thoughts provocateur

https://web.archive.org/web/20091027151906/http://www.geocities.com/libramoon.geo/thoughts.htm


Violence is learned as the appropriate reaction to anger and frustrations. In the media and on the streets, violence is glorified and rewarded. Poverty both material and emotional is endured, but not quietly. Violent reactions are visited especially on the families and neighbors themselves subject to these brutalizing environments, as well as upon those who are materially better off, in the form of all manner of violent crime. The criminal justice system seems to only reflect and propagate the brutalizing conditions which do nothing to ameliorate the hate, pain, frustrations in an endless cycle of violence, victimizing victims and perpetrators and numbing the sensibilities of the professionals who attempt to work within the system. The education system fails to educate in most of the areas that we need to understand to function in our world. How much do we learn in school (or even at home or on the streets) about basic health and safety, financial management, childcare, legal rights and responsibilities, building meaningful relationships, building self-esteem, building and maintaining a home? Instead, most of what our young people learn in the schools that they must spend most of their formative years attending seems to be more destructive and counterproductive than truly useful. The quality of life we can look forward to is the quality of life we teach our children to expect and produce. And in the present we live out the expectations we are producing today. Yet, what am I doing to promote a better world? I see the misfortunes around me, and feel hopelessly frustrated, beyond any attempt at change. "I am, after all, only one relatively powerless person," I say, and go on with my daily chores, which, after all, leave me little time or energy for doing battle with the powers that shape my surroundings. I have come up with several ideas which I believe would, if implemented, result in a happier world. I do not expect you to agree with my ideas. In fact, I would be highly gratified if you would disagree, and in your disagreement develop or expand ideas of your own which you might share, thereby increasing the energy expended toward positive change in opposition to the apathy or uselessly expended anger against vague or inappropriate targets which, I fear, are overwhelming our healthier impulses. And, if by chance you do agree with any of my ideas, perhaps you could expand on them or help to devise more effective methods of implementation than I have yet been able to imagine. It is said that imagination can be a powerful tool toward change. Perhaps the opening of channels of communication for our positive imaginings might help us to create a world in which we could be prouder and happier to live.

As one who is socially libertarian and fiscally green, I wish to see a minimalization of governmental interference in our daily lives, and for any such interference to make sense, to promote the conservation of our shared natural environment and a healthy shared eco-system, and to take account of the true costs in terms of the environment and individual human needs. That is the way to add a spiritual dimension to our shared culture.

I have a suggestion which would include highly informative and electrifying television/web coverage which could help to ameliorate some of the strife in various world trouble spots. Possibly sponsored by the UN, or other groups which are interested in promoting dialog, in centers of troubled areas town-hall-type meetings (such as had been made popular by President Clinton) could be organized to allow regular, every-day people who represent the various sides in their controversies to speak and dialog on live, international television. Strict security would make sure that no weapons would be allowed in the venue, but there would be no holds barred on what these people could say so that all issues could be expressed as well as any suggestions for working out these issues. In coordination with these meetings, a web-page could be dedicated to the project with transcripts of the meetings and a forum for anyone to respond with their comments and suggestions, possibly including a live chat room. Alongside these town meetings, videoconferences could be arranged to air live on international television for leaders of the various groups in the controveries. The transcripts of these videoconferences and opportunities for comment/suggestions could also be provided on the web-page.

