E-mail to Chicago Mayor Lightfoot: Police Brutality, Hiring Security Firms, Funding Left Behind Neighborhoods

Below is an e-mail that I have sent to Chicago Mayor Lightfoot. I get the feeling it breaks all the advice for writing your elected officials. Frankly, I don't really care. I really needed to get these matters off my chest and let his elected official know how I really feel in as tactful a format as I can muster.

To: letterforthemayor@cityofchicago.org

Subject: Disappointed in Police Brutality During Protest Rallies, Hiring Security Firms, and Delays in Developing and Funding Left Behind Neighborhoods

Dear Mayor Lightfoot,

My name is Jesse Lex and have been a resident of East Lakeview for 13 ½ years. In all the years that I have lived in Chicago, I have never felt so disappointed and frustrated with the city government and afraid for conscientious resident citizens as I was during the weekend protests after the lynching of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

I did not personally participate in any of the rallies, but I kept tabs on them through the Twitter and Facebook feeds of immediate friends and activist accounts of people who participated. I also read articles in various newspapers (most particularly, the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times). Based on the social media feeds, the police presented themselves as angry monsters that just wanted to brutalize people who rejected the police and their brutal ways. Through the newspaper articles, you, Mayor, gave the impression of being arrogant, without empathy, and incompetent (“Profane exchange: Lightfoot, chief City Council critic tussle over police tactics during looting”, Chicago Sun Times).

Many times, I said to myself that Mayor Lightfoot, the mayoral candidate who I warmed up to from the beginning of the 2019 mayoral race and who I stood behind to the end of the race even as at least one or two of your opponents criticized you for your rapport with the police and your lack of empathy for victims of the police, I said to myself over the weekend after the George Floyd lynching, Mayor Lightfoot has failed this city. I have said to this myself after having

• Read your white papers on your campaign website
  
  
• Read critical articles and blog entries about your performances as a/an
  
  • Federal prosecutor
    
    
  • Appointed official of multiple commissions to oversee and report on the shortcomings of the Chicago police department
    
    
  • The person who had run meetings with the public on behalf of the City and the police

When I voted for you twice, Mayor Lightfoot, I had notched these shortcomings up to a combination of

• Inexperience
  
  
• Doing what you needed to do succeed and make it in this unfair world of patronage and politics for a greater good
  
  
• That you had great thoughtful ideas and plans presented in white papers

And that as the leading critic of the Chicago Police Department, you would

• Reign in the Police Department
  
  
• Get the police to stop engaging in brutal abuses
  
  
• Clean up the Department so that it behaves

After that weekend of police brutality targeted at demonstrators, your performance dashed my expectations and faith in you as Mayor. On the one hand, per the link I provided above in the Sun Times article, you showed a vast amount of incompetency, a lack of ability to control the police (and National Guard sent in by the State), and that, honestly, you have earned the reputation that many Progressives have given you: you’re practically a cop in all but name.

In many ways, you ended up acting like a “Law & Order” Mayor that only started showing some restraint when the “Law & Order” President Trump threatened to send in the active military to put an end to the disorder. You may have put on a good show to the nation outside of Chicago with your standing up to President Trump and maybe even to some in the City of Chicago who care more about their own safety and comfort rather than

• Justice
  
  
• The wellbeing of everyone in our city and nation
  
  
• An actual prosperity based on trust and understanding rather than
  
  
  • Supporting and pushing up a class of people that are doing just fine
    
    
  • Who will remain happy as long as they continue to be catered to
    
    
  • Then they scratch the back of politicians that coddle them

Instead, you either allowed the police to or had no control over the police from criminalizing people’s 1st Amendment rights and violating their 4th Amendment rights by:

• Setting a curfew to allow for mass arrests by just being on the streets of their home city (especially egregious when you announced the said curfew only a half hour to forty five minutes before the curfew started the first night)
  
  
• Raising the bridges downtown to trap people into a section of the city to enable mass arrests
  
  
• Shutting down public transportation so that people peacefully in the streets, just trying to travel home, couldn’t get home or had an extremely difficult time getting home, which can be especially difficult for the people who often fit the many non-white profiles that are often the victims of the brutality that provided the impetus to these protests and rallies. . .then exposing them to arrest
  
  
• To allow or order the police to provoke violence by starting to beat and attacking protesters, use batons, rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, flashbang grenades, and numerous other tools of violence on the dot when the clock struck curfew time. From numerous sources on numerous nights of the protests, contemporaneous reports marked the moment that peaceful protests turned violent when the police and/or national guard started attacking protesters
  
  
• Ignoring looters while chasing protesters that challenged the existence of the police and their methods
  
  
• Hiring three security firms (which to me sound more like armed mercenaries) without any identification or insignias to patrol “troublesome” parts of the city because the Chicago Police Department tired themselves out brutalizing and violating the rights of numerous protesters in the name of “Law & Order” (very reminiscent of when the Federal Government put their Bureau of Prisons Crisis Management Teams on the streets of Washington DC and also when President Trump deployed the Department of Homeland Security onto the streets of Portland)
  
  
• Police breaking the windows of a car to drag out friends and family, and as part of the whole altercation, they pinned someone down with their knee – This occurrence also had me wondering how much more of these brutal liability cases the residents of Chicago will have to pay for through our tax dollars

And to think, all this suppression of free speech in the name of “Law & Order” while the government of China was putting together legislation to outlaw free speech and protest in Hong Kong in the name of “Law & Order”. I find the parallels ironic.

A simple fact that has become clear to me and many people in this city, state, and country over the last 4-10 years: The police has done a horrible job policing itself. The public has lost trust in the police. The good cops are trying to save themselves with words in day-to-day conversations rather than address the problems inside the industry (even good cops seem to follow the code of silence or face recrimination, “Joliet Police Sgt. Javier Esqueda, Who Blew Whistle On Death Of Eric Lurry In Police Custody, Stripped Of Police Powers”, The Chicago Sun Times).

At the rallies, the cops strike first, the cops sprays first, the cops shoot first. Arguably, I can understand itchy trigger fingers because there could be danger around any corner. I've heard stories of good cops getting shot because they were caught by surprise (four podcasts that provide some interesting first-person narratives from a variety of cop experiences – I believe one even touches upon the police trainer-trainee relationship, which you mentioned in an article as something new to you: https://pca.st/episode/2d4b53d0-dc18-0134-ebdd-4114446340cb, https://pca.st/episode/f73990b0-e6c6-0134-ec38-4114446340cb, https://pca.st/episode/b6859830-ec30-0134-ec5e-4114446340cb, https://pca.st/episode/bfa269a0-f1b4-0134-ec5e-4114446340cb).

But you know what? Cops signed up fully knowing the danger of the job, while us (at least us white) civilians are told that the cops are there to protect us if we behave. Cops have killed black people that have tried to behave and out of proportion to the crime. And over the weekend after the George Floyd lynching, the Chicago Police (whether under your orders and enabled by your silence to push for restraint) waged battle on protesters trying to express the pain from police striking down the people that they’re supposed to protect.

I don’t expect any of the things that I’ve brought up in this e-mail to come as news to you (though I’m surprised the police trainer-trainee arrangement was news to you), as you’ve worked in the city of Chicago on multiple boards and departments that focused on the police. During your mayoral campaign, you alluded multiple times to some vague plan that you had for the police. You had multiple white papers addressing rehabilitating the Chicago Police Department and on top of that, treating the issue of crime and violence in Chicago as a public health issue. I believe you even alluded to the school to prison pipeline and trying to cut down on that process, which you are obviously failing at.

Ironically, in the face of COVID-19, public health officials have declared racism and police brutality as a public health issue worth risking facing COVID-19 to address (https://www.ecowatch.com/medical-groups-racism-public-health-statement-2646147376.html?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4, https://pca.st/episode/64da8cdf-94ee-40a8-8eda-fbf6b7f1c35d). Through your orders or your inaction, you have perpetrated state sanctioned violence in a way that has threatened public health, not in just encouraging bodily and mental harm, which is bad enough. In addition, through

• The use of pepper spray
  
  
• Containing crowds into constricted areas for mass arrests
  
  
• Forcing additional physical exertion in protesters
  
  
• Through simple assaults on protesters

the Chicago Police Department actively took actions that encouraged the spread of COVID-19 through the escalation of violence and confrontation rather than de-escalation and controlling the crowds in more cooperative ways.

Words alone, especially "they're the bad ones, not us" aren't enough for an institution to win trust. I'm not even willing to say win back because the premise of the institution of the police was racist and the controlling people and institutions are guilty are promulgating that premise (https://pca.st/mo2wptjy).

So individual police officers need to

• Act better consistently
  
  
• Get the institution to act better consistently
  
  
• Get the institution to police itself better rather than blame civilians that are trusting in the police
  
  
• Reform the police union so it's not about protecting its own first but protecting civilians of all colors, from white to black to Asian to indigenous to hispanic/latino/latinx, then looking after the professions labor interests.

Then, maybe THEN, civilians can start building trust.

