire of some church members to bond with people of the same sex. These "brother-making" rituals were recorded in perhaps hundreds of church liturgies. And within the church's stored collections of liturgies, they were typically placed immediately following those of different-sex ceremonies.
John Boswell, a medieval historian, has argued the similarities between these early same- and different-sex ceremonies imply both were seen as a form of marriage. But other scholars limit their view of these same-sex ceremonies to formal church recognitions of very deep bonds of platonic friendship.
However, the ceremonies were often performed between monks and missionaries, and the same-sex, tightly knit environments of schools, monasteries and nunneries helped foster a degree of intimacy. It is possible that some of these same-sex unions consisted of deep, monogamous, homosexual relationships.
So, it would appear that the intellectual tradition of marriage has not been as unchanging as many believe, including [former] President [George W.] Bush. In proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Bush said: "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."
The institution of marriage has primarily been centered on the union of a man and woman for the obvious reason of propagation of the species. But it certainly hasn't been limited to this over the course of human history, including religious history, contrary to what he and others might say.
Socially acceptable "marriages" between same-sex couples have been a part of many cultures, including, but not limited to, ancient Rome, Hellenic Greece, the Yuan and Ming dynasties of China, several African cultures, and many native tribes within the New World.
The definition of marriage for different-sex couples has not remained constant throughout history. Among U.S. changes: abolishment of laws forbidding interracial marriage. Earlier Christian practice included a prohibition of second marriages and strong discouragement of marital sex beyond what was needed for procreation.
The point is the definition of marriage as an institution and tradition has varied over time and across space. We are born, then live and die; and our traditions, including marriage, change as the generations do.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Our Culture of Consumption
BlackintheCity.net Commentary (The Murphy Report has been changed to BlackintheCity.net):
-------------------------------------------
A small boy bounces around in his booth at some nameless fast food restaurant that could be anywhere in the US, for that matter anywhere throughout much of the world.
“When will it be ready?” he asks again for the fourth time in less than a minute.
His mother sighs, “Soon honey. Please have a little patience. Your father will bring the food over pretty quick.”
“I wonder what the toy will be?” the boy asks with great anticipation.
For the rest, go to my column.
-------------------------------------------
A small boy bounces around in his booth at some nameless fast food restaurant that could be anywhere in the US, for that matter anywhere throughout much of the world.
“When will it be ready?” he asks again for the fourth time in less than a minute.
His mother sighs, “Soon honey. Please have a little patience. Your father will bring the food over pretty quick.”
“I wonder what the toy will be?” the boy asks with great anticipation.
For the rest, go to my column.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Constitutional Amendments and the Right to Marry Under the Influence
Murphy Report Commentary:
--------------------------------------------------
President Bush and many socially conservative Republicans were at it again this last week, out on the front lines protecting the institution of marriage from renegade activist judges. But the proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage in the US to a union between a man and a woman failed to receive even 50 percent of the cloture vote in the Senate today (Wednesday), effectively killing this particular attempt at banning gay marriage at the federal level. The lackluster support for the amendment lends credit to the charge by some that the real goal of the amendment (at least at this time) was to energize support in the Republican party’s conservative base.
For the rest, go to my column.
--------------------------------------------------
President Bush and many socially conservative Republicans were at it again this last week, out on the front lines protecting the institution of marriage from renegade activist judges. But the proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage in the US to a union between a man and a woman failed to receive even 50 percent of the cloture vote in the Senate today (Wednesday), effectively killing this particular attempt at banning gay marriage at the federal level. The lackluster support for the amendment lends credit to the charge by some that the real goal of the amendment (at least at this time) was to energize support in the Republican party’s conservative base.
For the rest, go to my column.
Toilets of Terror III
Murphy Report commentary:
------------------------------------------
As if waiting before the very gates of hell, the little preschooler stands rooted in front of the toilet stall in a nameless public restroom that could be anywhere in the states. His little heart beats fast as he hears his mother impatiently urge him on.
“Go on, honey. We need to get a move on. I’m going to stay out here and change your sister’s diaper.”
For the rest, go to my column
------------------------------------------
As if waiting before the very gates of hell, the little preschooler stands rooted in front of the toilet stall in a nameless public restroom that could be anywhere in the states. His little heart beats fast as he hears his mother impatiently urge him on.
“Go on, honey. We need to get a move on. I’m going to stay out here and change your sister’s diaper.”
For the rest, go to my column
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Why Pay for the Social Sciences?
Another of my commentaries from the Murphy Report.