 Just about whenever a proposal is made to improve social/ ecological conditions by making changes in some industry we are subjected to a ballyhoo about the potential loss of jobs which may ensue. It would make more sense and be more sensitive to the needs of both our world and the individuals concerned if provisions were generally available to make involuntary unemployment less hazardous. For instance, various jobs become obsolete as new technology or new perceptions of consumer needs, etc. emerge, which also can lead to the creation of new classes of jobs. All that is needed to bring the employee from doing job A to job B is training in the new job. Contrary to the popular myth that long years of schooling are necessary to learn skills relevant to employment in most fields, most actual day-to-day job skills are learned on the job. Whatever background knowledge is needed can generally be learned concomitant with job skills in on-site training classes or in specific job-related training programs. These need not be particularly expensive and could be funded as part of employer overhead along with lower salaries while the employee is in training and perhaps tax advantages or other public incentives. Small businesses could be funded to train or retrain unemployed people for the jobs they need filled. Unlike large corporations, small businesses would find it difficult to pay for job specific training, thereby limiting their employment opportunities to those already having specific skills. Since most new jobs are with small businesses, people laid off from other work or otherwise unskilled in the specific areas needed by these small businesses are at a disadvantage in gaining employment. Job training funds could be distributed through tax incentives, local jobs-related agencies, the Small Business Administration, or even retraining grants given directly to the job seeker through unemployment compensation offices. Projects beneficial to communities could be undertaken by local small businesses and paid for by government grants, including monies for hiring and (re)training workers. The businesses would then be able to complete these projects, and still have their systems in place for continued employment of people for other, private or public, projects. For those who may lose highly paid positions, a private unemployment insurance investment might be advised. For those in low-paid, high-turnover jobs, the public schools, community centers and other groups might provide low or no cost training linked to local business needs. In fact, high school job-training programs linked with local businesses could provide incentive for teens to stay in school and give them opportunities for immediate earning power, which could have the added benefit of lessening teen crime. Another system for job skill and readiness training could be overseen by private enterprise. Private employment services providing career counseling, personal empowerment counseling and interface with agencies to provide for the clients' needs both while in training and while in transition to employment, along with specific job skills training and general employment skills training could become commonplace in every community where employment is an issue. These services would be available to anyone needing them and paid for by the individual clients, either through their own resources or through government loans (to be repaid when the client obtains employment, at a fair rate). These employment training services would only be eligible for government loans if they could prove a consistently high percentage of their clients had success in obtaining and keeping employment. The training offered should be in a variety of job skills keyed to individual aptitudes and the kinds of jobs generally available or projected to have a high potential for availability. The employment training services could negotiate contracts with members of the business community to train for specific jobs with guaranteed employment to qualified graduates. They could also provide business skills training to help and encourage entrepreneurial talent. Meanwhile, it would behoove we-as-society to provide a cushion of financial resources to get all of us who for any reason may face financial instability through our individual crises without turning to crime, begging or a condition of hopeless homelessness. The current social services complex and unemployment insurance system are not working; and neither is the current attitude of holier-than-thouness towards those of us without financial resources. Perhaps, rather than acting as if those with jobs were entitled to keep them no matter what the social cost, we could develop an attitude of real economic consciousness and plans to safeguard everyone's right to a livelihood, not as charity but in the original sense of insurance to provide against calamity. We could also aim toward more flexibility in employment-employee relationships, more community awareness and involvement and a real commitment to community/work/industry/ economics as if both the Earth and the individual mattered. For instance, it would be universally beneficial to do away with the standard 9 to 5 work hours. Many industries already have shift work, flexible hours, etc. Use of resources generally could be more efficient and workers' individual schedules better accommodated if individually-based work hours were the norm. We could certainly do away with the rush-hour traffic situation we all loathe. Those who function better at certain hours of the day could work during their hours of peak performance. Childcare arrangements could be more easily accommodated. In that regard, there are many jobs which could be done wholly or partially in the home, allowing for both dependent care and paid work, geared to the mutual convenience of the worker and employer. For site-specific jobs, on-site dependent care would certainly be helpful. Currently employed workers could also benefit from flexibility allowing for expanded skills training to prepare for a greater variety of possible jobs. In other words, it's time for flexibility rather than rigidity in the structuring of our work lives. Tangentially, why not make it simpler, easier for independent small businesses to get going -- simplify the regulations, not in regard to true safety or environmental standards, but in regard to economically engendered standards. Keep the rules clear and simple and easy to access, understand and implement. Make it easier for people without means but with ambition and ideas to get low cost loans, business management training and whatever other foothold they need to develop truly local, community businesses keyed to the community's needs and desires. 