It's like with COVID-19. Businesses want liability protection from their employees or customers getting COVID-19 when the businesses should view life and health as more important, not their bank accounts. By the police trying to maintain power and reputation, they are neglecting the ideal of what the police should be about: maintaining justice and protecting those that can’t protect themselves against people who truly want to hurt or profit through injustice, other people, and society. Rather, the police, in its current state, especially in Chicago, are the ones perpetuating injustice and profiting off other people and society through power relations.

This correspondence has been weeks in composition. Since then, there has been numerous news articles of bad behavior by the police or too much kowtowing on your part to have “discussions” and “lessons” rather than actual pushing for justice and life saving, with “discussions” and “lessons” to happen afterward.

Let’s not even get into your continued poking of President Trump then only acquiescing to both sides because President Trump threatens to send in the Department of Homeland Security, like in Portland. You give off this impression of being a tough person, but then you try to ride the middle line until threats by President Trump actually force you to act according to justice because it quiets protesters for a little time, taking away reasons from President Trump to send in his troops. I want President Trump and his Federal law enforcement in this city even less than you do (you apparently only want Federal law enforcement in this city if you can control them and get your goals met through them, not to further the ends of the people of Chicago), but I would rather you understood the demands for justice that protesters in this city have and acted based on that justice, not on the fear of big bad President Trump.

Following are some links to articles about the bad behavior of police and your kowtowing:

• Video shows police gave CTA supervisor a choice: Drop complaint against Chicago officer or face arrest, Chicago Tribune
  
  
• Woman who says Chicago police pulled her from car by her hair and placed knee on her neck formally asks city to drop charges against her, Chicago Tribune
  
  
• City Hall missed 70% of deadlines in first year of reforming Chicago Police Department, Chicago Tribune
  
  
• Christopher Columbus statue taken down hours after Lightfoot ordered its removal, Chicago Sun Times (I read this event, considering the timing of DHS forces in Portland and the escalating rhetoric between you and President Trump more about keeping President Trump’s forces out of town rather to acceding to the demands of protesters of justice)

The current controversy of the police shooting of the 20-year old in Englewood then the looting in the Magnificent Mile and Gold Coast last weekend also provides another example of bad leadership and an out of control situation. On top of that, throw in that many residents of Chicago also interpret the Monday morning looting as being somehow connected to you breaking up a party on Montrose beach and putting up further fencing because of COVID-19 issues (which I support).

As the Englewood situation news develops and disseminates into the population, I find myself wondering how the Englewood situation was allowed to escalate as much as it did at the moment and how it became connected to the looting when residents and active members of the Englewood community requested police brutality protesters to leave when protesters were looking to demonstrate for black people and the residents of Englewood. Why did the Englewood situation need 200+ police at the scene?

Mayor Lightfoot, I’m simply listing symptoms of

• Your bad and lackadaisical leadership
  
  
• Your lack of control over the police or your egging the police on to execute a “Law & Order” way of life in Chicago
  
  
• Your failing to follow through on your white papers to develop not so well off neighborhoods to help mitigate the root causes for the crime and violence that occurs in the city (though your focusing on money-making ventures like Lincoln Yards, casinos, marijuana distribution and cultivation in the northern parts of the city – all understandable since you need capital to invest in improving things, but nonetheless, your focus on revenue or at least the publicity regarding revenue over the improvement of different parts of town is disgraceful without addressing the injustices of the city)
  
  
• Your lack of working and cooperating with activist leaders in our city to figure out the causes of injustice, figure out solutions for addressing injustice, and executing those solutions
  
  
• Your plain lack of understanding that justice needs to be enacted and symbols of injustice removed (and possibly located elsewhere for educational purposes) to instead focus on a reckoning and learning from your own imagination

I am someone who lives on the north side of the city. I have a full time job and a comfortable lifestyle that I have been able to maintain during the COVID-19 pandemic. In complete honesty, these types of issues don’t affect me directly except in my heart, my conscience, my soul, and my mind that the Mayor of this city is not showing the respect and empathy to the people in this city that need it the most and who you had made campaign promises through white papers that you would help the most.

For all material direct reasons, you probably protect my interests. Deep down in my soul, though, I feel that you are failing me and this city. You need to do better to fulfill your white paper campaign promises and to realize justice in Chicago. You need to stop ignoring the cries of people in this city for

• Justice
  
  
• Improvement
  
  
• Reduction of violence
  
  
• Meeting with people
  
  
• Empathizing with people
  
  
• Respecting people
  
  
• Working with people

to make this city a more just and glorious Chicago that all residents can be happy about living in, not just being proud about a nagging feeling that this city has a lot more potential to be better than it is now.

Please do more. Honestly, I have no desire to support you at this point in time. I know that you’re a smart person, however. Unfortunately it seems like you feel like you’re the smartest person in the room and that other people don’t have good ideas. Mayor Lightfoot, please

• Work with other people
  
  
• Listen to other people
  
  
• Respect other people

but please don’t have those people be the Fraternal Organization of Police or the fear of President Trump. Rather, have the voices of people who want true justice and truly want what’s best for the city of Chicago and the people in it be who you listen to. I want to have that Mayor Lightfoot as the incumbent candidate in 2022 to vote for, not the one who we have now and who I have painted in this correspondence.

Sincerely,
Jesse Lex

If We Want, the Value of True Individualism Could Overpower the Current Crass Individualism

Classical liberalism, traditional conservatism, and right-wing libertarianism don't understand individualism. Rather, these ideologies delve into despairing methodological individualism, a belief of not being able to predict the behavior of individuals, especially in large numbers.

Individualism is about appreciating and trying to understand other perspectives, how each individual is a node in a Web of relationships and existence. Each node is influenced by the Web. Each node contributes and builds the Web to the degree they have connection with the Web. The amount, strength, and type (positive/negative) of connections affects the experience that a node has and, in turn, the reaction the node has to the Web.

When connections minimize to none to near none, all the influences lead to loneliness and depression and/or anger. When someone is abandoned, excluded, or attacked, the Web falls toward fraying and destruction, which we all feel. When the Web is strong and supported through all our actions, the Web & the people/nodes who make it feel the connection, the belonging, and the positivity.

And it takes effort. We have to work at it. We need to work to appreciate and understand ourselves, the other nodes/people, and how we make up this Web. It takes effort to communicate our perspective and position. It also takes work to find other perspectives and positions. Reconciling contradictory perspectives can get difficult, especially when our identity has become embedded in a particular way of looking at things. Nonetheless, the effort and work to connect can do so much to push onto being better versions of ourselves while also helping us tap into the Web of relationships and existence. We can feel safe. We can let down our guard. We don't have to act defensively, even as we disagree, debate, and argue over perspectives, facts, and truth.

Arguably, such connections matter the most, as they can lead to connection, fighting loneliness, and even caring so much about the connection that the connection becomes the truth. The connection especially becomes truth as the nodes/people believe in the need to protect the integrity of nodes/people to protect the connections. Without the integrity of others, true connection can't exist; without true connection, other nodes/people can't discover and live their truth. Without true connection, you and I can't discover and live yours and my truth. We may have different truths, but without the acceptance the other truth, we can't accept our own truth.

In other words, without putting in the work and effort to understand, appreciate, and support others, we will surely fall, die, and never have truth.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

Does Scarcity of Market Share Lead Billionaires, Entrepreneurs, and Crony Politicians into Tunnel Vision for More Market Share?

Only after the second chapter of Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much, Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir present an argument that scarcity creates an involuntary tunnel vision effect with attention. This book so far bolsters a hypothesis that I'm coming up with: that billionaires, successful entrepreneurs, and crony politicians in capitalist cultures forge paths of growth and accumulating more rather than sharing and supporting society by fighting against material scarcity because the billionaires, successful entrepreneurs, and crony politicians are stuck in a mindset of scarcity.

But a scarcity of what? It's not material wealth. Maybe it's time, but they could easily hand off things. Maybe privacy, authenticity of people around them, genuine relationships with people, etc. etc. No, accumulating more and more material things wouldn't help address those scarcities except for maybe paying more for security to guard against sycophants.

Maybe the billionaire, the successful entrepreneur, the crony politician feel a scarcity of attention market share. Even those with the biggest market share now have to fear competitors and innovators that threaten to make the billionaire/successful entrepreneur/crony politician obsolete. Because lose that market share, especially with a lavish lifestyle, the billionaire/successful entrepreneur/crony politician risks losing their lifestyle and possibly losing all their material wealth. They would fall into material scarcity, which they may never have experienced before or have a memory of material scarcity being a horrible experience.

And today's capitalist, competitive business, finance, and political culture further exacerbates this sense of scarcity for the billionaires, successful entrepreneurs, and crony politicians. This hypothesis doesn't look to garner sympathy for these billionaires and successful entrepreneurs (and politicians that have gained power through the lobbyists that advocate for these businesses, billionaires, and successful entrepreneurs) because this path hurts society more than it helps.

Heck, as an aside, just look at how much middle and high school culture in the United States supports the importance of popularity and market share of attention instead of being a good person.

