The Social Reformer

Survey Says...

noreply@blogger.com (Kil) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:41:00 +0000

A UN survey had only one question:

"Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"

The survey was a huge failure:

In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.

In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.

In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant.

In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.

In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant

In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.

In the US they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.

And in Australia they hung up because they can't understand an Indian accent.

I found this posted on the wall of the Business Finance professor at my University.

Sorry I've been gone for a while...you can also check out my posterous:

http://rubenharris.posterous.com

Dear Journal

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:53:00 +0000

Many people suffer from feeling alone. Thousands of people walking the streets and hundreds walking the office, and still we often feel so alone. It seems that the very things that make us feel alone are the same things that would undoubtedly give us the support and communication that is so vital. They are those horrible situations that have happened to us, those unthinkable grievances that we all suppress into the darkest recesses of our memory—deep enough not to affect the way others see us, but still present enough to create the cold feeling of being terribly and utterly alone. It seems that we have furnished our comfortable lives with so many masks of control, stability, and independence that we have become professional life-realtors: we can show our lives to each other, convincing one another of the perfect emotional or financial status that we pretend to all enjoy. If we were to swallow our desire to control the uncontrollable and stabilize that which is already unstable and just open up to one another, throwing out our pathological phobia of being vulnerable, we would see that we have more in common with each other than we may understand. Every situation is different, but the feelings that we feel are often shared.

The first step that is needed cannot realistically be finding someone and telling him or her of your deepest, darkest secrets—maybe in a perfect, idealistic world you could. What is needed is to tell yourself what you feel. Is it possible that one of the main reasons that we feel alone is that we don’t understand why we feel the way we feel—feeling lost in the crowd, alone in this isolation. Self-awareness is important for self-development. The best way to mature and grow is to find, realize, and admit where maturity and growth is needed. This may seem so obvious and over-generalized, and admittedly, it is. But that does not make it any less true.

There must be a way to fight the greatest enemy posing a threat to our emotional security: ourselves. Journaling is certainly one way. Journaling is perhaps the most effective and direct way to get a deeper understanding of yourself and the world around you. By putting your thoughts in writing, you trigger some unique mental processes that often lead to invaluable new insights. Even still, directing your words onto paper is not easy for many people; the difference between the idea that is in your mind and words that come out attempting to describe it sometimes just don’t match up… and it gets frustrating. But the truest aspect about journaling is that it the best place for introspection and growth that is available.

However, do not let your words become a stage to try and find pity, affirmation, or attention. Only when you write with the knowledge that no one will ever read the words that you are writing—when there is truly no other audience but yourself—only then will your words come out in the honesty that is necessary to understand the feelings that create the heavy burden that weighs on all of our minds, individually.

Polymaths such as, Leonardo da Vinci and Thomas Edison, were firm believers in using notebooks and journals as tools to record their ideas and feelings, much like modern creatives use pda's, netbooks, blackberries, etc. Try to write several statements a day that start with "I wonder,why, how, etc...”

If you're pressed for time you might consider mind mapping. Mind Mapping, is a great way to save space and time when you journal.

A mind map is a design used to represent words, ideas, tasks, or other items linked to and arranged around a central key word or idea. Mind maps are used to generate, visualize, structure, and classify ideas, as an aid in study, organization, problem solving, decision making, and writing.

The elements of a given mind map are arranged intuitively according to the importance of the concepts, and are classified into groupings, branches, or areas, with the goal of representing semantic or other connections between portions of information. Mind maps may also aid recall of existing memories.

If you choose to mind map remember that "everything connects" (e.g. Imagine a flower. Draw a picture of the sun). Making connections between things that are dissimilar is an asset when it comes to creative thinking. Practice thinking about how different things relate to each other, and how different things can be combined to make something completely different.

Basic Rules for Mind Mapping:

1. Sheet sideways.

2. Pen or computer

3. Select topic, problem or subject and purpose.

4. Start in the center of the page.

5. Use color to trigger memory. Each separate main branch
has a different color and each sub-branches for that main
branch stays with that branch's color.

6. Branches closest to the center are thicker.

7. Each idea starts a new branch.

8. Use images to express ideas whenever possible.

9. The image or word needs to sit on the line and in print.

10. The line needs to be the same length as the image or
word.

These are your memoirs and are only a few methods on how to keep a journal. Not all journals will change history, but they will enhance your creativity, reduce stress, help focus, etc. if used properly.

Wondering how to achieve a small measure of immortality? Keep a journal.

Adam T. Wamack (A Young Influence)
Ruben Harris

Clearly, You Must Not Know Our Women

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:13:00 +0000

Equality, in all its forms, has been a topic of intense debate. Yet, even though fantastic steps have been made in the right direction, we live in a world that still espouses inequality. Gender equality—women’s rights, empowerment of women—has been one of the areas that has made some of the greatest leaps towards this goal of equal rights, treatment, and opportunity; however, deep-rooted cultural beliefs sustain gender inequality. Yet women are still much more powerful than they let themselves be. What is needed is a continuation of what has been started. Simply because great strides have been made in the right direction does not mean that it has ceased to be a direction still worth heading towards, a goal still worth achieving, a necessity still worth fighting for.

Even if men were, in our future, to be the only leaders, the fact of the matter is that nearly every man was raised by a woman. Again, hypothetically, even if women never become the leaders in our world, they historically have a responsibility to our world—the responsibility to raise those leaders of our future into the type of men they want to lead. The future of our world belongs to the youth—man and woman—and it is up to them to lead our countries, feed the world, and to fight for peace when we are gone. Who is it that will teach them to be moral or immoral, just or unjust, steadfast or corruptible? It is they who raised them: most of the time, a woman.

“As the bearers of the lives that foster the growth of society, it is therefore evident that society itself is dependent upon those same women.” –T. Hoffman

In the past it has been the right to vote, the right to equal treatment before employers, the right to never have these rights denied them because of their gender. In 1920 the XIX Amendment was ratified becoming part of our Constitution affirming that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex;” and in 1972 the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) was passed by Congress affirming “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on the basis of sex” (**see note at end of article). The women’s movement, spearheaded by organizations such as NOW (National Organization for Women), has certainly been one marked by success—and rightly so.

However, what is to be done now—where have all the feminine soldiers gone? The answer is: absolutely nowhere! They are all around us, make up over 50% of our country’s (and world’s) population, they are in our workplaces and in our houses, they are teaching our children and they are deciding our futures, they may even be reading this blog. Whoever and wherever you are, my beautiful “Feminine Mystiques” (check out Betty Friedan, 1963), my loving demonstrators of tenderness, my powerful female soldiers, understand that you are the ones who hold our future in your able and ready hands. Get up; stand up! Be what you were born to be; be the woman that you should be!

**As a side note, it should be kept in mind that the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) that was previously mentioned, although it was passed by Congress, was never fully ratified by the necessary 38 states and is, as of today, not a part of our Constitution. As of now, 35 states have ratified it, but until another three states do… it will not become the XXVIII Amendment. If you are a woman looking for a place to put your fight, don’t become a rebel without a cause (like James Dean in 1955), call you neighbors, write your senator, find out what can and should be done, and above all remember: the only one who can change your universe is you; do NOT let that which you cannot do interfere with what you know that you can do.
“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.
--Edward Everett (1794-1865)

For more information on gender equality and the empowerment of women, check out these sites:

Promoting gender equality
Equal rights amendment

The Spartan Woman: Strong

Xerxes: You Greeks take pride in your logic. I suggest you employ it. Consider the beautiful land you so vigorously defend. Picture it reduced to ash at my whim! Consider the fate of your women!

Leonidas: Clearly you don't know our women. I might as well have marched them up here, judging by what I've seen.

What Are You Afraid Of?

noreply@blogger.com (Adam T. Wamack) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:25:00 +0000

If one’s goal is reformation, revolution, or renewal, one is most often faced with many dilemmas—many mountains needed to be climbed, proverbial rivers that need to be forged. Any great journey is beset on all sides by any number of deterrents, distractions, and obstacles. It is ambition that gets one through, ambition that keeps one’s mind on task. Without ambition, the journey would sooner or later come to a slow, dilapidated, out-of-gas end.

The truth of the matter is that many people are afraid of ambition. It is not failure that scares people; it is not failure that stays the hand where work needs to be done; it is not failure that keeps the feet from moving when walking is needed; it is not failure that terrifies the mind to keep one’s ideas to one’s self. It is success; it is the idea that you are powerful beyond perception, capable beyond comparison, and able beyond measure that fuels the icy claw of fear that grips the hearts and kills the ambition of so many.

Success is a story riddled with trial, and in so being is often avoided. It is never easy to purposefully put one’s self in harm’s way, even if there is a great goal at the end. That is where ambition comes into play—where ambition is needed. Ambition is that equipment needed to climb the mountain; it is the bridge needed to cross the river; it is the purpose needed to convince one’s self to continue on, to persevere, and to never give up.

Keep your ambition and you will be successful. It may not be overnight, it may not be overmonth, but keep your ambition to go forward, to take the next step, and to push past the obstacles that will be in your way. Even when blinded, move forward. Even without a map, keep your feet moving; never ever give up and stay stagnant—awaiting the end of your future and the beginning of nothing. Let your blood flow through your veins with vigor.

A society with ambitious people, coupled with morality and good causes, can overthrow the dilapidated system that has yoked us into submission. A social reformation will spark and easily go out like tinder trying to light a wet fire; but with ambition as the kindling, the fire with slowly, yet surely ablaze!

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Or deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, nor our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be…Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do…As we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.” Martin Luther King Jr.

I'll Give You A Million Dollars...

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:24:00 +0000

Almost any person can be persuaded to do something for a cash reward. Another person might be persuaded to do something based on emotions or feelings. Others, however, accomplish things simply because whatever they wanted to do is something that needs to be done. There are so many legitimate goals (personal, scholastic, work-oriented, etc…) that are often cast to the side because we have no independent motivation and/or no dependent, external motivation driving them. Let’s put this into perspective. A well-dressed, legitimate, man walks into your living room, unlatches his briefcase that he has placed on the table, and, upon opening the lid, allows you to look longingly upon $1,000,000 in cash. He looks at you and says “All of this money is yours if you finish your goal by the date that you said you would.” The deal would be over—case closed—whatever goal you had so little (if any) motivation for, all of a sudden is the sole purpose of life, motivated externally by money.

