societal-questions – Page 3 – Observations Along the Road

And take a tip from La Belle France: “Viva la difference!”

Posted onSunday, November 22, 2015Tuesday, November 24, 2015Authorcahwyguy

Observation Stew Let’s end this week of news chum posts with song lyrics in the title with a very apropos song for a “news chum stew” post: Pete Seeger’s All Mixed Up. The point of the song is a timely lesson for all of those who profess hatred or refuse to permit in refuges:

There were no red-headed Irishmen
Before the Vikings landed in Ireland
How many Romans had dark curly hair
Before they brought slaves from Africa?
No race of man is completely pure,
Nor is anyone’s mind, that’s for sure
The winds mix the dust of every land,
And so will woman and man.

And now, on with the stew:

These Poor Refuges, They Just Cause Trouble. Let’s start with the story of an immigrant refugee, a man who came to this country with nothing… and ended up not only as a founding father, but as a star on Broadway: Alexander Hamilton. We have two articles about this show: the first gives 20 things you might not have known about Hamilton; the second is about how the star of Hamilton is really… a woman.
Women on Broadway. Let’s go with this women theme for a minute. December 3rd is when the updated version of The Wiz is presented live on NBC… and the producers have let us know what their next project will be: They are bringing Bombshell (from Smash) to Broadway.
Girl… Scouts? This article raises a question that has oft been raised to me as President of a synagogue brotherhood: why do we still have brotherhoods and sisterhoods in congregations. If we are truly egalatarian, they seem archaic institution… especially in this era of trans-rights? We no longer see sex as binary, so why two organizations? What is the article? It seems that a group of girls in California have sued to become part of the Boy Scouts. (if the link doesn’t work, as NYT links might, do this search)
Racism on Campus. This one saddens me. According to the Daily Cal at UC Berkely, a bunch of students have created a White Student Union page for Berkeley on Facebook (ETA: Subsequenty deleted). This comes on top of the Reply All episode that reexplored racism on campus in light of the MizzU incident. Sad to say, but much as we think racism and bigotry is dead, it isn’t. In fact, we’ve just created new ways for it to rear its ugly head. ETAA: This may have been a hoax, at least with respect to the WSU.
Visible vs. Invisible. Here’s one that probably isn’t a surprise. With the drought in California, everyone was ripping out their lawns and replacing them with drought-friendly plants. But guess what? Although it was visible, it really didn’t save all that much water. Do you really want to save water? Do something invisible. Replace your toilets and your washing machine.
No Duh. Here’s a no brainer: If you’re ordering takeout on Christmas or Christmas Eve, odds are that it is Chinese food.
Music and Bicycling. Here’s an article about how cities are cracking down on distracted bicycling. Now, I’m all for safe bicycling. But I like to listen to my podcasts or music as I ride, just as I do in my car. Why can’t someone invent a bike helmet that can connect (either wired or bluetooth) to an iPod or MP3 player to play music and yet let you hear traffic noise.
I Never Knew. Lastly, here’s something that surfaced today. Did you know there is a crochet museum in Joshua Tree?

Repent, and Ye Shall Be Saved

Posted onWednesday, April 30, 2014Authorcahwyguy1 Comment

userpic=soapbox While eating my lunch today, I was reading the LA Times, and saw an article about how Donald Trump had purchased another golf course. This got me thinking about Donald Trump pulling a Donald Sterling, and how Sterling was banned for life from the NBA. This, in turn, got me thinking about our punative culture. For as much lip service as we give to religion, our attitude in the US seems to be: make a mistake once, and you’re branded for life.

Consider: Sterling clearly made racist remarks — wrong, misguided, and every kind of stupid. But the actions that were taken in response provide no ability to Sterling to ever recover — even if he was to sincerely learn from his mistake and change his ways, there’s no undoing the ban. Similarly, for those that commit any level of sex crimes — even if they were very young — there is no opportunity with the way our society brands and ostracizes such offenders that they could ever change their ways and be trusted. I’m sure you can find numerous additional examples: politicians are still held accountable for stupid statements and behaviors in their youth. We put many people in jail, and then brand them as “once-in-jail” for life. You can’t escape the permanent record.