 A framework of so-called "12-step programs" has been developed to help people deal with addictions to substances. However, at least part of that framework could be modified to help people to deal with the hot buttons in their lives that lead to committing violent acts. I am thinking of some group maybe called Violence Anonymous which could be initiated in various community settings, staffed by volunteers (who would eventually be long-term program participants but initially could be people who are concerned about these issues, maybe from law enforcement or religious groups or just community volunteers), available 24/7 for anyone who finds themselves fighting violent urges and needs somewhere to go, maybe to talk to others who have experienced/are experiencing similar feelings, maybe to listen to those others vent and share their feelings and experiences, maybe to just have a good old-fashioned "time-out." Once the groups are formed, members could sponsor each other as in AA, to be available to talk one-on-one until the need for violence passes. I don't know about the actual "12 Steps." Maybe they could be adapted to this new forum. And judges could mandate VA sessions to family batterers, people involved in public brawls, etc. -- for a specified amount of time and then as needed once the erstwhile defendant has had a chance to work with the group and find out how it works for them. An adjunct program could also be developed, VV -- Victims of Violence -- for, obviously, victims of violence, where they could find others who understand, to whom they could vent their feelings, from whom they could hear others stories and coping mechanisms, or to just have a safe place to go when needed. There could be made available in the community setting where the VV groups meet referral resources for shelters, medical help, legal help, whatever is seen as needed. Volunteers could make sure the setting was staffed at all times with someone who has had training in working with trauma victims, and eventually staffed with long-term participants. The focus of VA and VV would be not in blaming the perpetrator of violence or the victim, but in joining together as a community against the common enemy, the violent behavior itself. 

 The issue of a right to life is certainly more complex than the media image that right-to-life groups portray. Totally apart from the issues of women's rights over their own bodies and the morality of sexual activity, there remains the very compelling issue of quality of life. I am speaking here not only of the quality of life potentially available to the unwanted yet to be born child or the potential quality of life for the mother to be and other members of her family, both very important issues indeed, but also of the quality of life for us all in the extended family of society, including those children who are very much wanted. I am talking about finite resources and how they are to be distributed. I am talking about child abuse and its far-reaching effects in the escalation of violence and misery. I am also talking about the messages we give to people, young girls of child-bearing age in particular, but all the rest of us as well, about our responsibilities, to our children, to ourselves, to our communities, and to our world. There are, of course, many reasons why a particular pregnancy may not be appropriate for a particular person at a particular time. Among these are the age and health of the prospective mother, the circumstances surrounding the conception (such as incest or rape), the career goals that may be shattered, the existence of other children or dependents whose demands of time and energy may be usurped, and, certainly, economic factors precluding the proper care of mother and child. Regarding these economic factors, a question I think appropriate to ask those who carry the banner of right-to-life is, who is to pay these costs to create a real life for these children that you say should be saved? Some may be adopted into families who have the means and desire to raise them, but certainly not all. I know I would have a great deal more respect for these crusaders of conscience were they to contribute a sizable percentage of their formidable resources -- time, energy and cash -- toward a right to quality life campaign for these children: providing quality childcare options, quality living spaces, quality medical care, quality educational opportunities for both children and parents, quality nutrition including prenatal nutrition, quality counseling for troubled families, etc., etc. Can you do that? Can you truly take responsibility for your beliefs? Or is the extent of your commitment merely to make life more difficult for those already facing insurmountable challenges? And, you know, the sword of governmental interference cuts both ways. There have been many cases of women forced to end their pregnancies against their will by legal fiat. This is obviously a very personal issue, over which only the individuals directly involved deserve to have control.

