Matters of Concern II

I've been reading about SB 1070 - the Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law.

It's very alarming, and it makes me no little bit sick to my stomach. This law is akin to the law that put Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans in labor camps during WWII. This law turns Arizona into a place where you have to carry your "PAPERS" with you at all times so that you can prove you are a citizen of the U.S. or that you are in the country legally - if your skin is brown that is... Very Gestapo... 

Some proponents are positioning the law as a way to address the influx of illegal immigrants, claiming that individual states should have the jurisdiction to police the national borders. However border control is a task that the constitution grants to the federal government alone. These advocates of SB 1070 seem to feel that harassing Americans of Latino or Hispanic decent and those immigrants who are legally here in this country, is acceptable collateral damage, and they should just put up with it in the name of catching those who are here illegally.

They fail to realize that that is absolutely unacceptable. No citizen of the U.S. is supposed to have to fear the papers-police. All their ranting about Anti-American-this and Un-American-that seems to miss this very crucial point... In my mind there's nothing more anti-american than the loss of our civil liberties, of our essential freedoms. And one person's loss of freedom is a loss for all of us.

The supporters of SB 1070 fail to realize that much of the illegal immigrant problem is due to our government's mistaken policies. That NAFTA and other like-minded free market-based policies actually have worsened the illegal immigrant problem instead of being a part of the solution. In the 1980s and 90s, NAFTA proponents boasted that trade, not aid, would boost the lot of Mexico and Mexicans. By raising Mexican living standards and wage levels - NAFTA's intended goals - Attorney General Janet Reno predicted NAFTA would reduce illegal immigration by up to two-thirds in six years. "NAFTA is our best hope for reducing illegal migration in the long haul... If it fails, effective immigration control will become impossible..."(Reno, 1994).

Well, guess what, Janet - it failed.

Instead of increasing the living conditions for the Mexicans and benefiting the Americans, the flood of illegal immigrants to the United States is up, and the standard of living of the average Mexican is down. People don't leave their communities, their friends, their families and their cultures because they want to. They leave because they have to. NAFTA set the stage for the kind of poverty that drives people to break laws simply to feed their families.

NAFTA permits heavily-subsidized US corn and other agri-business products to compete with small Mexican farmers. This has driven the Mexican farmer off the land because they cannot compete with the low-priced imports of US corn and other agricultural products. Millions of Mexicans have been forced off their farms and out of agriculture, and many of those that remain are living in desperate poverty. These people are among those that cross the border to feed their families. Meanwhile, corn-based tortilla prices have more than doubled in recent years and will continue to climb due to, in part, the U.S. policies encouraging production of corn-based ethanol.

NAFTA's service-sector rules allowed companies like Wal-Mart to enter the Mexican market. By selling low-priced goods made by ultra-cheap labor in other countries, these discount stores eliminated tens of thousands of small and medium-sized Mexican businesses.

It's definitely a quagmire now.

I'd like to think that a move to fair market policies rather than free market would eventually fix at least some of the problems, but I think that the vociferous voices on the right would find a way to stigmatize the fair market movement with their cries of "Socialist agenda" and "Anti-American."

I also doubt that we've enough time to make it work before the meltdown occurs. It seems we're reaching a fevered pitch - at least as far as the rhetoric is concerned.  I'm worried that we're going to see an increase in violence soon.

The bigots hiding behind the "States' Rights" rallying call are very good at working their constituencies up into a rabid spittle-spewing froth, feeding the immigrant-bashing mantra that is sweeping the country via their  Tea Party pro-America, America-for-the-Americans platform, and playing on the fear of losing jobs to immigrants - the fact that those jobs are ones that no red-blooded Tea Party regular would ever consider doing is irrelevant.

egad... what's next?

---

Matters of Concern

One of the online discussions I participate in has sort of ground to a halt over the perceived direction of our country. To me it seems that the discussion is focused on the financial crisis, fear of unemployment, fear of socialism, and other right-leaning fears.

This morning I posted the following (we'll see what comes from it - maybe there are some less-conservative lurkers on the discussion board)...

I agree that the direction that our country (and our world) is going is a concern. I am not so concerned about the political direction, although the general unwillingness to consider coming to any worthwhile compromise is very discouraging. The disoriented polarity in our government is debilitating and will reduce us to a third-rate country eventually.

I am concerned that people are not trained to think critically, to weigh the worth of the information they receive. Instead they equate loudness, or repetition, as indicators of veracity.