Rather, I seek to indict society and developed Western culture for building up this ideology and inflicting people with this state of mind. Any thoughts on this hypothesis? Any thoughts on fighting this phenomenon? Any objections?

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

Cries for Civility Ignore Disgusting Reality Created by Freeloading Bullies

Today's entry will consist of a few things that I've encountered on the Internet in the media that provide some insight into our culture and the human condition during partisan times.

My first entry for consideration: "Democracy Is a Blessing: Phatic Ritual and the Public Sphere in Northeast Brazil".

The essay gets fairly academic. However, "Democracy Is a Blessing. . ." provides some interesting perspective that Brazilians may have forgotten in the last decade or so. The essay might help us innovate some ideas and practices to address some parts of our existential crisis. Frankly, I might characterize a fair amount of people in the GOP and Trump supporters as White Supremacist deplorables. A lot of them also people might have what George Lakoff calls Authoritarian Hierarchical Personalities that feel frustrated at the levelling off of relations between people, the generations, etc. etc.

A lot of this thinking on my part comes from hearing Baby Boomers complaining that younger generations showing too much familiarity, not enough respect, expecting the world from the people around them, and not paying their dues. At the same time, though, most older generations on their way out make this complaint about the generations under them. Even elder politicians told Barack Obama, a late Baby Boomer, that he should wait his turn as Obama clawed his way to the top (for a podcast version of Obama's story, check out WBEZ's Making Obama series).

Read enough about politics and businesses, and you'll run into younger generations "not paying their dues" or "not waiting their turn". At the same time, the younger generations complain that older people are "keeping them down" or "not teaching them how things work".

The United States definitely has proven an interesting testing ground for the tensions between tradition and progress, conservatism and liberalism, young and old, hierarchy and informality. This country has also acted as a Person on the Frontier trying to act as the City on the Hill, a youngish country ignoring its tradition while trying to create and "protect" its tradition (read up on the Magna Carta, An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown, and you'll see where some of our traditions and Constitutional Amendments come from!).

I appreciate the tension between the slackening of formality and the phatic demonstrations of less digital people in the world. Lately I've wondered if this country's focus so much on growth and efficiency has led to people enjoying each other less and trying to avoid human interaction as it gets in the way of improvement and accomplishment. At the same time, I'm probably the person most likely to complain about people interrupting me and how much of my day goes into interacting with people.

Maybe my appreciation of that tension comes from a yearning of more connection with people in real time, hoping for more experience of positive emotion, not just guilt at not accomplishing as much as I should have. Even before a study pointed out loneliness as a public health crisis, my mind had fixated more on the rational fact that I need to connect with people for my health, to fend off bad health, not necessarily because of some authentic, instinctual gregariousness.

All of which feels like a ruminating transition to an interesting discussion on an episode of the NPR Individisible limited series podcast (not associated with the "grassroots" political organization by the same name). Kerri Miller (NPR host in Minnesota) hosted the episode, trying to focus on and understand how partisanship since 2016 has built walls and has created so much tension.

A portion of the episode explored our sense of what we consider the sacred (or inviolable) lines that we think others shouldn't cross. Amongst family, friends, co-workers, strangers on the streets, people we meet in bars, etc. we cross each others' line, working ourselves up when we learn someone else has voted for Trump or Hillary, how they feel about immigration, their thoughts on capitalism or socialism, abortion, and so many things now.

I have a criticism for these kinds of discussions by the media about the loss of civility. The pundits that just want civility and peace don't appreciate that these situations cause real harm. The discussions don't, but the events and interactions that create these topics do. People who need asylum because of horrible conditions behind them get turned away, leaving them with nowhere to go (after the United States swore never again after World War II, when the country turned away Jewish people trying to escape the Holocaust). Just yesterday, after the shooting at UNC Charleston, I wondered if shootings and hate crimes would soon become an everyday experience. Will we bat a lash at a White Supremacy act of terrorism next year?

Finding some kind of ritual or set of gestures that could diffuse tensions and glue together social bonds would do a great service for this country. At the same time, my readings into evolutionary anthropological morality shows that these tensions and conlfict has existed from day one of human existence, and maybe even longer before that. The Republicans since at least Reagan like to complain about freeloading welfare cheats, just sucking up our taxes. A theory that has just started revealing itself to me today has argued that bullies act as a type of freeloader, too. How did older societies regulate freeloading on the bottom and at top? Shame, which most of us seem to wield as a weapon until someone picks up a physical weapon or explosive (even though in more serious cases, people would be expelled from society or even killed).

Suffice to say, the United States has some serious issues that people need to talk about and resolve (and possibly more). Good will and faith needs exercising, but the will, faith, and civility can't come at the cost of actually discussing the issues to resolve them in a way that uses facts, truth, real respect, and kindness.

Because right now, we have people in positions of power that look to push into reality found community causes like Dominionism that seeks to "redistribute the wealth up to priests" and to make the United States into a Christian theocracy. One person with a powerful political position that believes in Dominionism: Ted Cruz. Just take a look at this video of Ted's father, Rafael Cruz, give a speech about how Ted will further the cause of Dominionism (first few seconds is part of the speech, then you have to wait a bit to get back to the speech, but these other parts provide some further context):



I just became exposed to Dominionism today. It has helped make a lot more sense of Trump's administration to me.

We really need to get our act together, fellow country people. The freeloading of bullies needs to stop.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth.

Well-to-Do Neighborhoods Should Share Their School Fundraising with Not So Well-to-Do Schools

The other day I heard a pretty good interview of Robert Reich by DeRay Mckesson on the Pod Save the People podcast. Based on context, Reich's new book, Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better prompted the interview session.

Reich presented an interesting scenario that I believe he, himself, experienced. After moving into a neighborhood, he enrolled his children into a local public school. Important point: I recall Reich making a dinstinction about the school being a "normal" public school, not a charter school or anything other than a public school. Another vital thing to keep in mind: Reich likely lived in a well to do part of town/city. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to assume that he could have moved into a middle class part of town/city and had a similar experience.

Either which way, Reich soon received a letter from the school that stated the school had "expected, but didn't require" a donation of a certain amount. I can't recall if Reich clarified how much the school expected him to donate. Reich then used that experience of his to explain how well-to-do neighborhoods use this process to improve their own local school where their children go. By doing so, however, they create further divides from other stratas of society, as that neighborhood becomes more desirable because parents want their kids to attend the school.
From there, the following cycle happens:

1. Housing values increase because of the good school
2. Even more well-to-do people move into the neighborhood
3. Not so well-to-do people get pushed out of the neighborhood because they can't afford the neighborhood anymore
4. School quality gets better because more money comes into the neighborhood that can be channeled towards the school
5. Goto step 1

In a way, this seems like a good idea. Why burden the rest of the city for a better school when the neighborhood (and the businesses and organizations in that neighborhood) can fund it themselves? Pay for what you use/get, and use/get what you can pay for. Don't force other people to pay for the benefit of someone else's neighborhood, someone else's child.

It kind of makes me think of what people often say about health insurance, complaining about premiums increasing because of the actions of other people. The person complaining hasn't had a claim in their life! (I'm talking about ideal setting of insurance rates, not CEO pay, paying a workforce, etc. etc. . .because people have to get paid).

The problem of this system: Inequality and divides increase and people grow further apart. As the well-to-do compound the characteristics and actions that improve their lot, the not as well-to-do only get neglected. The not well-to-do don't receive resources, so they can't learn to understand and get the characteristics to know how to do the actions to improve their lot and get the resources to invest themselves and their neighborhood. Even if they have the said characteristics and knowledge, they probably don't have the bone fides to put on a resume or the connections or mentors to get resources or to provide references for them.

Sure, the not well-to-do are not "burdened" by the demand of the well-to-do maintaining well-to-do characteristics to continue having a comfortable life and taking more actions to improve their well-to-do lives even more. Instead, the not well-to-do become burdened with neglect, alienation, and disconnection with society. We shouldn't have any problem empathizing with situations in which the not well-to-do become desperate enough to sell drugs, steal, and other anti-social or victimizing activities (themselves or other people) to simply fund their survival.

If

• I had a child of my own
• Lived in this neighborhood
• Enrolled my child in the school at the end of the block

I probably would have received a letter similar to the one Robert Reich did. I haven't been in that school, even though I've patronized the farmers market there during the spring, summer, and the fall. I've also seen the nice playground the school has. The school also posts

• Signs that thank the neighborhood families and businesses for the investment in the school
• Imaginary thermometers that show how much money has been raised and still needs to be raised
• Announcements of fundraisers and events to raise money
• Nice pictures and announcements of accomplishments that students have had

This school does a good job raking in some money. I live in a pretty good neighborhood. Go one block over, and you see some nice homes. I've gone into a couple open houses, and my jaw has dropped at the size of the homes and the amenities in them. Michi and I can only really live in this neighborhood because we've found the best deal in one of the oldest apartment buildings. If we can help it, we don't plan on ever moving.

One mile north, property values drop drastically because the district for the school near to here ends right when you reach a particular road. The condition of homes don't get bad so much, but since people in those homes can't go to the well-to-do school, the market doesn't have much demand for those homes.