While only a minor blip on the radar screen of most Americans, there was a major shakeup of about 8.8 in the world of the social sciences last week. I’m referring to the amendment of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (S 2802) proposed by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-TX. The amendment’s original wording gave preference to NSF (National Science Foundation) funding for research involving “physical science, technology, engineering, or mathematics,” over that of the social sciences - sociology, anthropology, geography, economics, psychology, political science, education, and history [1]. Oddly, in terms of tax dollar funding, Senator Hutchison also included biology (a life science) and geology (a physical science) as part of this “second class” of scientific endeavors.
For the rest, go to my column.
--------------------------------------------------------
While only a minor blip on the radar screen of most Americans, there was a major shakeup of about 8.8 in the world of the social sciences last week. I’m referring to the amendment of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (S 2802) proposed by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-TX. The amendment’s original wording gave preference to NSF (National Science Foundation) funding for research involving “physical science, technology, engineering, or mathematics,” over that of the social sciences - sociology, anthropology, geography, economics, psychology, political science, education, and history [1]. Oddly, in terms of tax dollar funding, Senator Hutchison also included biology (a life science) and geology (a physical science) as part of this “second class” of scientific endeavors.
For the rest, go to my column.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
The Threat of Christian Nationalism
Another of my columns from the Murphy Report.
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!
So go the lyrics to the first verse of Sabine Baring-Gould’s 1865 hymn “Onward Christian Solders.” Growing up as part of the United Methodist Church in Middle America, I recall singing this fairly blatant militant hymn from time to time. Of course I was always told the hymn should be interpreted as a metaphor for the struggle against Satan, sin, and our own personal demons (whatever the long dead author’s original intent). Christianity, I remember being taught, is a religion that strives for peace, understanding, forgiveness, and acceptance – despite its long history of contrary examples.
For the rest, go to my column.
--------------------------------------
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!
So go the lyrics to the first verse of Sabine Baring-Gould’s 1865 hymn “Onward Christian Solders.” Growing up as part of the United Methodist Church in Middle America, I recall singing this fairly blatant militant hymn from time to time. Of course I was always told the hymn should be interpreted as a metaphor for the struggle against Satan, sin, and our own personal demons (whatever the long dead author’s original intent). Christianity, I remember being taught, is a religion that strives for peace, understanding, forgiveness, and acceptance – despite its long history of contrary examples.
For the rest, go to my column.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
The Irony of Intelligent Design
I recently started writing a column for the Murphy Report. The following is the first paragraph from my first column.
The great irony of Intelligent Design is that its success and development as an intellectual tradition can be neatly framed within a Darwinian evolutionary perspective. After all, our intellectual traditions and all their associated technologies are extensions of our behaviors, and therefore are subject to the forces of evolution just as our genes are. Two examples from different periods of human history will help illustrate this.
Go to the Murphy Report to check out the rest.
The great irony of Intelligent Design is that its success and development as an intellectual tradition can be neatly framed within a Darwinian evolutionary perspective. After all, our intellectual traditions and all their associated technologies are extensions of our behaviors, and therefore are subject to the forces of evolution just as our genes are. Two examples from different periods of human history will help illustrate this.
Go to the Murphy Report to check out the rest.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Stephen Colbert at White House Correspondents Association Dinner
The following is an Act for Change update. Whether you take any action or not, definitely check out the video of Colbert's performance - it's a biting commentary on the Bush administration and the media's half hearted attempts to hold the administration accountable.
ACTFORCHANGE ACTIVISM UPDATE: May 5, 2006
** FEATURED ACTION **
Mainstream Media -- Why the Blackout on Stephen Colbert?
Last week at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner, comedian Stephen Colbert delivered a scathing satirical commentary on the Bush Administration -- right in front of President Bush himself. But unless you get your news from online sources such as the blogs, you probably didn't even hear about it.
If you haven't already watched his performance, watch it online now. Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BFy10EM
A transcript can be found here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BFy20EN
It's ironic that at the annual gathering of this nation's elite journalists, the only one with the courage to tell the honest truthwas a comedian. It sure speaks volumes to the media's failure to ask the Bush administration hard questions and hold it accountable. Tell the mainstream media to do their jobs and act as watchdogs, notlapdogs, of the Bush administration. Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BFy30EO
Let's go ahead and ask America's major media outlets -- why the silence on Colbert? Were you uncomfortable with his courage in pointing out that you have not really been carrying out the independent watchdog role upon which our democracy depends? Tell the corporate media: honest and much-needed criticism of this administration shouldn't be left to the comedians. Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BFy30EO
*** Then, please forward this email to all your friends, neighbors, favorite webmasters or bloggers!!!
THANK YOU for working to build a better world, Will EastonManager, ActForChange.com / Working Assets
P.S. -- Want to support 50 great progressive nonprofit groups fightingthe right-wing agenda? Contribute by clicking here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BBhG0EN .
