2018
MEDIA-MADE CONTROVERSIES (WHO EXACTLY COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT?)
Controversy and negativity sell and all media is well aware of how lucrative these assets are to peddle. But why find a product to sell when you can just continue to manufacture them? And it’s very simple to do. It’s all about suggestion. All an established information source needs to do is suggest that something is so and, ding, it becomes so. A self-fulfilling prophecy. Or a self-realized reality.
So-and-so “is facing backlash over”… or “controversy around his/her”… But are they actually reporting on backlash and controversy that they have been made aware of or did these arise from those who were moved to feel some way about something they didn’t care or know about prior to being made aware of it by this “report”? Let’s not forget the phenomenon in which the suggestion that everyone else is doing it (or talking about, or concerned about it, or just aware of it) means you, as a good little sheeple must flock to the site, be a part and weigh in. The spark escalates into a fire and suddenly there really is a story worthy of reporting.
These controversies pop up all around like heated kernels. This is “being called” sexist. That “some consider” racist. Or overtly religious. Or otherwise insensitive and offensive. And we all must turn our heads to the sound even if just long enough for a sponsor to flash a product in my face.
But, in the interest of sticking with an open-dialogue treatment of any controversy or issue of import, I believe it mandatory to know… who exactly, by name, has an issue with (fill-in-blank)? Come forth and make your case. Not the case of those who you’ve come to believe could be offended. Make your case and let it be resolved in the court of rational social discourse. That is, if you really even exist.
There’s a secondary resulting phenomenon from all this, and it’s even more frightening. Those with the power to do so will curb certain behaviors or practices based on the fear that there will be negative (sometimes costly) backlash. And this important issue in need of addressing, which somehow has always eluded notice and consideration, is now a thing all due to the original suggestion that it is a thing. The Political Correctness monster rears its ugly head. Hey, can’t we talk about this and figure out if attention is deemed necessary on a personal, immediately social or universal level before we knee-jerk to pre-emptive and affective action based on baseless suggestions?
I have yet to meet anyone who claims to actually be “offended” by a nativity scene or other Christmas-related public display. But they must be out there because… well “they” told me so. And painstaking actions have been taken to satisfy them.
THE SAD PRACTICE OF IDENTIFYING AND REMOVING “PROBLEM” PEOPLE FROM YOUR LIFE AS SOME SORT OF SELF-HELP NECESSITY
I feel like I’ve seen this on several occasions within these, somewhat cryptic, social media posts. Someone declares their liberation from the grasp of some toxic relationship, some problem-causing other in their world. But wasn’t there a reason why these people were accepted, even invited, into one’s life in the first place. There had to be some small thing that connected who you are with who they are. Something. They didn’t just happen onto you like a wart. Is the problem more likely a failing to recognize or define the boundaries of the relationship?
Is this therapeutic cleansing and discarding of others who create spiritual and psychological clutter really the total fix? Maybe it is. For some people and in some situations. It just seems like a rather extreme approach, this in-or-out treatment of a person whom you chose to be some part of your life at some point. What’s more it seems like some people are more prone to this action repeatedly and this raises a few questions. Why does one repeatedly bring people into one’s life who end up being somehow so toxic as to warrant complete disposal? Is this a flaw in the ability to judge character? And isn’t it at least curious to consider the common denominator in all these relationships – you, the victim of spiritual poisoning.
Yes, it happens. People in your life can slowly or quickly become projects in your life. Some choose to take on these projects out of love, a strong penchant for humanitarianism or something. That’s a choice and it’s hard to complain about it later. That is assuming you were forewarned of what that relationship would entail before giving yourself to it.
And yes, they exist. People out there are or become downright abusive – physically. There’s the “malignant narcissist” profile. The “Gaslighter”. Scary stuff. People can be identified as completely self-centered and manipulative users, life-suckers. OK, they gotta go. But these people are dealing out far more than just some psychological discomfort or difficulty to be around. If your life is filled with so many people fitting this profile then what the hell is going on?!
