Criminality: Just a Law Away

     Everyone knows what a criminal is, don’t they? They’re the ones that rob or break things or get into fights. All of those things can happen, and they may be a criminal because of those actions — but it’s really not the root of the situation.

    A criminal is someone who has broken a law.

    The law might be a good law. The law might be a bad law. It might be an old law … or a brand new law. It may be a law that is only occasionally, and haphazardly, enforced. In each case, it is still a law, and breaking it makes you a criminal. For example, in the following weird laws, if you

• Put salt on a railroad track (Alabama)

• Refuse to give a person a glass of water (Arizona) [in Florida, it is illegal TO give people food or water]

• Fish from a camel’s back (Idaho)

• Take a bath between the months of October and March (Indiana)

• Don’t shower at least once a year (Kentucky)

• Keep an armadillo as a pet (Maine)

• Serenade your girlfriend (Michigan)

• Ride a camel on the highway (Nevada)

• Wear roller skates in a bathroom (Oregon)

• Wash a mule on the sidewalk (Virginia)

then you have broken the law (and, sometimes, with potentially very serious penalties).

     These don’t sound so serious, do they. And it is true that they are rarely enforced. But, these laws were written — and written for a purpose. The purpose may have been against the actions of one person. That is scary. Someone in authority can make you a criminal by enacting a law forbidding you to do something that you normally do. They don’t even have to inform you of the enacting of the law (“ignorance of the law is no excuse”).

     We don’t lose much sleep over weird laws and most people are happy about the “good” laws. It doesn’t make much difference as to whether it is an old law or a new law as long as it is a “good” law. Alas, laws aren’t always good.

     The use of laws to make people criminals is widespread throughout the world and there are a number of such laws in the U.S.’s relatively recent history.

     One very, very serious instance of laws written deliberately to allow the creation of a group of criminals derives from the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

     This Amendment is very important. It made it illegal to have slaves in the United States. In terms of this newsletter, however, it is the “escape clause” that is of great concern. “except as a punishment for crime”. Slavery and/or involuntary servitude is legal if a person is convicted of a crime. And crimes are described as breaking laws. (Fortunately, the full evils of U.S. slavery do not apply — the children do not become slaves.)

     In many areas of the South, “chain gangs” (almost always “minorities” (called such even where they are the majority of the population)) of people are assigned to do the same tasks as were done by slaves. They can even be hired out to individuals or businesses to do their menial work, as was done by slaves. (Unlike slavery, however, such does not extend to ownership of their children and family members.) All that is needed is to enact a law, or laws, that apply largely to the targeted group (and not enforce the law for others not in the targeted group) and the Thirteenth Amendment is legally nullified to a great extent.

     My father served in the US Navy, on an aircraft carrier, during the Korean War (or, officially, the Korean Conflict since no war has been declared by Congress since 1942). He mentioned to me the casual use of the completely legal substance, marijuana, as a normal part of ship life during that time. But, in the 1970s, it was no longer widely used. Therefore, J Edgar Hoover, who was passionately racist, decided that it was appropriate to encourage the use of marijuana within areas of targeted groups AND to persuade Congress and the President to make use of marijuana illegal. Thus, J Edgar Hoover could legally facilitate the subjection, and harassment, of his hated prey.

     In all areas of the world, we would like it to be true that laws are always enacted for the safety, and betterment, of people and society. But a law can be a potent weapon and recognition of that is important for people to be aware.

     A person may be changed from a non-criminal to a criminal by the enactment of a law. So, every law is of importance and it is the responsibility of every citizen to keep legislators carefully monitored.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Apathy: The Longest Addiction

     Once upon a time, in a galaxy very close to us all, I gave a Salutatorian speech for my high school (50th graduation anniversary this year). The topic was “Apathy”. The best that I can say about it was that I didn’t spot anyone sleeping during the speech. The worst that I can say is that I could give the exact same speech today, with the same reactions, and the same results.

     Between many moves and changes of technology (my speech was recorded on a cassette tape), I don’t seem to have the text of my speech anymore. But, as I said, I could give the same speech — or write the same speech — today without much change. The one addition I would make would be an advisory that apathy includes not taking the time or energy to research and factcheck the information with which you are presented. I don’t believe that the word factcheck existed in 1975.

     Apathy and procrastination are similar. Both are delays but procrastination is expected to have an end. Also, apathy is supposed to be based out of lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern. Procrastination says that you kind-of want to do it but not now, after something, or when there are two moons in the sky.