View the groups we're supporting in 2006 by clicking here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50jFt0E7
ACTFORCHANGE ACTIVISM UPDATE: May 5, 2006
** FEATURED ACTION **
Mainstream Media -- Why the Blackout on Stephen Colbert?
Last week at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner, comedian Stephen Colbert delivered a scathing satirical commentary on the Bush Administration -- right in front of President Bush himself. But unless you get your news from online sources such as the blogs, you probably didn't even hear about it.
If you haven't already watched his performance, watch it online now. Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BFy10EM
A transcript can be found here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BFy20EN
It's ironic that at the annual gathering of this nation's elite journalists, the only one with the courage to tell the honest truthwas a comedian. It sure speaks volumes to the media's failure to ask the Bush administration hard questions and hold it accountable. Tell the mainstream media to do their jobs and act as watchdogs, notlapdogs, of the Bush administration. Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BFy30EO
Let's go ahead and ask America's major media outlets -- why the silence on Colbert? Were you uncomfortable with his courage in pointing out that you have not really been carrying out the independent watchdog role upon which our democracy depends? Tell the corporate media: honest and much-needed criticism of this administration shouldn't be left to the comedians. Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BFy30EO
*** Then, please forward this email to all your friends, neighbors, favorite webmasters or bloggers!!!
THANK YOU for working to build a better world, Will EastonManager, ActForChange.com / Working Assets
P.S. -- Want to support 50 great progressive nonprofit groups fightingthe right-wing agenda? Contribute by clicking here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BBhG0EN .
View the groups we're supporting in 2006 by clicking here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50jFt0E7
Friday, April 07, 2006
Junk Food Education
The April 7th Lawrence Journal-World story entitled “Bill aims to rid schools of junk food options” discusses the problems of junk food in our nation's schools and the recently introduced federal legislation intended to update the nutrition standards for all food sold/distributed in our public schools. However, the article ignored what I thought to be the fundamental reason why junk food has infiltrated our nation’s public schools over the last twenty years. As the general importance that US society places on public education as slowly waned, along with the associated funding, public schools have, in part, resorted to good ol’ fashioned capitalism to make up the difference.
Deals with junk food manufacturers to place their vending machines on school campuses have proven lucrative. But the consequences have proven unhealthy to our nation’s children, and over the long term the increase in obesity (and associated health problems) that this has helped create will further stress our nation’s increasingly dysfunctional health care system.
I agree with the general sentiment that problems often arise when implementing federal legislation and regulation at the local level, often due to inadequate accounting for local variability. But this doesn’t negate the fact that such federal actions are sometime needed to balance the interests of capitalism with the long-term health and welfare of the nation, albeit in a smart, efficient, and effective manner that is accountable for local needs.
Deals with junk food manufacturers to place their vending machines on school campuses have proven lucrative. But the consequences have proven unhealthy to our nation’s children, and over the long term the increase in obesity (and associated health problems) that this has helped create will further stress our nation’s increasingly dysfunctional health care system.
I agree with the general sentiment that problems often arise when implementing federal legislation and regulation at the local level, often due to inadequate accounting for local variability. But this doesn’t negate the fact that such federal actions are sometime needed to balance the interests of capitalism with the long-term health and welfare of the nation, albeit in a smart, efficient, and effective manner that is accountable for local needs.
What's Impeachable and Why
On the one hand we have a former president for whom impeachment proceedings were instigated as a result of his sexual indiscretion within the walls of the White House. On the other hand we have a sitting president for whom even censure seems highly unlikely, despite 1) apparently authorizing the disclosure of highly sensitive intelligence information to the media in order to discredit Joe Wilson's views that were contrary to the administration's justifications for the invasion of Iraq, 2) authorizing the wire tapping of private citizens, 3) leading an administration that bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina, and the list goes on and on.
As a private citizen this astounds me. But as an anthropologist I find it intriguing to explore how the nature of contemporary American society and culture allows for such a gross contradiction to occur. Certainly the elevation of a very narrow definition of social morality (i.e., social conservative elements based a great deal on evangelical Christian interpretations of western, Judeo/Christian philosophy and history) to the national level has played a part in this. But it's obviously involves more than this alone, and unfortunately, time does not allow me to expand upon it now. But for those who wish to comment, feel free.