Candidates for mayor during the Chicago city elections have talked quite a bit about the school system. A lot of them highlight that the current mayor, Rahm Emanuel, closed 50 schools all at once. Emanuel, on the other hand, touts that he improved the school system by making the school year and school day longer. Emanuel probably has some right for feeling accomplishment as some schools had improved scores and some students have gone onto bigger and better things (I just heard Emanuel interview a couple STAR scholars on an old episode of the Chicago Stories podcast).

Nonetheless, Emanuel closed 50 schools and advocated for the opening of a lot of charter schools that seem to really skew the system (since charter schools can easily expel students if they bring down the grade/test curve). I remember hearing a lot of stories on the radio over the years about how students who didn't have to go far to get to a poor performing school in their neighborhood that didn't get the investment it needed. When their school closed, though, the children had to travel really far to go to another school that was just average or went down in quality since high performing students just went off to charter schools and other better quality schools.

Even more distressing, these students often had to go through dangerous parts of town in which they risked being attacked or possibly even getting hit by a stray bullet. All because of obvious inequality, segregated neighborhoods, and the list goes on to the factors involved. It also doesn't help that by closing schools and consolidating students, classroom sizes just grow larger while the number of teachers remains the same or decreases. The quality of school will likely go down for everyone, unless those with the means can get to better schools and/or those without means somehow get slipped out of the system. Manipulate the data set, and the results can be manipulated.

Before hearing the Reich interview on Pod Save the People, the whole well-to-do schools soliciting well-to-do people and businesses in their well-to-do neighborhood having such systemic impacts went right over my head. . .even as the practice occurred right before my eyes. I simply thought schools received funding from taxes, property and many times, as I'm learning these days, from states and sometimes from the Federal government. Obviously, I had the facts wrong.

So, in an attempt to remedy this issue, I have a policy proposal that I'm sharing with the world: What if these well-to-do schools that receive donations from well-to-do parents, neighborhood residents, and businesses have to share a portion of their fundraising with the rest of the school system? And depending on the situation and the state of schools in the county, state, etc. etc. that aren't in the same district, what if such abundant fundraising had to be shared with those schools, too?

I don't have any details beyond asking for more sharing of the fundraised wealth. I also understand that this kind of system won't save the world, but it can help. Maybe it can provide enough resources and funds to help pull up areas, neighborhoods, and people that often get neglected when these kids, when taken seriously, when given a chance, and when affirmed as worth the time and effort, can accomplish so much more, become so much more, and give back to society and the world so much more. By neglecting these kids, to compound the well-to-doness of the already well-to-do, the well-to-do neglect themselves. There's no telling how much the world could be better just by this sharing of wealth and helping helping to develop other human beings with different perspectives.

Why don't we do it, is my question, why don't we help fund the education of those currently neglected and help lift up our fellow humanity? Frankly, with all the money that goes into Go Fund Me's, Kickstarters, and Patreons, I'm sure we can make all the more difference in the world by funding our schools. Don't let me stop you. Get out there and make a difference! What's stopping you?

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

FLASH POST: Left Candidates and the Evolution of Social Norms as Highlighted in Elections

Fascinating thing about all the high profile candidates on the Left: they all have some mark against them that they have to deal with. Their pasts show

• That people can change
• People don't always have control of their organizations
• that social norms have changed FAST

But how do we evaluate these candidates' history and whether they meet the standards of "woke enough" essentially, whether it be about their

• Rhetoric
• Language
• Evolving beliefs
• The people around them
• The ability to develop a "woke" organization

I'm guessing the last factor of developing a "woke" organization can play a big part, considering our current POTUS and the scandal upon scandal upon scandal. Even if we remove campaign scandals, the development and churn of Trump's

• Advisers
• Cabinet heads
• Department heads

has been atrocious. Trump, on his own, doesn't have consistency and stability on his list of virtues. Quite the opposite, in fact. Trump, his cronies, and his judicial appointments also practically provides the illustration in the dictionary for "not woke" (though Mitch McConnell can't be excluded when discussing judicial appointments).

Suffice to say, watching the arguments and discussions on the Left of how to evaluate the candidates for the 2020 Primaries and Election will provide a fascinating case study in social, cultural, and political development. I appreciate Stacey Abram's entrance into this arena by stating that Democrats Will Win In 2020 ‘By Telling Our Story,’ Not Running Against Trump, but I'm sure many on the Left will have their opinions about how this discourse will

• Develop
• Have norms and 'rules' of its own
• Result after all is said and done

I welcome thoughts and input on this discourse in the comments section of this entry and future comments that touch on this discourse. Feel free to provide your input as you see fit.


If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

Too Much Empathy? Rely on Identification as Path to Social Redemption?

Are we empathizing with others too much, not identifying with others enough? Empathizing is imagining, not feeling. Identifying is truly feeling another's feeling. Empathizing is conscious action. Identification doesn't need consciousness. But we often hear about over-identification having unhealthy consequences, from

• Everyday people getting caught up in demagogic fervor
• To others stalking someone after meeting in passing or after a single boring date
• To children or spouses suffering abuse while excusing their abuser
• To someone enabling a relative or friend to engage in unhealthy behaviors by not challenging their actions or even by sponsoring their behavior when the enabler lends money

Western civilization has hit some hard times of anger, fear, and violence. We've erected media bubbles then try to engage in call out culture when that bubble bursts. The United States government has shut down. Brexit is divorcing from the European Union. Asylum seekers get turned back at borders with little, if any consideration, allowed to die in deserts or on the sea. Leaders aren't trusted by the people, mainly because they don't listen to the everyday people buried under student loans and all other types of bills, while the 1% glories in their tax cuts. Illiberal democracies have flourished, while the marginalized and their allies fight to just be treated as human beings in all their identities. Also, don't forget that people get stopped, frisked, and sometimes shot in the streets and their back yards just for the color of their skin by law enforcement (and often because of calls to the cops by people without melanin).

The list could go on, but I'm just a straight white cis-male guy. I don't have these experiences, but I can hear about them from other people, whether through

• First person narratives in real life
• On the television
• On the radio or podcasts
• Reading through social media, news stories, and written first-person accounts

I often have a hard time listening to the accounts. Though I've lived in Chicago, I haven't viewed the Laquan McDonald. Do I need to? I believe it has happened. I've seen a lot of blood and gore on television and in the movies. I have listened to the NPR/Chicago Tribune podcast 16 Shots, which covers the case of Jason Van Dyke, the police man who shot McDonald, and goes into some detail about what actually happened that night.

I don't avoid the video because I don't want the bother or that I don't think it has value as an artifact history or anything like that. Instead, I find it easy to feel sad and shame at the knowledge that the event has occured. I can imagine the horror of what happened that night by

• Knowing that I have a hard time tolerating a paper cut
• That I appreciate life so much through the good and bad
• That I remember the fear of nothingness that comes with imagining death I originally felt in 1986 or 1987 in Groton, Massachusetts when I ran out to the closest parent to get comfort
• Knowing from what I've read, heard, seen, and been told by people of how easy I have it and hearing the built up evidence of how people like me don't have things so easy - I listen, I watch, I imagine, I think things through

Strange to say, but I can identify with the misfortunes of others through the fear of losing or not having the fortune that I have. I can't say that I fully understand or have visceral comprehension of the lived experience of this Other that I am not. Nonetheless, my imagination can make my pale experience intense enough to know that people who go through these experiences, survive and don't survive, have it worse by so many more magnitudes that they deserve more to allay and relieve these experiences. I would love to do more to assist in delivering, but I'm honestly working on healing my fractured heel and building a financial power base to do so.

Through the gratefulness of my own fortunate fate and the possibility of losing my condition, I can identify with the misfortune of others that comes through no action of their own.

Pundits, politicians, and people on social media profess that we need more civility and more empathy. I don't think civility and/or empathy will do enough to improve society or civilization. Civility might have a concrete action base to it. Empathy, on the other hand, remains too abstract, too much of a thought experiment. Empathy requires not just conscious thought, but also rest, food, reduced stress, and even practice. In our consumerist, career-driven, power-hungry society, and that's just to survive for some people, putting in the effort to develop empathy can cause difficulty. Even just all the exposure to

• Violence
• News
• Hate
• Demands on our attention and time from so many people

I can see how some people of privilege might not have energy to develop empathy. Frankly, I also get why a lot of people without privilege will resort to calling out others and anger after facing nonstop pressure and aggression.

But we can seek and push for identification, in connecting with each other in our common humanity. I honestly don't expect the lower rungs and marginalized parts of society to do so because they shouldn't have to face their every day marginalized reality. Identifying with those other than them will only show them how shitty they've got it.

Identification for the privileged, however, can prove so much more visceral and concrete than empathy. Us in the higher rungs of society need to open ourselves and expose our emotional core to the world and the pain in it. It will hurt, I guarantee it, but we have the power to address that pain if we band together and concentrate our efforts. The thing is, we have an inbuilt instinct to identify in this way, if we just show the will to open ourselves and look at reality. It will help us feel more connected. We may not have as much happiness, but we will have more sense of meaning, which can give us more.