     Recentering on apathy. Why would a person lack interest/enthusiasm/concern in something? It might not be important. It might not be important to them. The second is more likely since, if no one felt it was important, apathy would not even be considered to be applied as a description. Once again, apathy is likely to be used only if they “should” care. Everyone should care about climate change, right? Women should control their own bodies, right? Everyone’s life is important, right?

    Let’s proceed as if there is some issue about which people should care — some issue that affects them or those they care about. Why don’t they have any interest/enthusiasm/concern?

• It’s not their problem. Possibly not — at the moment — but many problems tend to grow over time. Social injustices, for example, have a tendency to keep expanding to include more and more subgroups of people. Pollution in one area tends to encourage corporations to feel it is okay to pollute anywhere and it may start affecting you. Air pollution will depend on the direction of the wind. If you recognize that it is A problem, then deciding that it is irrelevant to you is not a good excuse.
  

• Their efforts won’t make a difference. So, now you’re all-knowing (omniscient)? You never know. By being brave and confronting injustice, and supporting someone, you might be preventing a murder or a suicide. You just don’t know the effects of your own efforts. And the multiplier effect can change things considerably. Sociologists talk about how small percentages (sometimes as low as 3 or 4%) can become “contagious” and change the behavior of the larger group. You really, truly, never know if your personal effort will make a difference. And you can be pretty sure that your effort, in combination with others’ similar effort, CAN bring about change.
  

• They have other things in my life that are more important. This is hard to argue against. We all have many things we need to do that are important to ourselves, or those we care about. But, it may be a matter of just examining our priorities a bit closer. Will watching five more minutes of anime be more important, in your life, than placing a call to your legislator to ask them to do the right thing? (Legislators primarily pay attention to contributors but some also pay attention to the interests of those they are supposed to represent.) Will it change your ability to live out your day if you pick up a stray piece of litter as you are walking along the street — how much time did that really take?
  

• They have personal issues that manifest in decreased energy and activity levels. Depression, burnout, addictions, diseases, medications, and other items of life can make everything “else” seem not worth doing. Yes, you need to take care of yourself before you can attend to the needs of others. However, it is not a cliché to say that helping others can lead to helping yourself. Twelve-step programs often incorporate reaching outward to make your inward self more supportable. All I can truly say in this area is that you can only do what you can do. Blessed be.
  

• They are opposed to the item. You hate being around those who have challenges in their lives and would prefer them to just “go away” rather than try to do something for them. You hate that other state and are glad that their citizens are getting cancer from corporate pollution. That “other” group should be treated badly because they aren’t as valuable as others. In such situations, you aren’t actually expressing apathy — though it could appear that way to outside observers. This is an expression of a wounded soul and I can only pray that you heal from your ills.

     Apathy is looked at from the outside as a lack of action. The causes of apathy can be manifold but it is as true today as it was true 50 years ago that we could really “change the world” if we can treat this societal illness.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Recalibration: it is rarely a matter of comparing apples to apples

     My wife and I belong to a book club (she belongs to several, but we go to one together). A couple of books ago, we read the book “Happiness Falls” by Angie Kim. Not particularly giving a spoiler, the title is involved with something called a “happiness quotient”. The idea is that your recent past history will reset your scales.

     Say that I attended a pretty good happy film. As a 1 to 10 life experience (as opposed to a rating of the film itself), I rate it a 6 — pleasant and better than average. Now, envisage having just lost your job. You attend the same film but since you are likely feeling pretty rotten, watching that pretty good happy film might win a 8 for you as it was “just what you needed” at that time. Or your down feelings might negatively affect your appreciation of the film and you might get only a 4 for the experience of going to the film. In either case, you have altered your scale for evaluation.

     The range may also depend on the local environment. In a town where there are few restaurants and little competition, it is likely that a restaurant might get a 4/5. In a different area, with more restaurants and competition, it might get a 3/5. Same restaurant, same quality but looked at (and rated) differently according to the competitive environment.

     Let’s proceed towards the topic of “Happiness Falls” as mentioned above. If I have had a series of mishaps, or tragedies, occurring in my life, a well-prepared birthday party may seem like an 8/10 whereas if I just received the Nobel prize, I might consider it only a 6/10.

     I have a high pain threshold (which isn’t always to my advantage). I used to have my teeth filled without anesthesia. My current dentist doesn’t give me that option. But I know of some others who have to have general anesthetic before any dental work can be done. Our scales of 1 to 10 for pain are quite different.

