Categories
culture

Buildingblocks of Community


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

As I think about the components of an effective community I thought it would be valuable to list what I think are the essential parts of an effective community. I will try to define them just enough here to make it clear what I am thinking. If anyone finds anything I have missed, or a definition that they think should change, please let me know.

Perhaps I should start be defining what I mean by “community.” I am specifically thinking about a city or town, in other words a physical community of people who live within some defined proximity. Despite that, I believe that the elements of a community that I am considering are applicable to other kinds of community such as a business, or a virtual community.

Government – a body responsible for defining the community and the rules that govern the community. The government of a community would be responsible for arbitration if community members have a dispute about what is acceptable within the community.

Communication – a way for community members to share information about the community, to voice their opinions, or to record events of significance.

Commerce – something to facilitate transactions between members of the community in an organized way so that those transactions are recognized by other members of the community when necessary.

Entertainment – a means of promoting informal interaction between community members which is not focused on commercial repercussions (although there may be commercial elements to the interactions).

Ritual – a celebration of community identity. The purpose of ritual is to solidify the community identity and help members remember the purpose and/or history of the community.

Categories
culture

Information Processing


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Thanks to Joshua for pointing to this quote from Douglas Adams (author of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy).

Of course you can’t ‘trust’ what people tell you on the web anymore than you can ‘trust’ what people tell you on megaphones, postcards or in restaurants. Working out the social politics of who you can trust and why is, quite literally, what a very large part of our brain has evolved to do. For some batty reason we turn off this natural skepticism when we see things in any medium which require a lot of work or resources to work in, or in which we can’t easily answer back – like newspapers, television or granite. Hence ‘carved in stone.’ What should concern us is not that we can’t take what we read on the internet on trust – of course you can’t, it’s just people talking – but that we ever got into the dangerous habit of believing what we read in the newspapers or saw on the TV – a mistake that no one who has met an actual journalist would ever make.

This goes hand in hand with an argument that some people have heard me make about our “information society” as we call it. In a society so full of information sources the great challenge and skill is to be able to identify which sources are accurate or trustworthy. That is the skill that we need to have and that we need to pass on to our children. If Adams was right about humans being naturally hard-wired for this then we should do just fine.

The whole piece was published in 1999 which has given us 8 years to prove that he was right on target. Go read it.

Categories
General

Our Constitutional Foundation


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

My preferred perspective about Memorial Day is that it is not simply a day to remember those who have given “the last full measure of devotion” but also a day to reflect on what it is they were protecting. To do that we must look to the foundation of our country. In that mindset I have been reviewing the Constitution.

Our federal government is comprised of three branches. First, the Legislative branch which is composed of a Senate, with representation by state, and the House of Representatives with representation by population. The legislative branch is where laws are made. Second, the Executive branch which is responsible for commanding the military and, with the consent of the Senate, making treaties and appointing other officers of government as necessary. This power is wielded by the President. Third, the Judicial branch which consists of the Supreme Court and other courts as designated by Congress. The courts officiate in law suits, criminal and civil. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in all cases and original jurisdiction where federal official or a state is a party to the suit.

Each state is required to accept “the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” In addition, the United States is to guarantee that each state has a republican form of government. Two thirds of each house of congress, or two thirds of the state legislatures are required to propose amendments. Three fourths of the state legislatures are required to ratify an amendment. Nine of thirteen (virtually three fourths) of states were required to ratify the constitution to make it effective.

The first amendment prohibits congress from making laws to establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. This applies to our attempts to prohibit the exercise of religious belief by Iraqis in establishing their government. We should not prohibit their free exercise. This also applies to the Church of Secular Purity. This amendment also protects our rights to peaceably assemble and say/write what we think.

The second amendment rules that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, but it does not specify that they may own any kind of arms without limitation, or that they can take those arms any place without restriction. There is a fair amount of discretion still available there. Connected to that, the third amendment states that citizens cannot be forced to house soldiers in times of peace. The fourth amendment declares that citizens and their property shall be protected from unreasonable search or seizure.

The fifth amendment provides that we may be spared repeated trials for a single crime and that we need not witness against ourselves. It also provides that citizens shall be compensated when private property is taken for public purpose. The sixth amendment guarantees that we have access in criminal cases to a public trial by an impartial jury in the place where we are accused of committing a crime. It also stipulates that the accused must be allowed counsel and the opportunity “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The seventh amendment stipulates that in civil cases involving more than $20 the right to trial by jury stands. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel or unusual punishments.