All this from a society that is actually one of the most religious ones around. I know that both Judaism and Christianity teach — in fact, they emphasize — the ability to sincerely repent from one’s wicked ways. They teach that one can move from leading a life of sin, and be reborn on a good and spiritual path. I believe the teachings are that if one is on that path sincerely, the past is the past. Yet for all the religious talk, we’re not doing that.

Was society always this way? I think not. Look at George Wallace. Once he was an ardant racist and segregationist. Later in his life, he recanted those early beliefs, and changed his ways (and was viewed differently).

I want to be clear that I’m not defending the behavior of Sterling or sex offenders. Rather, I’m raising the question of repentance: can one truly repent in front of society (and, if one believes, in front of God), what is the motivation for repentance if society refuses to accept it, and whether we can be as religion-centered as we claim if we eschew the notion of repentance in practice?

Saturday Stew: Clearing out the Groupatwos before Pesach

Posted onSaturday, April 12, 2014Authorcahwyguy

Observation Stew In the Talmud, there is a learned Rabbi who opines that groupatwos are to be considered Chametz during Passover. Luckily, this week was so busy I accumulated a bunch of groupatwos. So let’s get that feather and that candle and get them out of the links list before Passover starts Monday night:

What You Don’t See. This groupatwo has been sticking in my mind. I have a friend who is very sensitive to privilege and racism issues. She often sees subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) concerns where I (who arguably, have been raised with privilege) see none. A few weeks ago, she highlighted an issue that has stuck in my head as an example of this subtle issue — today I took the time to find the articles again. The concern is discussed well in this article about photography and brown skin, and that was driven somewhat by this article. The issue is that film sensitivity and color sensitivity was calibrated using particular white models, and the constrast designs work best for white skin. Photographing — at least in film days — black models (and especially, black and white models together) resulted in poor photographs. Hence, what did most fashion photographers use? Truly a fascinating example of subtle racism. Was it unintended? That’s probably a different debate.
What You Wear. Two articles from last week about what people wear. The first talked about a defendent in a courtroom, who took the stand and attended the proceedings in sloppy untucked clothing. The message this sent the jury increased the odds of conviction. The second is also courtroom based — this time about a judge who admonished the female attorneys for wearing clothes that were too revealing (and in particular, they distracted him). So what is proper courtroom attire, and how much does freedom of expression come into play?
Breaking Away. Two articles about countries breaking away. In the first, the concern is Quebec, and how the charge for Quebec separatism is nearly dead. In the second, the article is about England and the different reactions to independence movements in Scotland vs. Ireland. England would seemingly be happy if the two Irelands reunited and remained separate, but Scotland should stay part of Great Britain. The article explains why.
Visitor Attractions. Two articles on visitor attractions. The first deals with Buellton California, and discusses a museum of Petroliana — old gas station stuff — that I must visit. The second deals with newly announced expansion plans for Universal Studios — hopefully, I can get ACSAC near there in 2015 and 2016, and these will draw in a bunch of attendees.
Two Singlets. Two single stories a groupatwo makes. In the first, it looks like TNT is bringing back the Librarian franchise as a series — with Noah Wyle, Jane Curtain, and Bob Newhart! The second talks about a new minimally invasive procedure for chronic sinusitis that sounds very interesting.

Seminal Points: The ABCs

Posted onThursday, July 18, 2013Authorcahwyguy

userpic=cyborg Today’s collection of news chum all fits in the categories of stories related to seminal inventions or time points:

Air Conditioning. Mental Floss has a nice piece about life before air conditioning, and how houses were designed specifically to be cool without A/C. Nowadays, we really take A/C for granted, but it really was a profound change for our society.
Birth Control. The Ferrett has a nice post about birth control, and how it profoundly changed society. Many of the societal strictures that were place on women and their behavior were put in place precisely because of the lack of birth control. Again, another profound change.
Cassettes. This one is less profound. Buzz Feed has a list of 34 things you miss about mixtapes. Now I never made mixtapes as something to give someone else. However, I did extensive recording of my LPs to cassettes, and would be very creative in how I did filler. I also made what were essentially mixtapes for myself — energy tapes, relaxation tapes, etc. My systems were horribly complicated with 4 hexidecimal digits and card catalogs. Now I just listen to all my music on my iPod Classic on shuffle. Life is much easier.
Dextrose. National Geographic has a nice article on the various forms of sugar substitutes and how they stack up. Of course, the best answer is to either eschew sugar completely, or only use sugars that are found in nature in the form you use them. Refining and chemicals are not so great.

