http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12673455
Ok, read this story, see what you think.
This woman, 4 days after her wedding, starts having a stroke. Her new husband takes her to the emergency room. On the way, there are two red lights, which he treats like stop signs. He stops, makes sure no one is coming, and then proceeds while the light is still red. A cop sees this, follows them to the ER, and then harasses them. He blocks their entry to the ER (the man is carrying his sick wife), and when they finally do get inside the officer tries to follow them into her hospital room. The husband is eventually arrested, on charges such as evading arrest.
So, here's my problem. At what point does the law need to take a backseat to what is right and moral for a specific situation? He wasn't behaving recklessly. I mean, he stopped at the stop light. No one was coming - at least he didn't hit anyone else. And he did it to save a possibly dying woman's life. Sure, perhaps he did break the law. But who of us wouldn't have done the same thing?
What sickens me is that this cop had no empathy for what was happening. Taking your dying wife into a hospital is not "evading arrest." If you want to give him a ticket, go ahead, but at least let him take his wife inside the hospital first.
What do you think? A cop is supposed to "protect and serve." Is upholding a traffic law to protect the public more important than protecting a woman who may be having a stroke? Where do we draw the line?
Monday, June 21, 2010
It'll give you cancer, but it sure does keep them bugs off the berries
I've often thought that big businesses tend to put their profit-motive ahead of the individual consumer's well being. So, seeing another example of that isn't surprising. What is alarming to me is seeing how deeply the business world has the government in its pocket.
Check out this story I just read from NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127910253&sc=fb&cc=fp
(If you don't want to read it, I'll summarize. They're replacing an old pesticide, because it was damaging the ozone layer. The one they're replacing it with is a known carcinogen and neurotoxin! Awesome, right? But the real rub is the debate about "safe levels" of this very unsafe product, which scientists said would be .8 parts per billion for workers with protective gear. The government, after receiving this finding, instead placed the regulation at 96 parts per billion - over a hundred times higher than scientists recommend.)
Now, my question is, why would the government ignore the work of the scientists that they commissioned and place the bar where they did? The only explanation is pressure from the pesticide business. I can't imagine consumers lobbying for there to be more neurotoxins in their strawberries.
It's scary. The reason I've argued like I have in defense of "big government" is on the basis that we need government to protect us from unscrupulous corporations. But when government and corporations are shown to be in cahoots, what protection is left for the individual? Do we need to start having someone in Washington lobbying for us? I thought that's why we elected people!
Check out this story I just read from NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127910253&sc=fb&cc=fp
(If you don't want to read it, I'll summarize. They're replacing an old pesticide, because it was damaging the ozone layer. The one they're replacing it with is a known carcinogen and neurotoxin! Awesome, right? But the real rub is the debate about "safe levels" of this very unsafe product, which scientists said would be .8 parts per billion for workers with protective gear. The government, after receiving this finding, instead placed the regulation at 96 parts per billion - over a hundred times higher than scientists recommend.)
Now, my question is, why would the government ignore the work of the scientists that they commissioned and place the bar where they did? The only explanation is pressure from the pesticide business. I can't imagine consumers lobbying for there to be more neurotoxins in their strawberries.
It's scary. The reason I've argued like I have in defense of "big government" is on the basis that we need government to protect us from unscrupulous corporations. But when government and corporations are shown to be in cahoots, what protection is left for the individual? Do we need to start having someone in Washington lobbying for us? I thought that's why we elected people!
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Fearmongering and Hatespeech (or, the Big Bad Wolf)
From the time we're little children, the stories we're told clearly illustrate concepts of good vs. evil. There's a clear good guy that we're supposed to identify with, and a bad guy, for which we have a cocktail of hate, fear, and disgust. Look at the story of the three little piggys, little red riding hood - they both have the big bad wolf. That personification of our fear and hate.