The ninth amendment specifies that just because a right is not listed in the constitution is not sufficient proof that such right does not exist. The tenth amendment specifies that any power not specified as the jurisdiction of the federal government shall be reserved to the state governments. (I wonder why that seems not to have been applied.)

The eleventh amendment prevents a citizen from suing a state in federal court.

The twelfth amendment separates the presidential and vice-presidential votes rather than awarding the vice-presidency to the second highest vote-getter among presidential candidates. The twentieth amendment specifies the time for changes of president. The twenty-second amendment specifies a limit of two terms per president. (Some kind of term limits should be placed on Senators and Representatives as well.) The twenty-third amendment grants an electoral vote to the District of Columbia. The twenty-fifth amendment specifies that the vice-president becomes president if a president dies in office.

The thirteenth amendment abolished slavery. The fourteenth amendment alters apportionment and other issues left from the abolishment of slavery.

The fifteenth amendment specifies that race cannot be used to discriminate in a citizen’s right to vote. The nineteenth amendment later gave voting rights without regard to gender. The twenty-fourth amendment would later clarify that defaulting on taxes could not be used as an excuse to deny voting rights to a citizen. The twenty-sixth amendment lowered the age for voting from 21 to 18.

The sixteenth amendment allows for income tax.

The seventeenth amendment changes the way senators are chosen from being chosen by state legislatures to being chosen by direct, popular vote.

The eighteenth amendment makes it illegal to produce or distribute liquor. The twenty-first amendment repealed this almost fifteen years later.

The twenty-seventh amendment specifies that congressional pay increases do not go into effect until after a new congressional election. (This would be more useful if we had term limits or pay increases were only active for the successors of those who voted for the increase.)

If we understand our foundation we might recognize the limits of the society that we can build. We can also know how and when to alter the foundation if we do not like the society that it is producing.

Categories
National State

Balanced Government


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I have long believed that Utah needs balanced government. I have made most of the same arguments on this issue as were raised in that article. Having a single party in power does not generally provide the give-and-take, compromise-and-entertain-new-ideas environment that is the strength of a democratic society. One of the problems that encourages the current dominant-party situation in this state is the blurring of the proper separation of state and federal government. (And you thought I was going to talk about church and state separation.) One of the major causes for this blurring is that the federal government has been given power in many areas that were once reserved to the states. The It’s-a-Small-World mentality means that we think everything is local and we have to make our local decisions based on national implications.

The Utah County Democratic Party tried to make some distinction between different spheres of government last year by adopting a platform that was less like the platform of the Democratic National Committee and more closely aligned to the mainstream voters of this very conservative region. Now they face some resistance from local democrats who are more in favor of the national platform. In a place where the other party has more than 10 times the number of members your party has the initial move makes sense, but what does that imply about the relationship between the national party and the county party? How far from the national platform can you go and still retain the party name?

I don’t know the answer, but I do know that the idea that there should be no correlation between the platforms is as useless as the idea that there should be no variation between them. I hope that the balance here can be found so that Utah will have two viable parties throughout the state and not a ruling party and an opposition party such as we now have.

Categories
culture

Heroes and Idols


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Laura and I were having a fascinating conversation with good friends which rolled around to the topic of teaching children about their future roles as adults. We got to talking about the types of role models that children have and the messages that they are being fed from our society about those adult roles. Out of that conversation came the following gem – speaking about a person being sensitive to the needs of those around them and responding to the needs of others rather than being focused on their own needs and their own image:

“That’s the difference between being a hero and being an idol.” Denise Black

The meaning being that an idol is someone who we might look up to who is more concerned with their image than their substance while a hero is more concerned with being worthy of emulation than they are with their level of popularity. In case anyone is wondering, there are those among the ranks of our social idols (musicians, athletes, actors) who qualify as heroes under this definition. The key is to help our children understand the difference between the idols and the real heroes.

Categories
culture

Mob Intelligence


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I love reading Terry Pratchett, for the humor, but I just discovered an extremely useful mathematical equation in Maskerade to calculate the intelligence of any mob.

“The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters.”

Now if only we had an accurate definition of what a mob is – a definition that catches mobs even when they are not wielding clubs and other weapons.

Categories
technology

Inherently Unequal


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

My whole family is getting over being sick (here’s a story about that) and as I reflected on the experience I was thinking how nice it would have been to have the kinds of beds they had 150 years ago (pre-industrial age) where you would clean a mattress after someone threw up on it by emptying it, washing the cover, and then filling it with fresh stuffing. The old, soiled filler could be discarded or burned. Now we have mattresses that are “permanent” so when my daughter wakes up from her nap throwing up we have to clean all the covers and try to clean the mattress and then live with the fact that it’s never going to be entirely clean.