I am concerned that we no longer have anything that could be considered a civil society. The callous, in-your-face screaming disdainful model of communication prevalent in public and private discourse can in no way be called conversation. Without conversation, nothing is humanly possible.

I am concerned that there are no credible news/journalism organizations now - only info-media entertainews. Without responsible, disciplined, respected public-minded news sources (rather than the corporate, news-for-profit sources we are now saddled with) democracy is not possible. If the populace isn't informed (as opposed to entertained) their decisions at the voting booth are meaningless.

I am concerned that people jump at the chance to trade their liberty and rights for security - and a false security at that. Why would any thinking person be willing to give up their freedom for laws and regulations that aren't going to do much to really provide safety and security?

I am concerned about the world's willingness to use violence, rather than diplomacy, to settle disputes.

Other thoughts, anyone?

---

Best Super Bowl Commercial

I don't have a television so I don't watch things on tv... not much anyway.

I did not watch the Super Bowl, so I missed all the commercials. I heard they weren't anything to write home about this year. But someone mentioned that this one was definitely worth seeing.

It is... I love it.

A Step Toward a More Manageable Life

Tonight I deleted over 3000 emails from my Gmail inbox (over 500 of them were unread emails...) and canceled subscriptions to a great many email newsletters and distribution lists. I feel liberated

Now I need to do the same with my work email...

Concerning Censorship

I have thought quite a bit about the issue of censorship this evening after some questions arose concerning the current show at the center...

*****************************************************

This discussion is a very important one. It goes far beyond this one exhibit, beyond this one artist, beyond even the arts center and our community.



In regard to the larger discussion, I am adamantly against censorship – not just as an artist, but also as a responsible citizen of a democracy. Censorship is a certain path to the enslavement of reason, critical thinking, and civil discourse, perpetrated by groups in power – or by groups willing and able to create a loud enough uproar. It chips away at the foundation of education, at the value of alternative ideas and the creators of those ideas, and, most importantly, at the heart of our power to make decisions for ourselves – it dis-empowers. Censorship is a response to a stimulus that has offended a particular ideology, and while censorship may seem desirable when you are of the censoring party, it is degrading and demoralizing when your viewpoints, ideas or creations are the ones being suppressed.



It’s been asked “Would you consider hanging photos or paintings depicting explicit scenes from dog fights?”  Myself, I would respond, “I might, if I believed the images to have artistic merit, and/or if they expressed an important social message.” Uncomfortable imagery, uncomfortable stories, uncomfortable ideas need to be explored and deconstructed, their meanings discussed, understood and considered. If we close our eyes and minds to the things that offend us, if we refuse to consider the ideas of the others, if we refuse to listen to those we do not agree with, we limit our growth and our vision, we set ourselves up to get blindsided by trends and social agendas, and we continue to foster the destructive division and rancorous dichotomy that is evermore apparent in much of the social discourse in this country. It is when we – both sides – carefully listen, and then respectfully express our agreement or our opposition to ideas and concepts that valid, meaningful communication happens. At the point when communication truly happens a working compromise is possible.  And although it is not the case in this discussion, I must add that if those who disagree with refuse to reciprocate with a similar respect it in no way negates our responsibility to continue to listen and communicate respectfully...



I am not concerned with following any one group's particular political correctness agenda and in regard to the controversial pieces in the show – it is my understanding that in general sadomasochistic culture is participated in by choice, not force and therefore only of concern to those who willingly participate.  I recognize that others may feel differently, and respect their viewpoints. However, I do not recognize this perspective as a valid position for censoring artistic expression. But for this discussion it is important to take into consideration the varied ways that the center is used by the community and the impact of imagery that some in the community may feel is graphic in nature. 



Taking a Stand in a Town Hall Meeting

Today, in a "town hall" meeting, we discussed a group of priorities for moving the university forward. We have a new president and he is reaching out to everyone in a number of ways, looking for input on where each group, each person, thinks the university needs to focus efforts and energy.

I did not bring home my notes, but there were eight priorities laid out for discussion. I think I can remember them: the university's Catholic, Lasallian heritage/identity; an excellent teaching and learning environment; a diverse and qualified student body; financial vigor and viability of the university; the well-being of all; internal & external communication; preparing students for an increasingly "global" world. I am forgetting one of them. Perhaps it will come to me as I pull my thoughts together here. Oh yeah, enhancing technology to support learning. That was number five I think.

