FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG

OCCUPY ETHICAL BEHAVIOR

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Thursday, May 23, 2013

How Do You Define Ethics?



How Do You Define Ethics?


Thursday, May 23, 2013

This column is the first in a new series dealing with ethical dilemmas. You, the reader, write in (anonymously) about a personal ethical issue you are confronting.

Here is where it gets interesting. I cannot give a definitive answer because there is none. There is no Ethics Jeopardy game with right and wrong answers, buzzers, and a host with the answers written on a card. But I can help frame the question, offer some ethical concepts and stimulate a discussion among readers interested in ethical problems.

The idea for an ethics column sounded modest when I proposed it to the editor until she asked, “So, how do you define ethics?” After having taught, written, and worked on ethical issues for decades this seemed like a simple task. After fumbling a bit, I realized I had not formulated a clear, concise definition that did not use the term ethics to describe itself. I had been a lawyer too long.

I re-read selected ideas and thoughts about ethics from a variety of voices: Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Bentham, Rand, the Bible, Rawls, Locke and numerous other heavy weight ethics thinkers. I reviewed meta-ethics, rational ethics, normative ethics, applied ethics, descriptive ethics, moral ethics, and scores of other philosophies that all used ethics in their titles.

I knew that the word “law” did not belong in the definition of ethics. Written laws, though they reflect societal values, are not ethical standards. Abiding by the law may keep you from going to jail, but it does not necessarily follow that your behavior is ethical.

The reverse is also true. Breaking a law, for example through civil disobedience, may put you in jail, but you may have acted ethically.

Ethics is a series of beliefs and principles held by a person or group about how to determine which human inter-actions they believe are right or wrong. These core beliefs are often interconnected and overlap with other value systems, religious views, legal systems, philosophies, social conventions and moral codes.
Each of us adheres, to a greater or lesser extent, to one or more of these ethical constructs. Most of the time, these beliefs define the ethical parameters of our thinking and behavior. We have few quandaries.

An ethical dilemma occurs when a person’s ethical beliefs do not provide a clear enough resolution to the problem he or she faces.

I want to have a conversation with you and other readers about those ethical dilemmas.

I look forward to hearing from you the readers about ethical issues such as the following:

You’re a well educated, experienced professional who has done considerable writing in your career. Your son wants to get into one of the UC schools. While a good test taker, he has never excelled at writing essays. He asks you to look at his essay. You think it’s dreadful. How much help do you give him? Point out obvious problems? Do an outline for him? Re-write the paper? Let him just hand it in and take his chances? Do you think that your help might allow your son to be admitted over another student with the same grades whose father and mother are not professionals and could not assist him with the essay?

This example illustrates a true ethical problem because the range of choices allows you to test your ethical beliefs against a concrete problem.
That’s what we will be doing in this column: examining our ethical beliefs by examining problems readers pose.

Benjamin Bycel is an attorney and writer. He was the founding Executive Director of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission and of the newly reconstituted Connecticut Ethics office. He serves as an expert witness in cases dealing with political and legal ethics.




















How You are a Big Picture Thinker or Detail-Oriented Affects Your Values


The Fast Track - Intuit QuickBase Blog
Tools To Get The Job Done Fast

Are You a Big Picture Thinker or Detail-Oriented?






They say that there are two types of people – the ‘big picture people’ and the ‘details people.’ The big picture people tend to be creative, strategic, and visionary… but they can also be messy, disorganized, and forgetful. On the other hand, the details people are conscientious, planful, and exacting… but can lack perspective or fail to prioritize. These two types tend to complement each other and work together very well. You’ll often find this division in partnerships and many times the CEO is a big picture person while the COO and the CFO are the details people.





But what if your role requires both strategic thinking and attention to detail? Most people are naturally more skilled at one or the other, and there are a lucky few who do both equally well. Whether you have good attention to detail or whether you can see the big picture easily and clearly is generally part of your personality. But it can also be a learned skill, if you wish to develop it. There are systems and processes that can help you override your natural tendencies when needed.

In my next two blog posts, I will go over some tips on the systems and tools you can use to develop your missing skill. In the meantime, think about whether you are more skilled at the strategic thinking or paying attention to details. While you most likely know this already, here are some points that can promote that reflection:

Typical of the Big Picture Thinker

  • You can quickly see patterns in complex problems.
  • You like to come up with new ideas and new projects.
  • You have a low tolerance for busywork, tedious errands, and filling out forms.
  • You are great at outlining what needs to be done, but filling in the details can feel exhausting.
  • You may have been described as right-brained.
  • When you have taken the Myers-Briggs assessment, you were an N.