There are hundreds of things that lie dormant on our to-do lists like little reminders to ourselves that we will “one day get around to it”, “become more mature one day and drop this habit”, or just so that we can say that we do have goals, even if they never get worked on, let alone accomplished. These may be resolutionesque or they may be work related, but their existence is the one universal constant with the vast majority of people in our society and is therefore not today’s order of debate; on the other hand, it would do well for us to all, individually, look objectively at our lives and find what we are putting on the permanent backburners—find those goals that, since they never get done, define our procrastination (what irony that our procrastination is defined by our goals…just the goals we never do). Before one can move into working on a problem, the problem must be first understood to exist.

“I had decided to stop smoking,” my friend Tim was telling me the other afternoon, “and I was for sure going to stop this weekend, but there was a party that I had to go to, and I knew that I was going to want to smoke, so I decided to wait till next weekend, but I think there is another party…” And the story went on like this for a few more minutes of haggard head nodding and the complete depreciation of all the, to me, obvious advice I could give. I realized while my friend began describing the logistics of one of the parties that Tim was not unmotivated but was, actually, devoid of any positive motivation. The motivating factors were present (in this case: healthy mouth, lungs, teeth; save money; feel better/accomplished), but the motivation itself had completely vacated his life leaving accepted stagnation to fill the place it had once graced with eloquence and vivacity.

Tim’s problem may not be my problem, but then again, my problems may not be his; however, one thing is for certain: motivation, as a general norm in our society, is rarely found in an independent nature. Many times one will find motivation dependant on the ends that the initial means of motivation will procure (ie. Tim may not have had independent motivation to stop smoking, but when, for example, his girlfriend says she will leave him if he does not stop, Tim will immediately find dependent motivation to stop smoking: motivation found perhaps in love or in sex).

This is not to say that all dependent motivation is unhealthy. On the contrary, some of the most important motivators (means to an end) are dependent upon ends that are entirely different than the initial. But we must separate rules, theory, and quantification from principles, realism, and qualification. There may not be a specific philosophy to control motivation, although one could be complexly defined, but we all know that there are many, many things that we say we will do or that we know we should do that never end up getting done.

Everybody stalls. "Whats in it for me?", "I'm working on it!", or "These things take time, you know..." are common things we have all probably said at some point in our lives. Procrastination happens to the best of us. Why? Because we don't feel like doing it or because we haven't overcome our fear of doing whatever it is that needs to be done. Professor Piers Steel used mathematics to quantify and better understand the desire to complete any given task (Utility) that one may have; using expectations, levels of importance, sensitivity of time, and the such, he gives us a more scientific explanation for our procrastination.

U = EV/ID

The 'U' stands for Utility, or the desire to complete a given task. It is equal to the product of 'E', the expectation of success, and 'V', the value of completion, divided by the product of I, the immediacy of the task, and D, the personal sensitivity to delay.

If I said, "Ill give you a million dollars if you do said activity", I can guarantee you that for more than 90 percent of us, there would be a desire to complete the given task, you would make sure that it is successful, there would be value for completion, and it would be done immediately with little to no delays.

Without beating a dead horse, the point is this: there is always motivation of some sort; it may be legitimate motivation or it may be a “million-dollar” motivator, but it is there. The only factor that keeps anyone from doing their duties or accomplishing their goals is self (apart the obvious, innumerable, external circumstances that often arise). It is sad that with the offer of one million dollars to everyone one in the country, our society would see so many accomplished people arise from nothing but the grease from their elbows and the straps of their boots. Motivation is what stops you from doing what you’ve always wanted to do; from being what you’ve always wanted to be. Don’t wait for the million-dollar motivator that is unlikely to ever come; instead, tap into the same pool of motivation using just the goal in and of itself to push you with confidence and security. You will be surprised at the results. In order to change your world you must first change yourself.

Adam T. Wamack - A Young Influence
Ruben Harris (twitter.com/redstarvip)

The Values On Which Our Success Depends

noreply@blogger.com (Adam T. Wamack) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 04:00:00 +0000

Today, President Obama spoke to a nation about change, responsibility, and the use of old virtues to correct new problems: conservative words from the mouth of a liberal party-representative. We saw the distinct and fought-over lines of party separation crossed today in a leap of joint involvement and the peaceful transfer of power into the hands of a man bearing the evidence of our country’s final conquest of a haunting past of enslavement and inequality through the victory of maturation and growth. The great impact of his words were not like those of Kennedy’s inauguration speech—full of beauty and eloquence (although it was moving), but perhaps they were meant not to be; perhaps emotional highs are not in the best interest of our country’s future; perhaps realism and dedication are worth more than eloquence in this country’s current situation; perhaps a man as eloquent and well learned as Obama realized this.

If the change of the whole starts with the change of the individual, then there is a certain responsibility that falls on each one of us. However, positions of power carry with them the responsibility of leading by action; one could argue that the purpose of government is to direct, correct, and lead, and—in times where change be necessary—be the first to change.

A bi-partisan government has done well for our country (‘well’ being as relative as having-been-the-leading-world’s-nation-for-many-decades can be) for a long time. It should be stated that change does not mean a discard of the entirety of the old; it is not a signifier of “starting from scratch”. Marx’s communism (one of the best-known philosophies of change) was based in the idea of two opposing economic forces (thesis and antithesis) clashing and creating a new thesis out of the recently revolutionized thesis (synthesis). Not that an advocation of communism is our goal; on the contrary, it is not. But where has there ever been a good idea, even a GREAT idea, that was not riddled with the ever-present holes of human imperfection, that did not have spun into the fibers of its rug the threads of doubt, uncertainty, and our inability to tell the future not only of happenings but of other’s interpretations.

The Constitution of the United States of America is not omniscient nor all encompassing—it was never meant to be. The entire idea of “due process of the law”, defined by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hurtado v. California (1884) as “the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion, as the cases presented for decision shall require, with the reasoning on which such decisions may be founded” as delivered by Mr. Justice Matthews, is that the Constitution be malleable, changeable, and adaptable. We are well aware of the fact that change may be necessary—that the current state in which we are in may not be the perfect option, and the state into which we change may also one day be changed for the better. The philosopher T. Hoffman said it best in that “the existence of our absolute imperfections is our only perfect absolute.”

But this is not a discourse of cynicism or of depression; nor is it one of malintent. This is a discourse of hope! Not the blinded, unprepared, and unrealistic notions to which a discourse of hope is often espoused, but rather one of realistic optimism; one of a country where “men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall;” one of a country where “a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before [us] to take a most sacred oath;” one of “a new era of responsibility—a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.”

This country may hang by a thread, but where each of us sees our own, personal lives in this country as that thread we MUST realize that that means there are over 300,000,000 threads that hold this country from falling into the abyss of self-deterioration, apathy, and remorse. Those millions of threads, when worked together with the braiding spirits of truth, responsibility, action, and coalescence, form the rope that is strong enough and willing to pull this country back from the slippery slope into which it has been sinking.

Led by our new president, and watching his party-crossing search for truth, change, and new leadership of our great nation, then “we can join hands together and sing in the words of the old negro spiritual: free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last” (MLKJ): words that hold as much relevance to a young, black preacher from Atlanta, Georgia in the 60’s Civil Rights Movement as they do for a young, African-American Senator from Illinois leading the modern world into a new era.

Senator Oba—I’m sorry, President-Elect Oba—I’m sorry again, Mr. President of the United States of America Barak Hussein Obama: we at thesocialreformer.com thank you from the bottom of our hearts, and we salute you with all the dedication that your cries of “change” and “yes we can” have inspired. Lead us into a brighter future, with our minds aware of the hardships that will have to be passed in order to get there, but with our eyes constantly on the prize at the end of the race—on the light at the end of this long, dark tunnel of stagnation and sameness.

“What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government”

*All unsited quotes from Obama’s Inaugural Address: 01/20/2009.

Adam T. Wamack—A Young Influence
Rubén Harris (co-author)

Please Help Us Help Daniela's Family

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:51:00 +0000

The forces that accompany, and often drive, change are based in ideas. Without thought, study, and reason, actions would be whimsical and, more likely than not, detrimental to society… regardless of motive. It is through ideas that actions inherit their relevance and meaning. However, there is a time when ideas no longer suffice—when ideas do not complete that which needs be completed nor incur the effect that needs to be incurred.

A social reformer by definition is an actor. Not one who plays a part in a play, but one who puts ideas into action, that bring them from the world of ideas to make them real: physical proof of dedication to words spoken and promises made. There may be many ideas, and there may even be many GREAT ideas, but they remain nothing more until actions bring them to life.

Everyone has a part to play, and not every part is the same—nor should they be. One may have financial blessings and the ability to use money to incur a social good, whereas another, none less devoted to social reform but far less financially secure, may have different strengths with which to develop a better world; but the principle of acting on words (and not sitting on them) remains deeply imbedded in the hearts of both.

A recent story was brought to our attention, here at The Social Reformer (.com), of a man who has done what many overlook in gazing at the vast diversity of ability to contribute to a GREAT idea: he used modern technology, Web 2.0 fundamentals, and Humanity 2.0 characteristics to include in his quest for social betterment any and everyone who desired. Some gave a little and others more, but all gave what they could and, that which is infinitely more important, they all showed that their words would not go unsupported.

What follows is a story of a man who saved the life of not only a bunch of family members, but the life of the family as well. What follows is a story of a man who did not cast a blind eye at injustice. What follows is the story of a man who used technology to change the future of three little children… and with just the stroke of a pen.

What follows is a story of David Armano.

Adam T. Wamack--A Young Influence
Rubén Harris (co-author)

-Steve Hall of Ad Rants - Digital Neighborhood Comes to the Aid of Abused Woman

-BusinessWeek's Helen Walters - "The Collective Power of Individuals"

Repost: I've been at this blog for nearly 3 years now and have never asked for something like this—I hope I've earned enough trust to be able to ask something back from you. Above is a picture of Daniela and her family. Brandon, age 6, Daniela, age 9 and little Evelyn age 4. Daniela is divorcing her spouse after years of abuse. In recent years her mortgage went unpaid and she's lost her house.