     This is one of the many reasons why we cannot truly “walk in another’s footsteps”. Not that efforts to understand are not worthwhile — they are. But your feelings of pain, alienation, love, hate, and every other physical and emotional feeling are very unlikely to be at the same level as that of the other person. Your scales do not have the same endpoints.

     What evaluation scales do you have that seem to be out-of-sync with that of others?

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Amorality: For those who don't care whether something is "good" or "bad" -- only how it affects themselves

     I have boycotted a certain international company, famous for its chocolate and milk products, for over 50 years. Does that company care? Not at all. They have long ago adjusted their market prognosis to allow for those of us who boycott it. If my boycotting them makes no difference then why do I continue? Because the only reason I would be stopping is because of the inconvenience of continuing the boycott. My inconvenience versus an implicit acceptance of their behavior — that is not a sufficient reason to stop boycotting them. They also have purchased a certain baby food brand. IF I still had small children that might be a reason to stop my boycott. The nutrition of my child versus an implicit acceptance of behavior. A hard call and I’m glad I don’t have to make it.

     This company is not the only such company, of course. In the early 1970s, a well-known international automobile maker found themselves without a model to compete against the new small fuel-efficient cars. So, they rushed to complete a design. It turns out that, for other design considerations, they put the gasoline tank right at the back of the car. Cars were exploding when they were hit from behind. But, it took quite a few months before enough news (back when mainstream journalism was still a legitimate thing) reports triggered a backlash against the car manufacturer and they removed the model from the market.

     Even now, we have international companies which have vestiges of their prior journalism departments. But if they dare to report the reality of abusive governmental people and bodies, they retract and pay fines rather than face the possibility of abuse of power and retribution. The actions MAY be in the best interests of their stock holders (probably not as they are also potential customers) but definitely not in the best interests of their customers.

     What do these situations (and many others not described) have in common? Amorality.

     This is a subject about which I have written a number of newsletters (or blogs) in the past. But, in our world of diminishing trust in the world around us, it continues to be a very important subject. For some, there is no distinction between amorality and immorality and perhaps they are correct. Immorality is doing something that you know is considered bad according to your societal standards. Amorality is allowing something bad to happen (possibly without understanding that it is bad but not caring) but not directly doing the bad thing. There is a gray area which asks if knowing about the action makes a person an accomplice.

     In the above examples, the corporate decisions and actions are largely to do with money. If they could make the money without having the immoral actions occurring, that would be fine with them. But the money is more important. For the chocolate company, they add up the profits they make inappropriately selling their product. They balance that number against the cost of lawsuits for deaths, court costs, and restitution. So far, they make more money selling products and killing people. A similar situation existed for the automobile company. For the media company, none are killed directly but may be killed in related actions.

     Similar situations exist for personal actions. Bullying someone is immoral. Knowing about the bullying and not doing anything is amoral (see what I mean about the gray area between immoral and amoral). Polluting the environment is immoral. Noticing the pollution and not doing anything about it is amoral. Deliberately harming, or killing, someone is immoral (and usually illegal) but recognizing the event and not doing anything about it is amoral. There are some situations in which it seems that there is nothing an individual can do anything to prevent it. But, there really is no excuse.

     Amorality also exists when the company, or person, is unconcerned about GOOD effects of their actions. A company changes their waste flow to capture, and resell, some of the effluent which ends up with the company polluting less. Their action was to make more money via a better process and profitable side-effect but the end result was something good. People don’t complain about that (and I don’t either — I wish it would happen more often).

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Giving & Taking: One cannot exist without the other but there are nuances

      “It is better to give than to receive”. English, even more than many other languages, has shades of meaning according to the exact word used. The word “receive” is passive. Something arrives and you passively receive it. There is no action upon the receiver’s part except to act as a receptacle.

“I received a package in the mail”.

     In the first paragraph, “giving” is an active verb. You are deliberately choosing to remove something in your possession and place it into the possession of someone else or in some other place. You are using an active “give” and a passive “receive”. It is also possible to be an unwilling, passive, person/location that has something available to be used/possessed by someone else or another place. In this case, it is best to use the passive verb “possess”. Possessor A transfers X to possessor B.

“They took what they wanted”.

     “Don’t be a taker”. In this case, “take” is very active. You are removing something from someone, or some place, and taking possession of it. Whether it wants to be possessed by you is of no consequence. Only in the case of an active giver is everything voluntary.

     Confused yet? People get confused and they use the wrong terms all the time. We say that being a taker is bad and a giver is good. But it really depends on the other end of the transition.

• If both are passive, no transaction occurs.