Typical of the Details Thinker

  • You think about things in great detail and sometimes miss the big picture.
  • While you are certainly smart, others may joke that you lack common sense.
  • You would prefer to edit or tweak a plan than to come up with it from scratch.
  • Highlighting study notes doesn’t work for you, because you end up highlighting everything.
  • You may have a tendency to over-think things.
  • You have excellent attention to detail.
  • You may have been described as left-brained.
  • When you have taken the Myers-Briggs assessment, you were an S.


Eva Rykrsmith

Eva Rykrsmith is an organizational psychology practitioner. Her passion lies in bringing a psychology perspective to the business world, with the mission of creating a high-performance environment. Follow her @EvaRykr.

A new measure of intelligence: Big-picture thinking trumps narrow-minded expertise


NaturalNews.com

Real News Powered by the People Naturally


world

A new measure of intelligence: Big-picture thinking trumps narrow-minded expertise

Tags: World, People, Big picture





(NaturalNews) Observing the various realms of science, medicine, experts and world events, I've come to the conclusion that our modern definition of "intelligence" (IQ) is seriously lacking. The label of "high IQ" is typically assigned to those who are experts in narrowly-defined fields such as disease pathology, pharmacology, particle physics, mathematics or other so-called "hard science" areas. And yet, it's not uncommon to see a high-level mathematics professor with an IQ of 175 chowing down on a processed hamburger laced with toxic chemical additives, while wearing clothes washed in carcinogenic mainstream laundry detergent.

The professor may be brilliant in mathematics, in other words, but he's unknowingly bathing his entire body in cancer-causing chemicals at the same time.

Not too bright.

Similarly, a typical conventional doctor thinks he knows about health, but he buys breakfast cereals made with genetically modified corn and doesn't even know that GMOs are bad for your health. A quantum physics professor wears antiperspirant deodorant and cologne products that contain powerful cancer-causing chemicals that are absorbed right through the skin. A pharmacist who is an expert in the world of drugs and synthetic chemicals has no clue that the common mineral zinc is crucial for proper immune function.

Highly-intelligent architects for some reason don't question the collapse of the WTC 7 building on 9/11 even though the official explanation of the collapse violates the laws of physics (a subject in which architects are well-versed). Chemists don't consider the chemistry of the toxic shampoos they put on their hair every day. Nor do many scientists think realistically about the toxicity of mercury fillings or the fluorosilicic acid ("fluoride") dumped into the public water supply. I could go on...

The point of all this is that there exists a huge gap in practical intelligence among the so-called "smartest" people in our society. I've spoken with countless doctors and conventional health care providers who are brilliant in their own fields and yet don't even know the basics of nutrition. So how can it be that a guy is so smart he can be the world's best brain surgeon, but when he goes home at night, he bathes his own brain and body in a sea of toxic chemicals consumed as additives in his processed food dinner?

Most people can't assimilate the big picture

What's lacking in these so-called "smart" people is the ability to see the bigger picture by assimilating information from a large number of seemingly unrelated sources. Or, stated in another way, even some of the most high-IQ people around can't see the big picture because they get lost in the details.

Your typical oncologist, for example, almost certainly can't hold an intelligent conversation about nutritional therapies to support immune function because he only thinks of antioxidants as "interfering" with the toxicity of his cancer poisons. Likewise, a typical virologist persistently looks at viruses as the cause of disease but forgets that viruses are opportunists which can only propagate when the terrain is sufficiently vulnerable. Thus, the best defense against invading microorganism is to change the terrain (the person being infected) rather than to try to rid the immediate area of all viruses.

Memorization is not intelligence

See, the very concept of "intelligence" in our society is way off the mark. It isn't intelligent to be able to memorize and regurgitate a huge number of facts and figures, yet this is precisely the measure of academic aptitude assessed in modern educational systems -- especially in law school and medical school. To function as a crude human database of facts and figures is not very useful in an age where handheld computers and mobile computing devices can do the same thing.

But what computers and search engines can't accomplish -- something that is uniquely reserved for intelligent species -- is the ability to assimilate information into a larger picture. It is, in other words, the ability to "connect the dots" and see patterns and trends in what might seem like chaos to others.

My favorite physicist Richard Feynman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman) was an especially gifted pattern assimilator. He was able to look far beyond the conventional boundaries of particle physics and grasp many of the non-intuitive interconnections between matter, energy and the nature of reality itself.