When we moved from temporary mattress filling to permanent mattresses we did not keep all the beneficial traits of the old mattresses. Perhaps someone should market a disposable sick-bed. Hospital beds have vinyl coverings so they can be wiped, disinfected, and covered with new sheets. Crib mattresses (at least the ones we have) are the same, but regular mattresses have lost that trait from the mattresses that our great-great-grandparents used to have.

I’m not suggesting that we should go back to those mattresses – though I was tempted to when the thought first struck me. I think we have many products to help mitigate that difference. However, the thought struck me that there is no such thing as a flawless upgrade when we start using new technology like that. There is always some characteristic that we might overlook which has its benefits. It’s something to think about as we rush onward with new technologies and find that it is easy to see their strengths. Sometimes we have to take a step back and see if we might have missed some strengths from the old technology.

Categories
culture life

Cell-Phone Culture


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Over the course of the last year I have become very aware of what I call our cell-phone culture. Let me preface my commentary by saying that I have nothing against cell phones. I used to have one, and the day may come when I have one again, but currently I do not have one.

After moving into a new house and a new neighborhood last year, I found it hard to contact anyone in my neighborhood. I have been working with the local Boy Scout troop and I had phone numbers for most of the people but whenever I tried to contact people I could never catch them. I also discovered that there were messages being sent to “everybody” that were not coming to me. Given time I was able to diagnose the cause of both those problems. The messages I was not getting were text messages on cell phones – a loop which could not include me since I have no cell. The problem with me trying to contact anyone else was that I had their home phone numbers which were virtually useless since they all rely on their cell phones for people to contact them.

Since that first identification of the influence of cell phones on society I have identified other effects of the cell-phone culture. I see people around me busily doing much more than people did when I was growing up. There are more soccer games (or any other sport), more music lessons, and dance classes. Families are split in more directions as both parents run separate errands and any older children are busy with their own agendas. The members of the family keep each other updated on their whereabouts with calls and messages from their phones without ever having to see each other. This was all driven home to me this weekend when my backyard neighbor was talking to us over the fence. She had her phone with her and while we were talking she got a message from her oldest daughter. The daughter had gone shopping for a prom dress with the stipulation that her mother had to approve anything she wanted to buy. The message was a picture of the prom-dress-of-choice. No need for mom to come along in order to secure her approval. In fact it was not even necessary to take a picture and show it to mom for approval before going back to purchase the dress. She could go shopping and get the required approval while Mom was outside talking to the neighbors.

Not all of this is bad, but I have concluded that if and when I have a cell phone again I will be conscious to avoid cluttering up my schedule just because I can stay in contact while driving myself crazy and back.

Categories
General

Good News for the G.O.P.


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

While I was just catching up on the news, I came across an article in the New York Times declaring that the rank and file memebers of the G.O.P. are not following the dictates of Karl Rove. I think that’s great news. I have thought many times that the Democratic Party seemed to have lost its way. I felt that they had very little to contribute outside of a constant cry of “Republicans are bad, just look at what Kink George is doing.” Lately I have begun to think that the Republican Party should lose their way since the way they seem to be leading the country is looking more and more like a path to self-destruction.

I am not talking about the war in Iraq, or the economy. I am talking about the “us vs. them” mentality. The Democrats seemed to be lacking an “us.” From the Democrats it felt like a “them vs. not them” mentality. Thankfully that looks like it might be changing. I just hope that one or both parties can come to something along the lines of “us and not us” where there is no assumption that “anyone who does not agree with us is anti-American (or stupid, or evil, or any other slanderous generalization).” The parties should stand for something so that I can respect them even if I disagree with them.

With the issue of abortion, most people talk about “pro-life vs pro-choice”. Both sides seem to be for something. Unfortunately, I have heard ardent supporters of each side of the debate talk about “pro-choice vs anti-choice” or “pro-life vs anti-life.” Those are both “us righteous crusaders for truth, justice, and the American way vs those stupid, communist, fascist, devil worshiping, neo-something-or-other social lepers” types of mentalities. They are not constructive, but they are passionate. I don’t mind passionate, but I would hope to have more constructive attitudes come to the forefront of both parties so that we can have some lively national debate on issues, and at the end of the day we still make things happen.