But then there are those relationships that unexpectedly seem wont to morph from something established into something else - be it from miscommunication or misunderstanding; a changing set of circumstances; or what have you. Now your devotion is suddenly challenged. Wandering through the wonderful free range of human interaction you fall into a pit where you are tortured by new demons who will incessantly seek to pass judgment on your humanity and integrity. All because someone else exploded on you with needs and /or desires born of their own character. Who are you? Are you the good person? Will you be true and loyal and stable? Will you be the one to wrong them when they need something right?
Before casting the needy project person away and running from this guilt, annoyance or other discomfort, why not take a step back and just evaluate? Don’t forget, there was that reason(s) you connected in the first place. You may come to the conclusion that the nature of the relationship is not what is now assumed by the other. It is not this entangling, tumultuous thing that you ever agreed to. Take it or leave it, you are not what they are shaping you into for themselves. Their choice. Their chore to figure out their situation, where the real you fits into it and what resources are available to them in their lives.
I have to consider age now with regard to the actual choice to help someone in self-inflicted trouble.
I find that as I get older I have less and less hope in others to change themselves for the better. It seems to me that through years of practice and with a cemented sense of identity, older people really just are who they are. Maybe others don’t think or feel this way. I’m pretty sure I have peers who don’t – at least not yet. No, acceptance is the key here and, for your own well-being, re-evaluating the boundaries you find necessary in these relationships. Doing this without guilt is probably the hardest part but we can get there (or maybe not depending on our own characters).
Spend the time and energy with the young and growing and learning and becoming and undefined. This is the duty of social and communal humans. They deserve your hope, even when, especially when they fall or break things. Screw the adults. After being given chances and assistance in getting your shit together, at some point it’s on you. My hope fades, eventually to nothing, as the aging problem people begin to show that it is their way of life and not a glitch that is fixable if the caring community rallies for the barn-raising.
But re-assessing relationships and their rules and boundaries seems the more palatable approach than just wanting to totally discard a person due to discomfort.
WHAT THE HELL IS “SPIRITUAL”?
I love this one. I think anyone’s self-analysis is fascinating anyway. We never see ourselves the way others see us and all that. But a self-analysis that double as a self-advertisement is even more entertaining. Like these dating sites where one is challenged to profile themselves so as to sell themselves to their prospective soulmate. Yeah, total honesty and disclosure there for sure. This is where I often come upon this term. Here’s my take…
There is a bit of an aversion to “religious”. Too many negative connotations. Only those close-minded, bible-is-a-book-of-science zealot types will self-describe that way. You would be largely shrinking your field of prospects using this one. Not to mention most young people probably don’t feel particularly religious anymore. Too old-fashioned and prescription-filled with no room for “me-ness” interpretations that are all the rage. You gotta be cool, chic and up-to-date without actually offending anyone who identifies as “religious”. Enter “spiritual”. It is neutral, kind, still hinting humility and just mysterious enough.
How does Webster weigh in on this?
1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal (as in, spiritual needs).
2a: of or relating to sacred matters (as in, spiritual songs)
2b: ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal (as in, spiritual authority)
3: concerned with religious values
4: related or joined in spirit (as in, our spiritual home)
5a: of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
5b: of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic
(Perhaps I should have written that in gray. Defining vagueness with more vagueness. But we excuse Webster for their necessary brevity in such entries.)
So the importance is that it acknowledges something sacred, portraying humility and hinting at a godishness. It suggests enough respect for religion to even kind of hint at it at all. Respect and tolerance are oh so important too. But it declares the strength of individuality in that the “spiritual” one does not freely commit or lock themselves into a codified order of things. They are most definitely them as a cooperating part of the beautiful collective that is us.
There is not that blind embracing of the god that they know, introduced me to and even defined for the spiritual one. They must demonstrate that they have embarked on their own independent journey of discovery of God and the universe. Independence and journeys are the core of a stable person and that is so attractive. God is defined through the spiritual one’s own experience and self-exploration because a real god is down with all that, choosing to connect with me on my terms and in my comfort zone. “I’m OK, God’s OK.”
The alternative to this wonderful, non-committal vagueness of spirituality and the rigid, everyone-else’s-thingness of religion would be an admission that one simply does not believe in a god or some greater sentient being who somehow must play some significant role related to my existence. Could it actually be that your journey of discovery yielded no reason to actually believe any of that? Isn’t honesty a thing too? But don’t dare utter those ugly terms like “atheist” or “agnostic” in your barbaric, simple and disconnected grunts. Those might scare your soulmates away. That way of thinking is uninteresting to say the least and (God knows) we must be interesting.
