Kids on Earth

[DrSmellThis]

Kids deserve better

than

this:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/0

9/unicef.report.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/09/unicef.report.ap/index.html)

[belgareth]

Were it that we spent the money

and time helping and sheltering children that we spend on war and ways of killing one another. It's a sad world

that considers children less important than making war.

[a.k.a.]

It's a sad world

that considers children less important than making war.
Making war is a subsidiary of making profit.

So I blame capitalism.
This is a system where the strong are driven to exploit the weak, and nobody’s

weaker than a dependent child.
In the US, the poorest people are disproportionately children. And they’re

the first to suffer from cuts in healthcare and education.
But even rich and middle class kids are being

exploited by an endless barrage of advertisements (even in schools) that create insecurities and subvert personality

development.

[belgareth]

Indisciminate capitalism is the

problem. Some of us capitalists still do whatever we can to help others. I'm a member of a service club that is

almost all big money earners (except me, of course). We all spend a lot of time and money trying to help those with

less than we have. Each of us commits time and money, along with soliciting others to do the same.

[DrSmellThis]

We need more folks like you,

then, to put it mildly!

Yep. It can be traced back to government corruption in conjunction with the

community-amputated and single-minded shareholder wealth maximization ethic of corporations. This is reflected in

the consumer-producer culture and psychology.

But the problem in the bigger picture is a lack of holism and

sustainability in our approach to resources, pleasures, needs and problems.

Unfortunately, when you have a

critical, widespread, acute and chronic problem (a crisis or emergency); and when the private sector isn't able to

solve it, you need systemic or institutional involvement and solutions -- at least as a stop-gap measure to be

transitioned out of, until individuals can enlighten themselves "via their bootstraps". Another reason for this need

is that there are systemic and institutional destructive forces to be dealt with, per se. Lastly, the educational

piece must also be systemic.

That means we must reject unethical leadership and support those with constructive,

core global values; who are willing to institutionalize and systematize those necessary core global values. So it is

about morality, but the morality of a community, species and a planet; as opposed to the "rule morality"

of an individual's personal lifestyle decisions, per se. The former is the type of morality a politician must

be good at, since that is the level they operate on; since it's their role, and our need for them! (I can't

believe right wingers and fundies are too dumb to get this, and completely misunderstand the import of morality in

politics and public policy.)

At the same time, we have to address waste and inefficiency, (especially through

sustainability and holism initiatives) not just in systems and institutions, but in society/culture as a whole.



This involves quite a bit of radical work, given the whole "brute force cybernetics" (where corporations create

our needs and "fulfill" them) of our culture.

We are currently not seeing the big picture of our needs. We see

needs as separate, individual "itches" the must be "scratched" only in the most specialized way -- and regardless of

why that need "is as it is". It is a societal mental illness -- a thought disorder, to be precise -- kept in

place by politicians, Madison Avenue, and big business. We need leaders with the capability to constantly think

outside this box and do "cognitive therapy" with the public.

There is enough of everything for everybody to be

truly fulfilled! But it really looks as if there is only 10% of what everybody needs, because of that much

foolishness, waste, and inefficiency! "Insufficiency" is a goddamned illusion -- nonetheless a goddamed

deadly and self-perpetuating one. (It becomes all about taking.) Right now the upper few percent of

the wealthiest individuals have most all the wealth, and control the rest that they don't happen to own. This must

change, but not only this.

The other destructive forces, as regards war specifically, are black and white

thinking (e.g., "us and them"), along with the mindless religious fundamentalism that sustains it. We need to

renounce religious texts as ultimate and literal guides for our species! (To anyone who doesn't believe me

-- please go pick up a bible right now and read Leviticus and Numbers). The failure to do so will also

kill us.

[belgareth]

Doc,

I think you

underestimate the number and abilities of the millions of truly good people in this country and overestimate the

government's ability and the likelihood of any leadership being able to change the bureaucracy which would be

required to rein in corporate abuses.

Damn, that was a long sentence. :)

The orientation needs to change

from reliance on leadership and government to reliance on the people acting in society's best interests. But that

will take work and education, something we would have to force down the government's throat. It will take a change

in thhe mindset of the average person who now believes they cannot do anything when in reality they hold all the

power.