From an anthropological standpoint, it totally makes sense. As small children, it's very valuable to our survival to know what things are dangerous and we should fear. If the story involved the "friendly wolf who just wanted a meal to feed his starving family," then maybe we'd be trying to give it food scraps instead of running for shelter. We need to learn very early on what we should fear, and what we should stay away from - because if we don't, we'll die.
But, it becomes dangerous when we continue this behaviour into adulthood. The big bad wolf is dangerous, but it is also a friendly animal trying to feed its family. It's not malicious, it's just trying to survive, just like us. As adults, we can analyze it's methods and intentions and treat it accordingly. We still respect it's power, but we don't hate it.
If we hated it, we would hunt it to extinction. With a modicum of empathy, we can learn to coexist.
Now, let's carry this thought into our relationships with other people and cultures. People use fear and hatred to justify war and discrimination. Replace the big bad wolf with communists, Muslims, blacks, homosexuals, etc., and we can see how society tells the story - and how that story changes over time.
The truth is, we need to feel hatred and fear towards a group to justify going to war with them, to ourselves. If we start looking at people in Afghanistan as people who are just trying to survive, who are afraid of us, they feel suffocated by our expanding global grasp - then you start understanding, rather than hating. It's true there are terrorist groups, but they exert their power for a reason - because they're afraid of us, or feel powerless and need to exercise that power. Because they see US as the big bad wolf. If we can understand their motives, since they are people just like us, then we can treat the causes of their anger rather than vilifying. Because when we view them as the big bad wolf, it's really only a way to murder them with a clear conscience. Which gives them a reason to murder us with a clear conscience. Which gives us a reason to.....
Without empathy, we will always be susceptible to war.
From an anthropological standpoint, it totally makes sense. As small children, it's very valuable to our survival to know what things are dangerous and we should fear. If the story involved the "friendly wolf who just wanted a meal to feed his starving family," then maybe we'd be trying to give it food scraps instead of running for shelter. We need to learn very early on what we should fear, and what we should stay away from - because if we don't, we'll die.
But, it becomes dangerous when we continue this behaviour into adulthood. The big bad wolf is dangerous, but it is also a friendly animal trying to feed its family. It's not malicious, it's just trying to survive, just like us. As adults, we can analyze it's methods and intentions and treat it accordingly. We still respect it's power, but we don't hate it.
If we hated it, we would hunt it to extinction. With a modicum of empathy, we can learn to coexist.
Now, let's carry this thought into our relationships with other people and cultures. People use fear and hatred to justify war and discrimination. Replace the big bad wolf with communists, Muslims, blacks, homosexuals, etc., and we can see how society tells the story - and how that story changes over time.
The truth is, we need to feel hatred and fear towards a group to justify going to war with them, to ourselves. If we start looking at people in Afghanistan as people who are just trying to survive, who are afraid of us, they feel suffocated by our expanding global grasp - then you start understanding, rather than hating. It's true there are terrorist groups, but they exert their power for a reason - because they're afraid of us, or feel powerless and need to exercise that power. Because they see US as the big bad wolf. If we can understand their motives, since they are people just like us, then we can treat the causes of their anger rather than vilifying. Because when we view them as the big bad wolf, it's really only a way to murder them with a clear conscience. Which gives them a reason to murder us with a clear conscience. Which gives us a reason to.....
Without empathy, we will always be susceptible to war.
Monday, June 14, 2010
The economic conscience, selfishness, and the downfall of society
Okay, a few quick points:
1) We say that our dollar is our vote. We support things that we like, and we boycott things we don't like. In this way we seek to build a better culture with the purchases we make and the things we choose to support.
2) However, many of us are selfish, and we find ways to cut costs so that we can have more money. Oh, don't feel so bad, that's what capitalism teaches us to do. Cut expenses, maximize profits. So, we cut "frivolous expenses" like music, art, opera, books... If we get music, we get burned copies or downloaded albums.
3) As we cut these costs, the artists stop receiving an income. Because of this, many artists have to stop being artists and become something they're not, like cabinet-makers.