In stories, killers who have redeemed themselves or soldiers often try to stop the innocent from killing. Historical records and studies have demonstrated that people have a hard time killing. Fascist parties, organizations, ethnic groups, and nationalistic countries have to go to great lengths to dehumanize other groups and enemies for their members to kill with vigor. Cops have to be trained for trigger happiness while also falling back on internalized racism for dehumanization to do it even easier. Someone has had to make an academic discipline and training practice called Killology to figure out how to teach soldiers and police to kill even better. This same man has identified video games as teaching children to kill by using his very same techniques.

I believe people lose a part of themselves when they kill and require dehumanization and need all this training to kill because they identify with their victim and have to de-identify from their victim to intentionally kill. Studies have shown that killing in the name of revenge or white hot anger proves easier and has less of an affect on someone.

For other motivations, though, all these issues with identification arise. Looking into another person's eyes or even just seeing another human being close up, so much like yourself, you see yourself in the other person. The two of you have a common humanity. It just so happens that through some trick of history, you have the goal to kill the other person. You aim to snuff out their existence, to put them into nothingness that we can't conceive of, that strikes fear into ourselves. Killing that other person, we extinguish ourselves. To do so again, we have to further cut off our capacity for identification with others.

Then we have random examples in history of people who don't need to act with charity, who have everything they need, could continue living a good life, but then abandon that life for one of selflessness:

• The Buddha
• Jesus Christ
• St Francis of Assisi
• George Ripley (a Unitarian/Transcendentalist minister)
• Martin Luther King, Jr.

The list goes on and on. Over the last ten years, I've tried understanding George Ripley's motivations for the path he took until he became disillusioned and cynical. It took a reading up on the life of St Francis and a little more thinking to get it. Today's inspiration on reading up on St Francis came about from his prayer that I used as a mantra to encourage more mindfulness:

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me bring love.
Where there is offense, let me bring pardon.
Where there is discord, let me bring union.
Where there is error, let me bring truth.
Where there is doubt, let me bring faith.
Where there is despair, let me bring hope.
Where there is darkness, let me bring your light.
Where there is sadness, let me bring joy.
O Master, let me not seek as much
to be consoled as to console,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved as to love,
for it is in giving that one receives,
it is in self-forgetting that one finds,
it is in pardoning that one is pardoned,
it is in dying that one is raised to eternal life.

I don't consider myself a religious person much these days, but this prayer sticks with me. Today, I saw a common thread with at least three of the great men I listed: The Buddha, St Francis, and George Ripley. Both the Buddha and St Francis had a common experience. Through internal character and encounter(s) with poverty: they had their privilege challenged by surprise identification with the misfortune of another. Buddha and St Francis connected, they could feel the suffering that the other person experienced and saw the injustice that came from their own privilege and wealth. These two individuals drastically changed the course of their lives, took vows of poverty, and influenced history, possibly inspiring others after them to feel such identification and seek to alleviate misfortune in the world.

George Ripley didn't have the same level of success. How many of my readers have heard of this man before and know anything about him? After having a pamphlet war with one of this mentors about this very topic in different words then exprienced the downturn of the neighborhood where he ministered during the Panic of 1837, Ripley tried to inspire his ministry and even his religious organization to become more active in alleviating the material conditions of the people suffering the economic downturn, many of whom were immigrants to Boston. Ripley's ministry and religious organization rebuffed Ripley so much that Ripley eventually quit his position and started the utopian community, Brook Farm, nearby to Boston. Sadly, Brook Farm failed and Ripley lost a lot of faith in humanity, pretty much just settling into becoming a writer about literature. Nonetheless, the level at which identification with the pain of others in Ripley pushed him to action provides me, at least, with some inspiration to act.

I don't know what or when that action will be. I've felt that inspiration for awhile now, even though I spent most of my time trying to understand that inspiration and try to make rational sense of it. Seeing it as visceral identification with other people just makes a lot of sense to me and more concrete than empathy, which is a tool of imagination and conscious action. Identification, however, can strike us without warning and a truly felt emotion, not lead us to feel something we think we should feel. We need to open ourselves to the shock and the emotion, considering society, our families, and many of our upbringings have led us to see that closing off as healthy and rational.

I think empathy, sympathy, and compassion all have their part in exercising our ability to identify with others. In the end, though, I believe that it will take wide open, concrete, emotional identification to lead us to a better place and time, out of this Dark Age destroying civilization.

(I understand that we need to be cautious about over-identification. Once my table clears, I'll have to look more into that side of things.)

Who's with me on this ride?

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

FLASH POST: Political Party Implicitly Accepted as Religion in the United States?

CONTENTS

1. FLASH POST: Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Out Identity
2. Personal Status as It Relates to The Lextopia


Anybody read Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity by Lilliana Mason yet? I haven't, but it sounds interesting.

Interesting interview of Lilliana Mason at In A Minute with Sam Sanders podcast about how our political party affiliation has reached the level of religion. Per the interview, Mason makes the hypothesis that since the passing of Equal Rights legislation in the '60s, affiliation with a political party has become a strong aspect of our identities; so strong, in fact, that party affiliation has become analagous to religious affiliation. I wonder if this implicit understanding/acceptance of party affiliation as religion contributes to "gerrymandering protection" in which initiatives against maladaptive gerrymandering has creating "competitive districts" as one of its goals.

I've put this book on my to read list, but I'd be interested in hearing other peoples' thoughts on this phenomenon. Does such a phenomenon feel true? Does party affiliation analogous to religious affiliation contribute to the tension in America today? Does this phenomenon contribute to our media consumption bubbles? Any other thoughts that this possible phenomenon brings up for you?

Back to Top

PERSONAL STATUS AS IT RELATES TO THE LEXTOPIA

I haven't written in about a month and a couple weeks ago. At about that time, I had started physical therapy. I had fractured my heel in a bike accident in which after a complicated sequence of events, a delivery van-truck had rear ended me. I got flown over the handle bars, landed on my right foot, then stumbled to the ground. I tried walking around a bit. Feeling enough discomfort in my foot, I decided to stay on the ground until I got picked up by my wife and brought to urgent care. Other than my heel getting fractured, I had maybe a scratch or two.

I've been lucky with this injury. Most people who get this injury are contractors or people in the construction industry who fall off ladders, roofs, or some high-up location. About two weeks ago, I asked the orthopedist how long I should expect pain even after I'm walking fine. His long explanation cut short: I'm such an outlier on the side of good luck (just cracks and no displacement of bone in my heel), the orthopedist didn't know how much longer I'll feel pain. Most people who get the injury have their heel all cracked up and scattered around their foot, requiring surgery, screws, and largely never able to work in their industry again, hoping to get onto workers comp disability or something. In the long run, even though this experience hasn't been a fun ride, I've had a comparably minor injury (though humbling since I needed crutches, have had to use my body in ways it wasn't built to be used, and IT'S SO DAMN EXHAUSTING!).

The orthopedist had initially prescribed bed rest but still fine for me to work for the first month and a half. The orthopedist also told me to take off the protective boot when in safe locations and move the foot around to cut down on how much physical therapy I'd have to do later. Other than soreness from using my arms and crutches to move around and sadness at my leg atrophying a bit from disuse, I didn't feel much pain. Exhaustion and soreness from moving around, yes, but not much pain. I could even do some occasional writing, especially on The Lextopia when I got up about some social or political issue.

Once physical therapy had started, though, the pain and extreme soreness started. Getting an atrophied leg and foot working again takes some hard work. My best comparison is like the day after taking a stretching or dance class for the first time, except physical therapy feels like that first class EVERY TIME. So upon initally starting the physical therapy, the pain from it made thinking straight for a length of time difficult. I got caught up a lot on some backlogged television, but I really couldn't concentrate well enough to do much more, and I've got plenty to do!

About a week and half ago, I started walking again without crutches, on my own power. I started the day after an orthopedist appointment. The doctor told me everything looked fine enough that it's up to me and the physical therapist on how much weight to put on the heel, how much not to use the crutches, and when I can finish the physical therapy. I started taking the bus because I could walk that far. I admit with the snow storm this weekend and the ice that could have accumulated on the sidewalks, I may have to reconsider my own capabilities. Balance and pain still cause issues, especially with suprise movements (when I could easily balance myself or trip myself into a balanced position without trouble when fully able).

I make progress every day. I don't walk perfectly and balancing on one foot still remains difficult, but I'm getting there. Hopefully in a couple weeks, I won't have to think too much about how far I can walk before I will get exhausted and frustrated from both weakness and pain. Maybe I'll be back to walking to the grocery store and feeling the compulsion to walk around to expend some extra energy. Nonetheless, without Lyft, Instacart, or the elevators at work and home, I don't know how I would have made it through the last two to three months!