As of this moment, Daniela's family is staying at our house and we are trying to help her find a one bedroom apartment for her family to live in. With Evelyn, her youngest having Down's Syndrome and Daniela herself being a Romanian immigrant with very little family support she literally has no one to turn to. Except us (all of us).

Daniela cleans houses when she can leave her family. I'm not even going to tell you what she gets paid—it's obscene. Right now her options are pretty limited, aside from an apartment, there is only a group shelter. Not very pretty.

Here's what we are asking. Right now, Belinda and I are opening our home, but it's tight as we have no basement. We've committed to giving as much as we can spare, diverting funds from other places. I'm asking if you could think about doing the same. Or at the very least, helping get the word out about this. We are looking to raise 5k for Daniela and her family. Enough so that she doesn't have to worry about a deposit or rent for a while.

I know this is the worst possible time to ask for anything. But would you consider the following:

1. Giving whatever you can ("Chip in" uses Pay Pal and it's very easy to donate and it's secure)
2. Spread the word. Please, please blog this, tweet this, re-tweet this.
3. Help find a donor (maybe a generous company or individual)

Glory: Mortal Reward Worthy of Pursuit

noreply@blogger.com (Adam T. Wamack) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:09:00 +0000

Mortal rewards for the mortal actions of a mortal man makes sense; however, the idea that a mortal man may do mortal actions and yet receive eternal rewards is a fundamental belief of Anno Domini (AD) religions, e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, etc. However, glory has often been looked down upon as being inherently full of pride and corruption. Yet glory, as an eternal concern on this temporal world worthy to be striven for, can be used to influence others in a positive way, rendering all the more people eligible to receive eternal rewards for mortal actions.

Treating those things that are mortal with only mortal concern would be to live aesthetically, forgetting faith, and to live without bothering to concern one’s self with eternal things. This however is impossible; forgetting faith would render life unlivable. Faith is taken into account in every aspect of life: evolution takes faith, atheism takes faith, religion takes faith. Fundamentally, we trust that chairs will hold us and that mirrors reflect us accurately, yes; but this is on a day-to-day level, often seen as of lower significance in comparison to grander, broader ideas. Science is the study of fact—empirical, calculable, and quantifiable data—and is therefore devoid of faith in study. Yet the moment it is incorporated to practice, faith becomes the underlying (and yet, overseeing) principle that guides the entire study. Faith is not religion based; religion is faith based. Faith is on a higher categorization than religion, evolution, creationism, science, or atheism. To not concern one’s self with eternal concerns is to take faith out of the equation, and since faith cannot realistically be taken out, one must always concern one’s self with eternal concerns, for every mortal thing has eternal concerns attached to it through faith, at least, if not through other attachments as well. Glory is an example of such an eternal concern—a concern that supersedes this world, this time, and this life in that it will be remembered at least by God, if not by history.

Glory, according to a believing Christian, on this Earth is meaningless; it will not be carried on into the afterlife. But I, and as asserts the philosopher and historian, Petrarch, believe that it does have its place. To advise one to “live without glory” is not based on doctrine, nor is it based on tradition even. This type of belief comes from fear—misplaced fear that makes the heart and soul feel that grace is not sufficient. Searching for glory may have problems, but glory itself is of no harm directly. I will admit, as does Petrarch, that glory can be a poison to the soul of a Christian, but it is not inherently evil as many would have it be. The good in glory is that once glorified, influence is gained. If the glory was won through ethical and moral merit, then that influence can be used to an extreme level—to being able to carry more to God with less pride. To be stripped of glory is to be humbled, but to be given glory is not necessarily to be prideful. Was not King David glorified; was not Paul glorified; was not Peter glorified?

The difference between glory for personal acquirement, and glory for reflected vision from one’s self to a greater good (e.g. God, morals, freedom, etc.) is that the glory is used as a stepping-stone or as a soapbox, respectively. Whereas Augustinus implores Fransicus to “forget your own advantage in trying to bring advantage to others, and this in the vain hope of glory you waste unwitting this brief span of life,” I would rather say that remembering our advantages in trying to bring advantage to others, through a valid hope of glory, will unwittingly bring meaning and hope to, not only our own brief span of life, but to that of many, many others, too. Influencism requires influence to be able to bring about change in a larger group. This change may be good or it may be bad, but one should never forget the advantage of striving to gain it in order to give it back to the people once more—to be able to “give yourself back to yourself” truly, and not just keep one’s self private in the glory sense. In other words, if you have been given the gift (advantage) of attaining glory (and subsequently, influence), to keep one’s self only in one’s self would be burying the talent in the ground when the master leaves; on the other hand, using this gift to give back to yourself so that you can give back to the people (lead the people correctly through influence) is multiplying that talent and returning to the master’s hand more than what was first given.

Humanity 2.0: A Call To Action

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:43:00 +0000

To define Humanity 2.0, we must first define humanity. Humanity is the combined group of people with the qualities that accompany the act of being humane. To be humane is characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed.

The first aspect of Humanity 2.0 has its base in Web 2.0 ideals. To understand this concept one must know that Web 1.0 is the one-way flow of information through websites which contain "read-only" material. The idea was to go to the Web to get information. Web 2.0, on the other hand, is the decentralization of the production of the content on the Web; it became "user-generated". Different social medias such as myspace, twitter, and blogs are products of Web 2.0 and are tools that are primarily used via the internet and mobile devices, and can now be used for inter-user discussions and presentations of important issues or be simply the backdrop for interpersonal recreation or networking. Now the idea is still to go to the Web to get information but has changed to include going to the Web to give information as well. It is the union of sharing and learning.

Concordantly, Humanity 2.0 is still the idea that one must be humane but is now changed to include the idea that one must act using the social media options made available by the Web 2.0 interconnectivity. Humanity 2.0 is collaborating that which is already useful in the already developed world with that which will become and is already becoming useful in the developing world.

The second aspect of Humanity 2.0 is crowdsourcing: the act of taking a task traditionally performed by a working person, and outsourcing it to an unidentified, generally large group of people in the form of an open call. Crowdsourcing is a synonym for "participatory collaboration". Ideas without action are of little value. Changing ones thought patterns without changing how one behaves is not social reform. We need to use crowdsourcing to generate ideas and tasks via these social media options made available by Web 2.0.

“The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary belief for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe.”
– John F. Kennedy

Kennedy may not have foreseen Web 2.0, but he did foresee the idea of Humanity 2.0—communal cooperation for the change of society and for the destruction of world poverty, of child malnutrition, of the lack of proper education, and of many other social negatives.

It is not social reform if you only change the way you think; actions need to be present for reform to even exist. Many ideas have risen throughout the years that for some reason have simply not been enacted into society. Why is it that great ideas die out over time? The reason is because there were no actions. As a history major, it is my job to study socio-philosophies and ideas that have risen and fallen, risen and fallen. There is only one of three outcomes for the teleology of any idea:
• Category 1, it will change the ideas of the society;
• Category 2, it will change the actions of the society, but only insufficiently enough to be a tainted and corrupted percentage of the original idea, having been manipulated by greed and lust for power;
• Category 3, it will change the actions of the society in its pure form based on the intelligence, integrity, and influence of those the idea impacts.

Unfortunately the vast majority fall into Category 1 and we are forced to watch sadly as the idea falls out of the scope of the society to join the ranks of the illustrious—the innumerable ideas that over time have been known and understood but simply not been enacted. Some examples of this common phenomena are
• power that does not corrupt,
• honest leadership,
• and even world peace.
Ideas that we have all agreed to be beneficial for our society, but have never had the unity to put them into action in our society.

A much smaller percentage fall into Category 2 and make it into actions that unfortunately are made by corruptible, power-hungry, and greedy CEOs, politicians, and many other positions of social pull and power. Some examples of this are:
• communism,
• Christianity
• capitalism,
• and even freedom.
Ideas that, in theory, would be completely beneficial for all the members of the society, but are, upon the attempt of incorporation into society, sadly twisted through greed and the selfishness of people in positions of power.

A very miniscule amount of a very small percentage of ideas fall into Category 3 and arrive intact and whole on the side of action in a society. Some examples are:
• The Protestant Reformation,
• the Enlightenment,
• modernization
• and the Industrial Revolution,
Now although many of these ideas had faults in practice that were not directly inline with the perfect idea, the end result of the actions were close to the original intent. They make it into society and are incorporated for a time. The sad truth is that they so seldom stay for any meaningful length of time in comparison with how often those ideas of the corrupted Category 2 seem to guide our governments and civilizations. John F. Kennedy observes that "united there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder."

Although neither I nor JFK, I am sure, want to sound pessimistic, I cannot help but see the possibility that this failure to gain action symptom might happen to our idea. But there is only one solution to stopping the onslaught of unhealthily corrupted ideas, and that is to be a socio-unified family and coalesce together to maintain the proper leadership, proper distribution and delegation of power, and proper participation of the populace.

However our world is not in this mindset. We are fighting internally and tearing ourselves apart from the inside. The last time our country was fighting internally it was when slavery and continued misconduct of both the Northern and the Southern States drove our country from secession, and war shortly thereafter. After four years of unparalleled bloodshed up to that point, the reelection of a haggard and worried Abraham Lincoln signed the near-coming end of the war. What remained was a broken, scarred, and ununified Union. The solution was the Reconstruction. Whether radical or reserved, everyone in the country agreed that a reconstruction process was needed. Through their actions the end result of all the states entering back in the Union and their governments being rebuilt was achieved.

This time in our own personal histories right now may not be the same. We are not at war with ourselves… or are we? We are not slowly destroying our economy through greed, miscommunication, and hubris… or are we? We may not be walking up and down the streets with guns and killing the members of the opposing forces… or are we? We need to wake up and realize that although we may not be in a Second Civil War—an event that would be horrendous and frightening, but not surprising in the sense that it would be proclaimed—we are most certainly in a hidden war with ourselves, a hidden war against certain geographic locations, a hidden war against misplaced stereotypes. And what is more dangerous and self-damaging than the war that you do not even know that you are in?

There needs to be two things happening: the ending of this Hidden Civil war, and the beginning of the Second Reconstruction. Through changing our actions and unifying our minds and aspirations for Social Reform we can land the idea of a Second Reconstruction into Category 3—into actual incorporation in the physical world that we live. JFK once gave a similar call to action as he called for "a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself."

