Tannishblog

As I read Time Magazine’s cover story about the current trends in genetic research, I hear an echo of my conservative workmate saying: "I don’t believe in evolution. It shouldn’t be taught in schools without also teaching alternative theories on the origin of man." This, a conditioned response of his Baptist college education, makes me think of how institutions can control young minds through selective application of knowledge.

This is nothing new, of course, societies have edited information flow for centuries. Ignorance is the second best method of keeping a populace docile. Fear is the first. Let’s not forget that organized religion as an institution, regardless of flavor, has as a foremost reason of being the goal of controlling the masses. So it’s not surprising that my friend, as result of his upbringing, would utter such a narrow-minded statement.

As I read the article, I can’t help but to point out to myself the assertions and assumptions that would raise the hackles of religious conservatives. Again, I hear my friend, and again I mentally respond: "That is the sound of One Mind Closing." But, to be fair, the scientific view of evolution must also close its mind to creationism. According to TIME:

Scientists didn’t need to wait for the chimp genome to begin speculating about the essential differences between humans and apes, of course. They didn’t even need to know about DNA. Much of the vitriol directed at Charles Darwin a century and a half ago came not from his ideas about evolution in general but from his insulting but logical implication that humans and the African apes are descended from a common ancestor.

Reading the above paragraph, I recall my feeling that creationism as a theory is an application of human arrogance. To assert that, because we have dominated this world as a species, we are superior to all creations is absurd. Maybe whales think the same thing of themselves; they, too, are at the top of their food chain.

Meanwhile I recall my response to my Baptist friend. "I never understood the antipathy between viewpoints," I said. "One says that God created us, the other dhows us some of His methods. To me, they compliment each other, not contradict" I’ve said this whenever I encounter a Creationist. Invariably, the conversation shifts and I never get a straight answer to my statement.

I bounce back to pondering closed minds: What benefit does a creationist position bring to the discussion? Perhaps my bias is showing, but I cannot think of any. Darwinian thinking, however, has formed a foundation of modern medical advances, spawned new schools of scientific inquiry, genetics being the latest. Whether or not the theory is true, mankind has benefited by its exploration. Closing one’s mind to the possibility that Darwin was into something only foments division, creates animosity and hostility. I’m of the opinion that the world does not need more of that.

Mainly, though, I remain ambivalent. Who Cares? Like much of the religious realm of thinking, we should all have our freedom to pursue whatever dogma we chose to embrace. Yet, the controlling aspect of religious culture won’t allow this. We see this played out on a grand scale in current affairs: "Think as I think, or suffer." is the Theistic mandate. I project this thinking to imagine a world that shuns "secular" inquiry. The resulting model is much like Medieval Europe or 18th Century middle East, full of disease and hardship, hatred and persecution, needless suffering by today’s standards. The "Who Cares" attitude that has prevailed in our world, as  regards scientific advances allows for the lifestyle our modern militant theists enjoy. Do they realize this?

The problem I see with Microsoft as a monopoly is that the consumer is hurt by it in small, irritating ways. For example, I have a tiny shareware program called BigFix that is unfortunately necessary precisely because Microsoft has has no viable competition for most of its existence. Bigfix tracks upgrades to major software suites like windows, Office, Symantec anti-virus and others, lets me know via a popup message that a patch is available, then facilitates the upload and installation of the patch.

It’s a nice service, especially since its free to home users (corporations need to pay for a licence for large-scale versions.) What I find irritating is the fact we need this at all. Windows has been a staple of the desktop since 1989 (or so.) All that time, the product remains broken despite all the years of "development" since. Reports I see of Windows Vista lends me to believe that the gaping security holes will not be addressed in the forthcoming version. Vista will be nothing more than a cosmetic upgrade to keep up with Mac OS X, as noted at PC Magazine:

It’s too early to see how Vista measures up against competitive operating systems, but a lot of the more visible features are familiar. Apple’s Mac OS X "Tiger" already has many 3D visual effects and a search interface, Spotlight. Unix has had usable limited-rights accounts for years.