AKA made some excellent points in another post that has ramifications to this subject as well. World

economics will have a serious effect on the American economy and how well we can further support both corporations

and government.

[DrSmellThis]

No, I do not underestimate

individuals. You appear to overestimate the current power of naked individualism - individuals acting only outside

of cooperative, systemic or institutional entities, to the point of being idealogically blind to the benefits of

public, community and cooperative systems -- and indeed the reasons they are necessary, and organic for where we are

at present. (Why so extreme and contentious?)

More importantly, while we have local and national governments,

systems, and institutions -- or since they are currently a reality -- it cannot but make sense to maximize their

benefit through aligning them with appropriate global values. Systems, institutions, and governments are not going

away any time soon. So it's a complete waste of time -- even destructive -- to attack every position that assumes

they have a role. Throughout history, there have always been better and worse governments. We must work to make ours

better, and not give up.

Similarly, you are innapropriately reading into my position a "RELIANCE" on just

government. There is no need to be absolutist. There are obviously services that are so crucial we cannot rely on

consistent, continual, random voluntary incidents of charity from individuals. I see your stated point of

view as dangerous then, when taken to its logical conclusions. It sounds virtually anarchist -- though I cannot

pretend to speak for you. Further, Reaganesque statements that "government is the problem" are constantly used by

right wingers as a cheap rationalization for making government more problematic -- more encouraging of the

concentration of power in the hands of the few, and less compassionate. Governments are a fact of nature at this

moment; and they do better and worse things.

I sincerely hope I am completely wrong about what you believe, and

will be happy to hear you correct me here. But any reasonable person should be able to see that there are certain

necessary things individuals acting in formal isolation from one another would not at present accomplish. There is

no evidence that we can take care of all the world's problems though random, individual acts from individuals right

now, as much as I wish there were. At present, without non-corporate institutions as a balance, corporate rule would

be even more absolute, even though corporations try to coopt government at every turn, just like they try to coopt

individuals and other systems.

On the other hand, if I take your position as a spiritual potential that

we can strive for -- and I'd like to -- a time when governments, rules, laws, and systems can be elimenated due to

the spiritual enlightenment of individuals -- then I agree wholeheartedly (always have) and would say I have long

sought to engender this kind of thing in myself and others. This type of spiritual belief informs my politics at

every turn, believe it or not; and informs truly progressive politics in general, for the very literal reason of

being an ultimate progressive idea. I would also agree that more can be done at present to encourage

individuals to assume more of the burden of public compassion directly and voluntarily, and agree 100% about

education. I am certainly not arguing against this kind of thing, and feel that small communities rooted in

sustainability are an ideal place to implement this. Many good people I know well are working on the cutting edge of

this approach here in Portland and elsewhere. A dear friend in my private practice office has singlehandedly

implemented a successful AIDS education program in Africa recently, for example. And my best friend is converting

cars all over Portland to run entirely on vegetable oil from restraunt dumpsters, and building sustainable

communities in Mexico. Yet another long time friend, an architect, is creating pockets of small community by

creating public squares in neighborhoods all over Portland (we built one in mine, too, and I am regularly posting

educational materials on its public bulletin board.), and also built a large homeless camp, bigger than all the

homeless shelters put together; all completely out of recycled materials. He has gotten people to encircle the

city of Portland holding hands. There are cobb (basically, mud and straw from your own yard) structures all over my

immediate neighborhood, and other sustainable structures; all built by individuals. I would be overwhelmed to count

the individuals I know who are into stuff like this. In my mind, Portland is virtually ground zero for these types

of movements, though it's happening everywhere, and I actively support it. Do not tell me I underestimate

individuals.

But to think we are ready to scrap institutions would be naive, and to think institutions were

just bad would be destructive and dangerous thinking. Too many rich and powerful individuals are too selfish -- not

to mention selfish "less powerful people" -- and this puts a damper on the efforts of other individuals, even though

individuals can and do accomplish amazing things.