4) As this cycle continues, we may find ourselves in a culture without art. Well, probably not. But maybe not as rich and varied. Maybe not as good. It's a negative effect.
Will we revert to a system of patronage? Like, where the only people who had money were the church, so the only music that made money were religious pieces? Or will we move to a system like (I believe) Iceland, where the government is a patron for the arts, simply to keep the rich, Icelandic culture thriving? Or will we somehow revive our economic conscience, and start paying for the things we value? Because, lets face it folks, we all benefit from art and music.
1) We say that our dollar is our vote. We support things that we like, and we boycott things we don't like. In this way we seek to build a better culture with the purchases we make and the things we choose to support.
2) However, many of us are selfish, and we find ways to cut costs so that we can have more money. Oh, don't feel so bad, that's what capitalism teaches us to do. Cut expenses, maximize profits. So, we cut "frivolous expenses" like music, art, opera, books... If we get music, we get burned copies or downloaded albums.
3) As we cut these costs, the artists stop receiving an income. Because of this, many artists have to stop being artists and become something they're not, like cabinet-makers.
4) As this cycle continues, we may find ourselves in a culture without art. Well, probably not. But maybe not as rich and varied. Maybe not as good. It's a negative effect.
Will we revert to a system of patronage? Like, where the only people who had money were the church, so the only music that made money were religious pieces? Or will we move to a system like (I believe) Iceland, where the government is a patron for the arts, simply to keep the rich, Icelandic culture thriving? Or will we somehow revive our economic conscience, and start paying for the things we value? Because, lets face it folks, we all benefit from art and music.
Can capitalism save Zimbabwe?
Several weeks ago I overheard a conversation between two people. One was a friend of mine, now working to be a missionary in Zimbabwe. His main passion is using people in Zimbabwe to build houses - creating housing where there is a huge shortage, and creating jobs. Sounds like a win/win.
He was describing this mission to his boss. The boss had an interesting view of the housing shortage there. He said something to the effect of: "They should let some capitalism loose over there. Get rid of all the bureaucracy."
You see, he was under the impression that any time there is a problem it MUST be caused by the government, and capitalism SURELY would be able to fix it.
Today's blog is about why I think I disagree with him.
How is capitalism going to encourage the building of housing for people who are poor? If they can't pay for the houses, who will? The core value system of capitalism doesn't support charity. The core of capitalism is defeat your competition, make profit at all cost.
The only way capitalism would touch Zimbabwe is if it could profit off of Zimbabwe.
If pure capitalism were introduced locally, you might see some entrepreneurial people of Zimbabwe, but where will they find start up capital? What bank will lend a poor man in a poor country a substantial amount of money to start a business?
My real question is, how does a country lift itself out of poverty? I'm not saying that capitalism shouldn't be part of the answer - I'm just saying that I don't think capitalism itself is enough to take an entire country from poor to self-sufficient. There needs to be a spark. Somehow, some capital needs to flow into the country so that businesses and jobs can be created.
I think that it's easy for those of us over here who are benefiting from capitalism (like wealthy business owners) to forget what it's like on the other side of capitalism's barrel. If you have nothing, and can't get anything, can't get a job, can't start a business... what do you do?
I don't really have any answers on this one. I'd really like to hear all of your thoughts.
He was describing this mission to his boss. The boss had an interesting view of the housing shortage there. He said something to the effect of: "They should let some capitalism loose over there. Get rid of all the bureaucracy."
You see, he was under the impression that any time there is a problem it MUST be caused by the government, and capitalism SURELY would be able to fix it.
Today's blog is about why I think I disagree with him.
How is capitalism going to encourage the building of housing for people who are poor? If they can't pay for the houses, who will? The core value system of capitalism doesn't support charity. The core of capitalism is defeat your competition, make profit at all cost.
The only way capitalism would touch Zimbabwe is if it could profit off of Zimbabwe.