Okay: Anti-virus software is a billion dollar industry.  Some would argue that if Microsoft cleaned up its act, a good many people would be out of work. These same people would just use their talent on something else - that’s what technology is all about: innovation. Symantec, for one, could still reap a bundle on its suite of  backup and recovery tools, or its pcAnywhere communications program. They’ll recover just fine, thank you.

The consumer, who has as little time for cleaning digital windows as he has for cleaning real ones, is inconvenienced by all the squeegee work needed to keep a safe and working computer functioning. It is a disservice to everyone, and it is irresponsible of the richest man in the nation to ignore the issue. To me, more than any other reason, that is why competition against monopolies should be encouraged.

Okay, so I started a blog at Democrats.org. I’ll admit the driving force is to whore my homepage, but also to play along in what promises to be an interesting experiment. Linking Democrats through the web…not exactly a new idea, but to create a central clearinghouse of sorts… this we need.

A problem I see, mostly because I fit the stereotype, is what I call Armchair Activists. We, of the couch-legume genus tend to let inertia keep us in our place. We tend to seek a path of least resistance, whatever we can accomplish by mouse-clicking we will gladly do - especially if it doesn’t involve our wallets. So for yet another community complaint site, this should be successful. Whining is easier than action.

So, to create a truly helpful clearinghouse, one that moves us forward (for a change), more needs doing. That, I surmise, is what the Fundraising link is for, but is it enough? Linking to another like-mined soul, building community, creating a feedback loop of angst only creates a positive outlook if followed up with on-the-street action.

I fear the average Internet junkie is unwilling to make such sacrifices to their lifestyles - even in the short term.

Don’t mind me, I tend to take a negative view of things. Always, though, I welcome the kindness of others to prove me wrong, but for various reasons this rarely happens. But count this Armchair Activist in, all the way from the Island of Blue that is Chicagoland, to see what happens. If you all can fire me up, you can fire anyone. I challenge you.

"EIGHT HOURS FOR WORK, EIGHT HOURS FOR REST, EIGHT HOURS FOR RECREATION!" Thus shouted the banners on September 5, 1882 the first Labor Day parade, held in New York City. Thanks to the efforts of Peter McGuire, son of an Irish immigrant who spent much of his childhood working while his father fought in the Civil War. He went on to organize the first labor union in Chicago: the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America a year earlier.

Congress was reluctant to acknowledge a "Workingmen's holiday," but a wave of support from municipalities crested until it was finally voted a federal holiday in 1894. This, in spite of recognition of the importance of the working class by none other than Adam Smith.

"Labor was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased."

Since then, the US Department of Labor, established in 1913, took this stance:

The vital force of labor added materially to the highest standard of living and the greatest production the world has ever known and has brought us closer to the realization of our traditional ideals of economic and political democracy. It is appropriate, therefore, that the nation pay tribute on Labor Day to the creator of so much of the nation's strength, freedom, and leadership - the American worker.

A cynic would wonder if the original reluctance of government was subsequently reversed for political gains. The whole labor movement is designed to promote the welfare of the average worker, improve working conditions and increase opportunities for gainful employment, yet our "for the people" institutions were slow in the uptake. The same cynic might note that such ideals are rooted in a Christian tradition fundamental to the genesis of our democracy.

Jesus said, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" ~Matthew 11:28~

"Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." ~Ephesians 4:28~

Nonetheless, the Industrial Revolution grew quickly through exploitation of the workers. Entities in public and private sectors, motivated by profit, forgot their moral lessons, to be reminded through the self-organization of the unwashed masses. Only through local governmental structures, closer to the people, was our national political caste forced to pay attention to workers woes.

Since then, unions have had their heyday. Perhaps they've overstepped their humble beginnings and, through hubris over time, strained our economy. Would health care now be so expensive if for generations aspiring doctors hadn't been expected to reap great monetary rewards? How about the automotive industry: would the products of their labors be competitive in a global market if the industry wasn't hobbled by generations of accumulated unionized demands? As robotics take over the assembly line, should auto workers accept a new outlook towards what is fair compensation? Not doing so is perhaps causing them their jobs.