These ideas of Humanity 2.0 and the Second Reconstruction are only just words if we fail to act upon them—if they become carelessly lain aside to gather dust in the inevitable tick of time. But if they are acted upon then they become more than just words—they become change, they become restoration, they become freedom, they become revolution, they become the end of segregation, they become the rights of single mothers, they become woman's suffrage, they become peace, they become equality, they become a Second Reconstruction. Through actions and unity, anything is possible. It is up to us to see that our words become the end of poverty, that they become the end of ethnic cleansing and holocausts worldwide, that they become the beginning of a return to intellectual, responsible, and integrity-filled leadership. May we unite to bring about the changes that our family of strangers requires of us: the generation of power.

“This epic before us is going to be written by the hungry Indian masses, the peasants without land, the exploited workers. It is going to be written by the progressive masses, the honest and brilliant intellectuals, who so greatly abound in our suffering (Latin American) lands.” – Che Guevara

Adam T. Wamack--A Young Influence
Rubén Harris

A Family of Strangers

noreply@blogger.com (Adam T. Wamack) — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:42:00 +0000

Losing family causes us to find family. It may not be flesh and blood but the ties are no less strong. It is in sadness that we find and need comfort. It is in comfort that true family is made manifest. It is through this true family that we cope with the loss of the original family. Family needs not be part of a genealogical tree, but rather part of our hearts and systems of reliance and comfort and coalescence. We need to understand that it is family that makes us who we are—it is our environments that create us, that mold us.

Why does losing family hurt so much? It is because we see it as a special part of the unity we had leave our lives. This special part is not dependant upon others; it is the others that make up the special part, yes, but that special part exists whether or not those who fill it leave or not. It is unity that makes a family, not the members therein. The hardest part of understanding this special part is to understand that it is not the people that make it. The same as it is not the clouds that make the sky, although they fill its breadth often to completion, the sky exists without them—it is the atmosphere that makes the sky; if the clouds dissipated, the sky could always be filled over again. The same as it is not the fish that make up the ocean, although they fill its depth often in a glorious rainbow of diversity that seems to fill the ocean to capacity—it is the water that makes the ocean; if the fish dissipated, the ocean could always be repopulated. This is how it is with family; it is not the specific people that make up the family, although they fill the heart with inter-reliance, joviality, and trust—it is unity that makes the family; if a one of the family were to die, or were to turn against the others, or were to move away forever, the unity between the remaining family members (and those who are added) endures.

Therefore, family without unity is not a family at all, because the family is the unity, not the members. This is a hard concept to grasp because it seems so impersonal, uncaring, and cold. However, were family to be based on the members only, than one could use the word family to mean any number of lesser relationships. But it is in unity that family is based and therefore is dependent upon there first being unity in order for there to ever exist family.

In the love that is found in between family members we see the unity. Mafiosos had families as the main construct of their regimes because it is in the unity that is formed by the members of the whole that creates the security and construct needed to run such an organization. Organized crime thrived because they used the unity of family to support negative ideas. What would happen if we expanded our concepts of family to concentrate on the unity: a unity that is perfectly capable of including those not of flesh and blood and to then use it to support positive ideas? What if we used this unity to coalesce and, as did the mafiosos, trust and rely upon one another fully and without restraint or mercy, demanding the reciprocation of that unity? We could change society as certainly as the clock strikes midnight.

The family that matters most is our blood family—we have spent the majority of our lives with them. However, even though this family is extremely important, we cannot simply allow family to stop at this level. Imagine the level of potency any organization, be it an entire society or even an organized crime group, could attain if they saw one another as family—if they united together and stayed true to that unity. Imagine what would happen if we had unity across the globe: if our world was a family. It sounds impossible, idealistic, and idiotic, but through the eyes of the child is the world seen as it should be; through the eyes of the child does society actually make sense. Children do not use motive, selfishness, and personal gain—at least they used to not. Family, to the child, does not stop at blood. We should see unity in those around us, in those we trust, and learn to trust others and to be trustworthy.

Our society is a family… were we to have unity. If we unite and have the common purpose of reformation and social betterment, leaving the immorality of the mafiosos behind, then we will be a family. From the perspective of a nation, the function of family is to maintain were maintaining is required and to change where change is required. I challenge you to find unity not only in blood, but also in the family that does not show up in your family tree, because every step towards trust is a step away from negligence, every step towards unity is a step away from dilapidation, and every step towards family is a step away from social decay. Change of the whole starts with the change of the parts.

A Foundation For Life Long Learning

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:15:00 +0000

No man or woman, past or present, has fully explored the capacities of the brain. Leonardo Da Vinci is one of the most inspiring examples for those of us wishing to explore our fullest capacities. We are all gifted with an almost unlimited potential for learning and creativity. Michael Gelb has made an attempt to codify the principles implicit in Leonardo's work so that they can be used by others (us).

The Seven Da Vincian Principles
1. Curiosity (Curiosita) - An insatiably curious approach to life and an unrelenting quest for continuous learning.

2. Demonstration (Dimonstrazione) - A commitment to test knowledge through experience, persistence, and willingness to learn from mistakes.

3. Sensation (Sensazione) - The continual refinement of the senses, especially sight, as the means to enliven experience.

4. Smoke (Sfumato) - Becoming open to the unknown. A willingness to embrace ambiguity, paradox, and uncertainty.

5. Art and Science (Arte/Scienza) - Whole-Brain thinking. The development of the balance between science and art, logic and imagination.

6. The Body (Corporalita) - The cultivation of grace, ambidexterity, fitness, and poise. Balancing the body and mind.

7. Connection (Connessione) - A recognition of and appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things and phenomena. Systems thinking.

I have a firm belief that there is a native capacity for reason in every man/woman. I also believe that these principles are a solid foundation in our life long attempts to acquire wisdom. The following paragraphs are my interpretations of these principles, and how we can use them to uncover our "hidden" abilities, sharpen our senses, and liberate our unique intelligences.

1. Curiosita - All of us have an innate sense of curiosity. As children, we are compelled to search for answers to things we do not understand. A child understands that questions are fundamental in the development of his knowledge base. Individuals who constantly seek to expand their base of knowledge, are open to the concept that conventional ways of doing things can be modified.

2. Dimonstrazione - We must have a willingness to learn from our mistakes. A mistake is a synonym for experience, and experience is the best teacher. Our experiences provide a unique kind of knowledge. Some types of knowledge are indisputable, e.g., pecans grow on trees. The combination of knowledge with experience provides a means for people to come up with hypotheses that may or may not be accurate when they test them out. Children are capable of coming up with their own hypotheses based on their limited experiences in the world. Consider the following example: As a 5 year old, my aunt was riding in the car with her parents. They passed by a large cemetery, which she observed very carefully. She turned to her mother and said, "Mommy, when people die do they come back as flowers?" Clearly, she came to this conclusion based on her knowledge that when people die, they get buried in the ground, and that when you plant flowers you bury seeds in the ground too. Therefore, since this cemetery was full of beautiful flowers, in her mind when people die, they must come back as flowers (deductive reasoning). As adults we have a much greater amount of knowledge and experience than a young child. What happens to many of us is that we stop developing our own hypotheses and are content to just do things or think things the way everyone else does simply because its so much easier.

3. Sensazione - We perceive our experiences through the senses. Leonardo Da Vinci says, the average human "looks without seeing, listens without hearing, touches without feeling, eats without tasting, moves without physical awareness, inhales without awareness of odor or fragrance, and talks without thinking." Continuous sensory development will enhance our experiences, in turn allowing us to fully grasp the totality of the lesson(s) being taught.

4. Sfumato - In our quest for knowledge we will face the unknown. Young children are not ready to deal with the paradoxes of life. As we become older we become more comfortable with the idea that familiar things can be done in new and different ways. Sometimes we find out that the new way is better than what we thought had been ideal before. If we are willing to try things (open mindedness), we may be pleasantly surprised.

5. Arte/Scienza - Leonardo Da Vinci says that science and art are indivisible. He was not only a scientist who studied art, but also an artist who studied science. He was a "whole-brain" thinker. The left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex processes logical and analytical thinking, while the right hemisphere processes imaginative, big-picture thinking. Modern educational systems emphasize left-brain thinking and neglect the right hemisphere. The result is people who do well in school, but lack in creativity. People who are dominated by their right-brain are often ridiculed and categorized as "learning disabled". This approach fails to appreciate that an individual who is capable of using both their left and right hemispheres are the ones who are truly intelligent. The notion that individuals who are outstanding left-brain thinkers are the most intelligent on the planet is a narrow minded perspective.

6. Corporalita - Good physical health has positive effects on our attitudes and emotions. If the mind does not work, then the body does not. It works the same way in the reverse order. Sometimes instead of going to see a psychologist one should just eat a banana and some almonds.

7. Connessione - Leonardo Da Vinci never provided a table of contents, an outline, or an index for any of his writings. It seemed like his notes were written at random. He had a sense for connectedness. He didnt need to organize his notes because he saw how everything was related to one another. In one of his writings called "How to Make an Imaginary Animal Appear Real" he said, "if therefore you wish to make one of your imagined animals appear natural--let us suppose it to be a dragon--take for its head that of a mastiff or setter, for its eyes those of a cat, for its ears those of a porcupine, for its nose that of a greyhound, with the eyebrows of a lion, the temples of an old cock, and the neck of a water tortoise." So it is in life, you can take what has always been and use it in a way that was never done, and it may become more than what you had ever imagined.

The development of our minds seems to have fallen along the side of the road as our physical appearances have cruised ahead and taken the spot of focus in our lives. It is true that it is in the physical world that we are judged: our words, actions, and productions, however it is through the development of our minds--through the adaptation, evolution, and progression of our thoughts and mindsets--that we can incur those same physical manifestations of our inner beings. Until we break the paradigms that have held us captive, slaves to the sub-par standards of society that have undeservingly held the power in our interworking for far too long, we will never develop our minds to their greatest potential. By leaving yourself to fester apathetically in the same sanctuary of unchangingness in which you have reveled for so long in your own dilapidating intelligence, you are willingly choosing to be less than you could be: a fool's mission. The way to develop the mind is not adequately described in words, discourses, and theses; the true genius is in each one of us, showing us the way, guiding us to higher levels of thought, and molding us into higher-minded individuals. Be the change, or sit back and enjoy the "ride."

