Will's Experiments with the Truth

Civil Resistance Law and Constructive Program Law

2014-03-31T17:35:00.000-07:00

Civil Resistance is... well... civil. As in, non-violent, courteous, by citizens, and in pursuit of just ends. It is a broad term used to define a wide range of obstructive activities that build support for and participation in the movement. The goals can be anything from trying to change the way the general public behaves, trying to change an unjust law, to upholding social norms against usurpers. At its heart, Civil Resistance is "non-cooperation with evil" and can be done daily in our everyday life with small acts of resistance. Resistance can take many forms, I consider deviating from problematic norms in our daily lives to be just as important as the larger more confrontational acts. More confrontational forms include Civil Disobedience and Satyagraha. Historically, Civil Resistance is far more effective at producing good outcomes for society. (Check out the book Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan if you don't believe me)
A related topic is Constructive Program, which I think of as "cooperative with good," and which is deeply interconnected with Civil Resistance. It involves building just ways of life from the ground up, building the community's capacity, and building just institutions. I have been thinking quite a bit about how this would work with the housing and the campaign finance issues, which I will probably write about later.

For the past few months I have been trying to figure out how to use create a private law practice that supports just causes and stays true to my activist roots. I want to call this practicing "Civil Resistance Law" and "Constructive Program Law." So to coin the terms, I am going to try to define them.
In this definition, I do not think that only an attorney could or should do this work, I think it would be a collective process with the group. Anyway, here is my first attempt at defining what an attorney practicing Civil Resistance Law and Constructive Program Law would do. After reviewing this, I ended up categorizing this list based on the steps for successful movements that Martin Luther King developed.

1. Investigation! Understanding the situation we find ourselves in is essential to finding a workable strategy to win changes.

Research and describe the legal landscape the group and/or movement finds itself in, focusing on the topics that people want to change. Find cracks and opportunities in the law that the movement can leverage.
Research and analyze existing institutions
Research the political landscape and help develop an understanding of how it fits into the legal landscape.
Help research the history of this issue and look for insights.
Research alternatives to what exists.

2. Educate public, build support, and make a personal commitment.

Help the group find resources.
Distill the legal issues into easily understood explanations and parables.

3. Develop strategies based on the investigation.

Imagine what changes to the law would bring about the group's goals, and what the details of the law would be.
Consider all of the findings of the investigation and help develop a strategy to achieve the goals of the group.
Develop campaigns, campaign goals, and campaign sequence to achieve larger strategic goals.

4. Discuss options with opponents and negotiate

Help develop strategies to build support and organizational capacity.
Develop a negotiation strategy and fit it into the larger strategy.
Develop and provide access to the system and officials.
Help negotiate.

5. When negotiations inevitably break down

Help develop escalation tactics.
If the group wants to break the law, advise them what will happen if they do. Note that legal ethics require that an attorney not advise clients to break the law, but may describe what will happen if they do. The only exception to this is where the client wants to make a good faith challenge to the validity of the law (California Bar Professional Ethics Rule 3-210). So ensuring compliance with ethics rules is something to always be aware of.
Provide legal support for the group when they are arrested, and connect them with additional attorneys who can help.

6. Reconciliation and change implementation

Help develop a face-saving out for the opponent. There are lots of advantages to this strategy, which I will probably discuss in a later post.
Facilitate an agreement and reconciliation between the sides. There will often need to be a lasting relationship, so an us v them mentality is not helpful.
Helping draft the legal changes and legal requirements.
Ensure that enforcement options exist to enforce the changes and monitor compliance.

7. Reflect and Repeat!

Reflect on the campaign and how it worked.
Go back to step one and start investigating for another campaign
Help revise longterm strategy as necessary.

I also think that the principles of Rebellious Lawyering are essential to this kind of practice of law, such as the emphasis on community leadership and problem-solving. Anyway, that is what I have thought of so far, let me know what you think!

The Small Acts of Kindness and Resistance

2014-03-07T12:49:00.002-08:00

I want to reiterate what I wrote in 2008 in my The Small Things in Life post, about the small things in life being very important. Small acts of kindness are the lifeblood of society and really make it work. Without those acts of kindness, I think things would completely fall apart. I want to see movements really start to use this hidden power, to do small acts of kindness as a central part of the process of changing society.

The Roman Empire was taken over by the Christians for many reasons, but I think the emphasis of early Christianity on being kind and giving to all was one of the main factors. They helped plague victims when no one else would. They lifted up the poor and helped those had lost their livelihoods. Indeed, they became a poor people's movement and really disrupted the traditional society. The only way the state could overcome them was to embrace them and set up a strict hierarchy (Constantine... sigh).

I can only imagine how despairing the situation of early Christians must have seemed. They were routinely tortured and crucified, killed because they persisted in living a different way. The Roman Empire spanned the entire world they knew about, and there was no escaping it. It must have seemed indomitable. Yet they still continued doing those small acts of kindness and resistance. The love and kindness they showed to the world was so contrary to the political status quo, and so surprisingly disruptive. The Roman legal system was focused on property and not on people, prioritizing protection of property. It was often up to the local authorities whether or not to persecute Christians, and they often did so in response to agitation from the public. The public did not like the Christian emphasis on personal religion and their boycott of the pagan rituals that the public saw as essential to maintain the order of the universe. As time went on though, Christians gained a reputation for being kind and giving. I suspect killing Christians started to cause some cognitive dissonance among the public, should they kill people who act so kindly to strangers?

Another fascinating aspect of this is how the official punishment was undermined as an effective tool. Death was the usual punishment for righteous Christians, but more and more kept showing up to be killed. The Roman magistrates even had to make a distinction between solicited martyrs and persecuted martyrs... they refused to kill solicited martyrs. Can you imagine our court system refusing to punish people who willingly admit they broke the law? That would be quite an interesting situation. I think the number of people who were willing to step up and be killed shows both how powerful the message of kindness and love was and how deeply it was a resistance to the status quo. Love and anger are the major emotional motivators, and early Christians figured out a way to combine love for each other with resistance to an unjust society. It is an amazing feat. They were so effective that they took over the empire. All from the power of small individual acts and a willingness to suffer for their ideals.

There is a great power in small acts. With time they will win over a hostile public, and I can think of no other force that can change the inertia of a society so effectively.

Campaign Finance and Kai Arrested at the Supreme Court

2014-02-28T12:26:00.001-08:00

I'm going to start this blog up again. I'm planning on blogging on a mix of topics, including legal analysis and my dreams for ways to build better institutions. I would like to start off by talking about campaign finance and a friend of mine who was arrested for speaking during the oral argument for the Supreme Court case McCutcheon v FEC. This case involves a conservative businessman from Alabama suing the FEC to try to lift restrictions on his ability to give money to political candidates and parties. Here is an article on the case and its effects. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will not overturn 40 years of precedent, but it is a possibility. I'm of the opinion that the system is already so broken that, while this would certainly be a step in the wrong direction and have an impact, the overall tenor of the system would be the same... money controls politics.

Anyway, my friend, Kai, was arrested for speaking during court. Here is a Washington Post article on it. Here is the video of him, a video that is also not allowed to have been taken in the court. There is a real problem in our society when you are arrested for speaking out of turn but you can legally bribe politicians. We are a part of 99Rise, which is a movement of people against government corruption.

I have been thinking about the social system of campaigns and campaign finance, and I wish there was a way to change it that did not undermine first amendment rights. I disagree with the effect Citizen's United has had, it has extended the reach of big money. And at the same time I would rather expand the right to free speech and change the campaign system in another way that limits how actors behave than do a frontal assault on the logic of Citizen's United and other free speech. Attacking free speech is a slippery slope, the 1920s saw ridiculous restrictions on speech that I would never want to see happen again.

Just to be clear, I do not think money is speech. The conduct of spending money may have speech dimensions, but I think it is more akin to commerce than speech. I think we should consider how we can put restrictions on the flow of money using the commerce clause and in contracts law in such a way that it would be hard to claim that it limits speech. Hopefully more ideas on how to do that later.

The Characteristics and Effects of Extractive and Inclusive Institutions

2013-04-07T17:24:00.001-07:00

This is a paper I wrote for the class "Political Economy of the Law" examining institutions.

The Characteristics and Effects of Extractive and Inclusive Institutions

Institutions have a substantial impact on the way societies develop and on their long-term fortunes.[1] To try to change society, attention should be given to the institutions that exist at every level of our society. Institutions include both organized structures enshrined in law as well as wide-spread practices that dominate areas of a society’s way of life. Constructing new institutions and reforming existing institutions is a difficult and complicated process. Understanding the effect that the quality of institutions has on society is essential in determining how to best undertake the task of changing a society’s institutions. The concept of extractive institutions has been used to describe the quality of institutions and analyze their impact on the economic fortunes of different countries. This paper explores the concept of extractive institutions and the continuum between extractive and inclusive institutions. There has been considerable investigation into extractive institutional effects on the economic structure and comparatively less on the effect on a society’s culture. This paper attempts to broaden the analysis to include cultural effects to get a more holistic view of the situation.

The Characteristics of Extractive Institutions and Their Effects

At their core extractive institutions are predatory. They have the effect of enriching an elite by extracting resources from another group, the target group. The system of slavery that existed in the United States before the Civil War is an example of this kind of institution taken to the extreme. The labor and wealth produced by slaves went entirely to the slave masters and slaves lived in extreme poverty under torturous conditions. Additionally, the white population in general benefited from cheap production and cheap goods. Present day extractive institutions do not usually compel forced labor and keep people in bondage the way slavery did. The American prison system and its labor practices are an exception to this, preying upon prisoners through the exception to the 13^th amendment and minimum wage laws. In the federal prison system, able-bodied inmates are required to work for a very low wage.[2] The effect of this extractive system is to concentrate the wealth produced by prisoners in the hands of private prison companies, the prison system, and the companies that prison labor is farmed out to.

Most present day extractive institutions are not like the prison system, though. They manage to gain the agreement of their prey through monopolizing areas of the common way of life. The property rental institution is one such system, where the renters agree to pay for the right to use a property for a certain period of time. Landlords can accrue large profits from simply owning title to property. While landlords do have the responsibility to repair and manage their property, this system still has the hallmark of extracting wealth from one group and concentrating it in the hands of another. Landlords structure their business so they pay mortgages with rents, a system where the renter is essentially paying for the landlord to own the property.

Extractive institutions develop and perpetuate hierarchies and inequality. For example, the landlord has ultimate control over their property and how the renter uses it just as the prison guard has control over the ebb and flow of life from the prisoner. Historically, extractive institutions were heavily employed by European countries in their colonies, with the exception of settler-colonies. Slavery was one such institution, as was the plantation, and extractive taxes regimes. The goal of these institutions was to increase the profits of the colonizer and send wealth back to the colonial powers. The Europeans often took over existing ruling institutions and tax and tribute systems and created ones where it suited their interests to further this goal.[3] Europeans placed themselves at the top of the hierarchy and created a mythology to justify and explain their “right” to rule.

High levels of economic inequality tend to develop in societies dominated by extractive institutions. This can be seen in the Caribbean, where colonies were set up to produce sugar through slavery and plantations. A small European elite ran the plantations while the mostly African slaves worked the land, and the elite retained all the profits. Those countries mostly remain severely unequal today.[4] It makes perfect sense that extractive institutions produce inequity because they tend to sequester wealth in the hand of the few and remove that wealth from the rest of the population. Over time, more wealth is concentrated and the situation of the majority of the population becomes more and more desperate.

Because the elite profit so much from extractive systems, they try to strengthen them and fiercely protect them when they come under threat. This is another feature of extractive institutions; the elite perpetuate and protect the system over objections and attempts at reformation.[5] Many former colonies maintain extractive institutions because the elite have managed to resist reforms. The history of the United States is a testament to how extractive institutions can preserve and even reincarnate themselves. When slavery was abolished, a penal system was developed that essentially made slaves out of the inmates in the South. Jim Crow laws restricted the rights of African-Americans to maintain an extractive hierarchy. Share-cropping systems kept African-American farmers in a perpetual state of poverty while the owner of the farmland profited immensely. After the fall of Jim Crow and the successes of the Civil Rights Movement, the penal system again became a way to maintain a racial hierarchy. The prison population started ballooning in 1980 and continues to increase today.[6] Entrenched institutions have way of being reborn precisely because there is an elite invested in recreating the benefits of a system that has fallen.

In the long run, however, extractive institutions hurt growth and the economy. According to Daron Acemoglu in his article Root Causes, extractive institutions have historically hindered growth by preventing investment and innovation. Acemoglu notes the pattern of the elite in a given country preventing industrialization because it threatens their position. Their power and privilege depends on the relative depravation of a target group, so anything that threatens that relationship threatens the extractive institution’s existence. New innovations that help grow the economy are attacked because they often spread wealth around instead of only to the elite.[7] A present day example of this is with the internet, which has been under attack for the last decade by a variety of industries, such as the music industry as well as other groups of copyright holders. Their attempts to limit the flow of information stem directly from their position as elites who extract wealth from selling licenses to use the information that is now being freely shared on the internet.