• If one is active and the other passive then the transaction may be unwilling and, most of the time, the morality of a society says that an unwilling transaction is bad. (There are those, of course, that say “might makes right” — if you CAN take then it is all right for you to take. In general, people will SAY that forcing something upon (“giving to”) a person is not proper but may accept the act. If you CAN give but the other doesn’t want it then it indicates a certain amount of hubris.)

• If both are active, it is assumed that it is a willing transaction.

     The above is complicated enough, isn’t it? But we haven’t gone into the situation of an active end and an active refusal. I try to give you something (active) but you refuse to accept it (active refusal). I try to take something from you (active) and you refuse to let it go (active refusal). These situations are conflict cases — conflict of desire — and they are often the basis of wars, vendettas, grudges, and resentments.

     There are more exact replacements, or synonyms of the various verbs within a given situation.

     Taking from someone without their permission (active or passive resistance) is theft.

     Giving to someone without their desire to have it can be called charity or it can be called hubris.

     Adages must be applied carefully. Sometimes it is NOT better to give than to receive.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Spectrums: Deciding upon a number along a long list of numbers does not define us.

     It is very rare that a person can use one particular set of pigeonholes to categorize a person — probably isn’t possible at all. But most measuring devices will come up with “answers”. Looking at those answers more closely, we find that the answers all end up “kind of”.

     I have a result for the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory of INT/FJ. The “/” indicates that I “balance” between the aspects of “Thinking” and “Feeling”. The reality is that the T to F scale is a spectrum. I test out at the very middle. It is my understanding that there is now a refinement that breaks the type-casting into smaller gradations. It also seems to be true that we shift based on relationships. My wife is strong on the Process-oriented side of the MBTI while I am moderate on the Judicious side. When I am with her, my "J” aspect becomes stronger as I counter-balance her “P” tendencies.

     There are many areas that can be measured — with an arbitrary division that says one endpoint or the other (for weight; overweight versus underweight). Some are known to have large “loopholes” but are used anyway for convenience. One such is BMI. For most people (about 90%), this ratio of height to weight works — but for those who have either a lot of muscle mass (such as athletes or other heavy exercisers) or truly “large boned” it does not work well. The measurement of height seems straight-forward but we are all shorter at the end of the day (the older, the greater the difference) and whether we are “short” or “tall” depends within what pool of people we are measured. When I was visiting castles in Wales, I (at 5’ 7” tall) had to duck under every door arch and watch my head within rooms. The suits of armor appeared to be made for junior high school children.

     One of the areas that end up being categorized the most is “race”. Most people would think that this would be definitive but it is actually composed of many gradations and very arbitrary divisions. The concept of race was created to give apparently rational excuses for distinguishing between different pools of people. Thus, one pool could be considered “superior” to others and justified colonialism and slavery. But, if you break down the qualities that are measured, we can quickly see that such classification is balderdash.

     At our sons’ elementary school, there were a variety of genetic backgrounds. I believe there were about 800 students. If, on a particular day (it would be different on another day because of tanning or season of the year), you lined all 800 students up from the most pigment to the least, you would probably have around 50 or so clumps where the pigment level would be difficult to discern between individuals. According to the “race” aspect, however, somewhere between two clumps, the children would be classified as “white” or “non-white”.

     The same set of methods could be applied to hair texture, nose proportions, eye color, cuticle shapes, and so forth. With each spread and grouping, the concept of “race” becomes more and more ludicrous.

     This is not meant to negate personal histories, ethnic commonalities, and other aspects which can tend to group people and may coincide with the categories of “race”. Such identification may be very important to a person, their history, and their perspectives on the rest of the world — but the outside envelope is incidental.

     We have four sons, two of which are on the Autistic spectrum. Before a change in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), they were considered to have Asperger’s Syndrome. Autism is not a disease but it is a change in brain structure that creates challenges for people to deal with inside a “neurotypical” (or “normal”) population. The changes happen before birth and, therefore, nothing that happens after birth has any relevance.

     From a “techie” point of view, you can say that their I/O (Input/Output) connections to the world are wired differently. With this difference in “wiring”, interactions with the outside world do not work the same as others. Hearing, speaking, touching, tasting, seeing, smelling and other bodily interactions with the general population can sometimes be like speaking different languages.

     But our two sons are considered “high functioning”. They have strong verbal skills and are able to do most things that others do. But they do them differently — and one of them includes an aspect of “sensory issues” where the volume of the outside world can vary, in his perception, from moment to moment. As a child, this caused him great distress so he would scream to drown out the outside world with something “he could control”. It continues to affect him about what foods he can tolerate.