So does “spirituality” sell in its non-committal and in-touch mystique? I suppose it could be a broad topic on which to launch a conversation. Let me know?
“RACE-CENTRICISM”(?)
First off, a word or several from Merriam-Webster:
RACISM
1: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
2a: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
b: a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles
Kids Definition of racism
1 : belief that certain races of people are by birth and nature superior to others. 2 : discrimination or hatred based on race.
I always feel like any discussion which mentions the term “racism” might already be off the tracks if an agreed upon definition of the term isn’t set in place. Like playing baseball with a football, you hit a ball and run bases but…
These are the fundamental pillars I pull from these definitions:
1. Race, at least in part, determines traits (I read this as character rather than physical since the concept of race is based on physical traits – skin “color”, etc.) and ability.
2. Implied superiority
3. As policy, the blanket oppression of identified race
So: ability; superiority; and oppression
I think my biggest issue with this seemingly tireless obsession with “race” and “racism” and its ready application to just about any contentious or uncomfortable situation is that the very accusation is an automatic judgment requiring the accused to prove him/herself innocent. The basis of this particular accusation must be established against the meaning of this definition, in all fairness.
So I’m focused here not on the analysis of some interaction between two humans or groups of humans and the logical conclusion that it does or does not fit the accepted (has that commitment been avoided?) definition of the charge. I’m fixated on how the pre-judgment (prejudice) is made in a reactionary way before any fair analysis is engaged. This is exacerbated by the seeming societal acceptance of this structureless, yet still powerful, presumption.
Many would meet reaction with reaction and call this accusation of racism, well, racism – or “reverse” racism. But, by this definition, that would imply that either or both parties demonstrates one or all of the following: a declaration addressing ability or superiority (likely subject to interpretation rather than outright); and some form of oppression. This is the due diligence and responsibility of the offended who senses something is awry in the action or speech of the actor or speaker (offender).
Evaluate the scenario. Is there an unequivocal statement regarding the ability of an individual or group, or even a lucidly-interpreted translation of one? Is there at least a logical or fair interpretation that superiority of an individual/group over another individual/group is implied? Now the hard part. What are the indications that these items came from a race-based place, as opposed to any combination of other motivators? Sometimes there is an admission of guilt here (even a proud one). Yuck, still a lot of stains in the world but case closed at least. But usually not.
Now evaluate for our third pillar: oppression. This can manifest in many forms, physical or other. How did a person/group exert their power to hinder you from some kind of movement or progress? Was this done knowingly and not as a result of some misunderstanding? Again, the hard part. What are the indications that this offense came from a race-based place, as opposed to any combination of other motivators?
The motives of people and what makes them who they are and what they do and how they interpret things is an inexhaustibly fascinating exploration and wonder. Isn’t what is truly behind a statement or action which can be interpreted as offensive (particularly, racist) only as interesting and important as what is truly behind the reaction of the offended. Where did that action or statement come from? And why that reaction and interpretation? Is this judgment rationally justified sometimes, every time? Was this propensity incubated in personal places and shaped by experiences, or is it from a cultural nurturing? I call the immediate reaching for “race” on which to fashion an explanation “race-centricism” or a “race-centric” analysis of a scenario or condition. It is not necessarily “racism” by our functional definition because it only demonstrates a penchant for involving the concept of “race” into a theory, explanation or accusation firstly.
In fairness, if society is to demand that someone look into the mirror and his/her heart and explore whether or not they house any racist feelings or thought, overtly or latently, then isn’t it also a reasonable expectation that he/she who feels slighted, in that therapeutic spirit, explore why they arrived at the race-centric conclusion without ever leaving the airport?
It is in that reactionary gesture that a thing I’ll call “meaning usurpation” (for now; “explanation usurpation” is awkward though melodical – usurpation is the important part) is being employed. This usurpation is a daily practice of politicians and many “journalists”. It is a demonstration of complete disregard for an explanation or argument given, or the choice to not seek one from the actor or speaker at all, and replacement by the self-appointed judge of his/her own meaning. “He said (…) but we really know he means (…)” or simply remove the first part if he/she chooses to disregard the explanation given. Isn’t it more fair to accept the explained meaning or reasoning given by the actor or speaker of his/her own action or speaker unless that explanation is somehow proven irrational on the basis of facts and not opinion (and that onus would be on the accuser, not the speaker). Impossible to prove the honesty of someone’s feelings or intentions, so, like it or not, the explanation given must be allowed to stand even under the pressure of all suspicions it generates.