My intention was not to say anything controversial, but to

help folks understand more of the big picture in a direct manner, as much as I can help. Frankly, recent forum

history, and your frequent "jokes" about how "fun" it is to "debate" me; makes me wonder whether you love to

disagree and attack for the "sport" of it, or to "challenge" yourself (Nothing could be less enjoyable for me,

though I was like that when I first entered grad school. I find it destructive.) As a result I believe you often

miss and obscure for others the benefit of whatever insights are there in someone's post. (The recent

felstrom thread was an example. The permissability of criticising religions in the forum aside, you completely

ignored his attempts to be reasonable and acknowledge both sides, as well as the insightful points he did make,

focusing exclusively on the thing that bothered you about him.) I much prefer minimizing unnecesary

disagreement through recognizing points; and working through it through questioning, clarification, and the like.

Why don't we both try more of this approach instead? I'd have loved to hear more of your ideas about helping

individuals step up, without the unnecessary attack on the idea of optimizing institutions to the extent possible.

If your arguing against my last post is necessary, then you are more extreme than I thought. But I'm sick of it.



I also hope I am wrong about this honest observation, as I will need to decline to participate or cooperate in

that sort of thing in the future (In my experience idea-heavy replies like this one tend psychologically to

encourage further arguing, so I don't feel I can afford to make them any more.). This does not mean that I want

everybody to agree, of course; to the extent it's necessary not to. However, your one-sided attack on my position,

in light of your history of attack, was baseless, distracting and unnecessary (though certainly not mean-spirited,

or exteme as an individual post). You are too often trying to paint me as "pro-big government" or something

(presumably partly because you dislike anything smacking of liberal politics), and you are misleading others in

doing so. I do not appreciate it, and there was nothing in my last post that suggests that. I'm concerned that this

thread is going downhill, and I care about kids too much to be OK with that. I offer my apologies to other forum

members for the distracting part of this post (We are both responsible for this distraction). I hope I'm not

wasting my time, but I accept that I probably have to bow out of this thread too.

[DrSmellThis]

Making war is a

subsidiary of making profit. So I blame capitalism.
This is a system where the strong are driven to exploit the

weak, and nobody’s weaker than a dependent child.
In the US, the poorest people are disproportionately children.

And they’re the first to suffer from cuts in healthcare and education.
But even rich and middle class kids are

being exploited by an endless barrage of advertisements (even in schools) that create insecurities and subvert

personality development.I agree. I am curious what you meant by the last sentence, though.

[belgareth]

Doc,

You read a lot into a

couple simple statements. The funny thing is that you and I seem to agree completely on the long term goals. We just

disagree on how to get there. I am not an anarchist, nor am I a republican as I don't believe either of those

systems will work. As I said once to you in a PM, my beliefs are my own based on my own observations and life

experiences. I have taken much from many points of view to form my own. Considering me right wing is a mistake often

made but a mistake nonetheless. It is also obvious from my perspective that there is a major problem with the

government and I don't believe it is likely to change unless a majority of the people stand up and force the

government to change.

A point you may be able to enlighten me on is the term progressive. In my study of

politics I have seen that term used to describe many things that either did not work or were terrible. An example is

the Soviet Union called itself progressive but the people had little in the way of comforts and many suffered. When

their system collapsed, people starved. The IRA, the PIRA and the SLA, along with numerous other terrorist groups

call themselves progressive. I do not believe you are of like mind and am asking you to explain what you mean by

progressive.

I help people as often as I can but I don't believe that under the current philosophy of

government, the people can be effectively helped. Few things upset me more than seeing how much of the people's

work goes into funding a government, fighting wars and such that shouldn't. Every program to help the needy is rife

with injustice and waste. I would much rather those resources go to the people who need them. I will

enthusiastically support ways of helping people but when you talk about these programs I see another burden on the

country in general. Maybe that's my fault for not asking where we will cut other expenses in order to fund these

programs. We cannot just keep adding expenses in the hope that the other side of the equation will work itself

out.