It’s All Happening At The Zoo

Posted onThursday, November 8, 2012Authorcahwyguy1 Comment

Earlier this week, I did a post about how we are attempting to combat stupidity by getting rid of Buckyballs. That post came to mind while I was eating lunch, when I saw an article about some historical photos of the San Francisco Zoo. We’ve been hearing a lot about zoos of late, usually in conjunction with “teh stupid”. There was the child who fell into a painted dog enclosure and was mauled, after his mother stood him on the railing. There is the man who attempted suicide by walking into a tiger enclosure at the Bronx Zoo. I’m sure you can think of other incidents.

I don’t want to discuss the issue of whether zoos are good or bad. Rather, I’m more interested in looking at what zoos were versus what they are today.

Take a look again at the pictures from the San Francisco Zoo. We have interactions with animals you would never have today, such as children feeding large wild animals. It isn’t just San Francisco either. It is easy to explore the old Los Angeles Zoo, and to see how close one could get to the animals and the risk from the exposure. The St. Louis Zoo had children interacting with elephants. I’m sure you remember visiting the zoo as a child, and the things you could do that you cannot do today.

This all goes back to the original issue of risk. Back when I was growing up (whippersnapper!), there was so much less concern about risk to children. Adventure was part of growing up. Although I’m sure that incidents happened, they certainly didn’t get the instant coverage and hoopla they get today, and thus they were less in the overall societal consciousness. In short: We didn’t worry (or we were too busy worrying about “the bomb” to worry about our children).

Today? It seems that worry has turned into big business. We worry so much we pay legislatures to create rules to protect ourselves from ourselves (Measure B, the condom measure, is a great example of that). We remove products from markets; we close attractions. We monitor our children 24/7, and keep them tethered to us with cellphones. Has the risk changed, or are we just more aware of it?

To look at the other side: Is this a bad thing? Our children are certainly safer. Isn’t it better to know the risk and to act on it than to live in ignorance?

Thoughts?

P.S.: There is a great quote in that Measure B article I linked: “Sure, Pas is pretty close to the Valley, but we think porn should look to Vernon–it’s sparsely populated, full of warehouses, and already smells like sausage. “

Why Do We Have Taxes?

Posted onTuesday, January 24, 2012Authorcahwyguy1 Comment

As I’m sitting here eating my lunch, I’m reading the articles about Mitt Romney and musing about taxes. Have you ever thought about our tax system and why we have taxes? I bet if you asked people why taxes exist, after bitching that they are too high, they would say “To fund the government.” But they attempt to do a lot more than that, and that’s where our problems start.

If taxes were simply to fund the government, we’d probably have the same rate for all types of income, across people and businesses. But we don’t. We have differing rates for different things, and deductions and rules hither and yon. Why? The answer is simple: to help those we want to help, and to encourage behaviors we want to encourage.

This is where “the rich are different from us” comes into play. Most people you likely know earn most of their money through their jobs. That’s normal income. The “rich” don’t earn their money through their salaries: they earn it through investment income, dividends, bonuses (often in the form of stock that is later sold), and such other ways. Passive income like that is taxed differently. Basically, the normal income is taxed so the poor should pay less and the rich more. However, the rich pay less because their income is passive income, and that is taxed lower supposedly to encourage people to invest in stocks and bonds and industry.

This may help you understand Mitt Romney’s taxes. His income is in categories that are taxed at lower rates, because that is behavior that Congress wanted to encourage. Similarly, this is why loopholes such as that exploited by Newt exist. Newt took advantage of an S Corporation: A corporation that exists solely to funnel corporate income, losses, deductions and credit through to their shareholders for federal tax purposes. The income can go to the shareholder in two ways: as salary, or as pass-through income. Guess which is taxed lower? Guess where Newt funneled his income?

This is one reason why the President is going to call for Tax Reform during the State of the Union. The problem is not that taxes are too high (actually, they may not be high enough). The problem is that we don’t have a clear mission for what our tax system is to do and fund, and what we want to encourage and discourage. The current system is so arcane as to be inequitable. The goal of the tax system should be that the tax burden should borne by those that can afford to bear it, and the tax system should encourage what makes America strong: getting an education, locating businesses in America and employing American workers, investment in America through home and business ownership and stewardship, and doing good for others through charitable works. Doing the right things should receive incentives; doing the wrong things (such as offshore outsourcing) should be discouraged.

