It often occurs to me that each of us has intense conflicts of interest between our present self and our future
selves. My present self wants to over-eat, fail to exercise, ignore needed house repairs, and I would generally prefer to prepare less rather than more for anything I do. None of these things would be good for my future self. My present urges seem much more important than my future concerns, so it takes focused effort to keep my priorities straight. Today I found a cute cartoon to illustrate this recurring internal conflict that we all experience.
On a large scale, of course, society tends to live in the present, exhausting the earth's resources, rather than living sustainably, which can would usually require extra effort and planning. Thus, as a country we are collectively engaged in a massive conflict of interest pitting our present selves against our future selves. 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded, much of the damage done by human activities.
[More . . . ]
I just finished reading Bruce Levine's article at Alternet: "8 Reasons Young Americans Don't Fight Back: How the US Crushed Youth Resistance." It is a rare day when I read a detailed article with which I so completely agree. Here are eight reasons why the great majority of young Americans passively accept massive social injustice, incessant warmongering, and a stunning amount of lying and betrayal by most of their so-called leaders:
1. Student-Loan Debt.
2. Psychopathologizing and Medicating Noncompliance.
3. Schools That Educate for Compliance and Not for Democracy.
4. “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top.”
5. Shaming Young People Who Take Education—But Not Their Schooling—Seriously
6. The Normalization of Surveillance.
7. Television.
8. Fundamentalist Religion and Fundamentalist Consumerism.
I highly recommend Levine's article for more details on each of these reasons. I especially agree with his arguments that by fighting back, young Americans perceive that they are putting at risk their chances of engaging in the material good life that they crave. Fighting back, and even speaking out in person, can destroy one's chances of getting a "good" job.
[More . . . ]
Right turns on red have been legal in my state (Missouri) for many years. Could someone please . . . PLEASE . . . tell me why so many people are so hesitant to take that right turn on red, even when it is perfectly safe to do so, and even when they will sit for along time at the light if they fail to turn right on red?
I took the attached photo while waiting for several cars to turn right on red. The front car never made that turn, and therefore all of us sat there. I honked, but it did no good. When the light turned green, all of these cars turned right.
I witness this reluctance all the time. What is the deal? Are they afraid? Ignorant of the law? Obstinate? Sleeping?
Perhaps you already know the story about Lt. Dan Choi, a gay man with specialized training in Arabic who, for more than
a decade, served honorably with the U.S. military, including service in Iraq from 2006-2008. After transferring to the New York National Guard, however, he announced that he was gay on Rachel Maddow's show. He came out very much aware that the law of the land was Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which he appropriately described as "an immoral law and policy that forces American soldiers to deceive and lie about their sexual orientation."
After coming out on Maddow's show, Choi received a discharge letter from the military. Choi publicly stated, "It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers."
In 2010, Choi was arrested for demonstrating, as described by Jane Hamsher of Fire Dog Lake:
Choi chained himself to the White House fence on
November 10, 2010 to protest DADT. He and 12 others activists were arrested and charged with violating a federal regulation prohibiting “interfering with agency functions,” in this case refusing to obey an order from the National Park Service.
In the eyes of the Federal government, even a man who has given a great deal of his life for his country should never be allowed to embarrass the government by serving as a reminder that a law on the books is evil. Therefore, the trial is about to commence, despite the fact that the judge is perplexed by the severity of the charges.
In the meantime, Dan Choi is facing ignominy from another front, set forth in a mass mailing I just received from FDL:
Collection agencies are now demanding Dan pay over $3,000 to the Department of Defense to "make up" for the portion of his enlistment he did not serve after he was thrown out of the Army for disclosing his sexual orientation. That includes seizing his veterans disability checks that he depends on to treat his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from his service in the Iraq War.
Welcome to modern day America. If this prosecution outrages you as much as it does me, sign the petition at FDL.
I'd bet that President Obama, who has severely wavered on his commitment to gay rights, has sufficient political clout to grab a front row seat to Choi's trial, if he would like to become visibly associated with Choi's upcoming trial and punishment. After all, isn't that what Choi deserves for daring to speak out about an injustice? this makes me wonder . . . If Martin Luther King magically returned and was put on trial for civil disobedience in 2011, would Barack Obama stand by in that case too and allow the feds make even more of a mockery of civil liberties?
Note: DADT is scheduled to be deemed unenforceable as of September 20, 2011.
I did not opt out of the Christian Coalition newsletter mailing list that someone unknown signed me up for some months ago. It helps to keep an eye on what the other side is up to. The Aug 5, 2011 issue includes the following scary observation:
"Critics and supporters of the Budget Control Act ... agree that the Tea Party now controls the agenda in Washington D.C. As one who attended Glenn Beck's Tea Party event last August -- along with over a half million other Tea Party supporters -- when looking at the hundreds of thousands of families near the Lincoln Memorial on Washington D.C.'s Mall, I realized that those families represent the large majority of the American people, as anyone with any kind of commonsense would.
Why in particular do I find this scary?
Open admission that The Tea Party (not even an official political party) controls the actions of our legislature. This group is a powerful vocal minority, arguably smaller but richer than the 1980's "Moral Majority."
Lack of fact checking: The attendance of the Glen Beck event is well established by several independent sources. They range from Beck's hopeful "300,000 to 600,000" and Michelle Bachman's "at least a million" to several actual counts from aerial photos between 60,000 and 87,000.
The massive innumeracy that equates "thousands of families" with "large majority of the American people." Please divide several thousand by hundreds of millions and show that this is somehow more than half.
87,000 / 330,000,000 = 0.00026 or somewhat less than a majority, however you massage it.
The implication that the openly theocratic ideals of the Tea Party are somehow related to common sense. Even Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" argued against a government supported by the church (as is England's).
And in totality, the tone that says that the oddball ideals of this group are somehow mainstream. They seem hopeful about Lenin's maxim that a lie told often enough becomes the truth. And the Christian Coalition is all about The Truth.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
I did not opt out of the Christian Coalition newsletter mailing list that someone unknown signed me up for some months ago. It helps to keep an eye on what the other side is up to. The Aug 5, 2011 issue includes the following scary observation:
