why I have trouble coming back...

I've been asked several times in the last few days why I have a hard time coming back to the U.S. from Guatemala.  Here is the response I've given over the past few days.

What drives me craziest is the hyper-rationality. Everything is planned out, built up, regulated, but in ways that are over done. So you have incredible wealth, buildings, cleanliness, but it papers over the reality of poor people, hunger, and a stupid-ass distribution of well-being.  This, in a country that has several times over what it would take to have everyone live well. I can excuse the weirdness, the tragedy of Latin America paired with the incredible beauty, because when things are bad, you expect that kind of a swing, or a range of possible responses. But we have SOOOO damn much, and we have squandered the opportunity to make all peoples' lives better. so we have this "System" which we claim is fair, which we think "makes sense" and has to be this way, but in the end, in my opinion, is even more dehumanizing than violence and poverty.

I love the U.S., and especially the potential of the U.S., but lament what we have done with that potential, the resources, and our lack of understanding of how our country is connected to the fate of others.  I do not hate America, but I am fantastically disappointed in what we have done with what we have, and the fact that we see this as being the only way in which life can be lived.  so my returns are jarring, they render me judgmental when I don't mean to be, they remind me of my complicity in a system which is responsible for giving me the luxury to contemplate my complicity.

Thus, as I say, there is more that doesn't make sense to me in the U.S., than in Latin America. I can't blame things for being bizarre in Guate. Here, we have no excuse, except for greed and being too lazy to consider the needs of others.  

Okay. you asked. off the soap box.

Dove Chocolate Sayings, for Sociologists

1.  It's always darkest, when your camera is obscura.

2. It's not hegemony if you've got chocolate.

3. Turning your life around takes 180 degrees, but running a panopticon takes 360.

4. You may be stuck with the form, but you are the one who gets to decide on the content.

5. Which presentation of your self are you going to have today?

6. If you want a social fact, you have to be social!

7. Sociologically imagine your possibilities today.

8. Keep your thoughts on the ideal type, when you're not dealing with an ideal world.

9. If you're not aware, it's probably just false consciousness.  

10. Signifier?  Signified?  You be the decider.

"So let's not disappoint God..."

+Yes+

+President Obama issues and order to allow GLBT partners visitation rights.  A ridiculous practice to not allow this in the first place. 

 +"So let's not disappoint God," The rallying cry of Iranian cleric who blames loose women for earthquakes (see "what?" below).  Second greatest rallying cry ever, after Hedley Lamarr's (Blazing Saddles) "go and do that voodoo, that you do, so wellllll!"

+kudos to Willamette Week for declaring Kate Brown the Rogue of the Week for practices that hurt minority parties.  We need more discussion and participation by all political parties and their ideas.

-No-

-The Vatican, allowing a Vatican priest and cardinal to suggest that criticism of the Catholic Church and the Pope is akin to the persecution of the Jews.  Not even remotely like it.  Under.  Any.  Circumstances.

-Back to segregation.  A Mississippi county attempts to create "racially identifiable schools." Yikes.  The federal courts have stepped in, but the fear of a black or minority dominated school seems to be pervasive in America. 

?What?

? Coffee from as processed through civets and retrieved from their dung.  Heard about it.  My rule for coffee--no shit is involved in the process at any point.

?Iranian cleric suggesting that women are the cause of earthquakes.  Adds whole new meaning to "You make the the earth move for me..."

?A split between the Palin and Paul tea-partiers.  I've always wondered if these people would be able to share a tea bag.

Yes. No. What?

+Yes+
+ China and Brazil stepping up and working on saving or reducing impact on forests.

+Passage of a healthcare bill which will impact 30 million U.S. citizens.  Hard to believe have lagged for so long in this area.

+Britain, finally taking on Israel's abuse of cloned British passports.  The article, however provides us with a nice ?What? below...


-No-
-States suing to protect us from National Healthcare Reform.

-Trying to make the case that you are bipartisan, when you offer no solutions to problems.  The Republican Party is the current leader, but there have been plenty of this on both sides of the aisle in the past.

-Continued denial of abuse by the Vatican, and certainly a lack of willingness to punish those involved.  The days of the "fueros" or exceptions, where the Church can stand behind its own law, are long gone.


?What?
?Britain takes on Israel abuse of passports, using its Serious Organised Crime Agency.  This would explain Monty Python skits.  A lot.

?The continued popularity of competitive eating. Seriously.  As if we don't have enough health issues and problems with healthcare...

Federalism vs. States' Rights

Having failed to "protect" people from healthcare at the federal level, we now see that the states will join the fray as allies of the privileged.  Once again, the role of the state and federal governments seems to be to protect our citizens against being served by the very people we have elected to have our back.  Instead, it seems that we are given the backside.  Most recently several states are now filing a lawsuit over healthcare as a way to protect the rights of their citizens.  When Jefferson and Adams where engaged in their historic debate over rights of states vs. the federal government, what they could not have foreseen was a system where it did not matter.  Each made their case that there were rights that needed to be protected, and that a federal government would intrinsically behave differently than a state government.  Instead, what we have is an alliance of the privileged at both the state and federal levels who are interested in making sure government does not serve anyone with their healthcare needs.  


It is this ideological twist that is crucial.  Rather than thinking in the best interest of those who they serve, the crucial goal is to undercut healthcare for those who need at most at whatever cost and whatever level possible.  Again, those in opposition, Republican and Democrat alike, suggest that the key here is to be in opposition, to make sure that no changes are made, to prevent the rise of socialism; and at the same time suggesting that efforts to provide for others are proof of a lack of bi-partisanship.  The end goal, is not to serve others, not even their needy constituents, but it is to shut the system down.  


This proves that it there is nothing intrinsic to federalism vs. statism that protects a people.  Instead, what is needed is a counter-dialogue to this ideology that works against looking at each other as human beings that deserve to have basic healthcare needs met.  It is not socialism, since all major religions argue for this, basic philosophy argues for it.  Rather, the argument needs to be made that it is only a rigid ideology, unthinking and uncaring with regard to others among us, that lead us to the conclusion that we need not provide for the least among us who lack basic healthcare for themselves and their families.  


It is important to note also that this counter-dialogic argument needs to be sustained-it cannot be short-term or abandoned by those who thing that the battle has been won with the passage of a healthcare bill.

Environmental Justice and Decision-making

The pdf of a talk I've given a couple of times, based on discussions, readings and work at the Cooperative Ministries in McMinnville and at Linfield College. You don't get the lecture (good for you), but you can get the general ideas I discuss in the presentation: Environmental Decision-making

Photo-op over substance

For the past 30 years, since the Reagan administration, style and the photo-op have ruled over substance. Senator Ensign's (R. Nevada) criticism of President Obama's picture with Hugo Chávez is a case in point. Republicans and Democrats alike have, over the past 3 decades, focused more on the idea that a picture is worth a thousand words than on actual policy and diplomacy. Reagan's use of the photo-op was masterful, as was Bill Clinton's. The idea of "spin," now so common it just passes for politics, elevates the momentary illusion over the complex understanding of reality. Presidents and presidential candidacies have been made and unmade based on spin and photo-ops (Dukakis in the military tank is one great example), and even during presidencies, it seems that great care is taken not to appear with the wrong person.

During the Bush II administration this was very much the case, with carefully orchestrated attempts at making sure that the president was not placed in a situation where he had to do anything more but be in the same room with someone like Chávez. This has also been one of our chief exports; several years ago, during a IMF summit in Mexico, then Mexican President Vicente Fox did everything he could to avoid even being in the same part of the country as Fidel Castro. This begs the question; "If the picture is the thing, how do our politicians resolve our differences?" The issue isn't the picture or the presence in the same room, but rather, shouldn't we be encouraged when our presidents take a nuanced, complex view of the world and the politics it takes to run it. Instead, we have become captive to the idea that a picture substitutes for policy.

This also is a means to increase the partisan divisiveness. We now need not wait for, listen to, or even differ on our opinions regarding policy. All we need is a picture, which in turn becomes proof a policy shift, proof of betrayal of a principle, and of course, proof of betrayal of the American people. Such continues to be the case with this particular instance; one that has been perpetuated by Democrats and Republicans and democrats and republicans alike for over thirty years; pictures simplify and words overly complicate.

The upside of this is, of course, convenience. Being able to rely on a picture upon which to base our opinions means not having to take the time to understand the world in a more complex way. It also makes the job easier for people like Sen. Ensign, since he doesn't have to think very hard either...