Let’s heed the call for Tax Reform, and think about how we truly want to raise money to fund government operations (we can debate later about what is the appropriate size of government; we can hopefully all agree we need some government).

Music: Our Men in San Francisco (The Limeliters): The Rising of the Moon

Musings on “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist”

Posted onSunday, January 8, 2012Authorcahwyguy

In the musical “Avenue Q“, the characters sing the song “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist“, expressing the opinion that everyone has a little bit of racism inside of them–that everyone, as some level, makes judgements based on race. A number of incidents in the news of late, plus programs I have seen and discussions I have had, have gotten me wondering how pervasive this really is. How much is our fear of the other affecting the decisions that we make?

The primary prompting factor for this was an article about Papa Johns, where a fast food worker refered to a customer on a receipt as “Lady Chink Eyes”. Papa Johns immediately apologized and the employee was fired. This comes on the heels of an incident where workers at a Chik-Fil-A in Irvine referred to Asian customers as “Ching” and “Chong”. They, too, were fired and the corporation issued an apology. Although not racism, there was also a recent incident where a Burger King employee was pocketing the change from a mentally impared customer. This employee was also fired after the incident came to light, and the company apologized.

My question is why these things are happening. Some believe it is encouraged by a pervasive attitude with certain corporations. That certainly is possible with Chick-Fil-A, which is known to take an anti-Gay stance. I’m not aware of recent similar stories about Papa Johns, although there was at least one pizza chain whose owner was anti-abortion. However, I’m not sure whether statistically this would be borne out, or whether employee training is silent on the subject.

What I’m wondering more is whether these are examples of the claimed low-level racism mentioned in the Avenue Q song leaking out, especially in the hands of lower-skilled and often lighter-educated fast-food workers? How pervasive is this low-level racism?

This is where something I watched recently comes in. Shotime recently has begun broadcasting Freakanomics, and one of the segments on the show looked at the effect of how we name our children on their future lives. The conclusion of the authors was that it was more socionomic upbringing and education that affects a future life (as opposed to the name), but one segment does show the effect of a name. They took an identical resume, differing only in the name (i.e., a white-male sounding name vs. a black-male sounding name), and sent it to a large number of companies. More callbacks came from the white-sounding name, although everything else was the same. Why?

As with many things in life, the starting point for a solution is awareness and transparency. We need to realize that we have these attitudes if we want to correct them. Many years ago, when I was working at SDC, we had mandated “Ethics” training in response to a number of defense contractor lapses. The instructor started out by saying (I paraphrase): “I can’t teach you ethics. You are either ethical or you are. But I can teach you what the law is.”

We may all have a little bit of racism in us. This may come from the fear of the stranger or the fear of the new. We might not be able to change that. What we can change is how we behave. These fast-food incidents demonstrate that more training is required regarding how we must behave in our interactions with others. A number of customer service companies have demonstrated that such training can work. That’s something that all customer service companies should consider.

As for the rest of us? We should increase our sensitivity, but we also need to find that fine line between sensitivity and hyper-sensitivity. It’s a hard line to find, for our experiences and background do shape our sensitivity on this issue–this is why many people today often don’t see racist or sexist actions everywhere, even though they may be there. Further, it is still worth noting the unintentional racist or sexist action, for it can be a good teaching instance for where instinctual racism leaks out. But still, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and an action isn’t based on something racist or sexist. Being able to draw that line is difficult.

Music: What’d I Say (Ray Charles): That’s Enough

A Discussion Question

Posted onFriday, February 25, 2011Authorcahwyguy

I was reading yuki_onna‘s most recent post (the one about Monsanto), and a question occurred to me: Which of the “seven deadly sins” (anger, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony) has caused the most damage to society.

In my thinking, it would be greed. Certain most of our financial crises have been caused by greed. Shoddy construction that injures people-Greed. Slum conditions that keep people in poverty-Greed. The fundamental desire for more money and power causes untold damage.

But I’m curious about your opinion. Which of the seven do you think has hurt society most?