So, once again, the discouragement of trial by transparent dialogue allows a term which has had great power bestowed on it to be abused as a seemingly irresistible weapon in an emotional (and less verbal) joust. Sure, not all the time. But a proliferation of weighty false accusations can prove to be another societal blight and impediment with a potential for damage in need of acknowledgment, as was/is racism.
THE MEANING OF “MEANING” AND THE PREFERENCE FOR “PURPOSE”
“What is the meaning of life?” (ah yes, a classic). Dictionaries provide meanings. But some purpose drives one to pick up the dictionary in search of meaning.
What is the definition of “life” and the nature of my place in it or relationship to it? – meaning; or why do I do and how does it serve the greater movement? – purpose. Be it meaningful or purposeful, is “life” considered here the collective state or the singular and personal – “my life”. That is, “what is the meaning or purpose of all life?” or “What is the meaning or purpose of my life?” Does this all come from the innate need to belong to the collective drive to grow. The focus on “what” and “meaning” is a pursuit of shadows which can’t be satisfying. A realization of purpose for the doer (even if an illusion) can bring satisfaction.
“What is the meaning of this?!” one might ask in reprimand for some action, or “What was the purpose of that?!” Purpose = “why” so “Why did you do that?!” seems a simpler version of the latter. “What did you mean by that action?!”, however, doesn’t seem an appropriate substitute for the former. Is this interpretive dance? Is the action a code or expression of something else without being the something else? Is this to show some recognition that the act is a substitute for some other action or for a statement or declaration?
Meaning suggests the existence of life itself is some message or realization to be deciphered in order to find satisfaction or resolve some intellectual quandary regarding one’s life (existence ?). Personal or universal purpose suggests growth or movement away from a less ideal toward a more subsistent state of being. If life is the result of a convergence of elements and multiple, particular circumstances in a particular environmental set along a timeline of all that is, then it’s secondary purposes are propagation and evolution along the course. Why don’t you want to die? Your primary purpose is survival, without which obviously all others become negated (“meaningless” ?)
So is it “reason” people are looking for for life’s coming about and not actually “meaning” of it?
Anyway, it’s always a “huh?” moment for me when people refer to the “meaning of life”.
THE PENDULUM
If we were to visualize an ideal state of uncompromised truth and justice (should we argue that there is such a thing?) as a straight line with no aberrant offsets, veering or leanings, how would we most efficiently correct such a misalignment? If an item in the model is out of line, left or right, we would simply move it back to center and into alignment. To right a wrong. Right? Wrong. At least human nature seems to again cheat that logical approach to its implementation over and over.
What we more often than not seem to practice is something more in tune with the laws of physics than respectful of the spirit of logic. It acts more like a pendulum. The catalyst for the movement from the just, or center (be it misunderstanding, the “pack” phenomenon, selfish desires, a mixture of these or what have you)pushes with x-amount of force away from the center. But upon consensual recognition of that movement as away from center and in need of correction does not, it seems, very often prompt those affected to seek a return to center but, rather, a like push in the opposite direction – a pendulum effect.
Nature can never be as pure and simple as those of us who are unsettled by lack of complete understanding would like. On that note, every system is subject to the effects of factors which can be introduced in any degree. This could be an introduction to increase the force or decrease the force. In the case of the pendulum, this could result in the increase or decrease of arc size or things could be left in a state of perpetuity of motion.
Consider a seemingly innocuous suggestion, a white lie maybe. The forces of embellishment of the “facts”, an ill-conceived belief in the potential impending dangers these “facts” portend, the power of numbers (the pack) who gather like moss on the moving concept, etc. all act to increase the energy and velocity of the initial swing or movement. Once more players take an interest and “weigh in” upon the counter-movement, an even greater sway is returned and so on.
But counter or diffusive forces could also be introduced. Reason, diversion of attentions and passions elsewhere, altered perceptions, etc. might act to reduce the intensity of movement on successive swings.