The socio-cultural implications of extractive institutions are significant and disruptive. European colonial empires created the modern version of racism, a mythology that still dominates the worldview of billions of people. These kinds of hierarchies are perpetuated by extractive institutions and cause social fragmentation and strife. The Rwandan genocide occurred, in part, because extractive institutions reified the differences and hierarchy between Hutus and Tutsis. The American Civil War was fought over slavery and the attempt to end that hierarchy. There is a lasting impact on the African-American community and their family structures from the institution of slavery. Some scholars have drawn a direct connection between slavery and the disruption of the typical family institution the African-American community. This disruption is perpetuated still by the penal system and its targeting of African American men. Such social disruption usually helps maintain the power of the elite and reinforce the extractive institutions.[8]

Additionally, economic inequality creates a host of social problems which, over time, become ingrained into the culture. An increase in stigmatization of the poor is one such effect, as well as the disempowerment and disenfranchisement of whatever group the extractive institution is targeting. The focus of disempowered groups also changes to taking over the reins of power, to gaining the wealth and privilege of the elite instead of on changing the institution and creating a more inclusive society. Focusing on taking the place of the elite is not a particularly effective way to alter an oppressive system, since even if the elite are overthrown, a new elite will establish itself from the ranks of the disempowered group and perpetuate the extractive institution.

Partially because of so much social disruption, extractive institutions must be justified to have legitimacy and maintain their dominance. These justifications tend to have serious negative cultural consequences in themselves. Racism was one justification that was developed to justify slavery. Another common justification is that the targeted group of people is less responsible and able to make an income. Dehumanization of a preyed-upon group is a red flag when looking for extractive institutions, it is much easier to extract wealth from people who “don’t deserve” wealth than from peers. Violence is the backup when these justifications fail to keep people in line, and violence comes with its own host of negative socio-cultural effects.

Whatever form this justification takes it tends to undermine the self-esteem and capacity of the targeted group of people and also to undermine the possibility for collective action since that is a serious threat to the status quo. Members of institutions that tell them they are worthless and not fully human tend to start thinking of themselves that way whether they want to or not. These culturally constructed categories seep into people’s mind and frame their identity and worldview, and can have long lasting impacts on the families in the targeted group.[9] Additionally, the lack of resources and fragmentation of society increases crime rates which break down levels of trust. As people become more financially insecure, their anxiety generally lowers their quality of life and can cause cycles of abuse to develop.

The elite are also harmed by their extractive institutions. Since the justifications extractive institutions use tend to say that the elite are better in a large number of ways than the targeted group, this perception becomes part of the elite’s identity. Thus, when a member of the targeted group does something well, the elite feel humiliated. This is the situation the racist members of the white population in the United States face, and their feelings of humiliation come across pretty clearly in their rhetoric. The elite also experience a loss of moral compass and alienation from society at large. Paranoia is a possibility as is living with a substantial amount of fear because the trust they have in others has been so eroded by their position in the extractive system. When a person hurts another person they also cannot help but be negatively affected by it, due to the structure in the brain called mirror neurons. This brain pathway essentially forces them to empathize with the emotions people they see are experiencing. So when an elite member of an institution hurts someone else the elite member will feel the other person’s pain and additionally feel guilt of causing the pain.[10] The elite live with this emotional burden and it takes its toll. Justifications for the institution and dehumanization are used to try to mitigate these feelings and make it easier to ignore the pain of the group the extractive institution targets.

An additional purpose of justifications is to construct the reality of the population in such a way as to make the institution seem natural. When an institution is perceived as natural it is much harder to question or even to recognize the institution and name it. Similarly these justifications seek to limit the imagination of the population so that it cannot develop a parallel institution to replace the extractive one. The most difficult extractive institutions to change are the ones that are so deeply believed in that life seems impossible without it.

Inclusive Institution Characteristics and Effects

In Why Nations Fail the authors describe inclusive institutions as, at their core, including a wide range of people in the society in the economic and political institutions and working for the welfare of all their citizens as well as society in general. Barriers to entry are discouraged and everyone has the opportunity to participate in the institution. The authors focus on the economic institutions that encourage a level playing field and the entry of new people and businesses into the economy. Wealth is spread around the population and generally not concentrated in an elite. Equality brings many benefits; it encourages new technology to be developed and new ways of organizing people. Old ways of organization are not able to maintain their grip on the society to prevent development.[11] Of course, the authors assume that an increase in productivity and economic growth are inherently good. They do not seem to address the possible social disruption that can come from the churning of the economic engine and the commodification of labor, property, and money.[12]

In addition to equality, inclusive institutions encourage investment in the people involved in them. Education is a high priority in societies dominated by inclusive institutions since a solid base of understanding is essential to participate in many social institutions. The slash and burn approach of extractive institutions provides a stark contrast to inclusive institution’s investment in human capital. A strongly educated citizenry can make the most their participation in economic and political institutions, increasing their reliability and effectiveness.[13] Additionally, education provides a social structure to reinforce a common set of values and beliefs, whether consciously taught or not. One reason the Civil Rights movement focused on integrating schools is because of the power of first-hand experience in changing minds. Racists had a much harder time maintaining their racism after getting to know people of other races.

Participation would also seem to be an important characteristic of inclusive institutions. For political institutions, this means that power is shared among the population and not centralized in an autocratic elite. Checks and balances on the powers of an institution are also characteristic of inclusive institutions, to prevent the arbitrary use of power. Overall this prevents the use of an institution for the benefit of only a few people.[14] Democracies tend to have more of these characteristics, although they can slowly creep toward becoming more extractive. Widely held power is one of the most important features of sustaining an inclusive institution, since without it there will be little to stop elites from establishing themselves.

Inclusive institutions have a fundamentally different purpose than extractive institutions, working for the benefit of the whole community and “growing the pie” so to speak, instead of taking wealth from one part of the community and concentrating it in another part. Because of this purpose, justifications to legitimize the institution are much simpler then for extractive institutions, focusing on helping people and improving the social situation. The institution’s effectiveness at achieving inclusive goals often gives them legitimacy in itself.[15]

While there is very little exploration in the literature of an inclusive institution’s ability to build relationships among members and repair social bonds this seems like an important and powerful institutional characteristic. This feature is present among relational institutions that function through the relationships people have compared to formal organizations that emphasize the impersonal nature of the interaction. Formal organizations prefer to standardize interactions in an attempt to ensure equity while relational institutions emphasize a person’s status and relationships with other people to operate.[16] While relational institutions can operate to create barriers to opportunity and support extractive institutions, they can also operate to create more social bonds and grow the web of relationships that society is made of. Formal institutions have more difficulty with creating or repairing relationships among their participants. For example, the criminal justice system in America generally ignores victims and their needs while simply punishing offenders. There is no room for catharsis or repair of the damage done. Restorative justice is an alternative method used in some places around the world that actively tries to repair the harm done and restore the web of relationships that is damaged by crime. This system is generally more democratic and inclusive, giving more power to the individuals involved in the process instead of an elite of judges and lawyers.[17] This is an example of an inclusive institution that is also relational in the sense that it connects people together and builds relationships which further develops social cohesion.

With greater social cohesion, equality and participation, social problems are easier to tackle. Communities are not burdened by an elite’s deliberate efforts to fragment them and are able to find inventive solutions to social problems and enact them. The population will gain a sense of empowerment and be more willing to make hard changes to address problems. Participation and education help a population to become self-assured and not burdened by the self-esteem problems associated with extractive institutions. Inclusive institutions focus on the long term goal of maintaining a society that cares for the welfare of all of its members and this can set a powerful example for inter-personal relationships.[18] This moves a population’s view away from the instrumentalist approach championed by extractive institutions that encourages people to see others as instruments for their use instead of peers to collaborate with.

The change is slow and can occur in both directions. Indicators in the United States seem to point toward movement to a more extractive focused set of institutions. Increased inequality and concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite are telltale signs of the increasing domination of extractive institutions. Dehumanization of the poor has also been increasing in the last thirty years. Education is less of a priority and is being defunded. Social control systems, such as the prison system, are gaining power to attempt to control the social disruptions developing from increasing extraction. Indeed, the prison system itself is an extractive institution which is more able to flourish under a more extractive society. Part of this is likely the shift in political power. The government in the United States has become less and less powerful as corporations increase their ability to influence the government as well as increasing their own wealth. Sadly, many corporations seem to fit the description of extractive institutions and, as they grow more powerful, they are able to adjust the socio-cultural environment to make it more hospitable for extractive institutions.

Continuum Between Extractive and Inclusive

In Why Nations Fail, the authors set up a continuum between extractive and inclusive institutions. They suggest that each kind of institution tends to support and promote similar institutions while disrupting and preventing the formation of other kind of institution.[19] While they try to simplify this categorization by making it black and white, it seems like there is more grey area. Institutions can function to both extract wealth from targeted groups while trying to be inclusive through broadening the elite who collect the wealth. Governments can serve in this capacity, as well as being more purely extractive or inclusive, although they have trouble maintaining participatory systems. Through taxes, governments can extract wealth for the common good and the benefit of the whole community. Governments might even focus primarily on extracting from the elites of private extracting institutions through progressive taxation.

One historical example of a cultural institution that seems both extractive and inclusive was the Jubilee of ancient Israel. The Jubilee required the freeing of slaves, the cancelation of debts, and the returning of all land to its original owners every 50 years. This essentially re-distributed property to preserve the presumably more egalitarian land distribution set down when the tribes of Israel first settled. This institution was extractive in the sense that it took wealth from the rich and inclusive because it re-distributed it broadly across the society. While there are several religious explanations for why this was the law, it seems to be a direct attack on extractive institutions with the purpose of addressing and preventing the social ills that develop in a society dominated by extractive institutions. It forced relative wealth equality by preventing the concentration of land in the hands of a few people and enforced equity among debtors and creditors. Of course, the law eventually fell out of use, but it seems like a very direct method to confront the negative effects of extractive institutions when those institutions cannot be replaced through using an institution that combines extractive and inclusive characteristics.

Similarly, some institutions in America seem both extractive by sequestering wealth from a target group but inclusive because it is not difficult to become part of the elite. Shareholding is peculiar creature in this regard because corporations are designed to extract wealth from customers and workers and disburse it to shareholders. Yet, anyone who has a small amount of money can buy a small amount of stock and become a shareholder. Even with a small amount of stock, though, the wealth extracted would not be substantial and the main barrier to entry is the amount of wealth one can devote to owning stock. Thus corporations tend to distribute most of their extracted wealth to wealthy stockholders who own substantial amounts of stock. This is not an extreme case of an extractive institution because the elite is much more permeable than, for instance, the institution of slavery.

Conclusion

To sum up the characteristics of extractive institutions, they are hierarchical, predatory and hierarchical, focusing on extracting resources from a target group and concentrating that wealth in the hands of an elite. Historically, they often compelled their target through force, but today they tend to gain the agreement of the target to the extractive arrangement. Of course, the target may feel that they have no other choice but to agree. They try to justify themselves by dehumanizing the target group and tend to produce substantial economic inequality along with a host of social disruptions and fragmentation.

Inclusive institutions, on the other hand, seek to be participatory and include as many people as possible in their operation. They attempt to educate their member and invest in them. Their purpose is generally to increase the size of the pie and share it more equally as opposed to the extractive approach of taking as much of a fixed pie as possible. Their impact on society tends to be constructive and healing, building the self-esteem and security of their members. This is especially true of a subset of inclusive institutions that focus on developing relationships among members and healing harms that has occurred.

Institutions can have a myriad of these features and do not have to neatly fit into either of these categories. These characteristics should be considered in creating new institutions and reforming old ones because they can be correlated with certain effects on the society and culture of the institution’s members.

Bibliography

Acemoglu, Daron. Root Causes A Histocial Approach to Assessing the Role of Institutions in Economic Development, 40 Finance and Development, 27, 27-30 (June 2003) available at: econ.ucdenver.edu/beckman/Econ%204001g/Acemoglu-imf.pdf

Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson & James Robinson, Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institution in the Making of the Modern World Income Distribution, (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 8460, 2001), available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w8460.pdf?new_window=1

Acemoglu, Daron & James Robinson, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (Crown Business, 2012).