On a more practical level, people like Gerald Celente and even Alex Jones are also phenomenally gifted pattern assimilators. It's not that they are ridiculously good at remembering a lot of facts and figures in one very narrow area of science or knowledge; rather it's the fact that these types of people are able to see patterns in world events and thereby interact with the world around them at a far higher level of understanding than most other people.

Whereas a typical journalist sees a headline that says, "GMO restrictions called unscientific" and thinks it's merely a story about how un-educated GMO opponents are, a more intelligent "pattern assimilator" person sees the same headline and understands the far deeper meaning it holds: That the GMO propaganda campaign is being framed in the language of "science" as a way to label reasonable opponents of GMOs as being somehow uneducated or stupid. But behind the fake science curtain, it's really just gimmicky marketing and a profit-driven agenda.

The pattern behind all that, of course, is the agenda to control the world's food supply and, soon thereafter, charge monopoly prices for seeds (TM) that farmers used to be able to save for free.

A few people are able to see the story behind the story. These people are the "meta-analyzers" of the world around them. They have what I call a "wide angle view" (a big picture view) where they can bring in observational data from a very large data set of observable events in order to infer greater understanding of the world around them.

Here are just a few of the many pattern assimilators who are better known:

Gerald Celente can see the big picture of world finance. He sees the signs of the slipping value of the dollar, the leveraged debt of world banks, the actions of the Fed, the Wall Street bailouts, the news propaganda from the financial sector, and so on -- and from all that, he correctly infers that a global debt bubble is approaching catastrophic collapse.

Many of his colleagues, on the other hand, even though they may achieve high scores on an IQ test, are scribbling away with their noses buried in the arcane mathematics of derivatives calculations, and they miss the big picture because their minds are too narrowly focused on a tiny slice of what's really happening. When the big financial collapse comes, they will be caught with their pants down, holding their pencils in their hands.

Author John Perkins is also another big-picture genius, in his own way, for being able to see the patterns of government actions on a global scaled. He's the author of the popular book "Economic Hit Men" (and also "Hoodwinked"), and he sees patterns in the world that nearly everyone else misses. You can see my interview with Perkins, by the way, at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=83B1AF93091799E7CEB88C5C459A530B

On the nutrition front, Dr Richard Kunin is one of the most remarkable pattern assimilators you'll ever find. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kunin) Here's a genius the world has largely overlooked.

Alex Jones is one of the more astonishing assemblers of patterns out of chaos. His ability to see the underlying patterns behind world events is truly amazing, and whether you agree with his conclusions or not, his mind is able to amass an extraordinarily large amount of data from many sectors (health freedom, police state actions, legislative efforts and so on) and then identify patterns that most other people would miss. You can find Alex on www.PrisonPlanet.com

Seeing the bigger picture doesn't make you any more popular

This list is by no means exhaustive. There are many genius-level pattern assimilators in our world. They are rarely recognized for their talents, however. If anything, those who "get" the big picture are often derided or criticized for doing so. Connecting too many dots, it seems, is dangerous for your reputation. Those who have the most success in the sciences (in particular), are the ones who keep their heads down and focus on their own tiny little corner of study without asking any of the really big questions like, "Hey, where did this grant money really come from?"

I consider myself something of a pattern assimilator, as I see patterns from one area of knowledge often reflected in another. For example, if our global economy is like a world body, what would fit the definition of a cancer tumor engaged in angiogenesis? The answers is corporations, because corporations hijack their own supply of resources (much like cancer tumors build a new blood supply), then grow to a large and dangerous size at which point they begin to replicate and set up branch offices all over the world where the tumor cycle is repeated. And just like cancer tumors, corporations ultimately threaten the lives of their hosts.

As an avid reader and student of human history, psychology and even quantum mechanics, I feel competent to discuss the history of philosophy as much as, say, the modern-day repeating of patterns of tyranny from World War II.

The most promising and fascinating area of human discovery about to be achieved, in my opinion, relates to the superposition of quantum physics and human consciousness. This will result in a paradigm-shattering shift in understanding the nature of our reality, with ripple effects that resound throughout our modern world. Once Earth's people come to realize, for example, that matter is consciousness (and that all consciousness is connected), the implications will require profound rethinking of things such as compassion for animals, religious beliefs and self identity. This is the really exciting stuff that's headed our way.

But we'll never get to a higher understanding of consciousness if we remain "experts" limited to our tiny alcoves of knowledge. To really function as intelligent members of a race that has been advertised as "advanced," we must expand not just the depth of our knowledge but the breadth of our understanding.