     The grandson of a friend is towards the other “end” of the spectrum. His “I/O circuitry” does not allow verbal output. He is not fully at the “end” (where there is NO interaction with the outside world) as he is still able to interact with others and can be an enormous pleasure to be around. It is impossible for those around him to know just what/how/how much/why he processes information.

     Our society has a terrible habit of assuming that those with sensory challenges also have intellectual challenges but such aspects are quite independent. From all points within the autistic spectrum, the goal is have them be able to interact well with others who do not have their particular configurations.

     Another famous spectrum issue is that of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ). It has been proposed that IQ is only one of a number of different types of intelligence with all of them having their own “score” or place upon the spectrum. Often a “100” means “average”. Half of the population is meant to be below 100 and the other half above 100. But there are also scales (or spectrums) for emotional intelligence (EQ) and physical intelligence (PQ) and a couple of others. Alas, there is no such thing as a “common sense” quotient — because that term is primarily used as a comparison between those setting the ideal and those either following along or diverting from that ideal.

     Score, scale, spectrum — we are all of more this way than that and the combination of all such comparisons, or evaluations. The array of results, as expressed in lists of numbers, emphasize how unique we each are rather than allowing a single number to pigeonhole us.

     We are one species, one people and our differences all form a part of the population as a whole.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Displacement: Physical and Economic

     Life is change. It can be slow, fast, or abrupt — but it happens. Our planet has gone through changes throughout its history. Asteroids have hit the planet. Volcanoes have caused short-lived, but deadly, global winters for the planet. We have had Ice Ages and receding periods. Continents have split apart and merged.

     We are currently in a global warming period emerging faster than has happened in any other recorded period. This is based on comparisons with historical geologic and ice core readings. It is due to increases of greenhouse gases which prevent heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere and which causes a change in the balance of energy. The oceans are warming and that gives a greater heat/energy source for creation of larger, more frequent, drastic weather events such as droughts, floods, storms, hurricanes and — yes — even blizzards. Almost all scientists agree that humans have greatly contributed to those greenhouse gases. It is not as certain as to whether it still would have happened without humans — but, if so, not nearly as quickly.

     But it IS happening and it’s happening quickly. The changes in weather patterns are forcing changes in crops grown in different areas. The rise in sea level threatens coastlines and many island nations, with much of their area to be below estimated future sea levels, are making plans for migration (or emigration) of much of their population. Larger, non-island, countries will have to deal with coastlines receding inland with established coastal development going under the water. Other large-scale displacements of people will happen because of changes in availability in amounts of potable water. More energy in the system can power many different events and 100-year-floods become 5-year-floods.

     People are not displaced solely because of physical reasons. The tides of change in the economic arena can move people even more than an earthquake.

     The name “Luddite” (named for Ned Ludd who destroyed some mechanical equipment in 1779 out of frustration with changes happening) can be found in literature around 1811. In this region of time, the “Industrial Revolution” was taking place. What once needed ten people to do the manual labor for a task could, with machines, be done with one person (trained differently and with a different set of daily duties). What happened to the other nine? They were unemployed — and, since there were a lot of instances of this happening in the textile industry, there were a LOT of unemployed people without any type of modern “safety net”. They had been displaced by the new technology and machinery.

     Many of the newly unemployed workers had done the same type of work all of their lives. The companies that they previously worked for had no legal obligation for generosity and compassion to help the unemployed workers — nor did the religious leaders of the time urge such!

     Over the years, technology has replaced technology. As Danny DeVito says in “Other People’s Money” (not the exact words) — “I’ll bet that the last company that made buggy whips made the absolutely most wonderful buggy whips ever”. But the buggy and coach have traveled over the hills unlikely to return.

     Over the past 50 years, we have had white-collar labor practices be replaced by programs and computers — and blue-collar positions replaced by automation. It has caused discomfort and displacement but manageable. Now, the process continues to accelerate. Though we have yet to see just how effective, and useful, current AI methods are within society, if they come even close to the use as hoped for by businesses, we could displace 10% to 20% of the labor force. These are not people who have yet to find a job. These are people for whom no job exists. What happens with them? Desperate people do desperate things. A universal base income might keep them alive but there are so many other societal aspects that blend into that and other possibilities.

     While this is something that I have said, and will say, on a disgustingly regular basis; we have problems to approach and work towards solving — but the first overriding problem is getting people to talk to, and work with, each other to work to solve them.

     But we can do it if we want to do such.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.