Suffice to say, I believe that my cognitive abilities will return to enough of a baseline that you'll see more at The Lextopia. I'm working an essay about the basic emotion/instinct of disgust and bigotry, which I hope to publish soon. I also have a backlog of personal stuff and paperwork to gather together for the claim on my injury, so hopefully that stuff won't get too much in the way.

In the meantime, I plan to integrate more "Flash Posts" like the beginning of this section into The Lextopia. Flash posts will be things that just grab my attention throughout my days that I think my readership will find interesting. Hopefully you will! Don't feel shy about commenting or even "Buying Me a Coffee"! The more I'm "bought coffee", the more I can hopefully post.

Back to Top

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

Is The Left Dividing into Two Again and the Right Encouraging It?

Has the divide in the Left between the socialists and the pluralists risen again since the the midterm election? And has the Right been taking advantage of this rift to split them, especially in attempt to make them unattractive to the Center?

Social media provided me an initial glimpse with an out of proportion reaction to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and me:

Been asking myself that for the last week. Then I realized that Trump doesn't want to let anyone in (unless they're rich & white).

— The_Lex (@screwjaw) November 27, 2018

that’s not true typical name calling when no valid facts present themselves you socialists are evil and too stupid to realize that what happens after socialism is mass murder always

— obewan (@TamelaCegelske) November 27, 2018

Other than beng a reaction against Ocasio-Cortez, raising the topic of socialism gives an incongruous impression. What does socialism have to do with the border? Also, the statement about socialism leading to mass murder comes off as specious and misunderstanding that differences exist between the Democratic Socialism that we see in Europe today and Cult of Personality Communism of Lenin/Stalin, Mao, the Kim family, and various other instances in the past. Socialism and Communism don't equate to totalitatarianism, dictatorship and mass murder.

This incongruousness sent me to the Internet try finding an explanation to this kind of reaction. I think I glimpsed a whole bunch of other remarks like this about socialism on social medias over the last few weeks. Articles like these resulted from the searching:

• Nazis are Not Socialists nor Democrats Despite What the Alt-Right Might Say
  
  
• Liberals are the Real Nazis, Says Donald Trump Jr. Actual Nazis Disagree

Apparently I've been behind on seeing attempts at the Rightist rhetoric against Obama by the Right that tried to paint Obama as some evil socialist that threatened America.

Last night I walked into a gathering of friends that were obviously talking about politics from how the conversation ended. The one black guy among a bunch of white guys said, "Yeah, I get what you're saying, but I'm a black guy and I'm scared of the Right."

The conversation ended there, but as someone who puts Pluralism first and am experimentally supportive of more socialist schemes, I was confused. Not by the black friend, but by all the other friends in the room. I believe they are anti-Trump and that they appreciate the balance that the new House will bring. . .but I don't know, it's confusing to me. Once politics regress to the mean, how much people with privilege have the willingness to entertain a path that could lead to more control y a political party willing to support a fatuous demagogue, voter suppression, confirming the nominations of judges willing to all drastic change and disrespect of people, confirmation the nominations of cabinet members and department heads looking to destroy their departments, engage in corrupt spending of money, mangle facts and ignore scientific data, and willing to allow the destruction of human civilization, violation of human rights, and destruction of the Affordable Care Act with a million more little cuts?

Why would anyone be OK with enabling this destruction and disrespect?

I wracked my brain. Considering my friend based his argument to vote liberal on a social issue, that left another major issue that could scare people tending to the Center: the economic/socialist platform that has become associated with the Democrats through the Democratic Socialist wing. This article does an interesting job riling up the fears of Democratic Socialism: Democratic Socialism Threatens Minorities. I don't agree with this guy's argument, but it does illustrate the attempt to divide the socialism and pluralism sides of the Left.

Remember Steve Bannon saying "The longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats"? Did Bannon plan to divide the Left between pluralism and economic issues, or did he think that the Democrats would turn off the American public by talking about pluralism issues while his side tried to push for an economic plan?

Articles exist out there about how "identity politics" leads to people adopting group identities and destroying equal-rights individualism, of which this nation is based on. I found them randomly before, but I took hours to find this one: It Is Time to Debate-And End-Identity Politics at The Heritage Foundation. Interestingly enough, this article makes a connection between racial activism in the past with Marxism, which feels like a deep dive.

The Right, in its desire to hurt the Left, and the Center Left, in attempts to appeal to the Center, have taken some multi-pronged attacks. The Right has both united the pluralism/socialism stances into a unitary threat AND has also pegged them as separate menaces. Uniting the stances scares their supporters and those in the center inclined to triggering. Pegging them as separate menaces divides the Left, setting the Left to argue with itself over which issues will supposedly win elections and the hearts of the American people. The Right divides and conquers the Left while scaring the Center and their own Right the both pluralism and socialism are threats.

If the Right is pulling these rhetorical flourishes that divides the Left, how can the Left do better to realize what Ocasio-Cortez once said that economic justice and social justice aren't separate things? And once the Left can unite these issues and unite itself under multiple causes for justice, how can it demonstrate and convince the People that the Left will be able to address the issues that the nation faces?

I don't have any clear answers. This essay focused more about raising questions. My next essay might have something to add to the issues to connect with the People, though: National Pride.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

We Need Deeper Understandings of Human Nature to Stop Cycles of Anger, Hurt, Bigotry, and Partisanship

(Hmmmm. . .maybe this whole turn a social media thread/rumination into a blog entry might yield too much.)

I currently have Episode 89: You voting in 2016 vs you voting in 2018 of the Make Me Smart podcast on queue with some of it partially listened to. As of the point I've reached, the hosts, Kai Ryssdal and Molly Wood, are revisiting their interview with George Lakoff from Episode 12: This is Your Brain on Trump. This re-visit feels like a coincidence because I'm looking into some of Lakoff's work for my bachelors project.

I've taken out three to four of his books from the library and looked more into his thought on the Internet, (though I haven't yet started the books). In what I've seen and heard from him so far, though, I'm a little disappointed.

Then again, I've been disappointed a little, in general, with thought in positions of pluralism and the importance of thinking independently, openly, and empathetically, though I support these causes 100%. To be frank, I also feel disappointed by most positions out there in the present day, Far Leftist, liberal, conservative, or Far Rightist.

I have problems with assumption of correctness without building up a basis for the correctness. Even the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" argument for coming up with equal rights blindly without knowing your position in the world still feels somewhat shallow. Even then, I'm sure after the veil has been pulled away, people with unfair advantage will try to push for more advantage. Some type of logical fallacy must exist regarding the veil.

The Invisibilia podcast even had an interesting episode about the UN trying to inculcate pluralistim into Somalian culture. A study of one of these initiatives confirmed that art and performance could push people into these positive directions and what factors do so. Nonetheless, the study couldn't determine the why's and reasons for why people are susceptible to such manipulation.

So this phenomena leads me to a flipside of questions: if these tools can be used for good without understanding them, couldn't the phenomena be used in a similar fashion for evil? Shouldn't we work harder to understand these underlying causes and sources? Shouldn't we understand what human factors lead us to be manipulated, lead us to adopt Lakoff's Strict Father or Indulgent Mother models?

Sometimes it feels like Lakoff, many academics, and all of us in our politics, depend on the elegance and coherence of arguments and narratives to convince people. If people simply don't accept the argument, then we dismiss as ignorant or as adopting the wrong side of the argument. In the case of Lakoff's models, they have adopted the "Strict Father" (since Lakoff demonizes those who do).

Now, I'm coming from a difficult position. I believe in

• Pluralism
• Fairness
• Empathy
• Open mindedness
• Ppenness to experience and
• Against true systemic unfair advantages/privilege and will fight tooth and nail to protect them

At the same time, to fight tooth and nail, I want to have good back up to the causes I'm fighting for. I want an understanding of human nature, tendency, instinct, and inborn causes that bring about these reactions in people. I'll fight without good back up, but I still want the back up.

Hopefully, through this understanding, I can show the other side their incorrectness and that they're hurting themselves by not standing down. Their persistance to continue in their ways of hate and pain hurts them. Even take the standoff of terrorism and civilization. I don't like to go back to pinning down the rise of cycles of hate, anger, and violence down to some historical point. After all, it's possible to go even further back to reach another historical point to show the injustice of that original historical point. It's called a cycle for a reason.

Rather, though, investigating the human reactions to these historical points that reverbate further and further back in time and investigating how those historical points have fired up human instinct to start cycles that cause so much damage and hate can help show us

• The positives and negatives of actions taken
• How they can be self destructive to
• The self
• The community
• Civilization
• Earth

If we understand where we have come from, we can break out of our cycles.

I am a Unitarian Universalist, not a Christian, so I tend to appreciate texts and ideas from multiple different heritages in all of human history. Some text from Paul's letter to the Romans has always stuck me since I had read it:

[. . .] But now we have been released from the law, for we died to it and are no longer captive to its power. Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit. [. . .]

I cut a bunch from the quote. I'm not so into the divine and theological interpretation of the text, even though that's the origin of it. Rather, if you replace "God" with "understanding", "human nature", or "reality" (which, obviously, Christians will argue is blasphemous), I believe the text better fits my approach.