The book is available in our "Knowledge" section on the left side of our blog.

Ruben Harris
Adam T. Wamack (co-author)

Bibliography
Gelb, Michael J. How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Everyday. New York: Delacorte Press, 1998.

The Root of All Evil: Self

noreply@blogger.com (Adam T. Wamack) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 05:06:00 +0000

It is fairly common to see in ourselves the flaws of human nature—the day to day imperfections that make us all individuals even if inherently fallible. However, it is much more difficult to admit to any further incorrectness. We often cast the blame onto others, or onto the situation, claiming the innocence of the victim and shouting “erroneous!” with our actions, demeanors, and words. Men who would succeed in taking responsibility for their own actions—actions that demonstrate that they are not perfect in becoming men—are becoming scarce. St. Catherine of Siena spoke of such pride as the father of sensual selfishness, which is the foundation of every evil, and described its effect as one would describe a poison. One would tend to agree with her after having taken a simple glance at our world’s history of civilization, but the corresponding undertones in the effect of selfishness upon one’s life (or one’s country) are often neglected or unknown. Of pride is born selfishness; of selfishness is born evil.

Pride blinds one to the inherent good that could be done. Pride administers equality neither in opportunity nor in recognition of achievement. It would take the focus always off of others and have it rather be placed on one’s self. It stands smugly beside itself not only in the presence of past accomplishments but mainly in the understanding and belief that the future holds in store only more praise and admiration for the individual.

Reveling in attention from all sides, pride is not a sincere sense of accomplishment; it is the self-righteous piety in the rightness and legitimacy of one’s actions, words, or productions accompanied with the admonition of anyone who thinks otherwise. Pride takes any action that may have once had good intentions and defiles it, twisting and manipulating the means to incur an end that will result in the highest amount of recognition of one’s self from others. Pride in one’s self—be it in production or action—and not in a collective goal achieved by many, poisons the mind with an addictive void of unfulfillment, of a desire for more.

It is through this incessant longing to maintain pride, to continue to be the best, to always wish to be revered by others, to ignore criticism and to understand nothing but the praise of one’s actions—it is through this lusting desire that one’s mind becomes turned inwards. It is through the unhealthy sense of superiority that one finds the pomp required to care more for one’s self than for any other thing; it is through pride that selfishness takes root. The one whose face is turned constantly inwards needs search no further for whom he most cares.

Selfishness believes in no one; it trusts no one fully. Its ugly head rises only to the opportunities of further recognition. Selfishness looks at all situations from the vantage point of its own betterment and complies vehemently with its characteristics: grandiose in appearance, conniving in advocacy, and pompous in action. Those who find themselves so full of pride that they search for it by any means necessary already have as their drive the characteristics defining selfishness. By searching this way, their focus is on any way to get and to take.

However, it is very possible to be selfish and not act upon one’s sentiments, therefore it cannot be selfishness alone that invokes evil—actions are the actual evils. Still, since the action is impossible without the sentiment, and the sentiment cannot exist with being a part of the same mind that chose to act, that sentiment by which actions are inspired, influenced, and provoked retains the responsibility of the action. One could easier say that love is not the reason why the enamored poet writes than to imply that sentiments are innocent as actions were only guilty. It is through choice and action that selfishness is made manifest—that selfishness really exists; but selfishness is still inherently culpable because it wrought the actions.

Selfishness does not incur unselfish actions. Even if the end result is benevolent, because of intention and motive, the act itself was selfish: filled with malicious ambitions. It is possible that selfishness will only affect the one who wields it, but the extreme majority of situations involving selfish actions are hurtful to others. Every evil can therefore be traced to selfishness. Murder, thievery, covetousness, greed, envy, wrath, manipulation, and a whole entourage of evils all spawn from the desires of self-preservation and self-admiration.

The blinding fury of selfish men has reeked havoc on civilization since the dawn of time. St. Catherine saw it as the son of pride and the father of all evil. It is evident that when pride, the father of selfishness, is married to malicious ambition, the mother of evil actions, a family of evil is created with the potency to destroy the greatest of achievements: be it the heart of another, or an entire civilization.

Philosophy of History

noreply@blogger.com (Adam T. Wamack) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:31:00 +0000

From the beginning of historiography, a few major dilemmas have raged back and forth amongst the intellectual circles. Questions such as: is history an art—or is history a science; Is objectivity really possible, or are we forever trapped in the prison of our own privileged subjectivity, and if it is impossible to be reached, should it even be strived for? In my own personal philosophy, I see history as being an art largely influenced by science and paradoxically able to be studied objectively—yet only through our own subjectivity.

Science uses empirical data as a main source. In doing laboratory research scientists use clear-cut methodologies based on elements with unchangingly rigorous laws. Human beings on the other hand, are different. We have emotion and actions such as deceit, honor, or revenge. In other words we have motives. When a molecule of ozone comes into contact with an oxygen atom they combine to form two ordinary oxygen molecules (O + O3 —> O2 + O2) and thus, since the ozone molecule is gone, destroy the ozone layer. This is law; the oxygen atom has no motive or secondary agenda behind its actions. Science is based on law and formula to describe natural happenings. However, emotion and motive can change and therefore by definition cannot be based on laws or formulas. When humans, through combustion and the burning of coal and methane produce too many dirty oxygen molecules, they are destroying the ozone layer. Here we find motives—transportation, technology, civilization—behind the destruction. If one were to take a history of the ozone layer as a science, one would be only able to see its destruction scientifically on a chemical, atomic level, whereas if one were to look at it artistically, in the sense of using the knowledge of human reason, emotion, and motive to paint the picture instead of empirical data to dictate mathematical graphs, one would be able to see it as the effect of a civilization, industry, and technology.

Now, on the other hand, even though there is not a mathematical formula able to be placed on a civilization in history, with perhaps population, level of technology, and industry growth rate being different variables, that will tell us the precise percentage of destruction of the ozone layer, there is a helpful use for the empirical data that comes with such mathematics. Knowing the level of growth of a civilization and its industry is only possible on a macro scale, and on such a macro scale, civilizations have tended to follow similar paths. Hegel showed this in his “formula” of thesis—antithesis—synthesis. This is a formula, yet not a scientific one. It could be called an artistic formula. Therefore, while proving mathematical formulas and such empirical data as inaccurate if not mundanely synchronic, such data is useful to a diachronic history of a civilization. The artistic of history is its definition, while scientific is one of its useful tools: history is an art which is perfected with the use of scientific processes.

In the light of seeing history as a scientifically perfected art, we must decide if we are even able, or what could be far worse, allowed, to study history. We must decide if our looking at history will give us a skewed perspective through our privileged, subjective knowledge of the outcome, or if, by laying aside the cloak of subjectivity and donning that of objectivity, it is even possible—and if its not, we must decide if we should even look at it to begin with. Complete objectivity is, by definition of knowledge, impossible as we are looking back—as we already know that the outcome is us, here and now. As a result, the point of history is to see how and why we are the outcome; and what would have happened to us, as the end, if a different path had been taken along the way. For example, when the Roman Empire was fighting Carthage, we normally and subjectively look at it from the Roman’s perspective since we know that they in fact won the war and wrote the history about it. However, in our quest for Truth in history, we know that a war has two possible outcomes and winners, and we must therefore look at both outcomes to find motive in the initial war itself; we are in fact left with no other option but to be objective. To see the war from a Carthage point of view, and therefore discovering motive and tact, would mean to look at a part of history that did not in fact lead up to us and forces us to use objectivity. By in turn looking at the Roman’s in the same light, we can, through our knowledge of being subjective, can choose to be objective as we did with Carthage. History is using our subjectivity to choose to be objective; we are privileged in knowing the outcome of all history, and yet, with this knowledge, can choose to set this aside. With knowledge of the outcome we can choose to look at it in that light or to not.

Everything has a history: philosophical thought, science, geology, religion, politics, and even history, all have teleological lines which lead up to where they are presently. Not to say that such teleology was predestined, but simply: all topics of life have a specific history. Therefore, studying history is greater than studying any other subject. The level of thought is higher that of any other. I am proud to be such a student.

Adam T. Wamack--A Young Influence

Twibes: Follow The Leader

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:58:00 +0000

This article is based on Seth Godin's new book: Tribes. A tribe is a group of people connected to one another, connected to a leader, and connected to an idea. A group needs only two things to be a tribe: a shared interest, and a way to communicate. Tribes need leadership. Sometimes one person leads, and sometimes more. People want connection and growth and something new. People want change. Your leadership can provide that change. You can't have a tribe without a leader, and you cant have a leader without a tribe. Seth's definition of a tribe is strongly related to the new micro blogging platform, Twitter. Twitter is one of the ways to form a communication channel between the tribal leader and its followers. Through this means of communication you can create a movement. Your followers follow you because they have a shared interest or are connected to a common ideology. The leader gives its followers something to believe in. When your followers believe in your idea, they will evangelize it. Twitters method of evangelizing is through retweets, direct messages, etc. Twitter allows us to be change agents, and is what has inspired this article and the development of our new term: Twibes.

Twibe: A twibe is a group of people connected to one another, a leader, and a common ideology. They communicate through Twitter, are motivated by updates, and evangelize to others by becoming opinion leaders themselves.

Opinion Leader: An opinion leader, or buzz marketer, has extensive knowledge on a certain subject and lets other know he feels about it. People listen to what he has to say because he has gotten the influence and credibility needed for others to pay attention.

Twibal Leadership: Twitter is not updates on your life. It is ok to do it from time to time, but this is not a reality television show. A twibal leader begins by giving his followers something to believe in. Everything he does is related or inadvertently related to his and his followers goals. This does not mean eliminate the water cooler talk. There is value in water cooler talk. Water cooler talk is the very reason that we are more likely to hear about changes to the world at the proverbial water cooler (twitter) rather than straight from "the media" (tv, radio, etc.). My point is, do not get distracted and stay focused on your vision.

Interaction: As twibal leaders what should we be writing about? Being a twibal leader is all about developing a relationship with your followers. When they see that you put up an update, they need to get excited. Ask thoughtful questions. Do not judge one's wisdom by the answers given, but by the questions asked. Get links to other websites/books you're reading that you think your followers might be interested in. Do not just promote yourself. Get something that you think is worth retweeting to their own followers. That creates a win-win situation. Your followers are satisfied because they have interesting information to read about, and they are also given the opportunity to themselves become "twibal leaders" to their own followers. Direct messaging gives a personalized touch between you and your followers. Dont use it often. You want your followers to yearn for a DM. Show them that you care.