As a private citizen this astounds me. But as an anthropologist I find it intriguing to explore how the nature of contemporary American society and culture allows for such a gross contradiction to occur. Certainly the elevation of a very narrow definition of social morality (i.e., social conservative elements based a great deal on evangelical Christian interpretations of western, Judeo/Christian philosophy and history) to the national level has played a part in this. But it's obviously involves more than this alone, and unfortunately, time does not allow me to expand upon it now. But for those who wish to comment, feel free.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Embracing Inequality to Achieve Equality of Opportunity
And again we have more research results demonstrating differing brain operations between men and women. UC Irvine researchers have reported findings that show the amygdala, a part of the brain "involved in processing emotionally influenced memories," behaves differently in men and women. And this specific finding may shed light on the understanding and treatment of various psychiatric disorders that appear to vary by sex/gender.
As an anthropologist, particularly one that makes heavy use of evolutionary theory, the fact that there are very real differences in the brains of males vs. females, and that these differences influence how each sex perceives and experiences the world around them, is to be expected. By far, the majority of human and pre-human history was spent in relatively small groups with many of the daily tasks for survival and propagation of the species subdivided along the line between the two sexes. Not the least of which would have been childbirth itself.
It would be inevitable that evolution over the long term would have modified the male and female brain differently to adapt to and perform these differing tasks more efficiently and effectively. So it would seem logical that in our modern world we should try to account for these differences in everything from medical treatments, to the design of space, to the structuring of learning environments and teaching methods.
Unfortunately politics and ideology often get in the way of this. The far left (including many feminists) often decries such research and its applications as perpetuating white male dominance or other power imbalances. The far right (including many religious conservatives) sometimes uses this type of research to justify its own various male/female dichotomies (including male "superiority").
And such findings also conflict with the popular "myth" in the US that all people are created equal. The fact is we're not created equal - we differ in various forms of physical prowess, various forms of intelligence, various likes/dislikes, the amount of resources available to the families we're born into, etc. The differences in the male/female brain are just another example of how we're not created equal.
Another US ideal - the goal of providing everyone with equal opportunities for success - is also typically not "true" in the sense that it's often not realized. However this is an ideal that we can strive for, but to do so we have to recognize the fact that we're not all created equal - including men and women. If we proceed on the erroneous assumption that we all have the same potential to succeed in any given situation, there will always be individuals playing with the deck stacked against them.
In the case of treating certain psychiatric disorders, by not recognizing the difference between men and women, certain treatments may be placing one gender or the other at a disadvantage in terms of being a success (or both genders may be placed at a disadvantage because the treatment targets neither brain type very well). A somewhat more controversial case is the structuring of education environments and teaching methods to maximize the differences in the mental wiring between males and females. But again, one or the other (or both) may be placed at a disadvantage by not recognizing the mental differences.
Science, in its purest form, doesn't care about politics or ideology. It cares about what the experimental evidence is saying. And its telling us that there are very real differences in how the brain works between males and females. We must acknowledge these differences, these inherent inequalities, if we ever truly want to achieve equality of opportunity.
As an anthropologist, particularly one that makes heavy use of evolutionary theory, the fact that there are very real differences in the brains of males vs. females, and that these differences influence how each sex perceives and experiences the world around them, is to be expected. By far, the majority of human and pre-human history was spent in relatively small groups with many of the daily tasks for survival and propagation of the species subdivided along the line between the two sexes. Not the least of which would have been childbirth itself.
It would be inevitable that evolution over the long term would have modified the male and female brain differently to adapt to and perform these differing tasks more efficiently and effectively. So it would seem logical that in our modern world we should try to account for these differences in everything from medical treatments, to the design of space, to the structuring of learning environments and teaching methods.
Unfortunately politics and ideology often get in the way of this. The far left (including many feminists) often decries such research and its applications as perpetuating white male dominance or other power imbalances. The far right (including many religious conservatives) sometimes uses this type of research to justify its own various male/female dichotomies (including male "superiority").
And such findings also conflict with the popular "myth" in the US that all people are created equal. The fact is we're not created equal - we differ in various forms of physical prowess, various forms of intelligence, various likes/dislikes, the amount of resources available to the families we're born into, etc. The differences in the male/female brain are just another example of how we're not created equal.
Another US ideal - the goal of providing everyone with equal opportunities for success - is also typically not "true" in the sense that it's often not realized. However this is an ideal that we can strive for, but to do so we have to recognize the fact that we're not all created equal - including men and women. If we proceed on the erroneous assumption that we all have the same potential to succeed in any given situation, there will always be individuals playing with the deck stacked against them.
In the case of treating certain psychiatric disorders, by not recognizing the difference between men and women, certain treatments may be placing one gender or the other at a disadvantage in terms of being a success (or both genders may be placed at a disadvantage because the treatment targets neither brain type very well). A somewhat more controversial case is the structuring of education environments and teaching methods to maximize the differences in the mental wiring between males and females. But again, one or the other (or both) may be placed at a disadvantage by not recognizing the mental differences.
