2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Tom, I can only speak for one such community of about 100 - and that was over 40 years ago.  "Spare the rod and spoil the child." , was only a part of some peoples arsenal in child raising.  Like most communities, questions that involve 'degrees' of something, produce an internal polarity.  This polarity, as in the larger community, was just as likely to be between mom and dad, as it was to be between families.

What does seem to be true, is that the families with the most struggle for impulse control, in the parents, were the ones most likely to cling to black and white rules, etc..

Without the external controls many of these parents would indeed have been worse off, (at least in the short run).

The ideal solution, of coarse, is for everyone to have internal controls.  Under the best conditions, people continuously exercise the logical parts of their brains in all the areas that deal with actions, and consequences that extend well into the future.  This takes a lot of imagination as well as logical ability.

Shamefully, 'Fundamentalism' is an easy answer for some.  Still, it is perhaps a necessary answer for others.  As you suggest, it can still be a tragedy for their children.  This is especially true when children have the ability to develope internal controls, but are denied the oportunities to develope them.

And what of the more rare situation, where the parents have pretty good internal control on their impulses, and a child who is logically and imaginatively challenged?  Time to call pastor Tim?

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I grew up in a fundamentalist church community. I watched some of the kids from the most sheltering families go off the deep end when God didn't strike them dead when they had their first beer.  Most of these parents are well meaning in their attempts to protect their children.  Sadly it is often the most sheltered kids that have the least defenses to the worst dangers once they are on their own.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Risk assessment paired with responsibilty over long periods of time, is the issue.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Risk assessment  paired with responsibility over time, is the issue. 

Risking my own life means little in the broad scheme of things.  Risking the lives of many in the current generation - who would benefit from our energy production choices - while tough, is also of little lasting consequence.  [Society makes these kinds of choices when we go to war.  Not easy, and not to be taken lightly, but the survivors regroup, and life goes on.]

Risking the lives of people who do not benefit from our choices, however, is criminal.
 
Put another way; I can drive my car as fast as I want on an empty road out in the dessert.  When I go through town though I am more careful because it effects  more people. 

Now suppose I die while driving, my gas tank has enough fuel to last 500,000 years, it has an auto pilot that keeps it zooming around.   It is immune to crashes it has with living things, and it also is invisible.  I can now potentially devastate the lives of countless millions over hundreds of thousands of years.  [Makes Hitler seem small time.]

Having those glass logs coming out of the Vitrification plant is the equivalent  to being able to turn off the key of my vehicle when I die.

We can not assume anything about the capabilities of any future generation of humans.  Economies are fragile things in the best of geologic times.  Fragile too are our attempts to organize our tribally adapted species into large nation states that last more than a few hundred years.

The glass logs are the off switch. I hope to see many of them soon.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

There are two considerations that keep responsible, farsighted people from supporting the creation of more nuclear waste - at this time.

1. Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong - in the next 500,000 years - it will.

2. The absense of a glass log stream coming out of the Vitrification plant.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

There are two considerations that keep responsible, farsighted people from supporting the creation of more nuclear waste - at this time.

1. Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong - in the next 500,000 years - it will.

2. The absense of a glass log stream coming out of the Vitrification plant.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

It happens all the time.  People who can visualize complex things often get tripped up with the wierdness of language.  Don't be a Pedant.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

The one thing that doesn't change is the human circumstance.  We are all vulnerable to weather, starvation, disease, social insignificance, and death.

Socially, we have an interest in survival that includes the ‘tribe’, or the people we know directly.

Materially, we want a bigger than tribal survival unit that can manufacture or procure anything we might need or want. 

Beyond that, we have an interest in survival that makes a risk assessment of the worst actors on the global stage.

It is this latter consideration that makes us construct large militarily competitive nations.  Less fossil fuels will change the expense but not the motive to survive any potential threat.

Tragically, less fossil fuels may put an end to the Hamiltonian hope that if you just make the worlds nations economically interdependent, (globalization), they wont be so likely to go to war with each other. 

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

The 'bigger issues' are also  minefields of beliefs that are fortified with selective preponderance.  If I understand you, I agree that being civil will not get us to the 'truth'.  Being uncivil wont help either.

The problem is that, collectively, we can not handle enough variables to not specialize/polarize on the complex stuff.  Mind mapping can help, (for the highly motivated and energetic). 

I fear that the vast majority will still always choose to reinforce a side on a polarity.  One side may well be MORE right than the other, but it still leads to war.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I wonder if it is a useful distinction to suggest that a public discussion may have different goals than a private discussion between two people, or even a group of like minded people, (political, or religious).

More topics for another day?