Silence: Absence makes the heart grow fonder. A delay in your tweeting gives room for your followers to respond to what you have to say. You do not want to annoy your followers. Strategically placed pauses are golden.

Hashtags: The power of a viral discussion. For example, we do "Book Review Fridays". I'll send out a tweet friday morning similar to "today is book review friday. what are you reading right now? tag it #breviewfri". A hashtag is the hash (#), followed by a word related to the discussion you are starting. Followers that respond to this discussion tag it with the same hashtag, etc. Hashtags are a good tool to use because there are many search engines (summize.com) and websites (hashtags.org) dedicated to them, and allow you to find out which ones are the most popular.

Private to Public: Whenever you are having a conversation through direct messages and you feel it is of interest to everyone, take it public. One of the key elements to be an effective twibal leader is inclusion. Nobody likes to be left out.

Media training: As a twibal leader some of the replies we give to our followers go public. When replying to your followers, try to include a bit of the message given to you at the beginning, along with your answer. This communication strategy has the potential to generate more conversations from other followers.

The beauty of a twibe is that it not only has unlimited potential for growth, but also that the hightened level of interconnectivity spawns only more growth: a leader sends a twit to all of his followers--followers who are leaders themselves. The strength of a tribe is in numbers; but the strength of a twibe is in potency. The influencialism of a twibe is the idea of its ability to speak to a few and influence many. Accordingly, a twibe follows survival of the fittest, yet not through strength; a twibe survives and thrives based on nothing less than merit. Corruption does not come into play; the power of a twibe is pure . . . or nonexistent. Take care to care and take your care with care. Don't be confused, leadership is gained through merit. It is an honor to be a follower of a great twibal leader because you simply obtain more information to pass to the followers of your own twibe.

Follow us @ twitter.com/redstarvip

Ruben Harris
Adam T. Wamack--A Young Influence (co-author)

Stoicism: Logic Without Emotion

noreply@blogger.com (Adam T. Wamack) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:47:00 +0000

The austere characteristic of stoicism was to make Rome a better empire. Many believed it then in Rome, many have believed it in recent decades, and many believe in those same principles, now. The goal was for all of man to live with conquered passions and to use reason to guide one’s decisions; Stoicism’s principles could have saved a human Rome had they been adopted accurately. However, to speak austerely and objectively in unpassionate reflection of such principles, one sees the ironic truth that a human world in which Stoicism was rule, in which Plato’s philosopher king ruled, and in which the ideals of Marcus Aurelius were made manifest, would be strikingly inhuman.

Stoicism was the governing Roman philosophy, and yet, as it is with most idealistic notions, was never adopted into action by the general populous. One of the fundamental beliefs associated with Stoicism is that there is a common law, one that is unchanging for all men regardless as to their acceptance of Stoicism. So, according to this philosophy, one encounters that Stoicism, as are most if not all philosophies at the fundamental level, is really just a description of the preexisting. To study or to believe in Stoicism is to simply come to terms with and accept the already existing fact of this common law and governing reason; to then use this knowledge to control and conquer one’s self would be the incorporation of its practice. However, it is unrealistic to believe in the assimilation of a singular principle into an entire empire—to believe that every citizen will follow a single set moral principle and way of life. Yet unrealisticism is not enough of an excuse to forgo necessity, therefore we continue on to a deeper point.

The philosophy of Stoicism, the idea of using reason to understand the common law of nature in order to conquer the passions and judge correctly and unbiased, even so far as to cast judgment upon one’s self, is strikingly and yet inherently flawed in its own practice. When one uses such an unpassionate rule of the mind, one must look not only inward, but also at the very principle of Stoicism itself. Ironically, the flaw in Stoicism may be seen only from the view of a Stoic—from the vantage point of one already under a Stoic influence; one must don Stoicism to accurately analyze its principles.

Stoicism’s conquest of the passions and utilization of the common law through reason goes against our very nature as human. It is our passions that make us human—our passion that gives us strength and ambition to surge forward, often against innumerable odds. The wild uncontrolled passion of the lover, those emotions that drive him to do the insane, to throw his life into harms way all for the sake of gaining love, is very impassioned. The deep reservoir of feeling uncovered in a poet’s work that seems to ooze out of his heart and quill pen onto the paper that holds the content of his existence is certainly impassioned. The sailor who prepares his ship and sets sail time and time again to embark upon new discovery, physical or metaphysical, reveals the unchartered and choppy waters of a sea unconquered, of a sea which calls and beckons the daring to brave her waters, of a sea of passion. And although the lover may burn in the fires of the castle or in the fires of unrequite, he will still fight for love; although the poet may embitter and despair through the mysterious ironies he may behold, he will still write for truth; although the sailor may struggle in vain to climb to the top mast of his sinking ship which has been tossed and turned by the unhindered waves of the sea, he will still sail for freedom. They will all continue because it is in our passions that our greatest work is accomplished.

It is not through reason that love is understood—love unreasonably finds and chooses those who are most times unprepared and unexpecting. More accurately stated, it is through reason that passions are understood—but the passions are still present. It takes the combination of both unhindered passion and alienated reason to reach the moderate virtue of wisdom. Were reason followed unbridled, it would be as unbeneficial as if passions were followed unbridled—which would be worse, I do not know. The two polar extremes are neither helpful nor infinite. A life ruled by reason would be undoubtedly uplifting and inspiring but would lack the spices that give life fulfillment and enjoyment. “The True and the Good, wisdom and virtue, the general terms beyond which Stoicism cannot get, are therefore in a general way no doubt uplifting, but since they cannot in fact produce any expansion of the content, they soon become tedious” (Hegel, 200)*.

Stoicism has inherent flaws, truly, yet all human doctrine is imperfect by nature of human creation. Yet, even apart from the imperfections bound to be present, the lifestyle of the Stoic, to me, still seems to be lacking; the life-view exemplified by Stoicism would be a purely human standpoint that remains out of touch with a deeper experiential basis (Kierkegaard, 27-34)**.

“Beauty can be defined, yet only understood through interaction—through actually seeing that which is truly beautiful. In the same way, life may be defined through reason, yet it is only understood through passionate interaction with its inner workings and experiences.”
T. Hoffman

* Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Phenomenology of Spirit. 1807.
** Kierkegaard, Soren. From the Papers of One Still Living. 1838.

The Seven Blunders Of The World

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 16:50:00 +0000

The Seven Blunders of the World is a list that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi gave to his grandson Arun Gandhi, written on a piece of paper, on their final day together, not too long before his assassination (1948).

1. wealth without work
2. pleasure without conscience
3. knowledge without character
4. commerce without morality
5. science without humanity
6. worship without sacrifice
7. politics without principle

This list was a result of Gandhi's search for the roots of violence. He called these acts of passive violence (greed, selfishness, hate, anger, etc.). Acts of passive violence generate anger in the victim, and since the victim has not learned how to use anger positively, the victim abuses anger and generates physical violence. He said that preventing these (blunders) is the best way to prevent oneself or one's society from reaching a point of violence.

These writings inspired us to write our own list of improprieties.

The Seven Blunders Of The World (our version)

1. words without thought
2. music without meaning
3. logic without emotion
4. religion without faith
5. family without unity
6. children without morals
7. wisdom without virtue

This list grew from our search for the roots of violence. We believe that preventing these (blunders) is a good way to prevent oneself or one's society from reaching a point of violence.

Billionaire Philanthropist: 1 Year Older

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:28:00 +0000

Bill Gates, one of the worlds top ~~philanthropists~~ social reformers, was born today October 28 (1955).

He is the worlds third richest person (Feb. 2008), and the second richest American (Oct. 2008).

Mr. Gates had his last full day at his company (Microsoft) June 27, 2008 and has announced that he plans to transition to full time work at his transparently operated (open meetings, financial disclosure statements, etc.), "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation."

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was created when public opinion decided that he could do more with his money. The charitable organization began as the William H. Gates Foundation (in 1994) and was inspired by the work of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. In 2000, Gates and his wife combined three family foundations to create the current, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

For more info on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation click below

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation focuses on problems that are ignored by governments and other organizations. As of 2007 Bill and Melinda Gates have given over $28 billion to charity, making them second most generous philanthropists in America.

The primary aims of the foundation are to enhance health care and reduce extreme poverty on a global level. In the United States they plan to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology.

The Foundation is controlled by three trustees:

1. Bill Gates

2. Melinda Gates

3. Warren Buffett

They are leaders in "Venture Philanthropy."

Venture Philanthropy, also known as "philanthrocapitalism", takes concepts and techniques from venture capital finance and high technology business management and applies them to achieving philanthropic goals.

Venture Philanthropy is characterized by

- Having the readiness to experiment and take chances on new ideas.

- Staying focused on results that can be measured. Donors and grantees check progress based on benchmarks that are determined collectively.

- Being prepared to shift funds between organizations and goals based on tracking those results.

- Giving, financial, intellectual, and human capital

- Funding on a multi-year basis - typically a minimum of 3 years, on average 5-7 years.

- Focus on capacity building, instead of programs or general operating expenses.

- High involvement by donors with their grantees.

The foundation was initially funded with $126 Million in 2000. The fund grew to $2 Billion in two years. On June 25, 2006, Warren Buffet pledged to give 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares ($30 Billion) spread over multiple years through annual contributions. "Buffett's gift came with three conditions for the Gates foundation: Bill or Melinda Gates must be alive and active in its administration; it must continue to qualify as a charity; and each year it must give away an amount equal to the previous year's Berkshire gift, plus another 5 percent of net assets. Buffett gave the foundation two years to abide by the third requirement." The Gates Foundation received 5% (500,000) of the shares in July 2006 and will receive 5% of the remaining earmarked shares in the July of each following year.

To maintain its status as a charitable foundation, it must donate at least 5% of its assets each year.