If pure capitalism were introduced locally, you might see some entrepreneurial people of Zimbabwe, but where will they find start up capital? What bank will lend a poor man in a poor country a substantial amount of money to start a business?
My real question is, how does a country lift itself out of poverty? I'm not saying that capitalism shouldn't be part of the answer - I'm just saying that I don't think capitalism itself is enough to take an entire country from poor to self-sufficient. There needs to be a spark. Somehow, some capital needs to flow into the country so that businesses and jobs can be created.
I think that it's easy for those of us over here who are benefiting from capitalism (like wealthy business owners) to forget what it's like on the other side of capitalism's barrel. If you have nothing, and can't get anything, can't get a job, can't start a business... what do you do?
I don't really have any answers on this one. I'd really like to hear all of your thoughts.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Buying local
I have mixed feelings about supporting local businesses.
For the most part I support it. For reasons like these listed here: http://conservationvalue.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-buy-local.html Mainly, that it encourages diversity, and relationship-based business. I mean, in theory it's a great thing. You know all the people that supply your groceries, that make your coffee, that build your furniture, whatever it may be. It's a real person that you can talk to if you have a problem, rather than another big faceless corporation. It makes you feel more connected to the world, more like a human, less like part of a big global economic machine. I like all of these ideas.
But, I think it's naive to postulate that in every case a local business is better than a big business. I think giving unquestioning, unconditional support to a business simply because it is local is dangerous. I mean, some companies rise to prominence because they provide a better product. Perhaps they're more efficient as a business. Maybe they actually do provide better customer service.
This point was illustrated very well by an episode of South Park titled Gnomes (Season 2, Episode 17). For the majority of the episode, you hear the plight of the small coffee-shop owner who is being run out of business by a big coffee conglomerate. You really feel for him, you're up in arms about local business. That is, until the end, when the characters actually taste the coffee, and found that the local coffee shop's coffee was terrible, and the big business coffee tasted lovely.
My point is this: In an ideal world, I would love to buy everything locally, absolutely everything. And I think that there are many reasons to support doing this. But, by the ideals of capitalism (which, admittedly, I'm not sure I support fully), we should support the business with the better business model, and the better product. To support a local business with a worse product is, in essence, to prop up mediocrity where it should die like a sickly goat among lions.
Now, after all of this, I will say this: I will always support Blue Line coffee, on 50th and Underwood. Why? Because they're locally owned? Sure. But, mostly because I know the baristas, and I know that they still maintain the art of making coffee. So, their coffee just tastes better than anything out of a super-automatic machine, like Starbucks, Scooters, Crane Coffee, etc. all use. Sometimes local is better.
For the most part I support it. For reasons like these listed here: http://conservationvalue.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-buy-local.html Mainly, that it encourages diversity, and relationship-based business. I mean, in theory it's a great thing. You know all the people that supply your groceries, that make your coffee, that build your furniture, whatever it may be. It's a real person that you can talk to if you have a problem, rather than another big faceless corporation. It makes you feel more connected to the world, more like a human, less like part of a big global economic machine. I like all of these ideas.
But, I think it's naive to postulate that in every case a local business is better than a big business. I think giving unquestioning, unconditional support to a business simply because it is local is dangerous. I mean, some companies rise to prominence because they provide a better product. Perhaps they're more efficient as a business. Maybe they actually do provide better customer service.
This point was illustrated very well by an episode of South Park titled Gnomes (Season 2, Episode 17). For the majority of the episode, you hear the plight of the small coffee-shop owner who is being run out of business by a big coffee conglomerate. You really feel for him, you're up in arms about local business. That is, until the end, when the characters actually taste the coffee, and found that the local coffee shop's coffee was terrible, and the big business coffee tasted lovely.