And that, of course, means understanding the interconnectedness of our being-ness. It is the interconnectedness that really matters, quite literally (ahem).

Let us hope that more members of the human species can learn to recognize the interconnectedness among not just people, plants and animals, but at another level the interconnectedness of mind, matter and energy, too. To gain understanding of this interconnectedness is -- to paraphrase quite a number of scientists and philosophers from human history -- to become closer to God. He who can see all interconnectedness in life and the cosmos is, of course, God Himself.

To see and recognize the patterns in the reality we apparently inhabit is, in my view, the most important next step necessary for the advancement of human intelligence. Importantly, this advancement cannot come from the sciences alone. It must involve a so-called "quantum leap" in consciousness.

Atheists Rejoice! Pope Francis Says You're O.K.


 

It's not about being right, it's about being loving, the unusually tolerant Pontiff tells his flock.

 
 
 
Photo Credit: Emipress/Shutterstock.com
 

It likely doesn’t matter much to the atheists of the world that — of all people — Pope Francis is on their side. But he is. And that’s a cool thing for all of us.
In a message delivered Wednesday via Vatican Radio, the new pontiff distinguished himself with a call for tolerance and a message of support – and even admiration – toward nonbelievers.

Naturally, a guy whose job it is to lead the world’s largest Christian faith is still going to come at his flock with a Jesus-centric message. But he’s taking it in an encouraging new direction. In his message, Francis dissed the apostles for being “a little intolerant” and said, “All of us have this commandment at heart: Do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not (a) Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must.”

And the pope spoke of the need to meet each other somewhere on our on common ground. “This commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: We need that so much. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” It was a deeper affirmation of his comments back in March, when he declared that the faithful and atheists can be “precious allies… to defend the dignity of man, in the building of a peaceful coexistence between peoples and in the careful protection of creation.”

That’s a message that’s vastly different from Catholicism’s traditional “We’re number one!” dogma. Six years ago, the Vatican reasserted the church’s stance that while there may be“elements of sanctification and truth” in other faiths, “that fullness of grace and of truth… has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.” In other words, close but no cigar, everybody else.

The pope was not, of course, addressing the non-believers of the world in his Wednesday sermon, or trying to win them over. Instead, he was telling his Catholics about the importance of cutting outsiders slack. And it’s a hugely important message for Christians to hear. It’s not about being right. It’s about being loving. And it’s a necessary concept, one that needs to be expressed again and again, in a world in which the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor  in Virginia is justifying his repulsive hate speech against gays and lesbians because “I’m a Christian, not because I hate anybody, but because I have religious values that matter to me.” Coming within a week when atheists have been stepping into the spotlighthere in America with their own messages of live-and-let-live tolerance, it’s downright refreshing to get a similar message from the biggest Christian in the world.
 
There are plenty of atheists out there who will no doubt take the pope’s message with a grain of salt or even flat-out disdain. The last thing somebody who doesn’t believe in heaven could possibly need is some guy in a funny hat telling them that they’re okay in God’s eyes anyway. But maybe, whatever we believe or don’t believe, we can consider that the man is on to something when he speaks about “the culture of encounter.”

Francis notes that the apostles were “closed off by the idea of possessing the truth,” an arrogant certainty that no one group currently has a monopoly on. Where we find each other is in practicing tolerance for our differences, and in finding the commonality of our values. “Doing good,” Francis says, “is not a matter of faith.”

It’s not that faith, for the faithful, doesn’t matter. It’s that belonging to a church isn’t what saves us. It’s belonging to each other.

Mary Elizabeth Williams is a staff writer for Salon and the author of "Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream." Follow her on Twitter: @embeedub.           

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Code of Ethics for Antiracist White Allies





Uncategorized

Code of Ethics for Antiracist White Allies 

 

April 26th, 2013

Code of Ethics for Antiracist White Allies


By JLove Calderon and Tim Wise
Sponsored by SURJ-Showing Up For Racial Justice
Excerpted from Occupying Privilege; Conversations on Love, Race, and Liberation
                             

We are persons classified as white who oppose racism and the system of white supremacy. As such, we are committed to challenging the individual injustices and institutional inequities that exist as a result of racism, and to speaking out whenever and wherever it exists. We are also committed to challenging our own biases, inculcated by a society that has trained all white people, including us, to one degree or another, to internalize notions of our own superiority.