I like to think that if we can figure out a good interpretation of the original causes of human behavior, we may not need the laws created by politicians. These lawas were created at a time when one partisan side had the power vs when another side was out of power. For instance, I'm coming to appreciate a constant between all sides of conflict in humanity: we all have an instinct for "fairness".

Yet we have different interpretations of what fairness means because of our position in the disagreement. If we can figure out some basic premises of how the human instinct of "fairness" works, including how different individuals and groups interpret the application of fairness, we can have a better idea of how to extrapolate and reason out how to act without needing to remember rote legislated laws.

And if there's an existing cycle of conflict, maybe we can figure out how to get out of the cycle in a way that satisfies all sides. Getting out might even require one or all sides to feel and accept guilt, but to do so in a way that they accept their part in contributing to the cycle of anger, hate, bigotry hurt, and even violence.

In the current atmosphere of politics in the United States, I urge our politicians to behave civilly and engage in a due process that respects impact and unveiling undue advantage. I also urge our politicians to figure out better ways to get a better tab on their consituents, electorate, and the facts, considering

• Their staffers seem to be getting information that leads them to believe their electorate is more conservative
• Their staff is underfunded thus causing dependence on lobbyists for information
• That services put into place to provide Congress with nonpartisan information, like the Congressional Research Service, is being sabotaged

Since Congress, especially the Republican establishment (whatever that means these days), can't seem to get it through their heads that they have lost touch with the country, you won't find me telling everyday people to be civil. The United States government is supposed to be "government of the people, by the people, for the people" (interestingly, our heritage has gotten that from John Wyckliffe). If politicians won't do the work to find out what the people think and feel, then the people of America need to make sure we let the politicians know how we think and feel (even if that means to happen in public, in an elevator in governmental buildings, in restaurants, in town halls, etc.).

Nonetheless, whether one group or another should act civilly or not, we should all seek to

• Understand the nature of the phenomena behind us
• Figure out why we and others behave the way that they do
• See how our current trends are destroying us, even though we believe it's saving us

If we continue with this partisan cycle, we're going to do destroy ourselves and the world. On the other hand, if we can understand our human nature, we can hopefully break out of this cycle and figure out how to prevent such cycles in the future (including preventing genocide).

Who's with me on this one?

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

My Parable of The Golden Grasses of California & The Regionalism of the US

I (and many of you readers) live in this huge country, the United States. It has a lot of different regions from forest, plains (great ones), swampy areas, mountainous areas, even desert! In many ways, I feel kind of spoiled, like I'm somewhat taking it for granted, and wish I had so much more free leisure time to explore and discover this vast land.

Almost two months ago, I took a trip to California that challenged my expectations of the land, which also led to challenging me about the variety and diversity of people and cultures in this country. This experience came after hearing many political commentators on podcasts discuss this regional diversity around the country and how it influences elections and sentiment about our politicians. Trying to understand this surprise-to-me landscape in California has angled me to try getting a better appreciation of the differences of landscape and people around this country.

Before going deeper into this topic, I want to present a short collage of video compiled during a car drive to one of our destinations:



For those who have difficulty seeing, the videos mostly show a view of Californian landscape passing by as the wife and I drive on state highways going through some amount of elevation. This landscape has A LOT of yellow grass that I estimate comes up almost to the thighs or hips. Almost as a contradiction, the video also shows some deciduous trees with green leaves (somewhat spread out on the branches), close and in the distance, sometimes isolated and sometimes in a bunch. A lot of the grass looks expansive and goes far into the distance, while some of it is clumped together in something of a small clearing among a copse of trees.

The yellow grass really shocked me. I had never before visited Oakhurst or gone to Yosemite National Park, but back in March 2003, the wife and I had visited Sacramento and Davis with a day trip to San Francisco then back to Sacramento. The Sacramento Valley and the foot hills then looked green, full of life, and moist. It didn't stand out to me as an anything especially amazing to me, despite how far all that green stretched. We still lived around Boston in 2003, and I grew up in a mix of rural and urban Massachusetts that had a lot of green and rolling hills. The vastness and magnification of the landscape gave me pause, but just making things bigger didn't impress me.

The endless yellow grass this time threw me for a loop, though. It started in the plane even before we landed. Cruising and pulling down to the airport, I could only see road, water bodies, and yellow. I saw so much of it, I thought it was sand, wasteland or desert. We had banked around San Jose, which is close to San Francisco but still a good distance away. Maybe the desert of southern California transitioned to green northern California somewhere between San Jose and San Francisco. Maybe the present drought caused it or maybe the area had A LOT of beaches.

After landing, getting our rental car, and heading east out of San Jose and past San Francisco, I figured out that I hadn't seen desert from the plane. I had seen vast yellow, dry, rolling grasslands. The drive from the two San's to Oakhurst took somewhere between 4-6 drowsy hours (I hadn't slept much the night before) through yellow grasses as far as my eyes could see, over foot hills and into the distance once we got out of the foot hills. Imagine being in an endless vast desert, but instead of desolate sand with nothing else, I saw endless grass. What a shock after seeing that general area all green 15 years ago and thinking about all the produce that comes from California.

The yellow grass put me off, but something about the experience unsettled me: I didn't know if the yellow grass was normal and routine or an abnormal result of dry weather and a drought. The weather in San Francisco doesn't follow the normal course of seasons that I'm used to. Last time the wife and I had visited San Francisco a few years ago, our hosts commented how October provided one of the best times to visit San Francisco because the dampness, the cold, and the fog would fall back. The summer doesn't provide a good time to visit San Francisco because it gets cold and foggy then.

Temperature margins between all the places we visited this time freaked me out a little, too. Between Oakhurst, San Jose, and San Francisco, we faced a range of twenty degrees Fahrenheit, something like 80 degrees in Oakhurst, 70 degrees in San Jose, and 60 degrees in San Francisco.

Even the range of temperatures don't seem to vary so much in and around Chicago when comparing the shore of Lake Michigan to more inland areas. The definition of inland around the Chicago area of Lake Michigan might give a more drastic impression than the temperature differences in California. In California, the distance for changing temperatures seem to occur in the 10's of miles while in Chicago, the differential in temperature seems to occur within half a mile to a mile. It's not so drastic, maybe just three to five degrees but I believe it levels off at somewhere between seven and ten degrees, rather than the twenty degree range in California for a similar traveling time. Then again, I usually travel north from Chicago and a lot of the time on the road can involve a lot of waiting in traffic, A LOT OF WAITING.

The lead up to this trip and encountering this landscape created some cognitive dissonance. We had been hearing about the rise of massive fires daily as we grew closer to the beginning of our trip, and some of the fires had died down enough that our trip wouldn't be dangerous. Yosemite Park first let visitors back into its gates on the day that we visited. While driving into the valley, I looked across the river and saw spots of fire (including one long line going up a hill) that I believe that the authorities had planned to just let burn out because they had it under control.

On the Daily Zeitgeist podcast, based in California, they brought up the massive fires quite bit and also brought up the fact that California was going through an abnormal drought, which contributed to the fires going out of control. I expected to find California more desolate, more dead, but yet not desert. The gold grass went against my expectation, though. Maybe I didn't expect desert, but I think I expected dead grass all along the ground like hay or something. This in between state of the golden grass caused me to do a double take.

How many people do what I do when I do an intellectual or factual double take? How many other people go to Wikipedia or graze the Internet for information? I don't remember the figure, but I remember that I read that Californians or San Franciscans used a huge, almost unfathomable, amount of water just flushing the toilets (which I guess from looking at Wikipedia tonight or a quick Google search, San Francisco is trying to put into place some major water use standards). Other than being gobsmacked about the huge amount of water used to flush toilets and being reminded that humans need to do stuff about preserving water and minimizing our footprint on the Earth, I got the idea that some organizations and individuals were working on the problem. Hopefully they'll address the problem with enough time, but the water felt like a universal human issue, just with some details different here and there.

(Whatever happens, though, stay away from our Lakes!)

Looking into the golden grass that felt off (though somewhat drearily comforting by the end of the rural trip) yielded an interesting result. The golden grass didn't inspire a unique reaction in me. Apparently a lot of tourists feel off put by the golden grass during the dry season. Further investigation digs up people who have California pride about the golden grass. They hate the reactions of non-Californians to the golden grass. To these Californians, the wet and dry seasons are a natural cycle, the grasses going from green to gold is a natural cycle. These "patriotic" Californians see it as completely normal and part of nature, and they feel intruded upon by non-Californians coming into their state and trying to tell them how things should be.

Reading more and experiencing the gold grass, I came to appreciate it as a natural part of California with its own beauty that fits the area. It felt foreign, but the United States is a big place. For the most part, I haven't seen much of it. I've lived just a little over half my life in the northeast, mostly around Massachusetts with most of my traveling being to New Hampshire, Vermont, maybe Rhode Island or New York, and Quebec (as a kid, I also traveled a few times in Maine and once to British Columbia and Prince Edward Island). A little under the other half of my life, I've lived in Chicago and mostly traveled around Lake Michigan and a little into the interior of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and almost to Iowa.