My point is this: In an ideal world, I would love to buy everything locally, absolutely everything. And I think that there are many reasons to support doing this. But, by the ideals of capitalism (which, admittedly, I'm not sure I support fully), we should support the business with the better business model, and the better product. To support a local business with a worse product is, in essence, to prop up mediocrity where it should die like a sickly goat among lions.
Now, after all of this, I will say this: I will always support Blue Line coffee, on 50th and Underwood. Why? Because they're locally owned? Sure. But, mostly because I know the baristas, and I know that they still maintain the art of making coffee. So, their coffee just tastes better than anything out of a super-automatic machine, like Starbucks, Scooters, Crane Coffee, etc. all use. Sometimes local is better.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
A note on the billboards pimpling over our fields - shall we pop them?
If you've noticed that I have ad banners plastered all over my page, it's because I wanted to make my blog as much like an American highway as possible. Capitalism has made our society not very subtle. It's made our society a loudspeaker saying "buy buy buy!" even if it detracts from the beauty and subtlety of the world around us.
Have you noticed that the ads are more and more intrusive on our favorite shows? Not only are they stopped every few minutes for commercial breaks - now they have ads that run across the bottom of the screen DURING the show, along with station logos. And those ads get bigger and bigger as we get better and better at ignoring them.
Nascar's a great example. The cars and drivers are walking billboards. They take their helmet off, they put on a hat with a dozen logos.
Why can't we drive along a road and see trees rather than ads? Why can't we watch a show that is a piece of art rather than a sales pitch? Is no one else sick of this?
Have you noticed that the ads are more and more intrusive on our favorite shows? Not only are they stopped every few minutes for commercial breaks - now they have ads that run across the bottom of the screen DURING the show, along with station logos. And those ads get bigger and bigger as we get better and better at ignoring them.
Nascar's a great example. The cars and drivers are walking billboards. They take their helmet off, they put on a hat with a dozen logos.
Why can't we drive along a road and see trees rather than ads? Why can't we watch a show that is a piece of art rather than a sales pitch? Is no one else sick of this?
Capitalism, breeder of innovation (in the field of scam artistry)
I've often questioned whether capitalism is truly the ideal economic system that people seem to say it is. People worship it. I've heard people with shining faces talk of God, democracy, and capitalism - like these are the holy trinity. That these three things are pure and perfect, and we need to spread them so that the whole world might be free.
I'm not sure about this.
Pure capitalism can be a brutal thing. It tramples the weak underfoot of the rich. So, it is the subject of many of my philosophical ponderings. Is capitalism truly good? Are there systems that might work better?
Many people, in defense of capitalism, will say that it breeds innovation through the competition of ideas. This may be true in some cases. But I've also seen another side effect of capitalism, and that is the scamming of the consumer.
Let's look at some examples:
1) Cigarettes. For centuries people have harvested tobacco and smoked it. But, once it became a big business, they started adding chemicals to make it addictive. Of course it makes good business sense to make it so that people are dependent on your product. If profit-motive wasn't an issue, chemical additives wouldn't have ever entered into cigarettes.
2) Lotion. I've been told (by women who use lotion) that lotion companies put alcohol in their lotions. Why? Because alcohol dries your skin out. So, once you use it to moisturize your skin, you feel the need to use it again in a few hours. Once again, making the consumer dependent on the product.
It just seems like if you look at products being put out and really think what the product would be like if profit-motive weren't involved, that you would often have a much better product, because the focus would be on making the best product, not on marketing, or getting people addicted to it, or cutting costs to protect your bottom line.
But how do we create a world without profit-motive? It seems impossible in modern America. And people claim that without profit as an incentive, people lose their motivation to work.
Thoughts? Innovations?
I'm not sure about this.
Pure capitalism can be a brutal thing. It tramples the weak underfoot of the rich. So, it is the subject of many of my philosophical ponderings. Is capitalism truly good? Are there systems that might work better?
Many people, in defense of capitalism, will say that it breeds innovation through the competition of ideas. This may be true in some cases. But I've also seen another side effect of capitalism, and that is the scamming of the consumer.