As antiracist allies, we seek to work with people of color to create real multiracial democracy. We do not aspire to lead the struggle for racial justice and equity, but rather, to follow the lead of persons and communities of color and to work in solidarity with them, as a way to obtain this goal. We do not engage in the antiracist struggle on behalf of people of color, so as to “save” them, or as an act of charity. We oppose and seek to eradicate white supremacy because it is an unjust system, and we believe in the moral obligation of all persons to resist injustice. Likewise, we believe not only that a system of white supremacy damages people of color but also that it compromises our humanity, weakens the democratic bonds of a healthy society, and ultimately poses great risks to us all. Because we believe white supremacy to be a contributing force to war, resource exploitation, and economic injustice, our desire to eradicate the mindset and system of white domination is fundamentally a matter of collective preservation. Though people of color are the direct targets of this system, we believe that white people are the collateral damage, and so for our own sake as well, we strive for a new way of living.

To do this with integrity, we believe it will be helpful to operate with a code of ethics in mind, so as to remain as accountable as possible to people of color and to each other, as we challenge white supremacy. We know from experience how easy it can be to act with the best of intentions and yet ultimately do harm to the antiracist struggle by choosing tactics or methods that reinforce privilege and inequity, rather than diminish them, or by acting within the confines of an echo chamber of other antiracist white allies, while failing to ground our efforts in structures of accountability led by people of color.


In recent years, the number of white folks engaged in one form or another of public antiracist work or work around the subject of white privilege (as scholars, writers, activists, organizers and educators) has proliferated. Likewise, schools, non-profit organizations, and even some corporations have begun to look at matters of racism and white privilege within their institutions. As this work expands at many different levels, it is perhaps more necessary than ever that white people who are working to be strong antiracist allies take a good look in the mirror, analyze and critique what we do as well as how we do it, and ask: How can we, as antiracist white allies, operate ethically and responsibly as we work toward helping to dismantle white supremacy?

To this end, we propose the following code of ethics for antiracist white allies. Though it is hardly an exclusive or exhaustive list, we believe it is a start toward a more responsible and responsive antiracist practice for white persons who wish to act in solidarity with people of color in the battle against racism. The code should not be viewed as a fixed or final document, let alone as a checklist or “rulebook” for responsible antiracists. It is merely a guidepost. We hope that it will lead to productive reflection, discussion, and even healthy debate among those who are engaged in antiracist struggle.



Code of Ethics for AntiRacist White Allies



1. Acknowledge our racial privilege.

Self-reflection matters. So does public acknowledgement. Although there are many ways in which white people can be marginalized in this society (on the basis of gender, sex, sexuality, class, religion, disability, etc.), this truth does not eradicate our racial advantage relative to people of color. As white people, we can be oppressed in these other categories and still benefit from privileges extended to white people. Acknowledging racial privilege doesn’t mean that we haven’t worked hard or that there weren’t barriers we had to overcome; it simply means that our racial identity helped us along the way. Indeed, racial privilege will even work in our favor as we speak out against racism. We will often be taken more seriously in this work precisely because we are white, and we should be clear on that point.


2. Develop interpersonal connections and structures to help maintain antiracist accountability.

Accountability matters. When we engage in antiracist efforts, be they public or private, we should remember that it is people of color most affected by racism, and thus, they have the most to gain or lose as a result of how such work is done. With this in mind, we believe it is important to seek and obtain regular and ongoing feedback from people of color in our lives (friends and/or colleagues), as a way to better ground our efforts in structures of accountability. Although this kind of accountability may play out differently, depending on our specific job or profession, one general principle is that we should be in regular and ongoing contact with persons in the communities that are most impacted by racism and white supremacy—namely, people of color.


3. Be prepared to alter our methods and practices when and if people of color give feedback or offer criticism about our current methods and practices.

Responsive listening matters. It’s not enough to be in contact with people of color as we go about our work. We also need to be prepared to change what we’re doing if and when people of color suggest there may be problems, practically or ethically, with our existing methods of challenging racism. Although accountability does not require that we agree with and respond affirmatively to every critique offered, if people of color are telling us over and over again that something is wrong with our current practices, accountability requires that we take it seriously and correct the practice. And, all such critiques should be seen as opportunities for personal reflection and growth.


4. Listening to constructive feedback from other white people, too.

Community matters. Particularly as we work to reach a broad base of white people, we need to listen to feedback from the people we are working with. White privilege tends to breed individualism, and this plays out in the form of white antiracists distancing ourselves from other white people and competition between antiracist whites to be the “most down.” Listening to feedback from each other as white people helps to counter that tendency, and encourages us to collectivity.


5. If we speak out about white privilege, racism, and/or white supremacy, whether in a public forum or in private discussions with friends, family, or colleagues, we should acknowledge that people of color have been talking about these subjects for a long time and yet have been routinely ignored in the process.

Giving credit matters. Because many white people have tuned out or written off the observations of people of color, when another white person speaks about social and racial injustice it can be a huge “aha!” moment for the previously inattentive white listener. The speaker may be put on a pedestal. We should make sure people know that whatever wisdom we possess on the matter is only partially our own: it is also the collective wisdom of people of color, shared with us directly or indirectly. Likewise, beyond merely noting the general contribution of people of color to our own wisdom around matters of race, we should make the effort to specify those people of color and communities of color from whom we’ve learned. Encourage others to dig deeper into the subject matter by seeking out and reading/listening to the words/work of those people of color, so as to further their own knowledge base.


6. Share access and resources with people of color whenever possible.

Networking matters. As whites, we often enjoy access to various professional connections, resources, or networks from which people of color are typically excluded. The ability to act as a gatekeeper comes with the territory of privilege. The only question is, will we help open the gates wider or keep them closed? As allies, we should strive to share connections and resources with people of color whenever possible. So, for instance, we may have inroads for institutional funding or grant monies that could be obtained for people of color-led community organizations. We may have connections in media, educational institutions, or even the corporate world, which if shared with people of color could provide opportunities for those people of color to gain a platform for their own racial justice efforts.


7. If you get paid to speak out about white privilege, racism, and/or white supremacy or in some capacity make your living from challenging racism, donate a portion of your income to organizations led principally by people of color.

Giving back matters. Although it is important to speak out about racism and to do other types of antiracism work (organizing, legal work, teaching, etc.) and necessary for people to be paid for the hard work they do, whites who do so still have to admit that we are able to reap at least some of the financial rewards we receive because of racism and white privilege. Because so much of our own understanding of race and racism comes from the collective wisdom of people of color, it is only proper that we should give back to those who have made our own “success” possible. Although there is no way to ascertain the real value of the shared and collective wisdom of people of color on the understanding that white allies have about racism, it seems fair to suggest that at least 10 percent of our honorariums, royalties, salaries, or other forms of income should be shared with people-of- color-led organizations with a commitment to racial and social justice. It would be especially helpful if at least some of that money goes to locally-based, grassroots organizations that oftenhave a hard time getting funding from traditional sources.


8.Get involved in a specific, people of color-led struggle for racial justice. 

Organizing matters. If we are not fighting against police brutality, against environmental dumping in communities of color, or for affirmative action, for immigrant rights, for access to health care, or for antiracist policies and practices within our own institutions and communities, what are we modeling? How are we learning? What informs our work? Can we be accountable to communities of color if we are not politically involved ourselves in some aspect of antiracist struggle? 


9. Stay Connected to White Folks, Too

Base-building matters. In addition to our roles in active solidarity with people of color, white people involved racial justice work also need to reach out to other white people to broaden the base of antiracist white people. Unless we do the latter, we fall short in our accountability. Accountability means showing up, not just with ourselves, but with more white people each time.


10. Connect antiracism understanding to current political struggles, and provide suggestions or avenues for white people to get involved

Accessibility matters. We can connect the participants in our networks, classes, and trainings to opportunities for ongoing political work. We can bring current grassroots political struggles into our activism, education, and organizing by addressing the issues that people of color tell us most directly affect their lives. We can give tools and resources for getting involved in the issues the participants identify as most immediate for them, whether those be public policy issues such as immigration, affirmative action, welfare, or health care; or workplace, neighborhood, and community issues, such as jobs, education, violence, and toxic waste. After contact with us, people who we come into contact with should be able to connect directly and get involved with specific current struggles led by individuals and groups with a clear antiracist analysis. 


The premise of this code is simple: White people have a moral and practical obligation to challenge racism in a responsible and responsive manner. To this end, we believe that the principles of self-reflection, accountability, responsive listening, building community, giving credit, resource sharing, giving back, organizing, base building, and accessibility are important starting points for whites who are engaged in any kind of efforts to eradicate racism and white supremacy. We hope that this code, devised as a set of suggestions and guideposts for white allies, will prompt constructive dialogue and discussion regarding how white allyship can best be developed and deployed for the purpose of building true multiracial democracy.


A note about how this code was created:
The initial code concept was created by JLove, who then joined with Tim. Together they wrote the first draft of the code. That draft was sent out to a multi-racial, intergenerational group of activists, organizers, educators, artists, and everyday people who care deeply about social and racial justice. Input was given, and the authors took key insights and common themes and incorporated them into the editing process. Another round of feedback was led by Paul Kivel. We thank everyone who took the time to bring their wisdom and expertise to the table for this accountability work.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Have We Lost Our Humanity





Have We Lost Our Humanity?

 
 

By (about the author)

 
OpEdNews Op Eds
 



The Spirit of Compassionate Love by Meryl Ann Butler
 
 
Our scientists are renowned. We know so much. But more about the universe and about bacteria and viruses than we know about ourselves. Certainly, we know more than ever about the functioning of our physical selves. We have multiple imaginations about who we are and where we fit into the biosphere, for instance. But somewhere we have lost ourselves as humans. We, meaning the western "we," assume and accept that we are totally apart from the earth and all other creators. We believe we own the planet.

Most of humankind still knows that we are Mother Earth's children, as the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, said. We are not the boss; we do not own the world. If anything, the planet owns us.

Humans everywhere have rituals and beliefs that strengthen their cohesion as a cooperative community. We westerners, modern humans, have grandiose and unreal beliefs about our unlimited power to do what we want. What we do with all our power endangers our own survival and that of many other species. I think that is because we know so much about matter, and so little about the spirit that is the essence of life.

We have come to think that "spirit" is unmeasurable and therefore not scientific, not worth thinking about. Perhaps because we think spirit is religion, and so outside the realm of science that deals only with matter - another form of energy as Einstein formulated. The only rational something to pay attention to.

But to me the word "spirit" does not mean religion. Religion is the package, what we create around spirit. Religion is a form we give spirit and we can make hundreds, thousands of forms.

It is hard to talk about - or define - "spirit" in a culture that accepts only matter as real. To me spirit is more real than matter. It is the awe that is at the core of life. Spirit is in what we call love, compassion. Spirit is the indomitable something of the people who struggled to reach the poles despite inhuman odds, climbed the highest mountains of the Himalayas. Spirit is what makes children surviving a cyclone in Burma take care of each other, when in the confusion no adults are around. Spirit is what makes people all over the world make sometimes great efforts to raise baby animals orphaned by hunters or poachers who killed the nursing mother tiger, or elephant. Spirit is the mysterious something we feel on a lonely beach when happening upon an unusual, almost unreal, sunrise on a far horizon. Spirit, I imagine, is what the first space traveler felt when he saw the earth, the whole earth and understood the miracle of this ball of matter that is alive, held in a trajectory around the sun by invisible forces.

I'm not sure that only humans have spirit. I wonder what animals feel at sunset: usually no wind, fading light, birds who chatter loudly in a tree suddenly silent. Even the roosters here stop crowing. I remember a time when a friend and I were at a rocky beach. Her dog could not stop bounding from one rock to another sniffing and playing with the waves. Until it began to get dark. When a blood-red sun lit up the sky at the far horizon the dog sat frozen at our feet, as enraptured as we were.

Hiding, ignoring, or denying spirit makes a cruel culture. It leaves us searching for ideals. Something greater, more important, than the fear which drives us today. A majority of "We the People" chose the ideals so eloquently spoken, but some politicians did not hear and perhaps had more power through worshipping money.

The irony, of course, is that money is an illusion. A piece of paper printed with the words "ten dollars" is not worth anything but the price of a printed piece of paper. But seller and buyer accept the belief that it can buy ten dollars worth of stuff. History is full of occasions when suddenly people woke up and no longer believed the worth of a piece of paper. The wealth of the super rich is as illusional, it consists of numbers in a computer that we let it intimidate us.

Maybe you think spirit is as illusionary as money because it does not buy anything. Oh, but it does! It does not buy material things, but spirit makes us human. Spirit is what gives compassion. Com-passion: with-feeling. Not doing to others what we do not want others to do to us.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what our current culture does? We do to others what we don't want them to do to us. It is a law of nature, a law of the universe perhaps, that the more we kill others the more the others will kill us.

But what do I know? I'm a 20th Century man, I don't understand this century.

But I do know that a culture based on fear is not healthy. If everyone and anyone is suspected of being a possible danger, we make ourselves the danger. A healthy culture is based on trust. It seems to me that is what this Republic was meant to be by the Fathers. Trusting that "We the People" were honorable human beings, trusted to want the best for all of us. Yes, flawed because at the time slaves were not considered quite human (although human enough to bear half white children). But we corrected that.

Now we are plagued with the disease of mistrusting people of another religion, another color, other thoughts.  Distrust does not a healthy society make. We have lost the human. Humans are not all alike, humans have unique qualities and talents; that make ours a unique and talented society. We cannot forget or ignore that humans have spirit even when it is hidden behind one or more masks.

Anyone remember Dune, by Frank Herbert? Famous science fiction of the second half of the last century. This is from that book (the first, the original):
 
 

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Progressive Morality and why the Democrats Ignore it at their own Peril


CommonDreams.org


 
To what extent will progressive morality be a factor in the looming presidential election? Is it simply a nuisance? Will mainstream Democrats (yet again) cringe in its presence, disavow it, spout mostly Republican-lite platitudes about tough-guy patriotism -- and, positioning themselves, as ever, as the Lesser of Two Evils, count the progressive vote as theirs?

The election season, which ought to be more about promoting values than candidates, is barely about values at all, except as weaknesses to manipulate.
Ah, democracy! In post-modern America, the political establishment has quietly uncoupled the word from its definition even as it affects to promote democracy around the world. Campaigns celebrate and dismantle candidates’ personalities and stand for no more than variations of the status quo.

And this is why progressive morality is, indeed, a nuisance. It’s about the future: the world we haven’t built yet, a world beyond poverty, war and environmental exploitation. In a real democracy, such issues would be passionately addressed — if not all the time, then at least during election season — with the limited interests of the present moment temporarily suspended as we tried to figure out how to get beyond them.

George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling, writing about the Democrats’ unsuccessful bid to recall Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin, make some excellent points, beginning with the idea that the Dems “argued policy” while the Republicans argued their version of morality — which is pretty much what always happens. And a strong moral stand inevitably trumps a reasoned explication of policy because “morality is central to identity.”

When Republicans run for office, they effortlessly take a foursquare stand for God and country, no matter that such a stand may have the depth of a campaign poster, while Democrats usually manage to sound like nattering nabobs even when they’re speaking about substantive issues. And when they do reach for the big moral sound bite, what they extol is the same God-and-country, kill-thy-enemy morality as the Republicans, but with a desperate “me too” edge. Why is that?

Lakoff has been writing for years that the Democrats should speak unapologetically from a progressive moral position, framing the major campaign issues in this morality, which models itself on the nurturing family; emphasizes such values as equality, empathy and cooperation; and grounds itself in an empowered public sphere, which is dutifully maintained and protected by the government.

In contrast, “Conservative morality fits the family of the strict father, who is the ultimate authority, defines right and wrong, and rules through punishment,” Lakoff and Wehling write. “Self-discipline to follow rules and avoid punishment makes one moral, which makes it a matter of individual responsibility alone. You are responsible for yourself and not anyone else. . . .

“In conservative politics, democracy is seen as providing the maximal liberty to seek one’s self-interest without being responsible for the interests of others. The best people are those who are disciplined enough to be successful. Lack of success implies lack of discipline and character, which means you deserve your poverty.”

And politically, of course, the public sphere — a.k.a., government — is as much the enemy to conservatives as terrorists are, even though private success is impossible without it. There’s no insult more severe than calling someone a “socialist.” The insult is without rationality but is deeply moral in its (flawed) meaning.

So, once again, I ask, why is this? Why have the Democrats remained stalled between solid moral positions since their last major moral stand, which was to support the civil rights movement and dismantle the political infrastructure of Jim Crow? Wouldn’t it be easier to mobilize their base if they positioned themselves at its center rather than hemmed and hawed at the periphery, arguing policy instead of standing up for what’s right? Wouldn’t this reinvigorate not just the candidates and the party but our entire democracy?

The answer, I fear, is that we remain in a state of moral transition — and confusion. The Dems, after all, stood up not just for civil rights and a war on poverty but the geopolitical and moral disaster known as the Vietnam War. Subsequently unnerved by the political cost of their real moral stands (loss of the Old South and racists everywhere), they hedged their bets and tried to get along with the increasingly militant conservatives, bringing on what Robert Parry, in an excellent 2009 essay, called “battered wife syndrome.” As the Dems strove for an increasingly pointless bipartisan unity, their counterparts stole elections and fomented inane scandals to bring them down.

But the Democrats, for all their battered-spouse “cooperativeness,” are also co-conspirators in the corporate agenda of endless war. President Obama has not only extended the reach of drone warfare but managed to craft, with the help of official leaks, a tough-cookie, “assassin-in-chief” image that makes the world far less safe but enhances his authoritarian-father credibility among the other party’s base. His own base is relegated to the status of political orphans.

Robert C. Koehler
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. His new book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound is now available. Contact him at koehlercw@gmail.com or visit his website at commonwonders.com.