In October 2006 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was split into two entities: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, which manages the endowment assets and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (conducts all operations and grantmaking work, and is the entity from which all grants are made). It was also announced that there was a decision to spend all of the Trust's resources within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths. Reason being, that they wanted to ensure that the Foundation Trust not fall into a situation where the vast majority of its expenditures are on administrative costs, including salaries, with only token amounts contributed to charitable causes.

It is refreshing to see uncorrupted influence, a thing to which we can all aspire. Happy Birthday Bill Gates.

A Closer Look At Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Adam T. Wamack) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 07:33:00 +0000

For so long, the existence of, the gifts from, and the belief in a God have been topics so harshly disputed that they have created diabolical feuds between schools of thought and even wars between countries. To decide absolutely would be an obvious demonstration of ignorance, yet to take sides would be an expected manifestation of human nature. The question as to which side you are going to be on is really not even the main question—nine times out of ten your parents already decided that for you. Yet it is far too often that after choosing sides, we neglect to maintain a mind open enough to analyze not just the possibility of the other side being true (which many have done) but also what would one’s personal life actually be like if the other side was found to be assuredly correct. We see with eyes closed, and with mouths speaking. We deem automatic the truth of our beliefs, because they are our beliefs. We need to look closer.

With God out of the picture I stand in front of the metaphorical mirror. Could it be that, by myself, I am this weak? Is it possible that all of my training, good upbringing, and self-discipline falter away at the slightest possibility, at a mere inkling? Could it be that my roots go only so deep, my creed have only so weak a hold, my beliefs only so thin a basis, and my sense of self worth only so fragile an existence that they will be, like the seeds of a dandelion, full of fluff, whimsicalness, and naivety, scattered in the first slight gust of a soft summer’s breeze? Holding fast for no longer than the lion on his prey, as my ideals are attacked with a sudden viciousness and ferocity from my humanness which I so gullibly, and yet rightfully, blame for all of my lack of control. It is true: as the ocean is deep, as the sky is light, and the hills endless, so unchanging are my failures.

In so following, humanity without a moral authority (God), at its best, is an endless, selfish search in which the sole purpose is to better one’s self, in any and all aspects, at the expense of others. Accordingly, we believe that true wisdom lies in self-preservation. The selfishness of humanity is unparalleled in any other species, due to our uncanny ability of reason. Every other species instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment. Humans are the most intellectual beings this planet has ever seen, and yet we consume every natural resource, striving to better our own lives, complaining at our every minute discomfort. Generating only feelings of distrust, our intellectual minds set us apart from these supposedly inept species. The fallacies of man rendered by the cursed power of reason uniformly trace back to our natural selfish nature. Ergo, our greatest gift, the very one that sets humans above and apart from all other species, becomes our greatest curse. The irony of reason lies in the natural verity of mankind’s nature: self-preservation. Our intellect generates our stupidity. As a result we find that our greatest ally lies only within ourselves: the sole being that is truly trustworthy. Ultimately, aided by the continuing diminish in trust of others, our power to reason, and the key to our selfish nature, will destroy us in the end. This only deepens the problem in which we are. It is our very nature to rely on our self solely and fully. This is why it is so difficult to place trust in an intangible faith-enshrouded higher power. Ultimately, the gift of reason, given to us by God, is the very reason by which we choose to not trust or believe in God...the irony. Our greatest gift has become our greatest curse.

Yet, even when God is involved in a life, many people’s faith in a religion is just their misunderstanding of their faith in an idea: the idea of God. We believe in separate religions; we have faith in distinct beliefs, distinct, human interpretations of divine direction, of God: Muslim, Jew, Catholic, Baptist, Seventh-day Adventist, and all manner of separate religions. We fight, argue, and even kill over the belief, while the whole time we forget that belief (and faith for that matter) is an action verb: it is an action to a noun. The very word belief means there is something believed in—the idea behind the belief, be it evolutionism, atheism, or in this specific case, God. We have misunderstood the meaning of faith—of belief. How can we fight over separate beliefs when they are all beliefs in God? Oh the idiocy of man. Organized religion has been the greatest enemy of God, has been the greatest tool of “the Devil,” and is literally the reason, the very source of atheism in the world today. The world is confused.

The more fighting that is done in the name of God, the less people believe in Him. Yet—according to a religious man, a man who believes in God and is an active Christian—even worse, the greatest deception in our world is not atheism, agnosticism, nor is it science. The worst and most deceived are neither those who are on the outside of religion nor those who simply do not believe in God. It is the religious, the believers, the churchgoers who are most deceived. In times gone and past—the persecution in Rome, the Crusades in Jerusalem, the Inquisition in Spain—believers were forced to show their faith, to manifest in their faith, daily picking up their cross and daily being persecuted for it. The Devil’s tactics did not work to stifle the gospel as he had wanted, for it seemed that with every murder done, with every drop of Christian, Muslim, Jewish blood spilt, with every martyr made, the ranks of the believers augmented ten-fold. The power of God in the hands of men forced to rely on it every hour of their lives did nothing less than spread the message of good news on its own.

Seeing his failures in the past, the Devil was forced to change—to adapt. His tactics today are just the opposite: to let the religious live, let them prosper, let them blend in and mix with non-believers until the very line is meddled. The religious in many parts of the world are not forced with a choice, they are not forced to pick up their cross, not forced to rely on the power of God as they once needed to. In fact they are given the illusion of being in power or in control of their own lives. With the ever growing apathy in God—based in the lack of communication therein—the lives of the religious become ones of indifference and no dedication to their beliefs, nor to the idea: God. The lives led are ones of comfort, ones of unreality. The Devil has made religion an easy decision—nearly not even a decision at all. It is the same as deciding which shirt you will wear today, or which food you feel like eating at a restaurant: choices that seem meaningless, fickle, and whimsical.

The indifference we hold to the seriousness of faith in God is the Devil’s newest and most effective tactic. For when the time comes in the end to actually choose God or life, when we must die for our faith, it seems there will be no one ready. Our comfortable lives have numbed our responses like some drug to which we are hopelessly addicted, slowing our reactions and clouding our visions and judgments. We have had no need to choose anything. In order to reduce, rewire, and revamp our commitment of and to our faith, we must make a choice every day; we must not fall into dilapidation—we must restore our resolve; we must rework our dependence on God’s power and not our own. We must forget what organized religion has taught us to be important: the politics that lie within the church’s walls instead of the God who resides in the Sanctuary’s doors. “If anyone thinks he has faith and yet is indifferent towards his possession, is neither hot nor cold, he can be certain that he does not have faith. If anyone thinks that he is a Christian and yet is indifferent towards his being a Christian, than he is really not one at all. What would we think of a man who affirms that he was in love and also that it was a matter of indifference to him” (Kierk. 42)?

We deem automatic the truth of our beliefs, because they are our beliefs. We need to look closer and realize that there is no such thing as human perfection. History shows us that every time we as humans create something perfect, someone else comes along and creates something better. Even in ideas we have never had anything perfect. The teleology of science, philosophy, religion, philanthropy, etc., show us that we have evolved mentally—that we have built our ideas upon the ideas of others and that human knowledge is not only a continuation of learning in a lifetime, but a continuation of learning from generation to generation. We need to be open to the idea that we can still learn, that we can still change, and most importantly that our being perfect is neither needed nor wanted. We need to learn to accept our imperfections in order to embrace our potential. Learn to accept your neighbors, your enemies, and your mirror—regardless.

Kierkegaard, Soren. Works of Love. Harper & Row Publishers: New York, NY. 1962.

An Idea Worth $10^100

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 07:00:00 +0000

Google's "Project 10 to the 100th (10^100)", launched September 24 (2008), is offering as much as $10 million to up to five winning idea(s) that ~~change the world~~ make a contribution to social reformation.

Categories for the ideas being considered include: Community, Opportunity, Energy, Environment, Health, Education, Shelter, and Everything Else.

Why the name Project 10^100?

Google believes 10^100 is another way of expressing the number "googol," (a ten duotrigintillion), or a one followed by one hundred zeroes. Project 10^100 is an effort to produce these kinds of results by tapping into users (you) insights and creativity.

The deadline (October 20, 2008) to submit ideas passed recently, and submissions were received at Project 10^100.

100 semifinalists will be chosen by January 27, 2009. The public (you) will vote (Jan.27) online for your favorite ideas. A panel of judges will then review the "top 20" ideas and announce up to five winners in mid-February.

$10 million in funds will be awarded in May 2009. If 5 winners are chosen, each idea will be backed by $2 million. If 2 winners are chosen, they each will be awarded $5 million, etc.

click below for Google's video on "Project 10^100"

Discourse On Tax Cuts & Economic Theory

noreply@blogger.com (Adam T. Wamack) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:10:00 +0000

Why is there so much emphasis always placed on tax cuts when it comes to candidates and their platforms? Is it just the fact that people do not want to pay as much money? Why is it that Republicans seem to generally give tax cuts to the wealthy and Democrats to the lower class? Is it not political suicide to offer tax cuts to one and not to the other based solely on partisan principles? Why not just offer tax cuts to everyone equally or tax increases to everyone equally? Why is there this polarization of social status incentive?

The answer lies in economics.

There are two major schools of economists: the Classical economists and the Keynesian economists. To simplify their goals for purpose of comparison, the Classical thought is that government has no right to interfere in the economy. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776)—a product of the Age of Enlightenment—introduced what is called the “invisible hand” policy—the backbone to Classical economics: the “invisible hand” of the market uninfluenced by government will naturally push supply and demand (the two factors that define and measure consumption and production: the basics of economy) towards an equilibrium point at which the market economy will be working at maximum efficiency. Simply, according to Say’s law, supply creates its own demand.

Keynesian thought, on the other hand, (based on John Maynard Keynes’s The General Theory of Employment, Income and Money, a major work that was outlawed at publication just after the Great Depression in 1936 because of its implications) challenges the four Classical economic beliefs of (1) Say’s law holds, so insufficient demand in the economy is unlikely. (2) Wages, prices, and interest rates are flexible. (3) The economy is self-regulating. (4) Laissez-faire is the right and sensible economic policy to implement (laissez-faire is the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of economic ordering, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in economic affairs especially with reference to individual conduct or freedom of action.) According to Keynesian thought, a decrease in consumption, as in a recession, and subsequent increase in saving may not necessarily be matched by an equal increase in investment, therefore rendering a total decrease in expenditures—added savings does not necessarily stimulate an equal amount of added investment spending. Keynesians believed that there may be a need for government involvement to move supply and demand towards equilibrium.