Let's look at some examples:
1) Cigarettes. For centuries people have harvested tobacco and smoked it. But, once it became a big business, they started adding chemicals to make it addictive. Of course it makes good business sense to make it so that people are dependent on your product. If profit-motive wasn't an issue, chemical additives wouldn't have ever entered into cigarettes.
2) Lotion. I've been told (by women who use lotion) that lotion companies put alcohol in their lotions. Why? Because alcohol dries your skin out. So, once you use it to moisturize your skin, you feel the need to use it again in a few hours. Once again, making the consumer dependent on the product.
It just seems like if you look at products being put out and really think what the product would be like if profit-motive weren't involved, that you would often have a much better product, because the focus would be on making the best product, not on marketing, or getting people addicted to it, or cutting costs to protect your bottom line.
But how do we create a world without profit-motive? It seems impossible in modern America. And people claim that without profit as an incentive, people lose their motivation to work.
Thoughts? Innovations?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Franzia, the worlds most popular wine
The main theme of capitalism is that you let businesses compete in a free market, and the best will rise to the top.
What really happens though is that those that are the cheapest and most accessible or convenient rise to the top.
Like, McDonalds... Wal-Mart... Starbucks... and Franzia boxed wine.
Franzia is not at all the best wine in the world. Far from it. It kind of sucks. But, it's cheap, it's sold everywhere. And thus it gets to tout that it's the world's most popular. And that many people can't be wrong, right?
McDonalds sells crap that, as we've seen in Supersize Me, you shouldn't eat. But, they have locations EVERYWHERE. Best food in the world? No. Cheapest and most convenient? They have the drive through and the dollar menu. And they even have a playplace and a clown to lure in the little ones. Yay capitalism.
Starbucks has taken espresso-making, an Italian art-form, and distilled it to McDonald's level crap. They use super-automatic machines that take out both all of the skill of making coffee as well as all of the ability to correct flaws in the product from the coffee-making process. It takes an artist and makes them a button-pusher. Turns a human into a cog in a machine. But they're trendy. They've branded themselves well. They took Italy and brought it to America (after bastardizing it). And they have drive-throughs. So, you can feel pretentious and faux-Italian on your way to your crappy suburban job.
I've read the Fountainhead. You should too. Not for Ayn Rand's philosophy of anarcho-capitalism (which I don't believe the truths in the novel support), but for her brilliant portrayal of typical American mob-mentality. Stick with what is comfortable and easy. Steer clear of genius. That's what American capitalism comes down to. Not what greatness can we achieve, but what cheap crap can we pander to the masses.
What really happens though is that those that are the cheapest and most accessible or convenient rise to the top.
Like, McDonalds... Wal-Mart... Starbucks... and Franzia boxed wine.
Franzia is not at all the best wine in the world. Far from it. It kind of sucks. But, it's cheap, it's sold everywhere. And thus it gets to tout that it's the world's most popular. And that many people can't be wrong, right?
McDonalds sells crap that, as we've seen in Supersize Me, you shouldn't eat. But, they have locations EVERYWHERE. Best food in the world? No. Cheapest and most convenient? They have the drive through and the dollar menu. And they even have a playplace and a clown to lure in the little ones. Yay capitalism.
Starbucks has taken espresso-making, an Italian art-form, and distilled it to McDonald's level crap. They use super-automatic machines that take out both all of the skill of making coffee as well as all of the ability to correct flaws in the product from the coffee-making process. It takes an artist and makes them a button-pusher. Turns a human into a cog in a machine. But they're trendy. They've branded themselves well. They took Italy and brought it to America (after bastardizing it). And they have drive-throughs. So, you can feel pretentious and faux-Italian on your way to your crappy suburban job.