Science, in its purest form, doesn't care about politics or ideology. It cares about what the experimental evidence is saying. And its telling us that there are very real differences in how the brain works between males and females. We must acknowledge these differences, these inherent inequalities, if we ever truly want to achieve equality of opportunity.
US Pandemic Simulation
Livescience has a sobering summary of a US avian flu pandemic simulation that has the flu infecting the entire continental US after only 90 days (starting with 10 highly infectious influenza cases in Los Angeles). In addition to concluding that the production of a modestly effective vaccine ahead of time is preferable to waiting to see what the exact strain turns out to be, the researchers also stated that quarantines, school closures, and travel restrictions are the obvious means to slow the spread.
Of course, disrupting our social and economic networks via such government imposed means (as well as by the pandemic itself), will have drastic consequences from the local to global levels. As a species, we're regionally and globally integrated at a scale never seen before in human history. The disruption of our social and economic networks will probably have longer lasting social, cultural, and economic consequences than the pandemic itself, depending on the severity.
Of course, disrupting our social and economic networks via such government imposed means (as well as by the pandemic itself), will have drastic consequences from the local to global levels. As a species, we're regionally and globally integrated at a scale never seen before in human history. The disruption of our social and economic networks will probably have longer lasting social, cultural, and economic consequences than the pandemic itself, depending on the severity.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Toilets of Terror II
As a sequel to my earlier March 11 post, Toilets of Terror, I noticed that today's Sunday Comics (April 2) has Opus facing a seemingly possessed public toilet with an automatic flush valve. The majority of the frames depict Opus in various stages of dread and apprehension as he approaches (slowly and delicately so as not to disturb) the porcelain beast. In the next to the last frame, as he oh so gently sets his bottom down, the great beast roars to life, sending spray everywhere while shattering Opus' nerves. In the last frame our poor penguin hero is being wheeled out the door, strapped in a straight jacket screaming: "It's alive! .... Alive, I tell you!!"
I would say that depiction within the Sunday Comics is one sign that a social issue, problem, etc., has probably reached the stage where it is having a widespread affect. And in this case I would venture to say that automatic flush valves are a problem with all ages to varying degrees, though the impact is probably greater for pre-schoolers.
I would say that depiction within the Sunday Comics is one sign that a social issue, problem, etc., has probably reached the stage where it is having a widespread affect. And in this case I would venture to say that automatic flush valves are a problem with all ages to varying degrees, though the impact is probably greater for pre-schoolers.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Filling a Need for Quick, Low-Cost Housing
"See a need. Fill a need."
This was a catch phrase from the hit animated movie Robots, referring to what inventors do at their most basic level. And this is precisely what Sanford Ponder, founder of Icosa Village Inc., has done with his invention of the Pod.
Ponder is quoted to have said "If we live in a world where people are forced to live in cardboard boxes, then someone should at least invent a better box." Ponder's "better box" solution, which he's termed the Pod, consists of interlocking triangular panels made from Coroplast (a hybrid polypropylene) that are strong, lightweight, water proof, recyclable, and usable in sub-zero environments.
The individual panels are easily transportable and can be assembled without specialized knowledge or tools. They've proven highly effective as temporary housing in recent disaster relief settings, such as the Kashmir region of Pakistan. And Ponder is also promoting their use in longer term, low-cost housing situations.
By coming up with simple technological solution, Ponder has made it possible to adapt his invention to a variety of social, cultural, environmental, and economic contexts. So I think I would revise the catch phrase of Robots to the following:
See a need. Fill a need, simply.
This was a catch phrase from the hit animated movie Robots, referring to what inventors do at their most basic level. And this is precisely what Sanford Ponder, founder of Icosa Village Inc., has done with his invention of the Pod.
Ponder is quoted to have said "If we live in a world where people are forced to live in cardboard boxes, then someone should at least invent a better box." Ponder's "better box" solution, which he's termed the Pod, consists of interlocking triangular panels made from Coroplast (a hybrid polypropylene) that are strong, lightweight, water proof, recyclable, and usable in sub-zero environments.
The individual panels are easily transportable and can be assembled without specialized knowledge or tools. They've proven highly effective as temporary housing in recent disaster relief settings, such as the Kashmir region of Pakistan. And Ponder is also promoting their use in longer term, low-cost housing situations.
By coming up with simple technological solution, Ponder has made it possible to adapt his invention to a variety of social, cultural, environmental, and economic contexts. So I think I would revise the catch phrase of Robots to the following:
See a need. Fill a need, simply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)