A true and unadulterated free-market economy has never really existed; government involvement is pretty much always inevitable. But we must, as we continue our discussion on tax cuts, keep both schools of ideological thought in mind as we look at the realities of modern economics—a system which has incorporated certain aspects of both, but with obvious government involvement.

The idea of marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is crucial to understanding tax cuts. MPC is the percentage that will be spent of any amount of money added to disposable income. This percentage varies significantly based on wealth. For example, if a single, working mother with two children, living from paycheck to paycheck just to get by—a part of the lower class by financial standards—were to get a $50 a month tax cut from the federal government, more than likely 100% of that would be spent, probably on groceries or new shoes for her children or any number of necessities. For her, the MPC would be 1.00 or 100%. Now on the other hand, if Bill Gates received a $50 a month tax cut, he would more than likely not change his spending at all—unaffected by such a small percentage of money. For him, the MPC would be 0.00, 0%.

The level of consumption for any class or financial status, can be measured by adding MPC percentage of this additional money to the amount of spending already being done, called Autonomous Spending. This is represented by the formula
Consumption = Autonomous Spending + MPC(Additional Income)
This formula, C= C0 + MPC(Yd) as seen by economists, is the basis for understanding tax cuts. Let us assume that the Congressional Appropriations Committee passed a $10 billion tax cut for the next year. The Democrats would say to give that money directly to those people who are going to spend it (those who have a low MPC, the lower class) so that it will go directly to the market through spending, which would benefit the big businesses and upper classes directly, increasing CPI, creating new jobs, lowering unemployment, and increasing market demand which would raise the Real Gross Domestic Profit (GDP) and in turn push our economy out of recession and back into an equilibrium. The Republicans would disagree, saying to give that money to those who would directly save and invest it (those who have a high MPC, the upper class) so that the increased involvement in the markets would reduce interest rates, incur more borrowing of banks and individuals alike, causing businesses to increase and buy more capital which would then require a marginal increase in available jobs and higher wages for the lower classes. The unemployment would go down, CPI and real GDP would go up, recession would be avoided (or reversed), and demand and supply would once again find equilibrium.

Each policy has similar end results; that is not what is being debated between the Democrats and the Republicans. It is the best way to achieve these goals that is being debated. Republicans say that the Democratic method is reaching too far away from the Classical Economic theory, and the Democrats say that the Republican method is reaching too close to the Classical Economic theory—a danger of idealism vs. reality.

Top 8 Things You Need To Know

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:08:00 +0000

8.We Need Food

The U.N. food agency has announced that millions of North Koreans are facing a food crisis, but a South Korean official said that Seoul has not decided whether to respond to a request for food aid. Around 2.7 million people on North Korea's west coast will also run out of food in October. North Korea has relied on aid to help feed its 23 million people since natural disasters and mismanagement devastated its centrally controlled economy in the mid-1990s. Famine is believed to have killed 2 million people.

7. Cheaper Gas

Gas prices have fallen quickly. Our nation has been blessed with an extra $125 billion to spend. You would think that this extra money would help stimulate the economy, but apparently it hasn't. That's the least of our worries with jobs disappearing, depreciating home prices, and daily financial fiascoes.

6. Goldman Sachs Is Cutting 3,260 Jobs

Or 10% of its workforce. Cutting this percentage will bring the company's headcount down from a record high of 32,569 employees to 2006-2007 levels. If financial giant, Goldman Sachs is cutting 10% of its workforce, imagine how many jobs other companies are cutting.

5. Banks Are Getting Terrorized

Threatening hoax letters containing a powdery substance have been received by nearly four dozen institutions in 11 states and the District of Columbia. All the letters were postmarked in Amarillo, Texas. And not all of the recipients were banks. Postal inspectors are offering a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading to the conviction of those behind the hoax letters.

4. The Dow Has Recorded Its 7th Worst Point Loss

The Dow closed down more than 500 points (Wednesday Oct.22) and the Nasdaq is at a 5-year low as recession fears continue

3. The U.S. Has Turned Over Control Of Its 12th Iraqi Province

The U.S. handed over the control of Babylon, Iraq, once known as the "triangle of death". It is now a security responsibility to the Iraqi government. Babil is the 12th of 18 Iraqi provinces to be placed under Iraqi control and indicates improvements in security. U.S. forces will remain in the area to assist the Iraqis when needed.

2. "Destination Moon ... Historic Day For India"

India launched its first unmanned moon mission (Wednesday, Oct.22), joining the Asian space race against their Chinese rivals, reinforcing its claim to be considered a global power.

for the number one thing you need to know click the link below

1. World Leaders Will Meet Nov. 15 in Washington

To address the global financial crisis. This will be the first in a series of summits to make an attempt to alleviate what economists are predicting to be a "long and deep downturn." This first meeting will focus on the underlying causes of the financial crisis, the global response, and the principles that should guide any reforms. The summit will bring together leaders of Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and the United States, the European Union, China, Brazil, India, Russia, South Korea and other major economies.

Green Day: Paper Or Plastic?

noreply@blogger.com (Kil) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:05:00 +0000

Paper or Plastic? This may not be the question you get asked every time you go to your local grocery store, but it is still a good question. So what will it be?... paper or plastic?

Actually the answer is neither.

It takes more than four times as much energy to make a paper bag as it does to make a plastic bag. Paper bags also have a negative effect on the forest. In 1999, 14 million trees were cut to produce 10 billion paper grocery bags alone. This adds another contribution to global warming, because the trees that are major absorbers of greenhouse gasses have to be cut down. These trees then produce greenhouse gasses during the paper bag manufacturing process.

When a plastic (bag) has been used, it can go to one of two places: The landfill or the recycling center. In a landfill, plastics make up 7% of the waste by weight, and 18% by volume. Of the 44,100 million pounds of plastic products made each year, 26,700 million pounds end up as municipal solid waste.

More than half of the power needed to make plastic bags is generated by nuclear fission. Some argue that nuclear power has no effect on the environment. The only drawback to nuclear power is the radioactive waste, which is, so far, being "safely" disposed of in deep underground caves. And, in deep sea trenches where the nuclear waste is sub ducted into the earths mantle and incinerated.

So what are we to do?

Well the answer is pretty simple...you can just use a reusable bag. They're made from renewable resources, take minimal energy, are light, durable (each holding up to 40 lbs) and they last for years. Some can be even be machine-washed and are great to keep in the trunk of the car. You can also use them for other things other than grocery shopping, such as: a light book bag, a knapsack, or anything else you can come up with.

How much is a reusable bag? Well it can range anywhere from $5 to $12 dollars. Some grocery stores will even give you up to 5 cents per bag credit, making the bag pay for itself in a year and a half if you buy groceries once a week.

Taking all the above information into consideration, feel confident that you are making an informed decision the next time you're at the supermarket. The most important thing to remember is to utilize every possible use for both the plastic and paper bags to lengthen their life and minimize the impact on both the environment and our natural resources.

Comic Relief

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:03:00 +0000

click link below for bonus comic

A Picture Is Worth 1000 Words

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:00:00 +0000

click below for artist information

Date: 1818
Title: Wanderer above the Sea of Fog
Painter: Caspar David Friedrich
Location: Kunsthalle, Hamburg

Blog Action Day 08: Container City

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Reformer) — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:02:00 +0000

Thinking outside of the box, or rather inside the box is what made these real estate developers idea revolutionary. This is Container City.

The Facts:

There are enough shipping containers around the world to build an 8 foot wall around the equator twice.

A shipping container contains the essential elements of a home: The floor, the walls, and the roof.

The shipping containers are built on an international standard, eliminating the hassle of building measurements.

Their building block/lego shape inspires the "artists" (architects) to get creative with their architecture.

Idea Made Manifest:

Urban Space Management began their first project.

It took 5 months to build Container City 1, which opened in May 2001, and provided 12 work studios. In 2003 another floor was added in less than 2 days and provided 3 additional live/work apartments. Each apartment is 300 square feet, and rents for $80-100 per month. They're insulated, have electricity, water, and the architects use 100% recycled materials. A total of 100 units now make up Container City.

A project that started out initially for themselves, has turned into a business.

Now lets analyze what you've read so far:

1. Cheap
2. Built Quickly
3. Artistic
4. Eco-Friendly

Now lets look at this from the perspective of a social reformer. How can we take an intelligent idea that has saved dollars and made a profit, and utilize the same ideas to impact the world and not just one's wallet? There's nothing wrong with turning a profit, just ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffet: both of whom have donated more than most philanthropists combined. One just has to simply understand where one is going and which ideas can be the most beneficial to the greatest number of people. A utilitarian position: greatest amount of good, to the greatest number of people.

But enough with words and words alone. Lets take a look at some men that have turned their ideas into actions.

Social Reformers in Action:

On a trip to Mexico (Juarez), Brian McCarthy was motivated by the poverty to develop $8,000 homes made from shipping containers.

An article similar to the story of "Container City", got him thinking about an idea to help remedy the cities housing situation.

He called his cousin Nava, a junior at Notre Dame University at the time, and told him about the idea. His cousin suggested that they enter the university's business plan competition.

Their concept began as a three-quarter page paper and expanded as they moved forward in the contest. Eventually, they ended up winning the contest with a 55-page document, illustrated by renderings and floor plans.

In July 2007, they formed PFNC Global Communities (Por Fin, Nuestra Casa, or "Finally, our home")

The company has received a commitment for equity investment and is in the process of finishing details and closing its first round of funding. The partners anticipate starting production early next year (2008), with the capacity to produce 3,000 homes in the first year and later ramping up.

They have estimated that a half million people could benefit from homes in the city of Juarez alone.

Something as simple as a metal box, trash and scrap metal to most of us, can be made into an idea complex enough to be the salvation of somebody. The notion that an idea can be transformed and can evolve into more than just the original idea, into something that can benefit humanity on a larger scale, and into something that makes profit worthwhile for humanity, is a notion that could and should be shared by us all. These men have demonstrated a prime example of how an idea can be taken from the World of Ideas and translated into physical language, utilizing intellect and reason to reform society in a positive way. However, these men do not have a monopoly on ideas; we all share in the same pool of intelligence. What are you doing with yours?