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

We tend to insist on civility, and to a lesser extent politeness and political correctness, in public discussions.  We do this in order to get the broadest diversity of points of view.  It isn't because 'rudeness' make other people shut up, (it often makes them respond in kind).   It is because we are after observations that add to the collective perspective.  Having a high standard for the tone of peoples comments, tends to screen out some of the least helpful comments, i.e., the ones that are more about beliefs,  old fights, and new provocations,  than they are observations from a point of view. 

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Re-reading the last of my post - that I shortened because of space - I could see how it might be construed to mean that I thought tax cuts to the rich would stimulate the economy.  I do not.

The quote:  "To whom much is given, much is required." is one of my favorite.  I have used it often, for many decades.

  Entrepreneurs in general - rich or not -  will often be able to do more ( hopefully good) if their taxes are reduced. So tying tax breaks to job creation, (you point out we already do), and other social benefits seems resonable.   My underlying principle is one of always assessing the effectiveness of the 'carrots and sticks' we are using, and readjusting as we go. These people are like Stallions,  they may need a strong hand now and then, but it is a waste of energy to skimp on their feed, (unless that is the only way you can control them).

For the 'idle' rich, we can only present them with ever more options to help, that they might feel good about.  One negative consequence of polarized debates is that in the heat of the battle the combatants have less and less surplus energy to look for areas of agreement.  An example would be a pro-choice combatant and an anti-abortion combatant becoming blind to the fact that they both are in agreement about the need for good adoptions.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

This economic decline is more like the Great Depression, (than a recession), in that, in both cases a failure in one part of the economy starts a domino effect that potentially works its' way through the whole economy.  One segment of the economy not being able to do their job effects whether some other part of the economy can do their job, which effect some other parts of the economy, etc.. Left to run its' coarse it will eventually find a bottom and start to rebuild starting with the most essential sectors first.

The problem in this scenario is that people starve in the process.   Plus, it even takes down parts of the economy that were truly essential and not part of the original bubble.

An example of how bank liquidity may have been one of the first domino to fall, but is no longer the primary concern, is the manufacturing sector.  Consider a small business owner who manufactures something useful - say pots and pans.  If their credit is good, Banks, via government pressure, 'want' to loan them money at a low interest rate.  This to help stimulate production/jobs.  But they no longer want to borrow money, for the same reason banks don't really want to lend it  i.e., they may not be able to pay it back - even at 0%.  They looks at their customers and know they are going to be selling less pots and pans.  Going into debt makes no sense.

For the ecomomy to work 'everybody' needs money/work.

Producers need credit but will not use it if their potential customers are out of work or cash insecure. The producers biggest need is for more money in the hands of their customers.

The customers, who have lost their jobs, need more money/work.

Fortunately, society needs infrastructure and other work done.

The best strategy  from this perspective would be for Government to spend money in the short run on the people who have lost jobs, i.e., enough for them to buy essentials, while encouraging them to try to supliment their  situation with work.  This would keep the most essential producers producing. 

This while government gets busy on job creation and training for the infrastructure needs of the future.

Taxs as usual should be calibrated on abilty to pay, on the low end.  On the high end, we should use tax breaks to incentivise benefits to society.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

The genius of Barack Obama, is that he sees past the things that most people get distracted by. If he is to succeed, he needs more of us to see past those things too.

Seeing past skin color is easy, when compared to the study it take to see the truths that might be contained in our political opponents bundle of mistaken ideas.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Let me try to put it another way. Roughly 500,000 years ago - with language and a few tools - we surpassed wolves in our ability to cooperate. We refined survival cooperation in groups of up to about 70 or so individuals. We were so successful at this level of specialization and cooperation that we outgrew the planet. By roughly 7,000 years ago survival competition between tribes started to become unavoidable. This is the point at which the tribal unit was in more and more places obsolete. Bigger groups had a survival advantage. These unnaturally large groupings devised all manner of things to hold these new survival units together. Customs, dress, flags, religions, laws, specialized enforcers etc.. The point I want to make with this sweep of pre-history is that as recorded history gets started, and up to our present time we are still basically designed to cooperate in groups of less than 70 people. Stick with me here.

Just like a tribe, the modern Nation State is still a cooperative survival unit. The important distinction it has with a tribe is that as it grows larger and more complex, more and more people are not aware of the cooperative relationships they have with the other members of the survival unit. In a tribe everyone is accountable. In a nation state, not so much. A nation state is, for most, a shored up alliance of convenience. Most people look for smaller groupings within the larger survival unit. The competition between these smaller groupings within the survival unit look very much like the competition between tribes that got started when habitable land became scarce 7,000 years ago.

Now as then, there is pressure to become bigger than the competition. Regardless of the ultimate size of todays identity groups, self-interest tends to be defined too narrowly for there to be any national harmony. And while there is no denying the pressure to become bigger, it is still a reach for tribally adapted man. All the usual tricks get employed, i.e., superficial appearances, creeds, beliefs etc.. I'm not saying it should be different. To not compete in this way would be suicide.