 I have already written to the tax authorities about allowing us a line on our tax forms to tell them of particular government expenditures we do or do not want our individual tax bills subsidizing -- ultimately it would probably all cancel out and the resultant budget be no different, but at least we would have a chance to make our preferences known in a more specific way than by the ballot -- of course this has not been done. However, I suggest a much more sweeping reform than this. I suggest that we do away with personal income tax and personal property taxes on single family primary residences. I suggest that we try financing our governmental projects via sales tax. After all, we do have at least some control over what we spend in terms of keeping within our family budget. Certain necessity items would be exempt from taxation: food, basic clothing (say items under $100 retail), medical supplies, heating fuel, childcare, education. Items in a luxury category might be taxed at a higher rate. All commercial transactions involving nonexempt items, at all levels along the process from manufacture to retail, could be taxed, as well as all service transactions (excluding necessary services, such as medical care, etc.). Business people already must keep tax records and many states already have sales taxes, so the recordkeeping aspect should not be a problem. Regular wage earners, as opposed to those who sell products or services, would no longer need to be plagued by the need to keep records of all their financial transactions, nor would employers need to keep tax withholding records for their employees. High duties on major purchases brought in from other countries could help to keep those with the means from buying abroad to avoid taxation (or perhaps other countries could also adopt this means of taxation). Savings on the government's end might be effected by doing away with subsidies for certain groups, such as farmers and oil producers, when they have the advantage of tax exempt products and fewer taxes to pay in production. Hopefully, this would also result in lower prices in general for such commodities at the consumers' level. Therefore we could have a turn around of the present system of the lower income people supporting the higher in terms of tax liability. 

 Another suggestion I have would add greatly to the national income and lower the high costs of prisons, courts, law enforcement, and social services. We have been hearing for quite some time about drug abuse and the so-called war on drugs. Governmental interferences in our lives of absurd proportions have been suggested and implemented in this mad campaign. In response to those who blame illicit drug users for the growth of the "drug problem" on the demand side, you are entirely missing the point. Look into history or psychology and you will clearly see that people have always used the substances available to them to ease their anxieties, self-medicate for chronic or medically untreatable pain, relax, recreate, celebrate, become more sensitized to art/beauty/relationships, become less sensitized to poverty/ugliness/hunger, search for spiritual fulfillment, change their consciousness in one way or another. For most of history this was an incidental aspect of human behavior. The problem with the illicit drugs (not to be confused with the drugs this society condones, for whatever accidental reason) is the profit motive resulting from their artificially inflated prices (a direct result of the laws and enforcement of same against their use or sale) which lead to bloody battles among those who want to make those profits, and between the profiteers and the law enforcement personnel who harass them. What most people who complain about the "drug problem" are afraid of is the violence and street crime resulting from this profit motive. Profit-driven violence is only being exacerbated by law-enforcement's efforts to crack down on drugs. To lower the incidence of serious abuse of drug use, wouldn't it be more practical to control the legal use of these substances? We could heavily regulate sales centers for those substances we choose to designate. Perhaps limit the number of such centers in each given area, regulate their locations (say not within a certain distance of schools or other chosen community facilities), regulate the age of patrons with mandatory ID checks, regulate the amount to be sold per transaction, regulate the prices while still keeping these prices well below those of the current illicit market, include heavy taxation and use tax revenues from the sale of these substances to fund various treatment centers, substance use/abuse education and medical programs (after which any additional tax revenues may be used to help pay for other desired programs), disallow advertising of these products, stringently disallow public use and driving under the influence (along the lines of current policies against drunk driving, we could have laws against driving under the influence of any debilitating substance with stringent penalties like loss of the driver's license and car and substantial fines). Drug bars could be licensed to give people a legitimate place in which to enjoy these substances with others, and regulated to disallow minors, require that sales be only for on-premises use, etc. (We could also require for the staff of these drug bars expertise in controlling and mitigating conflicts, both physical and psychological. It would benefit both the community and the customers of these bars to maintain a positive environment.) Through tax revenues our government programs would benefit from those who desire these products, rather than organized crime. Meanwhile, a system of highly regulated legal distribution would allow for the kind of knowledge and control which is impossible under the existing situation of uncontrolled illicit transactions. Educational programs against drug use could be refined and expanded. Minors would not be pressured into drug use or sales by criminals seeking expanding profits or seeking less legally liable dupes to do their work for them, or by their own desires for otherwise unimaginable wealth; and people in general who use these substances would not be forced to deal with profit-hungry, unscrupulous criminals and possibly tainted products. Drug treatment programs could be made much more available; and without legal considerations some secret drug users might be less intimidated about going for treatment. More room would be available in prisons and courts for other kinds of criminals if less were taken up by drug-related crimes; and there would be less violence in our communities without drug-profit related crimes. If we like, harsher penalties could be legislated against criminals who commit crimes while under the influence of drugs (including alcohol) to both prevent these criminals from trying to use their drug-induced misjudgment as an excuse for their crimes and increase the general idea of responsible use of mind-altering substances. Public resources now being desperately and ultimately ineffectually thrown into the anti-drug "war" would be available for use against the social problems we all recognize such as homelessness, poverty, intrafamilial violence, lack of quality education, et al., the root causes of addiction. Furthermore, a more enlightened attitude toward drug use might allow for those who do choose to make recreational use of drugs to be better informed about the consequences of their choice and, therefore, allow them to pursue these activities more safely and responsibly. 

 About the criminal justice system generally, our societal response to crime: Crime can be divided into the distinct categories of violent and nonviolent -- to be handled in very different ways. People who impose violence on others when considerations such as self-defense or defense of others are not involved are dangerous, and in most cases need to be removed from society. People who break laws made for the protection of society or various groups within the society, but who do not impose violence on others, can be dealt with in various noncustodial ways, depending on the circumstances of the individual cases. Within the framework of these two distinct categories, there are various levels of seriousness which should lead to various levels of response. On the other end of the criminal-victim dyad, is the currently underrepresented victim. For true justice to be effected, the needs of the victim need to be addressed and redressed. We speak of criminals "paying their debt to society." Wouldn't it make more sense in terms of justice, retribution, punishment and deterrence (theoretically the reasons for criminal prosecution) for them to, in a very real and financial sense, pay their debt to their victims? As part of their sentence, perpetrators could be required to return to the victim that which their crime took from him or her (to the extent possible). One way to do this might be to include crime-related debt, as some child support payments are handled, within the purview of the IRS (which seems better equipped than the criminal justice system to see that payment is made). In any case, society must see that the victim is taken care of, as an integral part of the criminal justice system. In regard to preventing crime in the first place: most schools have "guidance counsellors" to help students plan for careers, choose courses, and sometimes with personal problems. Why not expand this service to truly provide guidance for people in a community who may have personal, family, health, psychological or just growing up problems of all sorts. These counsellors could be primarily community volunteers who are trained as active listeners and equipped with referral sources, but who are basically there to be there, to give people somewhere they can go easily, with no fuss or embarrassment that might be associated with seeing mental health professionals. We could provide space in the schools and hospitals and whatever places in the community people gather. School children would be given an orientation about these counsellors and told to use the service frequently, whenever they just need to talk. Expense in funds, space, etc. would be comparatively small, could be paid for through community fund-raising efforts, and would certainly be repaid many times over in the help to stop potential problems when they are still in formative stages. This program could deal with dispute mediation between neighbors or within families or between students and school personnel, etc. Letting people know that their problems and disputes are being taken seriously, that their community cares, in itself could do alot to diffuse antisocial feelings. It could also help to bring together people into community, in contrast to the current seeming disassociative trends, which could spiral into all kinds of intracommunity projects for the improvement of lives and society in general.