But that was then. Now, the situation is much the same. A few years ago, Norman Solomon dared to ask: What if We Didn't Need Labor Day? He proposed reversing the American media's focus away from the very rich and toward the people who make riches reality.

Labor Day may be a fitting tribute to America's workers. But what about the other 364 days of the year? Despite all the talk about the importance and dignity of working people, they get little power or glory in the everyday world of news media.

What if the situation were reversed?

Once a year, big investors and corporate owners could be honored on Business Day. To celebrate the holiday, politicians might march arm in arm through downtown Manhattan with the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Donald Trump. Executives could have the day off while media outlets said some nice things about them.

During the rest of the year, in this inverted scenario, journalists would focus on the real lives of the nation's workforce. Instead of making heroes out of billionaire investors — and instead of reporting on Wall Street as the ultimate center of people's economic lives — the news media would provide extensive coverage of the workplace.

Indeed. Because this perspective exists, the semi-deification of the wealthy, labor issues from the 18th century still plague workers. Conditions have improved - to a point. Most of us enjoy an air conditioned workplace, a workload that can be accomplished with less than 10 hours overtime weekly, modest health and retirement benefits. Lately, though the bias toward tax breaks for the rich, years of incremental decreases in education funding, increases in the cost of health care, and alarming deductions in retirement benefits and employer contributions to health care, herald a shift in thinking favoring the industrial elite. The balance tilts anew.

Ponder, if you will, how current labor policy has helped you raise your family in the last decade. Has it made things easier? Is your economic situation better that that of your father's or grandfather's? If so, you are in the minority.

The underlying reality of all businesses is people. Without the human factor, business is meaningless. People build the goods, people buy the goods. People benefit from the improved lifestyle. People profit through their ideas, their labor, to the extent that is serves other people. To continue the false assumption of our corporate and political elite - that the driving force of business (and our economy) is money - is to continue to dehumanize an institution that is only possible through continued collaboration between humans. Without people, what's the point? Without a healthy, happy labor force, is any commodity possible?

These days such a title could mean anything, from US-Iraq "relations" to Arab-Jew hostility, from Chinese-American economic tussles to German cyber attacks on neo-Nazi sites. This post deals with a hidden culture within the US, and it’s history of repression and ostracism by our protestant underpinnings of denied prurience.

In Salt Lake City, children of stable, polygamist families speak out in favor of their upbringing. while only a tiny minority of Utah’s - some 250 supporters came to City Hall - they have the right to speak out against a history of human rights abuses, losses of freedoms, and intolerance. They suffer these indignities at the hands of a Christian majority pathologically incapable of a healthy respect for human procreation. They can’t talk to their children about it; they deny their teenagers to explore their sexuality; they refuse to let others choose a lifestyle that differs from the perceived norm; they can’t even talk to their spouses about their own desires. Christian attitudes toward sexuality is an illness in itself.

Today’s youth, expressing themselves in a truly Democratic fashion, are challenging authority unlike anything seen since the 1960’s. This is perhaps as replay of the upheaval of the Boomers, a continuation on a smaller scale of social progression and cultural maturity, kick-started then abandoned by the teens of the sixties in favor of profits and creature comforts.

What is wrong with Polygamy? I neither endorse nor condemn the practice. If consenting adults agree to such an arrangement, so be it. A stable family is a happy family. Any resulting children, if raised in openness and awareness of its surroundings, will thrive and be capable of making healthy lifestyle choices of their own.

Have there been unbecoming behavior associated with polygamy? Yes, but any other lifestyle can claim its own collection of tyrants. What the Christian majority has proselytized against is no more evil than bouts of ethnic cleansing that allowed Mormons to settle in Utah in the first place. Didn’t Jesus say: "He without sin may cast the first stone"? Something like that.

Just a few of many word spoken by the man most revered by Christians worldwide that are ignored in modern life.