I've read the Fountainhead. You should too. Not for Ayn Rand's philosophy of anarcho-capitalism (which I don't believe the truths in the novel support), but for her brilliant portrayal of typical American mob-mentality. Stick with what is comfortable and easy. Steer clear of genius. That's what American capitalism comes down to. Not what greatness can we achieve, but what cheap crap can we pander to the masses.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Indoctrination (or, Please Pass the Propaganda)
I heard a radio program today where they interviewed a political prisoner from North Korea, and a prison guard from the same prison. You can hear the broadcast here:
(http://www.rnw.nl/english/radioshow/north-korea-police-state-prison-state-0)
But it has led me to think about indoctrination, and how it affects us all.
-This prisoner believed, through his wrongful incarceration, that he was actually at fault, that he should be a better citizen. He felt no ill will towards his country. And he had no idea that human rights existed until he reached South Korea.
-The guards believe that the prisoners are the enemy, that if they don't beat and kill the prisoners, that they will beat and kill the guards.
I also have a friend in the military who told me that he found propaganda on a dead North Korean soldier (he'll have to correct me if I'm misquoting his story), but the propaganda led them to believe that they were the world's economic superpower, and countries like America are just trying to steal their wealth.
That's all very disconcerting across the world, but aren't we indoctrinated in America as well? We're led to believe that democracy and capitalism are ideals, but very few of us actually look with an open mind at other political systems. We're led to believe that we're justified in being the world police. In imposing our will upon other nations. We're blinded to the things we do abroad for financial gain.
In America, we're led to believe that we have a real choice in elections. Political parties try to be the polar opposites of the other, and they try so hard to make the other party look like the villain, trying to destroy America. I think most Americans, though, find themselves agreeing in part with both parties, and disagreeing in part with both parties. So, why the polarization? Why do they want to make it into a war? Why don't we just elect moderates, and we can get some things done?
And then there are ways that both parties are exactly the same. I had a nice chat with a friend from work about how politicians get so much money from big oil companies to run their campaigns. I think there are many partnerships between big donors and lawmakers that go on behind the scenes, and that aren't necessarily beneficial for the American people. Could this party war be a way to distract from the real problems in the government?
Check out this Rage Against the Machine video that I think illustrates this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0
Religious indoctrination
We aren't just indoctrinated by political groups, either. Let's look at some beliefs the world's major religions pass on to impressionable children:
Islamic children are raised to believe that infidels are a threat.
Jewish children are raised to believe that the soil they stand on was given to them by God.
Christians are raised to believe that homosexuality is a threat to the moral fiber of the nation.
Now, I'm not saying that these things are true or false. That's for you to believe or not believe. I'm just pointing out that we all teach our children the religious beliefs that we hold now, at an age where they accept anything authority tells them without question. They have to, because they're not old enough to know better. If they questioned a parent's orders, they'll walk out into traffic or play with fire.
All religions tell children that they have the absolute truth. That they should just believe it, and that science and other religions are either the frail human mind trying to explain things that are beyond it's grasp, or even the work of Satan himself, trying to lie to you. Don't question, don't think for yourself. Believe!
My point is that we're all indoctrinated. We're raised by our family, or by our society, or by the slogans of political parties. We're trained to see the world a certain way. And we need to be aware of that. We're only getting an incomplete, slanted picture of the world.
But once we're aware, how do we educate ourselves? Are we doomed to always be like our North Korean cellmate, unaware that human rights exist? Or will we reach freedom, and see what we've been missing?
I think that we need to actively fight against the ethnocentrism that has been bred into us. For one, broaden your access to different news sources. If you're a conservative, listen to a liberal news source -- with an open mind! And vise versa. I think a key is the free access of information, which the internet helps with immensely. But, it only helps if we access it. Watch documentaries about other cultures. Talk to people from other countries. Get a philosophy book, and learn to really walk through the logic behind ideas. And, most importantly, make it a point to travel. But travel with an open mind. Don't travel as an American tourist, travel as a person wanting to experience the world.
It's up to us to find truth, rather than accepting what we're fed.