I have a lot of problems with the US school system and have long thought that a better way to educate our kids and ourselves would be more on the 60's "free school" model -- community storefront schools where people teach what they know and learn what they want to learn. A lot of so-called laziness is simply nonengagement in boring lessons without much immediate relevance to the student. A lot more is probably general fatigue from lack of exercise. Kids should be out moving, actively building energy and neuronal connections doing and playing, engaged in hands-on learning. Actively working together on projects, teaching each other as they go along, would exponentially increase learning, as we know that one of the best ways to learn is to teach. Furthermore, community in general would be greatly strengthened by having this kind of helpful, enjoyable, sharing interaction and a place for such gathering. Any group that considers itself a community could put this kind of thing together, even in a small way. We could just develop workshops/learning groups (however the individual group wants to conceive it) in our homes with our cohorts and teach and learn what we are interested in. We could use the home schooling exception to compulsory education to teach our kids the way we know is best for them. Even if we send our kids to public schools, we can provide these kinds of experiences for them during their off-school time. We might even consider converting the public schools into community schools -- without federal money or mandates -- to be run by members of the community (however they conceive themselves) to teach real skills and learning tools as well as cooperation through a variety of individual and group projects, field trips, lectures and demonstrations, interactive workshops. A series of tests could even be provided to measure acquirement of basic skills like reading, writing, arithmetic, citizenship, basic health care -- for a certificate of graduation -- to be taken at whatever age the individual feels ready to graduate. This schooling would not be limited to people of a particular age group, but available to the whole community. Even if we have no such community project available, we certainly have the opportunity to teach our kids the truth and how to find it for themselves as a normal part of our daily relationships with them.


Why do we assume that it is the height of virtue to be "hard-working"? Certainly it is a great good to uphold one's responsibilities as a member of a community -- to be reliable, trustworthy, and conscientious, to carry one's fair share of the weight. But lauding someone as "hard-working," implying industriousness well above the norm, implying that by virtue of those extra hours, that extra push of energy directed toward labor, one becomes deserving of ... what? A larger share of the communal pie? Extra consideration and privileges? A ready excuse for any and all activities that cannot be accommodated due to the extra time and energy given to that hard work? Whatever that work may consist of? Is that the message, the prioritization that we truly want for our community? That hard work trumps loving kindness or easy-going goodwill or all or the kinds of play that leads to discovery or artistic imaginings or camaraderie or taking joy in life? Or inspiring others to be happy, loving,spiritually attuned? Yes, hard work can be it's own reward, when one is working hard at somethign personally meaningful, or something of great public value. But is it really the virtue to which we most want to aspire?


As we know, money is just a symbol agreed upon within the socio- economic structure of society. Governmental bodies have as part of their role the creating, distributing, evaluating of this eco- symbol. We have seen monies based on gold or other precious commodities, but these commodities are also in this sense symbols for a rate of exchange. We do not need these commodities, or even printed paper, to have a rate of exchange. It is all symbolic. It is all in our heads, our collective agreements. In fact, to a large extent today our economic transactions are based on computer files in cyberspace. We have evolved a credit economy with an awful lot of accumulating debt on national, business, and personal levels. Much more Neptunian than Saturnian. Are there good reasons not to, are here not excellent reasons to, overhaul the underlying economic structure to create one to better fit with the goal of creating and distributing goods and services? Instead of collecting taxes to pay for their workers and projects, why should government not simply pay their own workers (and here I refer to civil servants, not politicians. I believe political office holders should serve temporarily, even part-time, with no pay beyond a stipend for expenses, but that's another rant.), pay for needed materials, with funds created by the government for this purpose -- to arrange for the creation and maintenance of a proper infrastructure? The symbolic means of exchange could then be distributed through these workers (trickle down with a twist)when they pay for goods and services of the private market. If the true wealth of a nation is the value of the labor of its citizens, this would be a more logical and effective method in accord with that consensus reality.