More directly to your questions. Human nature is not so much innocent as it is maladapted to the size of the current competitive survival unit. The reality of competing interest groups speaks to our limitations regarding both far sightedness and cooperation. Integration helps people to have more diverse looking interest groups, but does not help the problem of interest groups being overly narrow. We are indeed tribal.

Further, self-interest can not be eliminated, only moderated. Everything that lives, does so at the expense of something else. Vegans draw the line after vegetables. Others with "dumb" animals. And that is just what we are willing to sacrifice for our food. When it comes to our comforts and entertainment, what else might someone tolerate? Slavery? Child labor in a third world country? Subordinating women?

It is because this line is repeatedly drawn in selfishly shortsighted ways, by so many, with members of our own species, that we have a problem.

Because someone is in a weak position makes them vulnerable to the selfish, short-sighted self-interest of lots of very human and often distant people. That doesn't mean todays vulnerable wouldn't do the same to someone weaker or more vulnerable than they are. But likewise no one deserves to be victimized.

It is not a matter of saving the good people from the bad people! Everyone is vulnerable at times, and everyone is shortsightedly selfish at times. The commitment we make is to protect those who need protecting, when they need protecting.

A big part of this we do with laws. But laws don't even have a chance if there is not already the will of a sizable group to step in to protect those who need protecting.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Sexism and racism must be understood in terms of Human nature that is common to both sexes and all 'races'. Humans are basically 'majority makers'. They seek survival advantage with 'power'. But unlike a common bully, they often learn to do it with groups. The observation that these groups are superficially determined is more a commentary on the collective superficiality of the actors. The abuse of people outside any group, is a commentary on individual and collective shortsightedness / lack of cooperative imagination etc..

Consequently, people of good will recognize that any 'majority'- or more accurately, any source of power - will reflect the shortsightedness and self-interest that is human. We can speak of the natural tyranny of majorities, but it is ,potentially, any time one person or group has power over another.

Practically speaking, people of good will are always advocating for lifting up who ever is down, for whatever reason, at what ever time.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I have to ask: How would you get 51% of the electorate to vote for you?

There is not anything of significance that that many people agree on. Why are we surprised that people running for office in this diverse, vast country have to pander at least a little to different interests. They demand it for their vote. That is not the politicians fault. It is ours, if we demand something narrowly self-interested for our vote.

I am more interested in how they deal with making the countless debates we need to have less polarized and more engaging of the diversity of perspectives we have in this country.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Sorry, I was modifying my post while you were posting your. Kind of like phone tag.

I think I may have inadvertently addressed some of your points.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

tpohara,
The discussion broadens. In addition to talking about superficiality, un-enlightened self-interest, beliefs about large collectives of people, and pre-conceived judgements about individuals in said collectives, we now are taking on peoples attachment/investment in belief packages. Hmmmmm....

We may be taking on too much.

Let me suggest that beliefs of any kind are a two edged sword. Without them people are adrift. With them people are refractory to discussion. When they consolidate in the political arena as packages of beliefs, they become like any other religion. In that sense the adherents are very tribal. I think that is what you were getting at? And yes, this is very frustrating. It is hard to have a discussion about beliefs when they are by their nature not up for discussion.

I would add one other observation about natural polarities that develop around difficult issues in society. When ever there are many shades of gray, the more you will have people who insist that things are either black or white. Most people can not stand uncertainty, and will selectively reinforce the side they most favor to avoid the discomfort of that uncertainty.

Abortion is one of those issues. War is another. What ever we do, or fail to do, someone is going to die. We don't like that reality so we change it in our own minds. Belief that is reinforced selectively to create an effective preponderance of evidence, is both how people create enough certitude to face the day, on the one hand, and contribute to political conflict, on the other.

And this is all assuming good will among the conflicting believers. Where there is some element of self-interest at work - and there usually is - beliefs and communities of believers become the prime recruiters for the other side in a polarity.

Humility can be in short supply.

There are clues that Barack Obama understands all this. He has shown remarkable skills at bringing people back together.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

The most helpful insight in my life was when I realized that 'Superficiality' was one problem, and that 'unrestrained predatory self-interest' - that uses superficial differences as a cover - is another.

As a society we can continue to improve our public presentation of a non-superficial image. This helps the children to become less superficial than they might otherwise be.

The problem of people acting at the expense of others is often a blatantly competitive and selfish act. It usually indicates a very small vision of cooperative realities and possibilities. Unfortunately, laws are absolutely necessary to protect any vulnerable person from those who would use them.
Being a racial minority is only one kind of vulnerability. No vulnerable person is safe.

But in addition to laws, we desperately need ongoing education and communication of a vision that shows how all people are lifted by each others success. It is not a zero sum game. No one laughs or cries without flavoring the soup.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context