The president, after taking perhaps 15 or 20 minutes to introduce the priorities, simply stood as moderator, pointing out members of the audience/gathering so that they could speak their thoughts on these priorities.

For the most part people brought up ideas that would either support or question the feasibility of a given priority. Concerns were voiced that we should respect the financial health of the university, but not let economics strangle its essence. Several faculty members mentioned a deficit in the teaching of foreign languages bringing up the idea that we need more language instructors. I think I would take it even further - we need to teach more languages. Simply offering French and Spanish isn't good enough anymore. Yes I know we also have Latin and Greek, and we also offer the occasional Arabic course, but I am thinking we need to offer Chinese. We need to have a fully established program in Arabic.

At one point someone made mention of the vocational vs. liberal arts education models, claiming that we need to decide which we will be and what it means to be one or the other, as well as a few other points that I have to admit did not really stick in my mind.

The idea that education - higher education everywhere, not just at our university - is sorely lacking in its ability to engage students in intellectual discourse (that heady, inspiring dialogue that leaves you reeling, that pushes you right up against the abyss, leaving you tottering on the edge of all of your prejudices, your assumptions, your ignorance, while you strain for a transcendent moment, a crystal clarity, that moment when you realize a tiny particle of truth, the moment that makes you feel truly alive and vibrant) was a point that many voiced. Faculty and students alike mentioned that they missed the challenge that this kind of thinking, this kind of being embodies, they missed, whether or not they even knew it existed, the high brought on by intense mental engagement.

I found much to agree with in the discussion of creating intellectual dialogue. I believe that college, without this experience, is just advanced high school.

I was impressed by the solidarity expressed by those who chose to speak and those who listened with total concentration. For the most part it was a very civil and respectful discussion.

The students that came and spoke were probably mostly seminarians - although one female student also spoke. One student spoke several times. One of my co-workers mentioned that she thought he did very well with the first point he brought up. She thought he perhaps came with that statement prepared ahead of time. I think she may be correct. He definitely did not do as well on the second, third or fourth time he spoke.

I think it was the second time he spoke, maybe the third, when he joined in on the discussion of the "intellectual life" at the university. He used those moments to praise the merits of taking logic courses, taking philosophy courses. I would have been fine with what he said, except he implied that philosophy courses are more important than other courses. He said something along the lines of why would anyone want/need to take a ceramics course - why would a university worth its salt offer a ceramics course but not make logic (a philosophy course we offer) required for every student - what possible good could someone get from taking ceramics, etc.

I admit that I sort of got fired up about this statement (and the implied lesser worthiness in vocational education that a faculty member stated earlier). It wasn't soley that he was a bit arrogant. It wasn't solely that he was getting great pleasure from hearing himself speak. It wasn't that he dismissed art as having any value - at least not entirely.

What I cannot get past is the elitism, expressed here as my course/major/department/program has more worth, is more essential to what is that defines intellectual discourse, than your course/major/department/program. It was the implication that as a philosopher he was worth more than someone who took art classes.

And that is just plain wrongheadedness. So I had to say something.

You cannot build intellectual discourse without passion. Not everyone has the same passions. The real work of a university is to engage the student from within the context of his or her passion. An art course, a business course, a philosophy course or a language course - any course can inspire passion which can then lay the foundation for intellectual dialogue.

I absolutely, totally, passionately(!) believe that lasting , meaningful learning, that true expansion of one's awareness comes from discovering a passion and exploring it.

I hope I was more eloquent when I spoke than I have been here. I need to think about this more.

Boundaries

A fellow graduate from Goddard asked us (on our alumni email list) how we deal with boundaries with our partners - especially if we live together. How we provide the space and time we need in order to be creative.

My thoughts on this:

Being clear on things helps. Clear with myself in regards to what I actually need, and clear with my partner about it once I figure it all out.

It takes a bit of courage to do that kind of self monitoring and to be able to separate the wants from the needs. Not that we should not include a few wants in the mix, but I have found that my needs rarely intrude on the rights of others, whereas my wants often do...

And then, once I have it figured out it takes a bit more courage to communicate it to others in a thoughtful and discussion-provoking manner. However, it is well worth doing.

I will say that this is not a do-it-once-and-be-done-with-it task. It is something to be periodically reviewed on a life-long basis.

*************************************************************************************