Banerjee, Abhijit V., Roland Benabou, and Dilip Mookherjee, eds. Understanding Poverty. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qVNLt3Cei1EC&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&dq=extractive+institutions&ots=tFCLoREJMg&sig=pkOZh_KFLSDrWa4BBQBh4fTBVxE#v=onepage&q=extractive%20institutions&f=false

Brick, Neil, Modern Racism and Its Psychosocial Effects on Society, Bilingual Education Mass's Weblog. WordPress, (2 Oct. 2008) Available at http://bilingualeducationmass.wordpress.com/category/modern-racism-and-its-psychosocial-effects-on-society-including-a-discussion-about-bilingual-education/

Bruce, David, Racism, Self-esteem and Violence in South Africa, 17 South Africa Crime Quarterly, 31, 31-36 (Sept. 2006), available at http://www.iss.co.za/uploads/BRUCECQ17.PDF;

Chaudhry, Kiren. The Myths of the Market and the Common History of Late Developers. POLITICS & SOCIETY, Vol. 21 No.3, September 1993 245-274

http://www.rochelleterman.com/ComparativeExam/sites/default/files/Bibliography%20and%20Summaries/Chaudhry%201993.pdf

Elrich, Reese, Prison Labor: Workin' For The Man, 54, Covert Action Quarterly, (1995), available at: http://people.umass.edu/kastor/private/prison-labor.html

Nichols, Philip, A Legal Theory of Emerging Economies, 39 Virginia Journal of International Law, (1999) available at: http://lgstdept.wharton.upenn.edu/nicholsp/publications_emerging.htm

Perea, Juan F., et. al. Race and Races: Cases and Resources for a Diverse America 110-171 (2^nd ed., 2007).

Perry, Twila L., Family Values, Race, Feminism and Public Policy, 36 Santa Clara L. Rev., 345 (1996).

Polanyi, Karl, THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION: THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ORIGINS OF OUR TIME., (Beacon Press, 2nd ed., 2001)

Rizzolatti, Giacomo & Laila Craighero, The Mirror-Neuron System, 27 Annual Review of Neuroscience , 169, 169–173 (2004). available at: http://pubget.com/paper/15217330/The_mirror_neuron_system

Wagner, Peter, The Prison Index: Taking the Pulse of the Crime Control Industry, (Western Prison Project and the Prison Policy Initiative, 2003), excerpt available at: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/prisonlabor.html

Zehr, Howard, The Little Book of Restorative Justice. (Good Books, 2002)

[1] Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson & James Robinson, Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institution in the Making of the Modern World Income Distribution, (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 8460, 2001), available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w8460.pdf?new_window=1

[2] Peter Wagner, The Prison Index: Taking the Pulse of the Crime Control Industry, (Western Prison Project and the Prison Policy Initiative, 2003), excerpt available at: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/prisonlabor.html; Reese Elrich, Prison Labor: Workin' For The Man, 54 Covert Action Quarterly, (1995), available at: http://people.umass.edu/kastor/private/prison-labor.html

[3] Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson & James Robinson, Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institution in the Making of the Modern World Income Distribution, (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 8460, 2001), available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w8460.pdf?new_window=1

[4] Stanley L. Engerman & Kenneth L. Sokloff, Colonialism, Inequality, and Long-Run Paths of Development, in Understanding Poverty, 39 (Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee, Roland Benabou, Dilip Mookherjee, eds., Oxford University Press, 2006)

[5] Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, & James Robinson, Understanding Prosperity and Poverty: Geography, Institutions, and the Reversal of Fortune, in Understanding Poverty, 31 (Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee, Roland Benabou, Dilip Mookherjee, eds., Oxford University Press, 2006)

[6] Juan F. Perea, et. al. Race and Races: Cases and Resources for a Diverse America 110-171 (2^nd ed., 2007).

[7] Daron Acemoglu, Root Causes A Histocial Approach to Assessing the Role of Institutions in Economic Development, 40 Finance and Development, 27, 27-30 (June 2003) available at: econ.ucdenver.edu/beckman/Econ%204001g/Acemoglu-imf.pdf

[8] Twila L. Perry, Family Values, Race, Feminism and Public Policy, 36 Santa Clara L. Rev., 345 (1996).

[9] David Bruce, Racism, Self-esteem and Violence in South Africa, 17 South Africa Crime Quarterly, 31, 31-36 (Sept. 2006), available at http://www.iss.co.za/uploads/BRUCECQ17.PDF; Neil Brick, Modern Racism and Its Psychosocial Effects on Society, Bilingual Education Mass's Weblog. WordPress, (2 Oct. 2008) Available at http://bilingualeducationmass.wordpress.com/category/modern-racism-and-its-psychosocial-effects-on-society-including-a-discussion-about-bilingual-education/

[10] Giacomo Rizzolatti & Laila Craighero, The Mirror-Neuron System, 27 Annual Review of Neuroscience , 169, 169–173 (2004). available at: http://pubget.com/paper/15217330/The_mirror_neuron_system

[11] Daron Acemoglu & James Robinson, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, 77 (Crown Business, 2012).

[12] Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time., 71-81

(Beacon Press, 2nd ed., 2001)

[13] Daron Acemoglu & James Robinson, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, 79 (Crown Business, 2012).

[14] Id., 82.

[15] Daron Acemoglu & James Robinson, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, 77-79 (Crown Business, 2012).

[16] Philip Nichols, A Legal Theory of Emerging Economies, 39 Virginia Journal of International Law, 229, 229-301 (1999) available at: http://lgstdept.wharton.upenn.edu/nicholsp/publications_emerging.htm

[17] Howard Zehr, The Little Book of Restorative Justice. (Good Books, 2002)

[18] Daron Acemoglu & James Robinson, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, 79-81 (Crown Business, 2012).

[19] Daron Acemoglu & James Robinson, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, 82-83 (Crown Business, 2012).

Thoughts on Self-forgiveness

2010-09-22T21:26:00.000-07:00

I have come to truly admire religion's almost magic ability to facilitate people's self-forgiveness. A great example of this is the born-again experience or even something as simple as confession... from what I have observed, people who had wronged others and go through a religious ritual concerning being forgiven find it much easier to forgive themselves. I do not think secular people have anything that compares, or atleast I have not noticed it.

Many have little compassion for people who do wrong. I see no logical reason to hold that position. Everyone does things that are not right, and judging them for their trespasses does no good for anyone. We all have weaknesses and failings. Whether they acknowledge it or not, everyone is emotionally impacted in a negative way by their wrongs. Everyone is human so we are all deserving.

Forgiving oneself is much harder than forgiving others. The absence of self-forgiveness causes personal anguish that can adversely affect people's behavior, leading them to act out of this pain. This negative behavior can take many forms, usually providing only short-term relief while only adding to their long-term burden of guilt. Some behaviors I have noticed:

*people often try to belittle others to feel superior,
*hurt people so they don't feel alone in their pain
*being on-edge and easily roused to anger
*pushing people away - socially isolating behavior
*seeking attention through negative behavior
*when others expect negative things from someone, they react by conforming to that standard.
*identity shifting toward viewing oneself as a wrong-doer, reinforcing a cycle of pain
*feeling the necessity to act wrongfully to prove ones identity.

I think this and other similar behavior stems from the following emotions that run through people when they are saddled with a lack of self-forgiveness.

*Guilt
*Anguish
*Fear
*Anger, hatred
*Resentment
*Feeling isolated, and a fear of loneliness
*Social paranoid - expecting no one to like them
*A feeling of helplessness and like they are condemned for life.

The only way out of this that I can see is self-forgiveness. Making amends and seeking the forgiveness of those who one has wronged is, of course, essential in being able to forgive oneself. But usually this is just the beginning of the process. The pantheon of emotions above are powerfully strong and take serious effort to overcome. However, there is no way around it. People who do not forgive themselves end up adding the the cycles of pain that exist in our society and riddle their lives and the lives of people around them with difficulties.

This is why I always cringe when people say they won't help people because they aren't deserving. No one is an island, we are interconnected and refusing to forgive someone for their wrongs and help them actually just hurts society in general.

It seems to be a hidden trend in human culture, that when one person or a group of people harm others, they themselves are harmed as well, but in different ways. I see it in capitalism where the rich suffer a kind of horrid isolation and fear of loss of property while the poor struggle to survive. I see it in patriarchy where men suffer from a prison of false-emotionlessness and isolation while women are objectified and dehumanized. Wrongs by one party hurt everyone including themselves whether they realize it or not.

Forgiveness, self-forgiveness and reconciliation are the only logical way I can see to heal the wounds in our society.

A Snippet of Wisdom.

2010-09-19T19:33:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the greatest lesson I have learned from the ten years that I have really been awake:

The world is a place of cause and effect. You can never know the full extent of the consequences of your actions. However, the general effects can be distinguished... good creates more good, bad creates more bad. I have run numerous experiments in my life on this and it is very clear to me.
This is why the ends do not justify the means, you will never reach the fullness of the end you want through unjust means, you will only achieve a narrow end at the expense of the greater good.
In everything you do, try to do the right, and you will change the world for the better. This helps us muddle through the incalculable causes and effects in our lives to allow us to produce the ends we want. It is the golden rule in its fullest sense, treat others as you would want to be treated, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is practically the most effective thing to do to achieve good ends.

Does the Law Pursue Justice?

2010-08-26T01:13:00.000-07:00

Law school has been a thought provoking experience, both in terms of the nature of the law as well as how far it falls short of providing justice.

The common law system and indeed, the common law itself, has organically developed over time as an attempt to achieve justice for people unfortunate enough to go through the judicial system. While the righteous goal of justice is the stated purpose of the law, the people involved, all good people I am sure, seem to think that the maintenance of the system of law is sufficient to achieve this end. As far as I can see, this institution suffers from a severe case of goal displacement with the maintenance of the status quo of the law placed unequivocally over justice. Individuals are sacrificed on the altar of internal consistency of the law, where is the justice in that? It appears that Weber's classic bureaucratic goal displacement has taken deep root in the judicial system... the institution's own survival and interests are placed over the initial goal that its creation was meant to achieve.

The ironic part is that, while on the surface it appearz that judges interpret law in an attempt to be consistent and maintain the common law's integrity, they actually succeed in perpetuating a series of systematic hypocrisies.

An example. Violence is one of the prime criminal acts, it is considered detrimental for a wide ranging variety of reasons, many completely true and fair. Preventing and healing violence is an essential part of any system of justice, whether they are common law institutions or traditional ones like a sentencing circle. Yet, the judicial system endorses and perpetuates the violence of the prison system and the death penalty. How is that consistent? It is not at all, many of the reasons we dont want individual violence are the same reasons we don't want institutional violence. But this system supports the justification for the existence of the judicial system in its current incarnation, and indeed, helps maintain the view that it is a necessity.

Perpetuating violence in a society will likewise broaden the power of any institution that attempts to prevent and heal it. But when that institution, through a sort of endemic hypocrisy, actually creates more violence, it enters into a cycle of escalation.

Now don't get me wrong, the design of the institution is a very clever one. Have a whole industry of analyzers to seek the truth (both in fact-finding and in theoretical pursuits) in the pursuit of justice, have them discuss in minute detail the implications of organizing society in certain ways. That is a theoretical system that sounds pretty good to me. But in practice it is an unjust meat-grinder that is driven by greed and power, perpetuating an almost Orwellian-style acceptance of hypocrisy as justice.

Brainstorming New Political Systems

2010-08-16T19:43:00.000-07:00

The political system needs a good deal of reform. Now with corporations able to pump as much money as they want into elections, there is going to be a much larger amount of corruption than before. So I think it would be a good idea to try to dream up different political systems that would avoid the pitfalls of corporate domination and moral bankruptcy.

1. Electing Ideas. I do not think that politicians should be the prime electees. Voting on broad goals (not specific things, like the referenda in CA often take the form of) would be a much more fruitful system... the system wouldn't get stuck in personal attacks and mudslinging, and corruption would be a much less endemic because it is much harder to corrupt ideas than it is people.

2. Electing officials through a series of trials. We should have a set series of tests and trials that officials have to pass through to become elected. These trials would put the skills of the candidates to the test, and all trials would be broadcast and chronicled by the media. People would have discussion forums to discuss how the candidate did and who was the top competitor. And trials could last a long time. One trial could be One trial could be managing a small government agency. Another trial could be to live on welfare for 2 months. The trials would be designed to both test the individual as well as acquaint them with the country (or state or whatever) they are going to govern.

3. Local Townhall meetings to set general goals of the bureaucracy in small areas. Included in this are a webpage forum for people to discuss things.

4. Some sort of public forum that is more participatory than the current media structures. I am not sure what that would look like.

5. Organized volunteer public works - the government should be more involved in organizing people to improve their locality.

6. Free, voluntary education programs. Basic for any thriving democracy to thrive.

Ok, that is all I have time for right now.

Wars are Arguments #2

2010-08-16T12:36:00.000-07:00

Building on my last post, I would like to explain more about Satyagraha which is a method of conflict that goes to the very roots of social ills. Satyagraha's focus is to change society at a very basic level through organizing the populace to both improve their own lot and to act in concert to improve the society. This can take an infinite variety of forms, from encouraging better diet and exercise habits to developing and implementing better political systems. It even takes the form of civil resistance and disobedience. But the main thrust is a transformation of society itself, which is not the government, but the population. Changing minds and people's daily activities is the primary goal. Everything else is secondary to that focus.

Many may question why one should prioritize changing society instead of focusing on taking over the institutions that run society and then use those as a tool to change it. A careful look at history will show that whenever a movement focuses on taking the reigns of power, it always loses sight of the initial goal of improving society and becomes corrupted by the very means they sought to achieve their end, and in most cases fail to achieve the end anyway. Focusing on direct programs and campaigns to improve society has a two-fold benefit. It actually achieves the end of improving society and it brings the added benefit of building political power almost unconsciously. This political power will then almost naturally bring the institutions of power into its orbit over time.

But this is a slow process and not for the weak. A movement must be strong-willed as well as undogmatic in their approach to how to change society. Ever-improving the methods through practical application and revision is essential. This work will bring a movement into conflict with many groups, but through the judicious use of non-violence, these groups can be successfully turned to either acceptance or support. The weak will resort to violence while the strong remain indomitable in the face of oppression. Oppression and other such evils must be met with principled resistance. I found this sweet video introduction to civil resistance from Waging Nonviolence here is the article: http://wagingnonviolence.org/2010/08/a-succinct-introduction-to-civil-resistance/ the video itself is embedded below. I agree with most of it, but, similarly to what was said in Waging Nonviolence, I disagree with the supposition that nonviolence is not about winning over your opponents. Most successful revolutions whether they are violent or not have won over atleast large parts of the military and police. Look at the French Revolution, there was basically no internal military support for the King. Anyway, the video is still a good watch.

Civil Resistance: A First Look from ICNC on Vimeo.

Wars are Arguments

2010-08-07T19:33:00.000-07:00

All wars are arguments about something. This principle can even be expanded to conflicts. These arguments are about a wide variety of things... in the context of war between governments, the arguments are often over the assets that help create power; land, resources, rights to use common resources, and public perception of the government's credibility. Revolutions and insurrections are often an argument over the role of government, how it treats people, and the government's and rebel group's credibility. Even personal conflicts are arguments about something, such as money, or one party feels insulted and the other party refuses to apologize (which can also be boiled down to the perception of credibility).

Violence is not inherent in conflict, arguments are. Conflicts end when the argument is resolved in a way that both parties can agree on. Historically, the majority of both parties believed that if your armies were defeated in violent war, then you were defeated and should defer to the victor's will. For the most part, war was seen for over two millennia to be the ultimate arbitrator to resolve international conflict. This was possible thanks to the simple fact that everyone involved made an unspoken agreement that if you were defeated in violent combat then you stopped resisting.

This stopped being the case on the international scale around the time of the Napoleonic wars when the democratic and industrial forces changed the nature of warfare. Famously the Spanish, who were defeated by Napoleon's armies, simply refused to be defeated. They had shaken loose the mental straight-jacket that said violent war was the ultimate arbitrator. Their resistance, while often violent, was a sign of things to come, where simply defeating an army was not enough to bring a solution to the argument.

You are not defeated as long as you still have the dignity and will to resist. Threats of death and even death do not produce obedience or even an end to the argument. "Fearful people do not act well." The logic of violence presupposes that the opponent will act in a certain way, which is obedience. This social construct is entirely escapable. Refusing to embrace it confounds the violent opponent, because they simply do not know how to respond; conferring a significant advantage both tactically and strategically.

When a violent force confronts a non-violent opponent, it is the violent force's objective to provoke the non-violent opponent into becoming violent. The violent force always has the advantage when it comes to violence, so it is to their advantage to deprive their opponent of the advantage of being non-violent. If the non-violent force has the discipline to maintain it's dignity and remain non-violent, it deprives it's opponent of the ability to use violence in a legitimate way. When violence is used against a stubbornly non-violent force, the violent organization loses its legitimacy and credibility, and is often shamed into surrender.

It may seem odd that a violent enemy can be defeated through non-violent means. But remember, all conflict is an argument. The point of the conflict is to get the other side to concede to a mutually agreed-upon conclusion. Convincing the other side to agree will never again be as simple as it was before the Napoleonic Wars. Non-violent resistance to violence will always sway the opinion of onlookers in favor of the non-violent party, it is a principle of human nature. It will even go so far as to make the violent party question themselves and their actions. That is the power of non-violence, it creates allies who pressure the other party, it undermines the other party's power (support from their population/allies), and makes the other party question itself about its own actions and motives. This pressure, both external and internal, will always lead to a more beneficial agreement to the conflict for the non-violent party.

An Attempt to Explain My Spiritual Practice

2010-08-03T09:58:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter I wrote to Dave Belden about my spiritual practice. It is probably the most articulate I have been on the subject yet, so I wanted to share it.

Dear Dave,
I have found it difficult to figure out a good approach to outlining my spiritual practice, because it feels like explaining my life. I have an urge to tell stories about how I came upon my beliefs, but I think that would be alittle too long. I have had to resist the urge to tell more of the history of my development. To remain succinct, here is a simplified version of the principle behind my spiritual practice:

We all change over time. We change in demeanor, behavior, passions, interests, and what communities we are a part of. To be human is to be dynamic, thinking of ourselves or others as static limits our capacity and deprives us all of our humanity.
Willful action shapes how we change. You can become the person you want to be through practice.
You have the power to decide how to act, behave and respond to any given situation.
Every moment is a chance to shape how we change and therefore who we are.
Living by broad, well-thought-out tenets facilitates positive personal change.
Learn from your mistakes. Reflect on them at length, for days or months if necessary, to figure out what happened and how to change yourself to be more in line with who you want to be.
Reflect on your activities and behaviors and how they impact the world around you. Try to change your behavior so it changes the people and communities how you want them to change.
The whole world changes over time. Our collective willful action shapes how it changes. Even small scale actions change other people’s lives, and you can never know the full positive impact of a good deed. Likewise, you can never know the full negative impact of a bad deed.

The practice of this principle is the difficult part. I have used my conscience to good effect in this, when I have the impulse to do something, I will usually check it against my conscience and a myriad of tenets that I try to live by. Then I act the way that seems to conform to those tenets, sometimes having to force myself to do it. The most trying actions where I have to hunker down and really compel myself to do are often the most rewarding. Self-control and a willingness to forgo other emotions and desires in favor of conforming to my practice has been essential in seeing my ability to shape myself become reality. Likewise, awareness of what I am doing and keeping my practice always in the back of my mind is essential.

Perhaps my greatest experiment in my spiritual practice has been with the Golden Rule. I started trying to live by the Golden Rule when I was 15. And it, more than any other tenet, has pushed me to the limit of being the person I want to be. It has forced me to do some difficult and crazy things. When I say experiments, I indeed mean it that way. Looking at the outcomes when I fail to follow the Golden Rule versus when I keep to it has given me the utmost faith it this tenet’s ability to positively shape myself and my world. These experiments helped me be able to figure out the core tenet of my life and what I believe to be the answer to the eternal question “what is the meaning of life.”

“People” are my purpose. That one word encompasses a wide variety of issues, but in short, it means a devotion to other people, helping them, protecting them, and putting others before myself. Here are the tenets I feel flow from this purpose:

Generosity is a tenet that has produced more happiness in my life than I can even conceive of. I now even get great joy from the search for people to receive. This includes being generous of myself and of my time, not just the property that happens to be in my possession.
Anti-materialism. This helps alot with following generosity, but it basically means not being attached to possessions and being willing to part with them at any moment. I have even started trying to re-interpret theft as surprise, unintentional giving to the thief. Focusing on objects prevents us from seeing the humanity in each other.
Forgiveness of everything as soon as it happens. This not only helps the other person heal but is of huge value in maintaining strong social bonds and one’s own positive outlook.
Being stable. I think this is the Buddhist part of my practice. I try to remain calm and unmoved by events and maintain an emotional baseline of happiness. I consciously let go of frustration and anger, which forgiveness is key in. Being stable helps the people around me immensely, I have found.
Awareness of others and what is probably going on in their minds. Trying to determine how they feel and what they think based on what I have observed.
Activism. Personal interactions go a long way in changing the world, and bringing that to a larger arena as part of a group is very powerful.
Investing myself in the projects and activities I do and in the people around me.
Silence. Being careful with words and listening to other people more than talking. This shows to other people that you value what they think, as well as makes them value your words more.
Non-violence in word and thought as well as in physical presence.
Truth. Not lying beyond white lies.
Humanization. When I think of other people, no matter who they are or what they have done, I try to humanize them in my mind, not letting myself write them off as bad people. Seeing myself in other people is another way of saying this.
Faith that the universe is dominated by good, and reminding myself of this.
Reflecting on everything. On my behavior, others behavior, consequences of any given action, tenets etc. This includes the development of self-knowledge and an understanding of oneself.
Being non-judgmental. Being judgmental gets in the way of seeing other people as full human beings, and it burdens you with unpleasant feelings and emotions. Forgiveness helps alot with maintaining a non-judgmental outlook. Besides, I feel like reality deals out harsh judgements and punishments to people as it is, I see no reason to add to that misery.

There are probably lots of other tenets, but those are most of the important ones that I could think of off the top of my head. I would say as far as the practice goes, it is a continuous process. I am always practicing, trying to make every action deliberate and in-line with who I want to be. That is really all it boils down to... if you want to become someone else, practice being that person in your daily life and one day you will see yourself a changed person. I am also always re-examining the principle and tenets behind my spiritual practice, looking for faults or situations that contradict it. This has helped me maintain confidence in it and improving it when there is an issue.

I hope that short summary was what you were looking for.
peace,
Will

Thoughts on "Diversity Of Tactics: The Noise Before Defeat"

2010-07-30T18:00:00.000-07:00

This is a fascinating read: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/07/26/diversity-of-tactics-the-noise-before-defeat/
It discusses the Black Bloc's use of violence and repressive tactics to silence debate about their violence. It goes on to discuss the movement's failures to really develop a solid foundation of nonviolent resistance culture and institutions that promote and support it.

Here is an excerpt:

"That there are good reasons why it is difficult does not make the fact that it is necessary go away. We may not have the time for it, but we most certainly do not have the luxury of not doing it. Diversity of Tactics and the Bloc are simply one manifestation of how we fail to take our role seriously. A far more important consequence is that we are far less effective than we should be.

I like to use the metaphor of a craftsperson. They assess a particular task and choose a tool suitable to what it is they wish to do, be it a saw, chisel, or router. In the same spirit we should look at a particular political situation and choose one of the 198 different forms of nonviolent action because it will do the job that needs to be done.

The Bloc is a product of our collective ignorance; theirs and ours. We have a responsibility to them, to ourselves, and most particularly to the issues we claim to care about to be truly professional in our political work. Professional in the sense of being competent, knowledgeable and capable. That the Bloc exists is a testament to our failure to live up to that responsibility. "

Personally I have always found it odd how so many people who claim to be anti-war for a litany of reasons turn around and are willing to be violent toward property and people. War is simply an extreme application of the same principle that legitimizes this violence and anger. I can see no justification for war or even its effectiveness, so I see no justification for anarchist violence even though I would agree with many of its aims. But I can understand how, in a culture so dominated by the justification of violence and the use of violence in attempts to achieve ends, that so many on the left would fall victim to this false prophet.

Content from a letter to Sarah #5

2010-07-27T16:31:00.000-07:00

7/28/09
I have been meaning to finish this for awhile. I also couldn't think of how to start it. So, here is the final part of the initial life story I started out with. I wrote this before a bunch of the other letters I sent.

After high school... I was lucky enough to get into Brown University where I majored in Anthropology. It introduced me to lots of other cultures and way of thinking about the world; I really couldn't get enough of it. While I was there I helped rebuild the student activist left after it collapsed the semester before I arrived (some huge fight between factions of a grand anti-war coalition that caused most of the active people to stop being active). Being in activist groups was probably the best and most meaningful educational experience I got at college. We built a strong community and managed to get a few victories too. I saw such inspirational dedication and courage from my friends, willing to suffer arrest and harassment from the authorities. (I think I told you this part already, but I will leave it in anyway) Our most awesome victory was with financial aid. Now anyone attending Brown whose family makes less than 60,000 doesn't have to take out loans. I am still active with Students for a Democratic Society (sds), and our national democratic and accessible education campaign. After I graduated I moved to California, because the job market is non-existent in Kentucky, my brother is out here, and a bunch of my friends moved here. The job search took me to Tikkun Magazine where I landed a job as Rabbi Michael Lerner's assistant. He is the editor and has a very appealing vision for a better world. It is a good job, I get to build my skills in alot of random areas, and read and make corrections to the magazine before it goes to print. But it is very time-consuming.

So that is the short history of my life. Looks like it is only like 25-ish pages. I think i might have the beginning of an auto-biography :)

Lets see... what else did I want to talk about. Ah yes, generosity. So, as people are my purpose (and indeed, i think people are the meaning of life), being generous to others is very much my MO. Like excessive generosity. I think it makes people uncomfortable sometimes, how generous I want to be toward them. It is one reason that I have acquired 5 mattresses over the past year. I want to have places for people to sleep, especially my friends who lack a job and a place to live. My friend Jacob might come stay on one of these beds while he looks for a job. Liz is staying with us right now. Elisabeth stayed with us while she looked for a place to live. Sidney stayed with us for like 6 months. It is very important to me to have space for people to stay if they need to.

But back to generosity. I think it is incredibly important to give, and give often. It is the glue that holds society together, giving. It makes everyone feel good, it helps people who need help, it promotes and maintains robust reciprocal relationships (which are by far the most evolutionarily stabilizing kind of relationships for people to have). Giving just makes everything better. I have gotten to the point where I always keep an eye out for someone I can give to. (I think I already explained that I have qualms that I am not actually helping homeless people when I give them money... feeding addictions and so on. If I ever have food on me when I am asked, I always offer that) There is a passage in "The Prophet" about how the true believers in life give without thought of joy seeking or moral virtue, and give all of the little they have. I try to aspire to this, although I fail. I am always on the search for someone to give to. The search is almost as fun as the giving.

Much of my thinking on generosity has been shaped by the short paragraphs that are written in "The Prophet." I have come to see giving as an essential part of life, something that is so inherent in what it means to live that to not give would be like half-living. I think that is why I have never been a money seeker, it always seemed burdensome and much like a living death... a death of the soul. Maybe that is too harsh... maybe it is more of an oppression and silencing of the soul.

The Prophet section on generosity that has stuck in my head for years is "all you have shall one day be given." I wish more people could intuitively get that (including myself). I want to bring into question the whole concept of property, because it seems to me like an embodiment of the negative aspects of individualism. Keeping things from other people for fear you will go without... it is utterly illogical and only "works" (if you can call it that... maybe functions in a semi-predictable manner is a better way to phrase it) when everyone does it, like in American mainstream culture. I never ever want to be rich. That is an oppression I have the power to avoid, and so I shall. There was a sign on a wall in one of the buildings at Friends Camp that was quoting a song. It went "it's a gift to be simple, it's a gift to be free, it's a gift to come down to where we aught to be." I love that. I want to live a simple life, to share my little wealth with people, and to live in a supportive caring community. In my mind, that is the logical outcome of generosity, if everyone were to take it up.

Oh, there is a great song by Johnny Cash called "Man in Black." Aside from being a great melody, it has fantastic lyrics. This one has particularly stayed in my head:

"I wear the black for those who never read,

Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,

Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me."

The road to happiness IS through love and charity. I am so happy when I am allowed to give. It has made my life so fulfilling and rich in so many ways. I think that is why like 5 years ago I wrote this statement: "The generous life is the happy life"

My freshman year of college, I really confronted the fear of not living up to my potential and discovered a way to deal with it in a very good way. (btw, I have always fancied my life's work as activism.) Whenever I am afraid that I am not being effective, I think to myself that I have helped lots of people, and even inspired a few. The MOST important thing I can do to make this world a better place is to be good to the people around me and try to make their lives better. That is the social change I want, that is the life's message I want to embody. We may idolize people who lead mass movements, but it is not them that made the change, it is us. Small groups of people, doing to each other what they thought was right, that is how things are always done. A few years after deciding this, I discovered an amazing quote by Thomas Merton: "In the end, it is the reality of personal relationship that saves everything."

Attached to that quote, is another amazing quote, here it is: "Do not depend on the hope of results. You may have to face the fact that your work will be apparently worthless and even achieve no result at all, if not perhaps results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea, you start more and more to concentrate not on the results, but on the value, the rightness, the truth of the work itself. You gradually struggle less and less for an idea and more and more for specific people. In the end, it is the reality of personal relationship that saves everything." I love Thomas Merton, I visited the Monastery he lived at when he was alive. He died in 1968, like so many of our prophets.

So yeah, when I worry I am not living up to my potential, I remember that what really counts is how I live my life and how I impact those around me. Doing that is accomplishing something for humanity, probably the most important thing anyone can do.

That reminds me of a story... the winter after I reached this conclusion, I was walking with my high school friend Ben, talking politics. He was just turning lefty at that point in his life. And I think he was a bit overwhelmed at the impossibility of the problems we are confronted with. In his despair he asked something like "but what can we do, what should we do." So I gave him this answer, about treating others well as being the most important thing. I think I took him aback, because after I explained it, the convo kind of died. I think it fits in very well with his brand of Catholicism.

Hmmm... I looked through some of the old letters I wrote to you, and I need to talk about feminism. I feel very lucky that my Mom was such an amazing ethics teacher, she imbued me from a very early age with a feminist outlook. She put alot of emphasis on treating everyone equally (no matter gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.), and would consistently correct my language usage when I said gender-specific things that should be gender-neutral, like fireman or policeman. She told me to say Firefighter or police officer. That is one of hundreds of examples of the way she taught me to challenge the status quo and try to live by a feminist set of values. I think it is because of her (and my Dad, too, but I think my Mom spent more time doing it) that it is my default setting to treat people with as much respect as possible. She helped me notice how women were treated differently (a skill that I have developed alot thanks to activism and collective liberation stuff), and to try to point it out and do something about it. Noticing gender roles is very important to me, and can disturbing sometimes when I notice it. Especially when I feel compelled to point it out to conservatives, to whom I am still trying to figure out how to do it in a constructive way.

There are so many ingrained things in our society that are hard to even recognize, much less fight, that I feel very blessed that my Mom started developing my recognition tools very early in my development.

I get quite annoyed at egotistical men who always try to dominate discussions and prove their points. It really bugs the hell out of me. And it is really hard to deal with productively in a group setting. I have seen groups dissolve because of the problems that arise from men doing this. It is a really selfish thing to do, to push and push your point just because you think you are right and that everyone needs to agree with you. They really disempower those around them, and make them feel apathetic. I have seen it in activist groups, in corporations, and in friend groups. There is probably a corollary with women, but I have not had it destroy my communities in the same way that it has happened with this phenomenon in men. It is really scary how unaware so many of these men are this effect on others too. sigh.

So that is something I fight against. The communities I have helped build have tended to be supportive and caring and have managed to deal with these issues in a way that has allowed them to survive instead of completely collapsing (which i have seen happen from a distance several times). Brown sds did this about a year and a half after I left. The activist communities in the Bay that I have hung around with have tended to be really cool and aware of these problems. And for the most part, there aren't any men in them that do this, which has been lovely. You know, I should really write an article on this and try to get it published.

For some reason I am reminded of a quote I once heard... this idea has stuck with me powerfully ever since I heard it uttered. In the context of something that was happening in their family the person said "the greatest sin someone can commit is to intentionally hurt someone else, either physically or mentally." And I was like yeah! that is so true. It seems to me that so many selfish people do this on a daily basis, and it is not only destructive to their communities, it is an oppression unto themselves as well. See, that is something most people have not yet realized, that the oppressors are greatly harmed by the oppression too. Doing bad things to people hurts you as well as them. Freeing the world from oppression frees the oppressors as well. A large segment of the left does not realize this, they are too overcome with the Us vs. Them mentality. They believe that through defeating your enemies, you will win. This set of means is a false prophet. I do not believe that in defeating your enemies, you win. Only through mutual freedom can we ever hope to achieve justice. Winning should be defined as converting your enemies to your cause. I think Christ grasped that, which is why he told us to love our enemies as ourselves. Loving our enemies allows us to free ourselves from our egos, and our need to have our beliefs be publicly vindicated as truth... and to act in the best interest of all. It allows us to treat enemies in such a way that they will be forced to cease to consider themselves our enemies. Atleast, that is the way I see it, and have seen it work.

Content from a letter to Sarah #4

2010-07-23T14:04:00.000-07:00

Where was I... oh yes, activism. So, Brown SDS(Students for a democratic Society) started out as a vehicle to unite the left. We had long talks about it, and the fall of 06 we had a network formed which started having regular potlucks. We had a diso guide produced, which we distributed to the freshmen at the beginning of spring semester. We had held several anti-war protests and we were toying around with student rights issues. We held several solidarity events for things that were happening nationally. We collected signatures when that Arab American student was tazed like 8 times at UCLA. We did lots of solidarity stuff with other groups, we went to a Democracy Matters event at the state capitol (a half an hour walk from campus) and helped push for reform of the disenfranchisement of felons law. We tried to storm a corporation meeting with SLA (Student Labor Alliance), but only managed to get onto the balcony. We threw leaflets over the dinner tables. SLA was pushing for food services to stop labor squeezing part time workers, and give them full employment and benefits. I will talk more about what I did with SDS in a little bit.

With OIF (the anti-war group), we attended a bunch of protests, and brought some speakers to campus. We held several protests ourselves, and some of our group, including Bucky, got arrested at a Senator's office for refusing to leave until he signed a statement giving his support for ending the war. It was an action organized by the American Friends Service Committee. I love Quakers. One of the cooler things we did was we managed to get an art grant from the art department so we could buy steaks to put into the ground. We bought enough wood for 655 steaks, and the cold night of March 18th (or 19th) we hammered them into the ground. Some of the ground was frozen, which made it difficult. Let me tell you, even with 6 people there, it took us a few hours to hammer that many stakes into the ground. It took up a half acre, i would guess. Each stake represented a thousand people who had died. (There was a big report that estimated that 655,000 Iraqis died, and had pretty good science behind it) Three stakes represented American fatalities at the time. People said it was one of the most powerful anti-war things they had seen, that it really brought it home.

Spring of 07 SDS started looking at Brown's dealings with war profiteering companies. We found out that Raytheon (makes missiles, among other things) was going to be at the career fair about 4 days before it happened. So, impromptu protest! It was actually surprisingly well-planned. We had about 20 people with signs make a soft picket in front of the Raytheon booth. It was alot of fun. The career fair people called the campus police on us, so we had a nice battle of words with the cops. They brought 5 people up on charges of some bs rule, and dragged out the proceedings all semester. But we won, every charge was dropped, cause we had the right to be there. They did not bother the protest that happened in fall of 07 (I had left by this point, but I heard through word of mouth).

But the Raytheon protest turned into a big media spectacle in the college paper. We won lots of coverage and some sympathetic press. It really got the war issue to be talked about on campus. Amazing how something as simple as that can get people talking.

After the success with the Raytheon protest, we looked into other local war profiteers that we could target. We found Textron. Textron seems much less scrupulous than Raytheon, they make cluster bombs. Cluster bombs are nasty, if you dont know what they are, you should look them up... but they kill way too many civilians. Textron also gets like 90% of its business from the DoD (Department of Defense), and most of the rest from the IDF(Israeli Defense Force). So, we had a die-in in front of their international headquarters which happens to be in Providence. It was so much fun. About 40 of us marched down to downtown Providence, took the street in front of their building, and all lay down and wailed. We had fake blood (raspberry jam, I believe) (also, i just realized that you spell raspberries with a "p". I always thought it was just rasberry cause it is always pronounced "raz-berry") and it was alot of fun. The police showed up and formed a line in front of the building. I was video-tapping the whole thing, staying mostly on the police to make sure they stayed within the law. After we had died for awhile, everyone got together, put jam on their hands, and rushed the building, plastering it with reddish handprints. It is quite amazing to see people non-violently rush through a police line. There are a bunch of pictures I will have to show you.

We got alot of media attention for this. Even a one line reference from Good Morning America. National Media! So exciting. And we were just like 20 committed kids, who managed to get some friends together to do this. Who knew it could be so simple.
But, as we were leaving the protest, we didn't realize that one of our number was staying behind to talk to reporters. Because he was out of the group, the cops were able to arrest him for "disorderly conduct." The charges were eventually dropped. But it just goes to show how there is safety in numbers.

Another project SDS worked on was the creation of a student union. It got off the ground pretty well, we managed to sign up one fifth of the school in the matter of a month. We held a general assembly and talked about tuition hikes and how we wanted to organize ourselves. I hear that the organizing around this got too connected to sds to get off the ground, but it was still pretty awe-inspiring. It did contribute, though, to some significant reforms in the student government, which was essentially entirely undemocratic and worthless.

The student union was also part of an overarching accessibility campaign to lower the cost of tuition so that the school could be more economically diverse. We started off pretty well with this campaign. We got alot of signatures on a petition. We formed the student union. We really managed to build support and make it publicly noticeable that we had a ton of support. And perhaps my greatest college activist accomplishment was that I helped start this campaign. After a year of organizing for this, sds won. In spring of 08, Brown announced that students whose families make under 60,000 will not have to take out loans. So amazing. When I started being an activist, I didn't think it would be this easy. Apparently all you have to do is make a big enough stink about something and it will happen. I feel soooo good about helping start this. It seems to be in the tradition of activists at Brown. The only reason I was able to go was because of needs-blind admission. And that was an initiative of the Young Communist League, who managed to get a big coalition on the left together and push for it. So I continued the tradition, by getting better financial aid for those who come after me, just as those who came before me did for me.

Activism has kind of calmed down for me, since I came to Cali. Sadly. I haven't been able to find a large group of people to work with. Plus, my job takes up so much of my time, it is really hard. I do have a few activist friends who I do stuff with, but it feels like there is no time and too few people.

I have always been on a path toward being an activist and raising a stink about injustice. I may try to be polite all the time, probably too often, but I have a very powerful urge to confront what I consider wrong. My friends from high school were not surprised that I was near the center of the re-invigoration of the left on Brown's campus.

I would credit alot of this reinvigoration to the intentional way I went about building community in the group and how other people took up the task. I tried to set a tone of caring, fun, joy and just general support. Most lefty groups do not have that, and they suffer greatly for it. When there is big trouble, they attack each other. Not the groups I helped build. When they have difficulties, they stick together and support each other. They don't blame each other for mistakes and are ready to forgive each other. At the 2008 national convention that I went to, there was a workshop on group emotional support and caring (yeah, sds is fucking awesome like that!), and the 5 members of Brown's chapter that were in attendance went to that one. Cause they know how important it is. And I feel greatly responsible for setting that tone. I am so proud of what Brown's sds chapter did after I left.
Now I just wish I could get the whole organization to understand it. And get them to use it against injustices, not just for good internal dynamics. Love is a far more powerful weapon than anything hate can throw at you. Love will win over enemies, hate has no such power. I really love Harry Potter's portrayal of this fact. Anyone who had any smidgen of love in their hearts could not be a true follower of Voldemort.

I still do stuff with sds. I would have gone to the national convention if it had not fallen on the same weekend as my cousin Jodi's wedding. Lets see, what do I do. I welcome new sign-ups to sds in the western half of the country. I work to try to maintain communication between chapters out here, which is tough cause they are few and far between. And I maintain a news archive of everything that gets reported on sds nationally (google alerts are amazing for this!). I am constantly amazed at how much news we get. On average, during school semesters, we get about 3 news stories mentioning us every day. Utterly fantastic. (I have stepped back from most of these in mid-2010)

One of the reasons I have remained so committed to sds is because of its willingness to approach things like emotional support. And because it is the only group I have seen where people of differing ideologies come together and manage to get along somehow (how the Maoists and the Anarchists get along in sds, I still don't know, but they do it, somewhat). This is not a common thing on the left. Plus my job does not provide me with the organizing fix that I crave, so I help out sds the little bit that I can all by my lonesome out here.
In case this hasn't become apparent, I will be an activist for the rest of my life. It is my career, so to speak. The life path that has seemed apparent to me ever since I discovered my purpose. I know I will never be defeated by any momentary burnout I feel. I have survived years in the wilderness in KY, and years of overwork at Brown. Those two extremes are often the cause of burnout. I have survived unpleasant organizing environments and managed to convert them into good ones. That is also a prime burnout causer, bad social environments.

Just so you know, i didn't used to be so confident about all this stuff. It has taken me years of self-reflection to really KNOW all this, and understand it, even if my intuition has pointed me in this direction since I can remember.

Content from a letter to Sarah #3

2010-07-17T07:41:00.000-07:00

Written around July 1st 2009

So, to start telling you some of my history with political activism... here is a quick and dirty rundown. I think I have always had an anti-authoritarian streak in me. In school, especially high school, I would always complain about what bullshit so much of what we were doing was. I might have told you this story already... in middle school, when the school board passed a rule saying people couldn't wear images of Malcolm X, my Mom encouraged me to wear a Malcolm X stamp on my belt (the same belt I am wearing to this day). She explained that it had multiple symbolism, it wasn't just breaking an unjust rule, it was pointing out that the US government endorsed such images as good. If I had the courage I do now, I would have worn a Malcolm X every day until they did something. Then I would have gotten some of my friends to do it. I would have made it a big deal, and shamed the school board into reversing their decision.

In high school, I would have started organizing if there had been people who wanted to organize. But sadly, no one but me was into activism. So I joined the school newspaper staff, and senior year I wrote an op-ed against the Iraq war when it started. Then, when I gave a speech at graduation (I was 5th in the class and got to give a speech) I gave an anti-war speech. It was awesome, I bet I surprised alot of people in the audience.

Then my freshman year in college I looked and looked for activists to organize with, but as I would later learn, the entire activist left had collapsed in early 2003, before I was at college. So, toward the end of my Freshman year I started up a discussion group around envisioning an alternate society. Never got too many people to attend, but lots of good conversation. So my sophmore year was pretty quiet, activism on campus was basically non-existent. The beginning of my junior year, an anti-war meeting was called and like 30 people showed up. I was one of them. This meeting would shape the Brown activist left for the next 4 years, as so many of the leading activists in the community attended and really started their activist careers at this meeting. I feel honored to have been there. We had a few meetings to determine what we wanted to do and started organizing. We called ourselves "OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom, anti-war group)" People who were at those meetings went on to dominate BEAN (Brown Environmental Action Network), SLA (Student Labor Alliance), The Brown Democrats, SuFI (Sustainable Food Initiative), SSDP (Students for a Sensible Drug Policy), Democracy Matters (public funding for elections), SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), and a few others that I can't remember.

So, in 2005, we started organizing against the war. We wrote articles for the newspaper. We brought some speakers to campus. We tried to raise our profile and make the war an issue that was talked about on campus. We got together with a few local community groups and did alittle Truth in Recruitment. We went to the large anti-war marches in DC. There was this one rally in Providence when it was single digits outside, and we rallied for 2 hours. I was so cold, I had like 5 layers on, but I was still cold. There were about 200 people there, and their commitment was so amazing to be out in the cold for so long. Very inspiring.

This is a picture of the first time I addressed a political rally. So far, it has been the only time. I gave a short intro for a professor who was speaking. It was cold that day. You will notice Bucky is the left-most person in the picture, holding a sign. We were holding a protest of Hillary Clinton in 2005 because she was promoting really Hawkish policies and saying Bush needed to escalate the war in Iraq. So yeah, we protested, it was fun.

At the end of my Junior year, we started talking about getting a group together that could tie together all the issues everyone was fighting for. And it just so happened that one of our professors was hosting the first Students for a Democratic Society conference since the 1960s at Brown. It re-formed in Jan 2006, and we started a chapter in March. I spearheaded this group for most of 2006. We held the conference and started organizing the left community at Brown. Then in May 2006 we started laying the groundwork for the Social Justice Network to get all the small groups on the left in campus talking. I am proud to say that alot of the impetus for this came from me. It is still going strong, they have potlucks I hear. So over the summer and my first semester of senior year we worked on the SJN and getting a Disorientation Guide published to help with the SJN. Here is a copy: http://www.campusactivism.org/server-new/uploads/browndisorientiationguide-2006.pdf I wrote about a third of it. I also designed the front cover graphic.There is more to tell... but i think it will have to wait for the next letter.

Content from a letter to Sarah #2

2010-07-14T11:29:00.000-07:00

Written in late June 2009 as part of a letter to Sarah

To continue where I left off with Mammoth cave... there is a cathedral sized room in there that is just indescribable in beauty. It is an aptly named cave. I have gone on a bunch of tours there, one for 5 hours. There is still a good percentage of it that is unmapped. For part of one of the tours, they turn off all the lights. It is the darkest black I have ever experienced.

Looking back on this letter, it took a turn toward describing my mental life, so I thought I would throw out that category for this letter... except the previous paragraph.

My school experience was certainly interesting. I was kind of nerd. Academic team, Gifted and Talented program, you get the picture. I got contacts in 6th grade, and wore them everyday for nearly 8 years before they started to bug my eyes too much and I gave them up. I remember being really self-conscious of my glasses for a long time. Freshman year of college I started feeling much more comfortable with myself, more confident and more willing to let people judge me for who I am.

Tracking my mental development is, for some reason, really interesting to me. In 7th and 8th grade I began to question myself about who I was, who I wanted to be and what trajectory I wanted my life to take. This thought process culminated in 10th grade when I started really feeling lost and was kind of depressed for 6 months. Thinking about one's purpose in life will do that to you. But after being lost in that desert of melancholy for so long, I somehow stumbled upon an epiphany that has been the foundation of my world since then. At the time I couldn't really articulate it, but I had decided that the answer to the question "what is the meaning of life" is "people." (yeah, I am also a stubborn contemplater of unanswerable questions... I am still contemplating the meaning of life a decade later)

It was during this contemplation of myself that I began my core spiritual practices... these are all inherently interconnected but i have kind of broken them down in my own head to include: deep self-reflection, self-improvement processes, emotional and behavioral shaping practices, redefinition of my identity, my experiments with the truth (Gandhi is a big influence on me), my endeavors to understand and empathize with people, and my adherence to a philosophy of generosity. There might be more of them, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

I began my experiments with truth during 7th grade. My first and longest running experiment is with the idea of ends and means and their connection. I have always heard that "the end does not justify the means." Most people take this to mean that even if you get the end you want, if the means was bad, you should feel guilty. I do not think that is what the phrase means. I think it means that if you are seeking just ends, you can never fully reach them if you use unjust means. It is just simply impossible. Now, if you have an unholy end, or a narrow end you *can* achieve it with unjust means. And by "narrow end" I mean you want one thing, only that thing and don't care about the effect on other things. The CIA term "blowback" is an example of this... when they achieve a narrow end but the surrounding environment becomes worse. I have done countless experiments on this hypothesis, through observing my behavior analyzing the results, changing my behavior, seeing what happens, etc. I have been doing this since 1997-ish, although not consciously at first.

The first part of this experiment that I can isolate in my memory is my dealings with bullies. Now, I got picked on alot as a kid. But I had great parents, and they told me to try to understand the bully. So I did. I began consciously struggling to empathize with my attackers. And boy did this pay off. I started naturally acting nice to them, even when they were horrible to me. This just confused them, most of the time. But after awhile I wore them down with my kindness. I remember the turning point with a kid named Anthony Berta. He had a canker sore in his mouth and was complaining about it. I sympathized with him, told him I got those sometimes and they hurt like hell. I offered advice, telling him he should try applying hydrogen peroxide to it. He tried it and about two days later he thanked me. I remember feeling so good from that. And as I observed his behavior from then on he was generally nicer to me. He still made jokes at my expense on occasion, but nothing compared to what had gone on before. This is one reason I have such faith in non-violence. I have seen it work from a very early age.

Another bully named Brad something used to bug me in middle school. He was a big guy, rather aggressive and insecure about himself so he felt the need to act out. I don't remember any specific turning point with him, but I slowly won him over. I won him over so much that sophomore year when he was sitting at our table, being a jerk, and everyone asked him to either stop of leave, he was really surprised when I joined in the request. Reflecting on that whole situation, I think he saw me as his only friend at the table and felt very betrayed when I united with the others to try to get him to stop being a jerk. I felt bad about it for awhile afterward. Apparently kindness is a double-edged sword. I wonder what happened to him, I wish I remembered his last name so I could friend him on facebook.

So, building on this very practical and beneficial application of my experiments, I started toying around with a good percentage of my life. I started applying more and more control over my behavior, learning to let go of anger and to communicate my feelings effectively to de-escalate and conflict-resolve. And as I did this, the predictions emanating from my hypothesis about ends and means were all coming true. If I wanted a better life, treating people well seemed to be the most effective strategy. When I slipped up and conducted myself bady, I could sense tremors in my world in that direction as well. I built up my mind as much as I could into an analysis machine to tease out little cause and effects and after years of doing this I see patterns in the chaos, and they all fit my initial hypothesis. Of course, it could be analytical bias, but either way, it makes me happier than I would be otherwise (this could also be a placebo effect... but who cares).

And so, I came to the conclusion that the ends do not justify the means because you can never get the a truly good end using evil means. I am still conducting this experiment on and off these days, re-testing my conclusion.

My second longest experiment, which I have been conducting in conjunction with the first, was testing the golden rule. As you can see, it fits in very nicely with the first experiment. If I am trying to treat others as I would have them treat me, then I am almost always using good means. It is amazing the good feelings and good fortune that come your way when you try your hardest to follow this rule... but it is damn hard. I started this one in 10th grade, I believe... or maybe I just consciously recognized it in 10th grade. I start alot of things within myself without realizing it, sometimes it goes on for more than a year or two before I recognize it. At this point I was way WAY into Gandhi's philosophy, and it buttressed my analysis from a personal level to a societal level and a method of struggle.

While those are my two major experiments, I have a bunch of smaller ones... probably more than I can remember. I have experimented with leadership styles, conflict resolution, democratic processes, communication processes (both appealing to large audiences and interpersonal), etc. Usually with these experiments, I was the only variable I could change. So, I got really good at controlling my behavior and emotions so I could see what would happen when I acted a certain way. This coupled nicely with my intention to improve myself.

Changing myself has been another one of my major life projects. I don't remember exactly when I started, but I have always had a goal, at first nebulous but now quite clear. This general goal in changing myself is to make the lives of the people around me better. When I was young I remember being selfish, somewhat uptight and arrogant. Well, one day I decided I didn't like those traits in other people, and that I should try to change myself to get rid of those undesirable traits. I think it has been like 10 or more years since I really started working on myself, and I am proud to say I have made alot of progress. I still have problems with arrogance, but I do a good job of hiding it behind a veil of modesty. (For these letters, I feel like I have lifted my veil of modesty somewhat, and it is actually making me anxious to have done so... please don't judge me too harshly as arrogant or self-absorbed). I am also so much calmer than I once was, it is a huge relief.

It is very hard to describe this process for change, it is not explained in English in my head... it is a series of emotions, urges and bulbous shapes (representing concepts and cause and effect relationships) interacting with other bulbous shapes in a kind of weird fluidic space in my mind's eye. But when I find that I am acting in a way that I don't like, I will start a long thinking process, analyzing it and trying to set up triggers in my own mind to prevent me from acting that way again. One of my favorite attempts to change my behavior and thought patterns (because in involves my endeavors to fight sexism in my own mind) is to successfully be aware of the gender dynamics at gatherings, to comment on them to the group, and to break them through my actions. So, that house dinner where Lapedis and Caely came over (you were in Marin with a friend), I commented how, after the meal, Liz and Caely started making cookies and all the men were sitting in the living room talking. I offered to help make cookies, but I was un-needed. It bothers me when people aren't aware of how easily people fall into gender roles, which often means women end up doing alot more work. I will talk more about my feminist tendencies later.

This process also comes with reinforcing good traits, like generosity. I like to think I have achieved a pretty good level with that, I am always on the lookout for ways to be generous to other people... there is a chapter in the book The Prophet that has had an IMMENSE impact on my direction in life, especially when it concerns giving... have you ever read "The Prophet"? Here is a taste:

Then said a rich man, "Speak to us of Giving."

And he answered: You give but little when you give of your possessions.

It is when you give of yourself that you truly give.

For what are your possessions but things you keep and guard for fear you may need them tomorrow?

And tomorrow, what shall tomorrow bring to the over-prudent dog burying bones in the trackless sand as he follows the pilgrims to the holy city?

And what is fear of need but need itself?

Is not dread of thirst when your well is full, thirst that is unquenchable?

Here is a link to it: http://leb.net/~mira/works/prophet/prophet5.html
I will probably talk about generosity more later... One of my conclusions about life is its inherent dynamism. Things and people change. I change, and accepting my own dynamic self has allowed me to give it some direction. I think far too many people see themselves as static, and don't realize that they can and should deal with unpleasant feelings that arise so that they do not burden one's life. I know all my emotions come up for a reason, and until I know that reason and have dealt with the root of the emotion, it will not dissipate. And it is within my power to do that. I feel very empowered when it comes to defining myself and pushing myself to be my highest vision for myself. I wish I could give that confidence and technique to other people. I credit a great deal of my happiness to the fact that I am able to deal with unwanted emotions and behavior in a productive and healthy way. Looking back at KY, I realize how much of a difference it would make in people's lives to be able to do this. I wish I could make a constructive campaign around it, like Gandhi did.

Defining myself has been an important journey that, like everything else I have described in this letter seems to, underpins a large swath of my beliefs. When I was in 10th grade, I came to the realization that I did not like identifying myself as an individual. It did not hold any appeal to me. If I defined myself that way, then I should want to acquire at other's expense, and that did not make me feel good. That identity meant selfishness as a way of life, and I was already seeing its negative effects in my own life and the lives of those around me. So I endeavored to shed my individual identity in favor of a more collectivist model. The best way of describing this is to look at your hand. Now, I can think of myself as a finger, or I can think of myself as part of the hand. I prefer to think of myself as part of the hand. My well-being is inherently tied to my community, and everyone in the community is tied to each other. Seeing ourselves as isolated individuals is just out of touch with reality. Defining myself in this way has made it not only easy to give, but made it the only logical thing to do.

There are alot of interesting manifestations of this identity. For example, when I am somewhere with unemployed friends... I feel like if they pay that I am somehow getting more hurt than if I pay. (I, here, refers to my identity as a part of a group) They have a finite pool of money that is not being recharged, so if they spend money it is more detrimental than if I or someone who has income pays. It is hard to explain, and I don't think I am doing the best job. but suffice to say this identity has really motivated me to protect/help my community, even if i have to sacrifice a disproportionately high number of things myself. I think many American's don't understand this mentality even when some of them subscribe to it in their own communities... and our world would be a much better place if they did understand it.

I have actually found that playing with my identity is one of the more powerful things I can do to change myself. I am generally kind of shy, but I have made great strides in changing that through trying to define myself as a more outgoing person. This is especially effective when I am in roles where I think other people expect me to be outgoing... like as a camp counselor or a host of a party. There is so much potential for how I could change myself, I have pushed my identity toward more generosity, more kindness, more willingness to forgive, less anger and more calm. And overall, it has made me a thousand times more happier. It is an incredible tool for self-improvement. I think most people, especially kids, simply take up the identity that other people ascribe to them. I wonder what would happen if I could teach this to repeat prisoners and motivate them to see themselves differently. Religion often has this effect, from what I have seen with prisons.

Part of all this interconnected mess is self-reflection. I think about myself alot, maybe too much. I observe my emotions, my behavior, my thoughts, and my motivations. When I first started doing this, I looked at everything and spent years thinking about it. But now, I think I have examined most of myself that I want to reinforce, so I mostly stick to things that bug me, and new things that arise. I mull them over, then over again. As you can see by this series of letters, I can write way too much about myself when I have an interested audience. This process has become second nature to me now, as with most of my spiritual practices. I do it without even trying, and often have to quiet it down to get to sleep at a reasonable hour. It is this process that gives me the strong sense of who I am, which has not really been shaken since maybe senior year in high school.
Anyway, that's enough for this letter... to be continued.

Some content from a letter to Sarah #1

2010-07-14T11:26:00.000-07:00

Here is some content that I wrote to Sarah around June in 2009.

I have always liked the idea of letters. They are like time travel, you get to send a message to someone in the future. And then that person gets to send it to you in the future. They also let you go into much more depth than phone, texts, or even email. Somehow email seems like it should be shorter in my mind, even though it is basically an electronic letter.
So, since we aren't able to get to know each other better face to face, letters will have to do. OK... so i'll start out by starting a mini-bio and see where that takes me.

I suppose I have led an unusual and interesting life so far. I grew up in rural Kentucky, in a town of 1500, surrounded by nature. I am the son of back-to-the-lander hippies, although they never got into farming. My Dad says he was never any good at it, but I remember planting and harvesting some really killer peas in our garden. They were so tasty. Growing up I helped my parents build our house (as much as a 3 to 12 year old can). I watched so intently and actually picked up alot of carpentry from it... but I think working with my hands runs in my blood. All my male blood relatives in my parents generation and both my grandfathers are/were carpenters. Some of my male non-blood relatives in my parents generation are/were carpenters as well. I really love building things, like that bed frame I cobbled together from dumpstered wood. I have wanted to learn to make nice-looking furniture for awhile, not just practical dumpster-scrounged constructs.

We lived on a 70 acre plot of land, mostly forest. Our house is on a ten acre field in the middle of the property. We get our water from a natural spring that has never gone dry in living memory, despite the droughts the area has gone through. I love that water, it is soooo delicious. As a kid I would go off into the forest with friends and sometimes alone and explore. Most often along the banks of nearby creeks. Our land bordered a smallish river where we would go swimming. It is amazing to live next to a river and to see it change over the years. The swimming holes shifted dramatically, as did this island where we used to hang out. Getting down to the river was a trip though. Probably a quarter of a mile walk, with stinging nettle at the end of the walk to punctuate it. I remember that pain pretty clearly, probably because I received a dose of it on a regular basis for a large swath of my childhood. It was with that experience that I conducted some of my first experiments with consciously suppressing pain. When I was like 12 or 13 I can clearly remember myself leading a group of friends down to the river and single-handedly clearing a path through the nettle with a stick so my friends could make it through unscathed. At that point i had managed to ignore the pain enough to complete the task. The worst part though, was if you were wearing flip-flops and there were nettle leaves on the ground... they would sting your toes. Anyway, that experience with ignoring and suppressing pain, i think, was the precursor to alot of my experiments with changing my emotions and behavior.

I went to school in a town an hour away, because my parents thought that their public school system was much better than the one in my home town (it was). My parents taught me true generosity through their selfless pursuit of putting me and my brother first, I hope to return the favor to my own kids one day. I think this early example of selflessness made it very easy for me decide to do my best to live a generous life.

I saw many things in Kentucky that have greatly affected my outlook and direction in life, such as the high rate of poverty there (23% of the population is below the poverty line in my home county in 2006). I am strangely proud of the fact that my parents weren't well off while raising me... for my first 7 years of life we had an outhouse. I remember the day my Dad installed our first toilet. My childhood imbued me with a passion to tackle social ills. I think especially the juxtaposition of the incredible hardships people had with the generally caring attitudes they had towards each other has convinced me from an early age that 1. people are inherently good and 2. that it doesn't matter what shit people have to go through, as long as they are with other people, they can get through it.

I saw racism and experienced its impact on other people. I know that growing up in a racist culture has imbued me with alot of racism, and it bugs the hell out of me. I make it a point to fight the passive racism in my own mind whenever I notice it, and to actively work to notice it. If I have what I consider a racist thought, I feel pretty bad and commit myself to not letting it influence my behavior and trying to ensure I stop having those thoughts. My own process for self-reflection and self-improvement has actually changed me a great deal... I will go into that later though, probably in a following letter. One of the scariest things I remember was that in my high school my senior year, every freshman male black student had atleast one failing grade. The school was about 40% African American. While it was not segregated per se, it was de facto segregation. The different races (mostly white, black, latino) didn't mix much. The cafeteria really showed this, with each group colonizing its own section every day.

I remember hearing lots of racist jokes, many of them told seriously. I also remember hearing of a big KKK rally, and a counter-protest called Unity Day during my sophomore High School year. I don't remember why I couldn't make it, but I really wish I had been able to. Most of my teachers were gung-ho about the Unity Day counter protest, which I remember thinking that was amazing. I also heard that it got a much larger turnout than expected and was significantly bigger than the KKK rally.

One of my favorite memories from childhood is star-gazing. We star-gazed alot. I have seen meteors that lit up the entire sky. In 2001 during a particularly spectacular Leonid shower in November, a group of friends and I stayed out all night watching. There were over 100 per hour that night, it was by far the most spectacular meteor shower I have seen. I remember watching comet Hale-Bopp hover in the sky for days, and be almost visible during early morning and late evening. And our sky was absolutely spectacular. On a clear night with a new moon, I could see millions of stars. The Milky Way was very clear and if you closed your eyes for a few minutes and then looked, oh, it would take your breath away. I have always had a love of space (yeah, i am a geek like that), which i atleast partly credit to the awe-inspiring sky I stared at as I grew up.

I was consistently in awe of nature during my childhood. We had a few giant trees on our land, which I found fascinating. They had survived the logging that happened in the early 70s (before my parents bought the land) because they marked the edge of the property. My Dad loves trees and taught me tons of random facts about them, how to recognize some of the species, and how to take care of the forest (which mostly involved leaving it alone). Did you know that if there is a vine growing on a tree (a tree you don't want a vine growing on), that the best way to kill it is not to chop it off, or pull it off but to just remove all the vine's bark in a circle around the base of the vine. This will slowly kill both the roots and the vine's trunk... this method works with most plants. The wildlife around my house was great. There were deer everywhere, lots of rabbits and infinite numbers of insects. I have almost stepped on copperheads (the only deadly snake in KY) 3 times, they are probably the animal I dislike the most. I am also not a big fan of skunks, having been within 2 feet of one, before both of us noticed each other (it was dark and i was walking without a flashlight). We both ran like a bat out of hell. Mammoth cave is also just utterly fantastic... To Be Continued next letter...

Year of not posting

2010-07-14T11:12:00.000-07:00

I haven't been posting much for the last year. Whoops. I will try to be better about it, but I doubt I will be. I am starting law school in a month so I am sure I will be super busy with that. But I will still try.

It is not that I haven't been writing for the past year, it is that I haven't taken the time to write here. I have actually written a decent amount, which in the next month I will try to post here. To start out with, I will post here some of the content from some letters I wrote to my girlfriend Sarah last year when she was away working at a camp and we were just getting to know each other.

Rain Falls

2009-06-17T11:35:00.000-07:00

Joke of the day: "A man, horribly crippled and in a wheelchair, started rolling uncontrollably down a street (picture Lombard street in SF). Disheveled and angry, he threw his hands in the air, looked up and shouted 'why me, God? Why me?' over and over again. People saw him and felt sympathy; they began to follow and take up the cry. Soon a big crowd was following, all shouting 'Why me, God? Why me?' ...they came to the bottom of the hill, and found a church. fueled with anger and resentment, they went went into the church, brought the man in the wheelchair to the alter, and in unified chorus rang out 'why me, God? why me?' Suddenly there was a roar of lightning and everyone was disintegrated right on the spot. A deep voice came down from the rafters clearly enunciating the words: 'Because I don't like you!'"

There are alot of levels to this joke. It makes the point that if God really did play favorites, we would probably know. But in truth, rain falls on the just and unjust alike, and it is up to us to see the rain as a blessing or a curse. There is a quote from The Prophet that poetically makes this point: "Surely he who is worthy to receive his days and his nights is worthy of all else from you. And he who has deserved to drink from the ocean of life deserves to fill his cup from your little stream."

Who are we to determine who is to receive the blessings we give out? God does not act so. In this world she does not go around smiting evil-doers and blessing do-gooders with aught but the fruits of their own labor. So how can we judge others as worthy or unworthy of our gifts?

Another aspect is whether we see what happens to us as a blessing or a curse. Our culture gives the impression that most people see hardship as curse. But I have come to see it as, in many ways, a blessing. Having the requirement to sacrifice something is an opportunity to build and improve oneself. It is my sense that too much prosperity will disconnect people from the truly important things in life and cloud one's life and mind with useless things.

If it is raining on you, it is your choice to enjoy it or lament it. Personally it seems much better for me and my community if I learn to enjoy the hardships of life.

Thoughts on Non-Violence

2009-05-25T14:38:00.001-07:00

Social proof, that is what it all comes down to. Without a significant number of people believing something, it isn't going to happen. Non-violence needs more social proof to be seen as a mainstream solution. Luckily, even the under-developed ideas that currently constitute non-violent thought show how powerful it can be at creating social proof.

The best way to do this is to develop a body of knowledge on how non-violence works, as well as a group of people to go around and exercise these methods. It is only in acting on these ideas and principles in a very public way that we can prove their effectiveness. So, we need to both develop an institute to study the subject (already a few in existence!) and a systematic group to practice and refine methods. There are plenty of groups using non-violence out there, but they do not do it systematically and experimentally, nor do they take meticulous notes on it. Non-violent Peaceforce comes as close to this as I have seen. As much as I love them (they are friggin' amazing!) I wish they would put more effort into smaller scale trainings that would empower locals to fight their own battles as well as be part of the NP network. While I totally dig their interventions in the Phillipines and Sri Lanka, I think there is so much more potential than only in those two places. I want something with the capacity to train thousands in the U.S. every year.

I also think that NP focuses too much on peacekeeping as a third party activity. Part of what makes non-violence so powerful is employing it to fight a conflict, not just as a third party peacekeeper. I want to prove to the public that we can fight and win a war non-violently. And to do that, I think it will take thousands of people across the country using non-violent techniques against violent attackers and winning... and making the point that the only reason they won was because of the use of non-violence.

I will give some examples of what I have in mind... I want an organization that can train:
Unions to be more effective at their struggles.
Groups fighting for civil rights issues (racism, sexism, homophobia)
Poverty fighters
College activists
Copwatches - I want them to have the legal authority to intervene if a police officer is doing something illegal, and they will have to win that.
Environmental activists.
People to deal with day to day conflicts in their own lives...
The list could go on for awhile.

I want to help develop an alternative to the violent military and something that can win against the military-industrial complex. I want to disabuse the global public of its infatuation with and belief in violence. I want to give the movement a weapon more effective than violence so that we can transform this world.

Violence by the Oppressed

2009-05-18T14:00:00.000-07:00

A typical pro-violence argument that I have heard is that some people are so oppressed that violence is their only option. But the trend is that the size of the violent apparatus used in oppression is directly proportional to the degree of oppression. So, for the most oppressed people, they would have the largest odds against their success in their violent struggle.

I recently read Fredrick Douglass's autobiography (which is really amazing, btw). And in it, he describes how at the age of 16 after a grueling 6 months under a devious, cold-hearted and brutal overseer he felt that his will was almost completely broken. After one particularly bad beating, he fled 7 miles back to his master to ask for protection. He received none. On his way back to face his punishment for fleeing, he met up with another slave who gave him a root. This root, the man said, would protect him from being beaten. When Douglass returned he was confronted by the overseer, he decided that he was not going to be beaten again and fought back. After what sounded like an epic 2 hour fight, the overseer finally gave up. But the way he gave up was by saying something like "well, I didn't want to have to beat you so bad. maybe next time you will think twice before disobeying me" and walked off. He did not concede defeat, but he did not really win. Douglass said the next 6 months were much less oppressive since he had won the respect of his overseer. But, there were several other factors contributing to preventing Douglass simply being shot outright (something which he described happening to other people who resisted the way Douglass did). The overseer had a reputation for breaking slaves, something he did not want to tarnish by either killing Douglass, or calling for help from other white people or the law.

Now, most would say that Douglass could have done nothing other than fight back violently. But in most cases when slaves did that were summarily killed, even according to Douglass who thought he was sure to die by fighting back. Douglass recounts how in his child a man who simply refused to move was shot in the head. Slaves who hit back were either instantly killed, or automatically shipped off and sold. This does not seem to be an environment where violence is an effective strategy. It is more likely to get one killed than anything else. In fact, I would argue that Douglass's other activities were the most productive in fighting against slavery.

Douglass managed, in his childhood, to learn to read and write (mostly from white street urchins). He started teaching this skill to his fellow slaves. Lack of education was a key tool used to oppress slaves, so by spreading his knowledge he was directly undermining slavery. He also spread his outlook and really had an immense impact on the lives of the slaves around him. He planned escapes and finally succeeded. After his escape, he wrote his book, which was widely read and has now achieved "classic" status. His main contributions to ending slavery were not his violent altercations which could have easily ended with his death, but his spreading ideas and knowledge. Changing people's minds is where the real power is. If these minds had not been swayed, Britian and the rest of Europe would never have ended slavery. And the civil war (one of the only instances where the end of slavery was accompanied by widespread violence) would never have happened. The 13th amendment was passed because enough people thought slavery was evil. A big part of that was because of publications such as the Liberator and Douglass's autobiography that exposed the fangs of the beast. By making the violence of the system against unarmed people public knowledge, people's minds were changed. No slave revolt could ever accomplish that.

The Futility of Violence

2009-05-18T13:21:00.001-07:00

Over the decade of contemplating the issue, I have really come to see violence as futile. (I would like to make a distinction here, violence is completely different than resistance and force. Both of which can be done more effectively without using violence).

The state has a monopoly on violence, and holy crap, do they exploit that monopoly. They can easily harm and kill thousands without taking a single causality. Their tactics have been refined over 5000 years of testing, and they have a institutional research infrastructure second to none. Even from a violent standpoint the military and police arm of the government is so vast and so effective at violence that it is pointless to hit back. Many may despair at the armies arrayed against the forces of social justice. Not I. For they may have the homefield advantage when it comes to violence, but they are so constricted and captured by the idea of violence that they are unable to fight any other way. They are a prisoner of their own beliefs.

By believing that violence is the only way to force people to do things, believing that it is the most powerful force known, and believing that it is, with all things considered, effective, is the key weakness that will allow non-violent resistance to triumph. Non-violence performs a kind of ideological jujitsu on violence. It turns what violence believes to be its greatest strength into its greatest weakness.

Lets see, how to put this. By committing acts of violence, people make themselves targets for the state to oppress. The state's monopoly on violence is so ingrained in our society that when violence is committed by anyone else, that person automatically loses the moral high ground in the eyes of the public. They are seen as a danger to the public, justifying the use of violence against them by the state, in the eyes of the public. That is the typical scenario violent revolutions face. Non-violent revolutions, however, totally throw off all the government's preconceived notions of conflict.

How do you fight people who refuse to comply and refuse to respond violently? With even partially effective politicking they can maintain the moral high ground against the government, making any violent sortie against them publicly deplorable. They can non-violently provoke violence from the state in such a way that will undermine the population's belief in state supremacy. Non-violence uses the violence of an oppressor to undermine their legitimacy. Turning their weapons into liabilities, and their attempted oppression into a PR disaster.

A non-violent army would be 100x as effective as a violent one. Imagine if we poured 200,000 unarmed people into our enemies' country? What would they do? What could they do? They could try to kill them, but this would only cause them to lose prestige and support. They could try to imprison them, but there are not enough prisons to hold them. Deport them, they just come back. Confine them and they will drain resources and sneak out. Leave them alone and they will convert your population. It is a lose/lose situation for a government. None of their usual tools of control work against non-violence, and they are left utterly frustrated and stumped as to how to effectively fight back.

There are some caveats to non-violence, however. The cause has to be just, or one cannot maintain the moral high ground which is essential to victory. The means have to be compatible with the end which is sought. The people have to believe they are doing the right thing. And, like anything else, it has to be organized, media-saavy, financially supported, and be able to maintain a certain base of support.

So, this has been my most recent addition to the violence/non-violence debate. As pre my previous post, I tried to write it in a non-competitive way that would not cause people who believe in violence to dig in their heels.

The Violence vs. Non-Violence Debate

2009-05-18T12:46:00.000-07:00

Wow, I haven't posted in awhile. Oh well, I will try to make up for it.

The debate over violence in the left gets pretty ridiculous sometimes, and has been the cause of way too many hurt feelings and splits. It may seem like a fruitless debate, because there will not be consensus on the issue in the foreseeable future, but I think it is still important to have. It can be a lesson in how to treat people who disagree with us. If open to the lesson, one can learn a great deal about how to approach people and try to change their minds. Analyzing their world-view and beliefs, one can practice adapting arguments to fit the target. The real challenge in these discussions is not proving the other party wrong, but disarming them and planting the seed of one's idea.

Too many egotistical lefties just want to prove the other side wrong. It is understandable, it is a nice ego boost to "win" an enraged argument. But it is not likely to get the opposing party to change their mind. It is more likely to get them to dig in their heels and refuse to concede. It becomes a contest, and that is just counter-productive. Playing verbal jujitsu is necessary to escape this trap. Do not frame the discussion as a contest of who is right and who is wrong, switch the frame to something that is non-competitive, whatever form of that which is appropriate for the discussion.

This is particularly hard to do since the American way of speaking, especially the male and academic ways of discussion are often framed as contests. It has even been hard for me to come up with an example of a different way to frame a discussion. In fact, I would deem this a great oppression, in a most Orwellian sense, in that our very manner of speaking has been corrupted to such an extent as to limit our capacity to imagine alternatives.

I wish the proponents of non-violence would take this tack on their discussions. It is far more compatible with the style of non-violence than that of violence, plus I am definitively on the side of non-violence and would like to see the idea win more hearts and minds.

Jubillee!

2009-02-28T17:59:00.001-08:00

What we need to help fix this financial crisis is a Jubilee. I am not suggesting a full scale Jubilee (if you don't know what a Jubilee is, read the Bible Lev 25), but merely a small, simple Jubilee to repair some of the damage. It would not fix everything, but it would go a long way to restoring confidence. I am suggesting that instead of injecting nearly a trillion dollars into the coffers of banks to push them to lend, we simply remove the damage-dealing toxic assets. Yes, the government should pay off the mortgages (or part of them anyway) of all the people who owe on these toxic-assets.
I think republicans should like this, because it is the same idea as tax-cuts, a direct infusion of funds into the hands of people (smaller loan payment=money in pocket). Although I am sure they will complain about giving to the "undeserving." But that is just an arrogant, elitist argument that I will address at a later time. Democrats... well, I think if it didn't look politically costly to do this, they would do it.
A Jubilee has the same benefits as the previous examples of generous government policy has had. The GI bill returned an average of 7 dollars for every 1 dollar spent. The Marshall Plan after WWII is the reason that Europe has a functioning economy. The New Deal built a large percentage of our current infrastructure, without which we would not have as strong an economy. Generosity not only makes more sense, it makes financial sense. And a Jubilee is the ultimate shot of generosity.

Purity on the Left

2009-02-28T16:33:00.000-08:00

There are far too many people on the left who have purity issues. They see capitalism as impure (which it is) and try to cut out any connection with it from their lives. This is a DRASTIC MISTAKE. Personally, trying to maintain one's own purity is really self-righteous and selfish. Socially, it removes the influence all of us have over the society we live in. And with regard to the movement it is such SUCH a hindrance to effectively organizing and bringing about change.
To further explain what I am railing against, let me throw out a few examples. I see far too many people on the left simply refusing to befriend people whose ideology is counter to their own... whether they are capitalists or other sects of the left, like Maoists. There is such a stigma against some of these groups that people are afraid to interact or have them around.
< rant >
(an html joke, for those of you who are wondering what the "" is about)
Life is messy, people. Do not expect to be able to live by one's ideals, it is good to attempt it, but taking it to the level of a dogmatic view of purity is just going to cause pain and turbulence to one and the people around them. Condemning people for their failings will not change them, the only effect it seems to have is it makes people feel superior, which creates such a negative environment.
The biggest failing of the 60s New Left was it's purity driven mentality, it utterly destroyed the movement. Divisions and hatreds developed because people were arrogant enough to believe their way was the only way. I do not want to see that happen again. The greatest success of the New Left, ironically, came from its rank and file members making a compromise between the ideals of the movement and living in a capitalist society. By living differently but still interacting with society at a fundamental level, they have changed American and global culture drastically. So much of the hatreds they railed against in the 60s have much less influence now. Racism is merely the most obvious.
What does this teach us about succeeding as a movement? That it is messy, that you have to have real relationships with people who disagree with you and that you can't shut yourself out of a dirty world for purity's sake. It is like Thomas Merton (a kick-ass activist monk from the 60s, like so many of the prophets of social justice, he died in '68) said, "In the end, it is the power of personal relationships that saves everything." This is literally true, societal change does not come from over-throwing the government, it comes from making friends with people who disagree with you. It comes from convincing young people to change the way they behave. It comes from loving those who you see as your enemy. It does not come from sequestering yourself from the world and not listening to the minds of your fellow humans.

< /rant >