I've done a little traveling to Florida, the Carolinas, and from DC to Blacksburg, VA but most of my East Coast travel has been along the Northeast Megalopolis from DC to Boston. Otherwise, my US travel has included mostly pleasant touristy locations: the Northern California Megalopolis, Los Angeles, Tucson, and not really much else other than highways between Chicago and Boston.

This listing off of places I've lived and visited comes down to something simple: I really haven't experienced much United States of America. Add to that: I haven't visited that many places that have challenged my assumptions. If I did visit such places, I generally passed through town, not really even exposing myself to people in town or the culture of it.

Suffice to say, the Sacramento Valley/Northern California megalopolis genuinely challenged my sensibilities of the United States of America by exposing me to its golden grass. Even just the exposure to

• Hearing people talk about the fires as both a routine and outlier event
• Trying to reach a Sequoia valley in a mid-size sedan then having to turn around after dealing with roads that got thinner and thinner while winding around a mountainside, roads no longer being paved, then seeing a steep incline with a lot of holes in the road, which caused us to turn around (after we did further research later, we learned that we could have walked the rest of he way, but we decided not to go back because even remembering the drive frayed our nerves)

made my ruminating mind that always asks questions (in a good curious way) dive deeper and deeper into questions. I grew to appreciate bigger cars when I earlier felt big cars had become about protecting the drivers from the outside world or some type of display of conspicuous consumption. All the while even in the Midwest and Northeast where I've lived most of my life, trucks and cars with four wheel drive have their places for regular drivers when it snows a ton.

Even just thinking about fire as a routine event boggles the mind. However, living on the northeast coast, knowing that despite hurricanes being rare, they can reach the Boston area and cause some damage. I remember living at the time of Hurricane Gloria. The only time I ran into the basement because of possible tornadoes occurred while I lived in Massachusetts. Still, tornadoes are more likely to occur in the Midwest, though I've never had a serious tornado scare (though I did see the sky turn a sickly green color).

Then temperature and snow. I've ridden my bike in temperatures in as low as -5 or -7 Fahrenheit along Lake Michigan on the way to work with plenty of snow on the ground. Did I mention that sometimes the wind chill at those times could get as low as -20 Fahrenheit (I don't think I've ridden in temperatures lower than that) during the polar vortex of 2014? I think I even walked to bus stop, all bundled up, when the wind chill had gotten all the way down to -50!

I remember talking to a friend at a party who had traveled down to New Orleans or some other location after a hurricane to help rebuild. While down there, the friend asked a hurricane survivor why they continued living in that area, considering all the hurricanes. The survivor brought up the cold of the Midwest, especially during times of extreme cold like in the polar vortex of 2014. My friend and I had reached the conclusion that every geographical area of the United States has it's own variation on natural obstacles that humans have to deal with routinely and sometimes in extreme situations.

That discussion about extreme weather, my experience with extreme weather, and my recent experience in California has impressed upon me how human ingenuity for dealing with the environment and how that coping can mold culture and personality. This article does an interesting job to highlight how the neoliberal practice of extracting natural resources from rural areas to disproportionately benefit urban areas also provides some perspective on how the economy, business practices, and regulations can can affect cultures and personalities (even though the big "oil savior" of shale fracking is generally yielding losses and requiring a lot of borrowing to stay in business).

All these revelations have an abstract tinge and haven't made any concrete landing. The different regions of the United States are all very different and develop different types of culture and people. Even within those areas, many different types of people come into existence and develop. The United States has to come to terms with this status.

I think this revelation has led me to something more of a chilled pessimism combined with hope for a better tomorrow when it comes to nationwide politics these days. I still have some anger, but I don't feel so confident in the direction of that anger, though I feel like I know what's right and what's wrong. I don't think different regions allows for some form of moral relativism. Some people will have no compunction about hurting or marginalizing others because The Other is different or because The Other has gotten in their way.

I believe in a minimum behavior and morality, and many in the United States, aren't meeting that minimum. Nonetheless, I don't have a full picture of how to resolve the matter of many in this nation not meeting the minimum yet having the power to empower and embolden the negative status quo or to continue behavior even worse than the status quo. I say this from a platform of white male privilege, and I wish I had a better understanding and way to correct this issue, but I don't. Especially after the last couple months of confirming a Supreme Court justice in such a way that undermines the confidence of the American People in the institution of the Supreme Court, thus undermining the American People's confidence in the US government.

I want everyone who can to get out there and vote, even if they can only submit a provisional ballot. The lack of confidence that can stop us from voting creates a positive feedback loop. By citizens not exercising their right and privilege to vote, we give away our nation, our state, our government to people who want to just gather together power to further undermine our confidence in the government and institutions so that they can just gather more power. Through our confidence in the heart of our system, through our confidence in our people power, we can help to rebuild a nation, a state, the institutions, and even a world in which we can be proud of and rise far above the minimum to build a truly just country and world. We can all fully realize ourselves by fully interrelating with each other in ways to learn and teach each other something better and something real.

All the signals out there for what our government will look like after November 6 conflict with each other and won't resolve themselves until after the General Election. Since I last heard Nate Silver talk about the Democrat's chance of winning back the government, he had it at Dems have a 75% chance of winning the House and 33% chance of the Dems winning the Senate. Frankly, all the talking about impeaching Trump and Kavanaugh likely will get no where because the Democrats simply won't have the numbers. Maybe the House will be able to start the process, but the Senate wouldn't be able to complete it.

The Resistance needs to continue resisting and working to change people's minds. Nonetheless, the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings have shown how still divided this country is and has even emboldened the Right, possibly to the levels of the "Blue Wave". Turnout will matter big and getting independents to come out and participate. The Democrats have historically been bad at coming out for mid-term elections. Everyone needs to come out to vote for the national, the state, and the local elections.

Local and state elections matter just as much, if not more than the national elections. Those officials have a lot more to do with our everyday lives and making lasting changes. On top of that, those positions can be stepping stones for good candidates to step up and up toward the national level to help determine the big, sensational values to protect and mold the spirit of our nation. Starting now, our votes on the state level now start affecting the district maps getting drawn in 2020-2021. Our votes can help determine how much our states get gerrymandered for the House and the Electoral College. Our voting now and always will play a big part in affecting our lives, our futures, justice, and the spirit and fabric of our nation.

I really really hope a lot of people get out the vote and cast their votes for justice. Maybe the just vote won't be a "pure" vote in the vein of purity politics, but we can determine the future of justice by choosing a realistic good candidate. As bad as it may sound, a good candidate is better than the shit show we have running our nation at the moment. I know electioneering against something isn't nearly as good, powerful, and motivating as electioneering for a positive vision for the future. Sometimes, though, it requires voting and fighting against something negative and horrible to start the turn around to a better, kinder future.

Despite all my motivating words, I still fear for the worst. After the election of 2016, I don't feel like I can truly trust polls and the overconfidence of the people on my side. That overconfidence can stop us from going out to vote. There are arguments that our individual votes mean nothing, and logically, it makes some sense. A lot of people haven't gone out to vote because they felt both big parties made a trashfire of a system and couldn't bring themselves to vote for either party. Regarding the first argument: your vote matters because the Left-Right divide is close enough that a few hundred votes here and there could make a big difference.

As for the second argument, the two parties and the system trashfire has come about because people like Manafort have been successful in destroying our confidence in system. We can only get confidence again in the system if we make it a system to be confident in it, and we all have to participate in making it better, through voting, through donating to parties, candidates, and nonprofits, through volunteering, and engaging civically in society.

So you hold our futures in your hands. Please go out and vote. Please help make this country and the world a better, kinder place.

I have a final correction and ending story that I feel discredits my feeling that everyone is as different as I had come to believe and also attacks the facade of our low-confidence government and system. As things turn out, the golden grasses of California is an invasive species. In one sense, it feels disheartening because the natural fauna that was suited to the local environment (the native plants had a lot more resistance to fire) has died out and likely can't be revived to its past glory, especially in our lifetime.

The golden grasses in California feel like a parable for our passionate partisan divides. People who grew up in California feel strongly about the nativeness of the golden grass. They argue with people outside the region about the naturalness of the golden grass. History has buried the truth of the golden grass's invasiveness, though, much like how the divisions of partisanship has come from the lies of ignorance, essentialism, and history. Like learning about the true native fauna of California, the truth of

• the divisions
• the justice
• humanity
• kindness
• climate
• systems

can be found and acted upon to make a better world. To do that, though, we have to exercise kindness, humbleness, and desire to

• learn
• teach
• empathize
• connect

with each other. Exercising all those characters will help us get to a better place for all.

I believe we can do it. I believe you can do it. Now you just have to believe and execute that belief. If you haven't done anything to embolden justice in the world, start with voting on November 6. If you've already voted and done other things, keep on doing it.

Over and above that, though, we all need to humble ourselves, learn kindness and caring, and work really damn hard to learn and work to make the world better. Don't forget to vote on November 6, though, because you can do that while doing all that other great stuff, too.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!