Again, a point we differ on is the value of debate. There is no harm in it so long as it is handled well. I

am not harming you by differing on how we can get to the point we both agree is where we want to be. You don't

believe in my course of action, I don't believe in yours. Is it possible that neither of us understands the

other's viewpoint well enough? From your long post above, I'd say it is very likely you don't understand anything

about how I believe. How else can we gain an understanding of one another than by open discussion? I see many of

your comments in the same light you see mine and I am sorry if we are misunderstanding each other so badly. I enject

humor trying to lighten things up in the hopes that we can come to some form of understanding if we both will stop

digging our heels in.

My intent is not to block or confuse but to push in the direction I believe is the right

one, the same as you. But I do not believe the solution can come from the top down. It has to be done by the people

forcing the change at the top. But until all human rights are an integrated part of our thinking it will not happen.

The first and foremost human right, in my opinion, is the right to persue happiness. I cannot support any law that

forces people to conform to your point of view or any other. Debate, discussion and agreement are acceptable but

coercian in any form is not. You used Felstorm as an example and it is a good one. How can you say we have freedom

of religion when the athiests can block the free expression of religion? We cannot even discuss religion in places

of learning for fear of offending one group's religious beliefs. That's freedom of religion? When we block one

freedom we open the door to blocking others and our freedoms are slowly whittled away. I always will fight anything

that moves along that path.

PS. Sorry for the belated addition to my comments but I felt this should be

addressed as well. I could easily take offense at your remarks about my ignoring other's arguments in view of the

number of mine made both through PM and publicly that you have either utterly failed to even acknowledge or have

dismissed as right wing. If you feel I should address every statement, I will so long as you offer the same

courtesy.

[a.k.a.]

I agree. I am

curious what you meant by the last sentence, though.

The most obvious effect IMO is that, by

targeting children, advertisements identify children as independent consumers.
This may sound terribly

conservative, but I don’t think a 6 year old should be in the position to drag his/her family to a fast food joint.

It’s not just a question of “spoiling” them. I believe it also gives them a false sense of independence; planting

the seeds of rootlessness at an early age.

Another problem is that advertisements exploit children’s

natural trust, empathy and predilection for magical thinking. When a little girl sees other little girls having

ecstatic reactions over some goofy doll (for example), she’ll expect the same ecstatic experience for herself. Of

course commodities never live up to their hype. Adults can hopefully figure out that commercial hype is just that.

But can a child make the same judgment? Or does she/he “learn” that there is some level of satisfaction that will be

forever beyond her/his reach — creating a permanent hunger for more and better commodities?

[belgareth]

Good observations. I agree it

is a problem. Is the solution to curtail such advertisement?

[a.k.a.]

Is the solution to

curtail such advertisement?
Sounds good to me.
For countless generations human cultures have

developed by teaching children how to satisfy basic needs by mastering specific skills. Now we’re taching them that

their needs are endless and the only skills they need are to whine, fuss and beg.
(Maybe it’s a good thing I’m

not a parent, because I’d probably be a tyrant.)

[belgareth]

Sounds good to

me.
For countless generations human cultures have developed by teaching children how to satisfy basic needs by

mastering specific skills. Now we’re taching them that their needs are endless and the only skills they need are to

whine, fuss and beg.
(Maybe it’s a good thing I’m not a parent, because I’d probably be a tyrant.)My kids

thought I was a tyrant. :) Now I see my eldest using the attitudes and approaches on her own that she so disliked as

a kid.

In part, we parents are too blame for allowing it. We can turn off the TV, we can refuse to overwhelm

them with toys, we can even spend time with them and teaching them.

I can't tell you the number of times I've

seen kids in stores get their way by whining, screaming, crying or some combination. A few years ago we had this

neighbor who had taught their kids to keep asking for something and the answer would change from no to yes.



Those are often the same parents that don't make their kids help with housework, help around the yard, dole out

money on a whim and so on. Then these poor kids get out in the real world and discover that it doesn't work that

way. They have to pay their credit cards and wash their own sock and sweep their own floors. CULTURE SHOCK!!!

I

sure wish kids came with a manual.

[MOBLEYC57]

In part, we

parents are too blame for allowing it. We can turn off the TV, we can refuse to overwhelm them with toys, we can

even spend time with them and teaching them.