Listen to the fascist sing
Take hope here
War is elsewhere
You were chosen
This is god's land
Soon well be free
Of blot and mixture
Seeds planted by our
Forefathers hand
(http://www.rnw.nl/english/radioshow/north-korea-police-state-prison-state-0)
But it has led me to think about indoctrination, and how it affects us all.
-This prisoner believed, through his wrongful incarceration, that he was actually at fault, that he should be a better citizen. He felt no ill will towards his country. And he had no idea that human rights existed until he reached South Korea.
-The guards believe that the prisoners are the enemy, that if they don't beat and kill the prisoners, that they will beat and kill the guards.
I also have a friend in the military who told me that he found propaganda on a dead North Korean soldier (he'll have to correct me if I'm misquoting his story), but the propaganda led them to believe that they were the world's economic superpower, and countries like America are just trying to steal their wealth.
That's all very disconcerting across the world, but aren't we indoctrinated in America as well? We're led to believe that democracy and capitalism are ideals, but very few of us actually look with an open mind at other political systems. We're led to believe that we're justified in being the world police. In imposing our will upon other nations. We're blinded to the things we do abroad for financial gain.
In America, we're led to believe that we have a real choice in elections. Political parties try to be the polar opposites of the other, and they try so hard to make the other party look like the villain, trying to destroy America. I think most Americans, though, find themselves agreeing in part with both parties, and disagreeing in part with both parties. So, why the polarization? Why do they want to make it into a war? Why don't we just elect moderates, and we can get some things done?
And then there are ways that both parties are exactly the same. I had a nice chat with a friend from work about how politicians get so much money from big oil companies to run their campaigns. I think there are many partnerships between big donors and lawmakers that go on behind the scenes, and that aren't necessarily beneficial for the American people. Could this party war be a way to distract from the real problems in the government?
Check out this Rage Against the Machine video that I think illustrates this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0
Religious indoctrination
We aren't just indoctrinated by political groups, either. Let's look at some beliefs the world's major religions pass on to impressionable children:
Islamic children are raised to believe that infidels are a threat.
Jewish children are raised to believe that the soil they stand on was given to them by God.
Christians are raised to believe that homosexuality is a threat to the moral fiber of the nation.
Now, I'm not saying that these things are true or false. That's for you to believe or not believe. I'm just pointing out that we all teach our children the religious beliefs that we hold now, at an age where they accept anything authority tells them without question. They have to, because they're not old enough to know better. If they questioned a parent's orders, they'll walk out into traffic or play with fire.
All religions tell children that they have the absolute truth. That they should just believe it, and that science and other religions are either the frail human mind trying to explain things that are beyond it's grasp, or even the work of Satan himself, trying to lie to you. Don't question, don't think for yourself. Believe!
My point is that we're all indoctrinated. We're raised by our family, or by our society, or by the slogans of political parties. We're trained to see the world a certain way. And we need to be aware of that. We're only getting an incomplete, slanted picture of the world.
But once we're aware, how do we educate ourselves? Are we doomed to always be like our North Korean cellmate, unaware that human rights exist? Or will we reach freedom, and see what we've been missing?
I think that we need to actively fight against the ethnocentrism that has been bred into us. For one, broaden your access to different news sources. If you're a conservative, listen to a liberal news source -- with an open mind! And vise versa. I think a key is the free access of information, which the internet helps with immensely. But, it only helps if we access it. Watch documentaries about other cultures. Talk to people from other countries. Get a philosophy book, and learn to really walk through the logic behind ideas. And, most importantly, make it a point to travel. But travel with an open mind. Don't travel as an American tourist, travel as a person wanting to experience the world.
It's up to us to find truth, rather than accepting what we're fed.
Listen to the fascist sing
Take hope here
War is elsewhere
You were chosen
This is god's land
Soon well be free
Of blot and mixture
Seeds planted by our
Forefathers hand
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)