Nowhere in our society do I see this better illustrated than in our treatment of each other with regard to these perceived and manufactured racial divides. There has been a continuous system of action, speech and sentimental expression which elicits a like response in the opposite direction, a perception and interpretation of that response and resulting rebuttal in similar terms and modes, etc. etc.
The concept of “race”, with regard to anything of useful consideration, is nonsense. The historical, inhumane and irrational disregard of one identified “race” as unequal and its applications (push this way); The natural and inevitable decrying of injustice by those not for whom rationality and humanity are not quashed by personal benefit and a that’s-just-the-way-it-is mentality (push that way). A stoking of the sentiments of tradition is sacred and change is too scary, too fast and too confusing (push this way). And the pendulum continues to swing this way and that. But then this concept of “race” is adopted and crafted into political weaponry, it becomes a legitimized force with an echoing battle cry. It is a battering ram behind which comes the charge… “Systemic and historical racism” is still very much the enemy! (push that way); “Affirmative Action” and “reverse-racism” are the unfair enemy! (push this way); the pushback is confirmation that you are, indeed, still racist! Guilty! (push that way) Stop faulting me for the sins of others! (push this way). Push. This way. That way. The pendulum… stereotyping; legal and social policies; oversimplifying and reaction to the perceived injustice; identification with the previous actions and reactions as a re-hash of the original motivation which has never completely gone away. Oprah Winfrey, et al, commenting casually on how anti-Obama sentiment is “obviously” racial. (not even possibly policy-based). – this is about where we are now. But the pendulum is approaching center and I have to believe that as Time diffuses the old sentiments and reduces the sharing which strengthens there energy, as logic continues to nurture the evolution of thought and communication is encouraged, and as more societal considerations continue to grow in importance to replace the old – it must reach center. Clarence Thomas remarked something and about how any person’s perspective and interpretation will be born of the times and experiences they have encountered and how one’s own experiences will always seem heavier and more grave than another’s because of the power of the personal experience element.]))
Personally, I find it annoying, frustrating and embarrassing that the movement of that pendulum particular to the example (and others) is still in motion. When I hear anyone make a statement the gist of which suggests that something is because of its basis in the “race” spectrum I have to roll my eyes and hang my head. “Wake up. Catch up. We don’t have time to linger in this mud,” I think. Ideas and actions may be based on the availability and processing of information or on legitimate sub-cultural differences. But too often these things are allowed (encouraged, I wonder?) to masquerade in a veil of “race-centric” construction. But when we all realize that such things are immaterial fantasies, many raucous and ugly pendulums will finally come to a grinding halt.
The race thing is, of course, just one example of the Pendulum in action. We can all find it in much more personal interactions I’m sure. The Hatfields and McCoys are everywhere pushing that thing. Outside of conflict it can be applied to all public opinion trends, styles and fashions, etc. Anything that is moved with too much of a “yea” and thumbs-up seems to eventually warrant a 180 degree reactive and contradictory “yea”. Everything seems to naturally want to retreat to the comfort of a center. Well… almost everything.
I’m reminded of the pendulum again as the highly publicized and encouraged celebration of Pride Day passes. Consider the notion of “pride”. A group whose way in the world was one of skirting the fringes and reaching out gingerly for acceptance starts out far to one side in some state of non-acceptance. But does the dialogue and diligent empathy of a rational society clear the way for that group’s rightful placement in the center, or the norm? Nope. That is not the way of the pendulum. It moves from that sideline of non-acceptance first to the other sideline where parades must be marched in loud glory and flags created and waved proudly. Is one’s sexual tastes something to be proud of really? Is it an accomplishment, or even a choice? Are there midget parades and freckle-face parades and longer second toe parades? If they feel unaccepted by the majority, I suppose they have a right to somehow contrive some sense of pride for these characteristics that are not chosen or accomplished or defining of them as individuals. Just ride the pendulum.
BABY WE WERE BORN TO RUN
Runners aren’t athletes. It requires no real coordination, skill or reactive decision-making. It’s just one foot in front of the other, over and over, as best you can. It is about 30% leg; 30% lung; and 40% a combination of insanity, stupidity and sheer will. Sheer will is not letting your body, your environment or your rational mind tell you “no”. Running is therapy, self-abuse and extreme OCD. Are we running away from something or after it? Depends, I guess. That’s a personal meditation. Who really knows? The running bug, like faith, requires no explanation for those who have it and has none adequate for those who don’t.
UNION YES!! UNION NO!! UNION YES!! UNION NO!! …..
Here’s another one of those grays that seem to be viewed as black or white in alignment with one political party or the other. Political narratives, once again, seize something and hold it hostage from the fair and rational consideration of the “grays” dialogue. Declare yourself “pro-union” and you are “for the people” and cast your net for those votes accordingly. Say you are “pro-business” and you reap the hefty money-based influence and power of the capitalist set. Either way you are ushered hard to one side or the other because politicians find strength in more rigid ideological affiliations. Black and white are simple and saleable positions and messages. Grays are weak and useless.
Unions have been around since the Industrial Revolution. Possibly longer in some form, although the absence of modern media and communication probably left them with no cohesive agent resulting in a rapid quashing if the laborer(s) even dared to put forth a collective voice. Prior to that, the human element in a larger operation was just that – an element, not human, a number in an equation, a cog, a worker ant.
Though we refer to a “corporate entity” in terms of tax law and other things, there is a stark difference between that and a human entity. It seems there is a widespread inability, maybe by choice, to recognize the difference. No, corporations are incapable of greed, or power-obsession, or avoidance. They are mechanisms created to serve the purposes of man. Like all machines, the corporation takes on identity of its own in our eyes – like the car we name and the computer we blame and it exists for one reason. That is to generate wealth by satisfying needs or desires of humans. That lack of humanness sets some people aback, trembling in horror but, really, it’s OK. Go ahead and touch it.
I have worked for small operations and enormous ones. In a small operation, you speak directly to the boss, the brain center. Any agreement, issue or need for understanding is done on a personal basis. You either come to agreement and carry on or you don’t and move on. But you are you with no need for a representative or channel of communication.
In the enormous operations, there are concentric circles of belonging. With each, moving outward, comes an exponentially lessening degree of familiarity. Yes, back to that concept again because it’s influence on perception and decision-making is irrefutable to me.
So you have your “group” or “team” or whatever who, together, perform a certain function – a part of the whole, like an organ in the body. You know each other by name and face and even character, foibles and aptitudes. Within that group an assessment of each individual’s value to that operation can be determined by each other, be it consciously or unconsciously. There is also a sub-supervisor who can (and should) make all those determinations. All of this may result in conflicts and/or weekly chumming at the local bar. Familiarity. Similar to that shared in the smaller operation.
As we move outward into the looser circles of belonging, that familiarity decreases. At some point, each of those human characters with some level of skill, devotion and work ethic becomes a number on a spreadsheet. His/her production is obscured by the production of the team, then the branch, then the division, etc. That number is easily flicked from the page or somehow diminished with little consideration when the bottom line, or largest picture, is considered. All this under the pressure to produce from within that widest circle, at this grander level, by making sweeping decisions with profound impacts on the whole.
Is this “fair” or “good” or “right”? Well, let’s again consider the purpose of the operation, the whole, the corporation and begrudgingly there is a strong case for yay. Is it “humanitarian”? Nothing about the existence of the operation ever claimed to be or had an obligation to be in the first place. But none of this exists without US and WE are human – so, the dilemma.
Our answer – unions. A collective, humanitarian voice which seems necessary when familiarity and human consideration are faded out with the growing size of an operation. Somewhere a point of de-personalization has formed and solidified.
I always wonder where that point is. Does it vary from operation to operation? For instance, some operations choose to value the decisions of the supervisory within the inner circles when calculating decisions on the outer circles. That is, let the ones who are familiar with the individual humans and their value to the operation offer their more intimate understanding of their particular cog for those who consider how to operate the machine. This would, theoretically, perhaps serve to circumvent the need for an all-encompassing union voice. I suspect they are the exception and not the norm.
Now let’s consider the all-encompassing part. Isn’t a large union representing people in a large operation or operations really devoid of familiarity too? In championing universally “human” interests, aren’t they setting aside any consideration of individualized concerns? I guess some consideration is better than none at all and some issues are pretty damn close to universal (everyone wants more pay, etc.) but it’s far from ideal. We can’t all afford the luxury of being able to loose a personal agent on our employers when we have a gripe.
My bigger concern is in seeing what many of these “collective champions” have become when they, themselves, become as large or larger a force than the evil corporations they purport to protect against. With this size and power comes corruption, abuse and self-servitude. The entity growing in size becomes vulnerable to losing its own humanity in the same way the small business did upon becoming a larger corporation. It becomes a behemoth focused on promoting its own existence – like the corporation. Now a political voice, the big union uses its power and influence to coerce its constituents into making political decisions which will support those who will support it – all in the name of “the people” – while losing all touch with the individuals it is supposed to represent and speak FOR, not vice versa.
In big union’s titanic clash with big corporation for each to get more from the other, it is just as vulnerable to ignoring any interest in the health of the whole economic and capitalist system. Unrealistic demands (on behalf of “the people”), when capitulated to or strong-armed into, can potentially do some economic damage. A cognizance of this would be comforting and admirable but, like their corporate foe, seems absent from the big union DNA. Take the most emergent example of higher wages. While it’s obvious why corporate would not want to raise wage if avoidable (although some have now chosen to do just that), explanations have been put forth as to why the rush to do so would be damaging to the consumer (“the people”). Big union is not interested in that discussion any more than big corporate is interested in offering more maternal (and paternal) leave.
All that considered, I think I do support the right of workers to not have to join a union if they choose to not be a part of yet another potential monstrosity in governing over them. In principle, that is. I would say, “good luck going it alone and thinking the potential corporate monstrosity will be any more understanding of the concerns and demands of little old you” though. Kind of like the security and perks of being associated with the mob as opposed to getting torn up if you choose to go your “street business” alone. OK, that might be a bit extreme a comparison. Maybe.
PARTY! PARTY! PARTY! PARTY!
It appears we are stuck in a stalemate between two political parties who are less about the exchange of and compromise over ideas. It is all about the identity of party (much Labeling) and the selling of one over the other, with mutual exclusivity. The voice of the individual representative who might dare to rise against, or even differ slightly from, the party machine affiliated with is quashed. Political survival depends on falling in line.
But what if we could break free of the two-party strangle-hold. What if agents mustered the energy and support to break out from the path. What if initiative and ingenuity and vision and power could all work to reshape the political landscape? The picture might look a little more like a tree, with branches that all look like branches but are unique unto themselves upon closer examination, rather that two stiff poles standing straight up and never daring to touch each other.
What if from the two could emerge like four or five? They might look something like this…
An expansion and more legitimacy given to the Libertarian party. If given serious consideration and equal ground with the 2 major parties, people would find themselves actually more in alignment with its principles. This would be a place for those who freely tout the virtues and values of capitalism and mercantilism without scorn. This would be a home for those who stand together behind the principle that people are actually A-OK and can be given some rope to operate as they will and that this will be the basis of a more healthy economy and smoother path toward a greater and more prosperous future for all. Just leave them the hell alone and we’ll all be better off, they’ll say.
The “Constitution Party” might emerge. This is based on the strictest adherence to the word of the document with no tolerance for the bending of interpretations when viewing a conflict through “modernized” glasses. In other words, this would assume an acceptance that all the basic tenets necessary to dictate how the ethical engagement of people with one another in society should proceed is already in those documents. The belief that the evolution of society will present us with previously unconsidered principles, which now must be conceived and fleshed out, is a misguidance. Although forms are in a constant state of change, substance is constant. Every conflict or issue may be reduced to some basic tenet or tenets within which the resolution will be found. This party is the place where the “religion and God above all” set will congregate. After all, in considering the letter of the works of the founders, the deism and subjugation to “God” as the basis of all is inescapable. They will continue to enthusiastically remind us of that.
The Socialist wing of the Democrat Party has seen a coast clear enough for them to step forth and declare what exactly they are. They prefer, albeit, to water it down by dubbing it “democratic socialism” so as to make it seem like something new and improved and tailored for today. In the spirit of universal “equality” better to have a central government make sure all is provided for all, so as to keep things from becoming too confused. And if the stigma of a name and any lingering negative associations should prove too bedeviling, just change it. How about “Humanitarian Party”? The focus is on the needs every human is inherently obligated to ensure for all others – no cost too high.
We can’t ignore the suggestion of a “one-world nation” being inevitable as environmental and economic realities will not allow each to play alone. This all accelerated by the pace of mass media and communication and its immediacy and shattering of the sense of distances. So there might be the “World Party” or something which sets itself up as the host which will usher in and seek to shape this eventuality. This is the anti-nationalist party which bases its ideologies on the idea that even the pursuit of an individual state’s health must start with the consideration of its place in the whole and interaction with others. This is the party of climate change defenses and universal corporate tax. While the Socialists might come to own the “equity” idea, these guys will seek to quash the competition impulse and replace it with cooperation.
Of course you will always have your Anarchists to keep things spicy, but the funny thing about them is once they are incited to organize for or against something they become an oxymoron. Right?
This division of the power and attention now secured under lock and key by the “big 2” would open up the complexities of issues for debate and force a consideration of these by the public. It would shake them from this inclination to retreat to the stronghold of one side or the other (red vs. blue, my team vs. your team) mentality. It would break the chains of affiliation with the commercial-like mottos and simplistic tag lines to which complex and important issues have been reduced so to make them more easily palatable to the spoon-fed followers, light and easy to wield or hold in the pocket. It would free a politician and a supporter alike from the bonds of having to swallow a platform whole in order to be allowed on the field of play. They would instead, within the more lenient confines of more focused basic identities, have a breadth with which to define more individualized political profiles with particular theories spanning particular issues. All this without fear of losing support from the machine with one gesture the wrong way or one ideological hiccup in public address when pressed to tow the line.
Wow, the idea of real choices and honesty and transparency in politics! Isn’t that the holy grail the voter is constantly promised – the carrot on the cart? Oh and don’t forget diversity and inclusion. We just hit most of the Progressive keywords there, so they would be happy and unnecessary. Or “progressive” would just be re-defined. We’re probably incapable of ever being truly satisfied with our state of being.
I know other countries have multiple parties and face the struggle of forming coalitions to get anything done and all that. But it just seems that a more honest presentation and substantive exploration of positions would emerge. I guess the shallowness and laziness of many voters is as troubling as the dishonesty that is more easily sold to it. Keep it simple (even though it isn’t) and keep it moving seems to be the political modus operandi. But we all owe it to ourselves and to the future to be more vigilant and responsible than that.
Of course, all this diversity and freedom with regard to so many issues and so many positions replacing the rigidity of the “platforms” could prove to be overwhelmingly confusing for the voter. If that fantasy should ever come into being, might he/she finds him/herself longing for the good ol’ days when the choices were so much simpler and didn’t require so much research and consideration? After all, we seem to always need something to complain about.
HELLO??
So when does a relationship (again, broadest sense of the word – there was a mutual acknowledgement of identities and any period or level of interaction) devolve into no longer acknowledging the other person with “Hello.”?
This is another somewhat guilt-laden admission, but I know I’m not the only one who has experienced this. That person “knows” or knew you, but they don’t acknowledge you. Did they really forget? Did they really not see you? Both are possible but you know are unlikely. More likely, the time has expired on that relationship meter. You only put in so many quarters and you never had occasion to re-up or hit the reset button. The good news is it’s probably mutual (but not always – boo) so if you feel like a dick, or think they are, your dick statuses kind of cancel each other out so it’s OK. They were feeding the same meter after all.
So when did the meter expire or how do you know? Is there some unconscious calculation that takes place somewhere in your head at the moment of even faint recognition which determines in a split second that the effort to make contact won’t return anything of at least equal value and there is no likelihood of future involvement? Is that selfish, or lazy, or both? Maybe it was one of those relationships which existed solely in that world of alcohol consumption. You know, that party when everyone was off the hook and all went from strangers to best friends with each other within the span of a keg or a few bottles. The meter you fed was kind of plastic and pastel-colored and you used little plastic animal face tokens.
Surely the Familiarity concept is somehow at play in this calculation. I guess “absence makes the heart grow fonder” is probably dependent on the genuine nature of that fondness to begin with. I think absence more likely just allows time to wither fondness like it does everything else. The meters expire. How many quarters do you have to spend?