I can't tell you the number of times I've seen kids in stores

get their way by whining, screaming, crying or some combination. A few years ago we had this neighbor who had taught

their kids to keep asking for something and the answer would change from no to yes.

Those are often the same

parents that don't make their kids help with housework, help around the yard, dole out money on a whim and so on.

Then these poor kids get out in the real world and discover that it doesn't work that way. They have to pay their

credit cards and wash their own sock and sweep their own floors. CULTURE SHOCK!!!

I sure wish kids came with a

manual.
You couldn't have said it better, Bel, and it sounds just my daughter, in which my fingers are

crossed to finally get her, after three promises, after this school year - 10 going on 40. Her mom's only way of

showing her love is to give give give. Spoiled to the core, and can tell you anything that happen on Eliminate a

Date, and just sent me a school picture with lip stick on! :frustrate It's terrible!!!! If I say something, her

mom's punishes me by disappearing for a long while without a phone call. And even worse, the only thing I have is

prayer ... with hopes that I'll become a GOOD responsible parent, and that this time, I get her. :thumbsup: For I

think it will be enough time for me to help her see before she hit her NO WAY AM I GOING TO CHANGE teens!

[belgareth]

Mobes,

You may be getting

custody of your daughter? That's great news. I envy and pity you. My daughter was 6 when I got custody. My most

vivid memory was sitting at my little table in my apartment watching her and 3-4 other little girls running and

screaming through the apartment and wondering what I had got myself into. After that there was camping trips, the

zoo and museums, doctor's visits and school. One real adventure was when she joined girl scouts. More than 100

people in this auditorium for orientation and I was the only male.

All in all, those were some of the finest

days of my life. And because of those days, my daughter and I are closer than most. You've got a lot of great times

ahead of you. Good luck!

Ok, one last thing, Love is almost always the best answer. Give her all the hugs and

gentle, kind words you can as well as all the support and understanding you can muster. Every kid wants and needs

it.

[MOBLEYC57]

Mobes,

You

may be getting custody of your daughter? That's great news. I envy and pity you. My daughter was 6 when I got

custody. My most vivid memory was sitting at my little table in my apartment watching her and 3-4 other little girls

running and screaming through the apartment and wondering what I had got myself into. After that there was camping

trips, the zoo and museums, doctor's visits and school. One real adventure was when she joined girl scouts. More

than 100 people in this auditorium for orientation and I was the only male.

All in all, those were some of the

finest days of my life. And because of those days, my daughter and I are closer than most. You've got a lot of

great times ahead of you. Good luck!

Ok, one last thing, Love is almost always the best answer. Give her all

the hugs and gentle, kind words you can as well as all the support and understanding you can muster. Every kid wants

and needs it.Thanks, Bel! I've read that book! Got it memorized, with a few additions ... licking her nose,

and biting her stomach! :thumbsup:

I just hope this is ONE time that her mom gives her up. I've been promised

twice before ... everytime something goes really wrong, is the pattern. We'll see what God has planned, and I'm

hoping I'm the chosen one! :thumbsup:

[belgareth]

Thanks, Bel!

I've read that book! Got it memorized, with a few additions ... licking her nose, and biting her stomach!

:thumbsup:

I just hope this is ONE time that her mom gives her up. I've been promised twice before ...

everytime something goes really wrong, is the pattern. We'll see what God has planned, and I'm hoping I'm the

chosen one! :thumbsup:
I hope it happens for you.

[MOBLEYC57]

I hope it

happens for you.
Thanks, Bel! :thumbsup: I'm praying hard for it to happen, and be the best choice for

her. :angel:

[DrSmellThis]

Your daughter deserves you.

[MOBLEYC57]

Your daughter

deserves you.
:type: That's what I feel ... Actually, she deserves both of us, and I'm aware of what

you mean, but since the other half's love for her doesn't know HOW to get her ready for this big & cold world,

I'm hoping that GOD has me as the major player for her preparation for this thing we call LIFE. So far my role has

been weak ... I'm mentally prepared now, and ready. As the world turns ...........

Thanks,Doc! :wave: