Solutions?

Everyone wants to do well.
Everyone wants to have a place in the family, in the community.
Everyone wants to belong, to fit in and be part of the good things.

But what if our culture is imperfect.
What if the way we have organized things favors the wealthy and makes it harder for regular folks.

What if at the bottom of the wealth ladder, you could just fall off, with no escape.

Are there things we as a nation and culture might do differently?
How about our own life choices?

• Of the culture norms, do we know which are good and which are destructive?
• Have we chosen accordingly?

• What's our plan to be different and make a difference?

Pro-life? Perhaps.

The defense of 'life' by pro-life advocates is only one of many appropriate concerns regarding our country's commitment to its' citizens.  It's perhaps the first in ethical importance, but there are more.  Here's a quick list:

food - 
housing - 
education - 
opportunity - 
employment - 
healthcare - 
freedom - 
equality - 
security - 
safety - 

A February review by the National Poverty Center of poverty data since 1996

estimates that the number of households in extreme poverty - people living

on $2 or less daily,  - rose from 636,000 households in 1996 to 1.46 million

 households in 2011, including 2.55 million children.

 an increase of 130 percent.

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't?  Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth.  We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
  ~Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B.

Republicans and Democrats each claim the moral  high ground.  Any chance they both need some severe correction? 

Our polarized rhetoric and our similarly polarized Congress are doing extraordinary harm to our nation and its' citizens.  It's as though the goal is winning rather than serving well.

Note:  Sister Joan is the author of 50 books and a lecturer. Holding a Ph.D. from Penn State University, she is also a research associate at Cambridge University. Other subjects of her writing includes women in the church and society, human rights, peace and justice, religious life and spirituality. She has appeared in the media on numerous shows including Meet the Press, 60 Minutes, Bill Moyers, BBC, NPR, and Oprah Winfrey. You can visit Joan Chittister's website at Joan Chittister.org.  Interesting lady.

INFO!

One of my favorite commercials, created by neuromarketers (modern psychology in advertising)

 who understand that cute dogs doing funny stuff will get our attention.  They give us, "dog tested
 and approved," as the closing line to help us think favorably about the brand name.

Why would a car maker use dogs in their ads?  Because everybody says, "Awwww," and watches the whole thing.

Commercials and infomercials -- those really long product shows -- are not information,  just attempts to influence where our money gets spent.  They are not objective or the solution to needs we might have.

Advertising by definition is strong persuasion, an attempt to talk us into buying something we wouldn't otherwise consider, to provoke a sense of need in us that their product will satisfy better than some other.

We need to regularly remind ourselves what it is about and explain it to our kids, commercials are not information.  They're after our money, our lifestyle, our priorities, and our self-image.  True?

One of the world's smallest countries, Sao Tome & Principe
-- poor, but a gracious culture.  They think differently than 
we do.  Their world is a bit more real than ours, perhaps.

Need a little clarity?  Leave the country for awhile, discover who you are in a world full of people like you and not.  See what it's like to live on $5 a day with one TV channel and no internet, to walk instead of drive, and do all your shopping at the street vendors instead of a store or online.  Such a reality check will help, but it's hard to really understand and adjust, of course.

Most important, make sure your kids understand.  The media is sponsored, the reality they present isn't real or reasonable, and letting such things taint your thinking (your life) is about the same as deliberately living in a sty, even if all the pigs love it.

Final Score: 331 to 1

CEOs Earn 331 Times More Than the Average Worker

(... and 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners)

An interesting proposal scheduled for a public vote in Switzerland, limiting CEO salaries to 12 times the worker average.  They can still be multi-millionaires, but the workforce would have to be paid fairly.  If the business is successful, the workers would be compensated with a reasonable share of that success.

Not a bad idea, although the regulatory details would be a nightmare.
(It was voted down.  The realization came that businesses would just reshape themselves in some fashion to escape the restrictions, and wages would be unchanged.)

The accelerating gap between the rich and everyone else is visible across the emerging globalized economy.  While the rich extract extraordinary wealth from the marketplace, the average citizen is losing ground.  The rich get quickly richer at the expense of everyone else ... in the world, literally.  Is that troublesome?

It is a particularly difficult concept to grasp unless you or someone you love has been the target.

Otherwise, we'll say, "Oh yes, so sad," and move on.

Want a better use for your money?

Why would someone want more wealth than they or their children could ever, ever, ever need?

The GAP - Part VIII: Competition

The list of differences between man and animal includes conscience and choice as perhaps most definitive.

We understand how the animal world is free to live by nature where only the strong survive and persist.  It's a competition for survival.

We hope for better from mankind, perhaps for nobility and courage, for meaningful relationships, for generosity and compassion.

At least, some of us do.

The increasing gap between rich and poor suggests an animalistic mind where little thought is given to the impact of our actions on others.  It's almost as though there were no conscience at play, no willingness to help, to share, to make a way for others.  It's the easier path, of course.

For each of us then, there remains the opportunity to respond to conscience and to choose.  We can each make the difference for another, perhaps even for many.


Want a better use for your money?

Selling Baby Parts

In case you were wondering, it is true and apparently somewhat legal.  This Snopes article like many others points out that what was revealed in CMP videos was/is in fact happening.  The laws governing such practices are ambiguous at best, and the industry's common practices are troubling.

George J. Annas, a law professor and bioethicist at Boston University, said, “What's going on now is probably legal, but Congress won't like it."

Regarding the companies, Mr. Annas said: "They won't be real happy that this is all out in the public. This threatens their business. Even if what they're doing is legal, the law can easily be changed."

Do they sell baby organs?  Yes.  

Do they profit?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  

Is it legal?  Perhaps.  

Are the mothers truly aware?  Is there full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards?  Perhaps, some of the time.  

All that and the reality of the industry's practices are troubling when viewed and considered publically.

More on the subject at Life and Conscience Issues and at PolitiFact

Climate Does Change

The scientific inquiry continues and contrarians still get the best media coverage.  

Fox News is all the way up to 28% accurate on the issue in 2014, and 72% misleading. They were only 7% accurate the year before.

• Fox News covered climate science 50 times in 2013. Of these segments, 28 percent were accurate, while 72 percent were misleading portrayals of the science.
• More than half of Fox's misleading coverage (53%) was from one regular program, The Five, where the hosts instigated misleading debates about established climate science.  Fox hosts and guests were more likely than others to disparage the study of climate science and criticize scientists.

Uninformed is only eclipsed by misinformed.  The issue deserves better from us.  Our children deserve better.

Are there reputable resources?  For a good 'bad example', note the graphic here:

"It just happens" from a popular site, globalresearch.ca.  Despite presenting itself as a source of 

scholarly analysis, the site primarily consists of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda.

It's fairly easy to find appealing articles to support almost any preferred conclusion.  This isn't science, of course.

In the last 650,000 years, there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age around 8,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era - and according to the archeological record, of human civilizations.

The variations are generally attributed to orbital variations on a 100,000 year cycle that change the amount of sunlight we receive.  The solar energy changes are quite small, but enough to bring significant climate change.

If it were that simple, though, we wouldn't be in the intense debate we find these days.
We're stuck with some facts:

NASA analysis of CO2 levels, now higher than at any time in the previous 650,000 years.


• CO2 levels are at historic highs and it appears we did that, we humans.
• Sea levels have risen about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century, and are rising faster as the years pass.
• The global temperature rise since 1880 has the 20 warmest years occurring since 1981 and the 10 warmest occurring in the last 12 years.
• The oceans are warming, up about 0.3 degrees since 1969.  Okay, that's not particularly persuasive.
• Glaciers are retreating.  Greenland alone lost around 60 cubic miles of ice per year, 2002-2014.
• Arctic ice is declining in both thickness and extent.  The decline is caused by and also contributes to climate change.
• Extreme events ... consider the ten coldest and warmest years on record.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

Monthly mass changes in Gigatonnes (Gt) for the

Greenland ice sheet since April 2002. The anomalies

are plotted against the 2002-2014 average. From NOAA.

The changes indicate a loss of around 2,800 gigatonnes

of ice for the period. That's about 20% more loss than

gain from snowfall each year.

Greenland holds about 10 percent of the total global
 ice mass.  If it were to all melt, sea levels should
rise by around 20 feet.  No one knows how long
 that might take, of course.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 405.1 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The Summary for Policymakers is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf."

The facts here are from NASA, NOAA, and others, peer reviewed and independently supported.  The discussion continues among scientists, but little exists to support those who discount the basics.  The information available is continuously being updated.  Perhaps we should stay informed rather than media-formed.







More controversy - here - regarding Antarctica's ice.  :)

Original Copy, and other (oxy)morons

It's easy to spot the big issues in hindsight, but it's difficult when you're in the middle of them.

On a wrongness scale of 1 to 10, Hitler's Third Reich was a 10.

We can see that now, and we're impressed by the fellow in the picture who perhaps had reservations about joining in with the popular movement.

Most folks followed along with little critical thought being part of their decision to do so.  They became copies of a proffered norm, and participants in extraordinary wickedness.

Noel Jones, in “The Battle for the Mind” offers that once a man accepts the world’s ways, that becomes the character and core of who he is.  We are giving someone else control of our choices and future.  Fitted to the norm, we are no longer an original, but a copy.  We are not in control of our own mind, we are being shaped by something or someone else. It means we are living a scripted role, having 'cut and pasted' the world’s ways and thoughts over our own; we are conformed to the world, a moron (foolish, thoughtless, senseless).

It is better, but not easier.

Are we originals?  How often do we notice the inner conflict that comes with being an original?  Or are we comfortable with what we see.  Truth be told, we're all tainted to some degree.

It's not an easy path, accepting some but not all parts of our culture, supporting some but not all of a candidate's positions, questioning 'fair and balanced' reporting. And how about teaching our kids to think clearly and for themselves, to lead rather than follow.

We face difficult tasks today, and we're right in the middle of it all.  We get to choose, of course, but it will take some deliberate thought and work every day. The hardest question, perhaps, is not 'what am I against' but 'what is my hope for my own character and that of my children'.


A clue to our own battle: a typical day will be marked with occasions where we say to ourselves, "no, that's not what I hope for," and adjusting our behavior.  It may be a television show, a sexually exploitive advertisement, our own anger while driving, a harsh conversation, ....

Everything

As a youngster, I was told with a smile ...

 Things are not as they seem.

    You were born into a world at war.

       Everything you do counts. 

Life is filled with choices; right and wrong are often politically obscured.  Our difficult task, discerning what is right and standing firm.  It requires grace, broad understanding, and an open mind to the thoughts and needs of others, and it requires courage in the face of personal loss.  The world our children will inherit is shaped by our choices.

There is no easy path to what is right and good.

(occasioned by a clash of ethical concerns; not the first.)

A Peacock's Tail Feathers

A Corvette serves the same purpose as a peacock's tail feathers.  True?  Perhaps at least partly true.

A Ferrari or a super lux pickup truck for a guy who never hauls anything, however, is an entirely different matter.  Oops, no they're not.

Opulence, luxury, and excess all may stem at least in part from a need for significance in comparison to others; e.g., fancy tail feathers.  So if we know that, why do we play the game anyway? There's more.

It's unlikely that we would say to ourselves, "I want to look really cool, so I'll spend the extra $30K for a really cool-looking car."  More likely, we'll generate a list of reasons for why this or that more prestigious brand-name item is a better choice than the reasonably priced equivalent.  We justify such choices more on our wants than on our need, perhaps.  Enough isn't enough, more is better.  True?  Yes, that's another part of the equation.  We all do our version of that sort of thing.

A favorite fellow in Spain recounted for us how his stateside sponsors had raised money and bought him a nice Volvo.  He drove it briefly, but noted that it set him apart from the regular folks he wanted to serve; they didn't know what it meant that he had this really exotic (to them) car, but it was a wedge between him and their world.  He sold it immediately and bought a normal, boring sedan for his family and went back to being among those he served.  Interesting choice.
Want a better use for your money?

Interesting Advertising Ethics

Neuromarketing; just a side note on a bizarre practice in the marketplace

Manipulated!!!  I wasn't going to spend any money, but I did!
It's been going on for a couple of decades as advertisers learn how to directly target our unconscious brain processes.  If they can bypass our intended decision-making and trigger an emotional purchase, they win, especially if we intended to pass up the item.

"... techniques used in the ad to override the consumer’s rational decision-making process...."*

That moves beyond persuasion to coercion, of course.  It intrudes well past a reasonable expectation of privacy inside our own heads.  We'll all enjoy the coming court battles, probably on A&E.  

The problem, as always, is that technology and culture change much faster than institutions and government regulation can.

Corporate neuromarketers:

There are more than 90 companies providing neuromarketing services to Fortune 500 companies.  A partial list of entities that appear to be using those neuromarketing services and methods:

• A&E Television 
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield California 
• Olive Ranch
• Campbell’s Soup 
• CBS 
• Citi Daimler 
• Disney 
• Frito-Lay 
• Google 
• L’Oreal 
• McDonald’s 
• Microsoft 
• Nestle 
• Procter & Gamble 
• Scottrade 
• Starcom 
• MediaVest 
• Viacom 
• The Weather Channel

Potential Legal Issues*

The use of neuroscience to enhance advertising appeal raises a number of legal issues in three broad areas:


• Consumer Protection*

As neuromarketing techniques become more sophisticated and arguably more powerful, the industry will likely face increasing resistance from regulators concerned that consumers are being misled into believing they want or need a product they have no use for, or deceived into thinking a purchase arises from their rational choice whereas in fact they are being induced to act based on stimulated subconscious impulse. To regulators, these techniques may cross the line from fair encouragement to unlawful coercion. At least one European regulatory agency has already taken action against a financial services company employing neuromarketing. We expect there will be similar enforcement actions in the United States before long.

... so well received by millions
 ... but it's still just product marketing for sales.

• Privacy Issues*

Some of the more aggressive claims by neuromarketers about the power of their techniques to understand brain function and impact behavior have predictably raised privacy concerns among regulators and the general public. At a time of increased sensitivity to corporate monitoring of consumer behavior, thanks largely to the proliferation of Internet tracking and targeting technologies, the prospect of additional intrusions into personal thought processes has raised heightened concern. In addition to facing scrutiny by European data protection authorities and the Federal Trade Commission, neuromarketers may soon be confronted by the burgeoning privacy plaintiffs’ bar in the U.S., which in the last year alone has filed more than 150 lawsuits alleging that new marketing techniques, such as online behavioral advertising, violate consumer privacy.

• Tort Issues*

The use of neuromarketing techniques to induce purchase of a product which, if misused, could cause personal injury, raises important questions under the law of products liability. It is not at all difficult to imagine product liability claims being asserted, especially by or on behalf of children and other vulnerable groups, that neuromarketing wrongfully induced the claimants to use products that are unreasonably dangerous for them, or to over-consume or become dependent on unhealthy foods or beverages, by overriding their rational powers of self-control. Other tort claims may be advanced under a theory that by penetrating to internal areas of brain function, neuromarketing impermissibly “touches” a protected personal domain giving rise to liability for battery or assault.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission will also have keen interest in neuromarketing techniques that are thought to be unduly persuasive, given the Commission’s mandate to prohibit “unfair and deceptive” trade practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act, particularly when it is used to sell products to children.

* from "Neuromarketing: Legal and Policy Issues" ~ Covington and Burling, LLP

Here's hoping for a full scale legal challenge and upheaval in the industry.  But that's rather unlikely any time soon, isn't it.

So what course might we choose that will let us and our families choose our own values and lifestyle?  Is there a vaccination for advertising vulnerability?

Hint: when your child mentions a brand name they prefer, is that reasoned thinking?

Commercialized Children - Continued

Sex sells.

When children are involved, has the marketing industry crossed a line?

Such practices continue, generally unchanged, with full knowledge and deliberate intent by the industry.

For the right wing conservatives and free market capitalists among us, here's a glass of cold water in the face:

"For the last few decades, critics such as Thomas Frank, Kevin Phillips, David Harvey and many others have warned us, and rightly so, that right-wing conservatives and free-market fundamentalists have been dismantling government by selling it off to the highest or "friendliest" bidder. But what they have not recognized adequately is that what has also been sold off are both our children and our collective future, and that the consequences of this catastrophe can only be understood within the larger framework of a politics and market philosophy that view children as commodities and democracy as the enemy. In a democracy, education in any sphere, whether it be the public schools or the larger media, is, or should be, utterly adverse to treating young people as individual units of economic potential and as walking commodities. And it is crucial not to "forget" that democracy should not be confused with a hypercapitalism."

Among the factors facing the nation, cultural change is being imposed by a powerful and conscienceless marketplace.  We've removed all the guard dogs, and the flock is being mauled by wolves.

The question remains, Can our children be protected?  From Commercialized Children:

Successful strategies:

• Parental involvement, thoughtful access controls along with frequent discussions on the rationale.  Make the strategy a family effort with a good goal for all.
• Parental example of rising above the celebrity and materialistic messages along with thoughtful and perhaps light-hearted discussions about why.  Limit 'screen' exposure for the whole family, perhaps as a collaborative decision.
• Stay focused; use opportunities to point out and discuss how advertising is exaggeration, overstatement, and an attempt to get money, nothing more.  Do the same with celebrity issues, famous for being famous.
• Live on a thoughtful budget, and include the kids in the planning.  Do some discount and thrift store shopping; it can help put brand and style in perspective.
• Be part of a community and church that does a lot of things outside, together, and apart from the 'style' culture.  Sports, ballet, and gymnastics can be great motivators.  Worship and getting together with like-minded folks in church is a great way to refocus on what matters.
• Leave the country.  Go live for a while in the developing world with maybe one television channel and no internet.  Live like the other 80% of the world and learn how survival works.  Okay, that's not for everybody.
• Have a goal; discuss it, write it down, do the work for your own life and for the person your child will become.  It is not a small thing.  

Kids are smart; with help, they can learn how to make their own decisions about such things with objectivity and a good conscience.  

As a youngster, I was told with a smile ...

 Things are not as they seem.
    You were born into a world at war.

       Everything you do counts. 

Commercialized Children

Who gets to shape the way our kids think?
Well, we as parents do, of course.  Is that all?
Then there's school, teachers, and peers, of course, but who is the biggest player in the game?

Who has the right to instruct my kids?  
Who gets to tell them what life choices to make?

Surprisingly, a significant impact is made by industry and child-targeted advertising.  (see:  When Childhood Gets Commercialized, Can Children Be Protected?)

For starters, we have an epidemic of childhood obesity and the related rise in medical diseases such as hypertension and type II diabetes. (Surgeon General's report)  Curious how that happened?

Reputable children’s advocates have pointed to food marketing as a major cause of the shift to unhealthy diets of sugar, fat and salt. They point to the billions of dollars of food marketing directed at children; it is on television, in schools, on the internet, and in the grocery store. 

The critique goes beyond food to include the marketing of violence, unhealthy body images, and materialism. Social scientists and pediatricians have compiled an impressive array of research results about the effect of our consumer culture on children. 

Vocal industry opponents argue that children are suffering from "marketing-related diseases” and that marketers are engaging in a “hostile takeover of childhood.”  

Beyond the products, scholars point out that advertising to children is inherently inappropriate, even exploitative. Research shows that kids can't objectively evaluate persuasive intent, they don't grasp the basis of advertising, and that marketing bypasses cognition and targets emotions.

Children caught up in materialistic behavior
will make 3000 requests per year for
 products and services.

A researcher asked a group of six-year-olds to explain the purpose of advertising and gave them four choices. Their responses are as follows:

• don’t know – 31 percent
• for a break – 33 percent
• for information – 36 percent
• to persuade – 0 percent

“At six years old, children don’t show awareness of advertising’s persuasive intent,” he said. “Most do by eight years old, but ... they still see it as a benefit to the customer and not as a benefit to the seller.”

"Advertising is a massive, multi-million dollar project that's having an enormous impact on child development," says clinical psychologist Allen D. Kanner, PHD. "The sheer volume of advertising is growing rapidly and invading new areas of childhood, like our schools." The advertising industry employs psychologists to exploit things like why 3- to 7-year-olds gravitate toward toys that transform themselves into something else and why 8- to 12-year-olds love to collect things.

According to Kanner, the result is not only an epidemic of materialistic values among children, but also something he calls "narcissistic wounding" of children. Thanks to advertising, he says, children have become convinced that they're inferior if they don't have an endless array of new products.

Can children be protected?

Self-regulation by the media has been counter productive.  The public demand for PG-13 and R rated entertainment soared after the standard's implementation.  Young children (2-12) and children (12+) are increasingly exposed to unregulated sources via cable, satellite, and internet.

Attempts at protective regulation have been successfully countered by industry in the courts and Congress.  The family, community, and church have less of a role in the development of a child than ever before.  Character formation is, at best, a period filled with aggressive conflict between parents and an increasingly intrusive world.

Successful strategies:

• Parental involvement, thoughtful access controls along with frequent discussions on the rationale.  Make the strategy a family effort with a good goal for all.
• Parental example of rising above the celebrity and materialistic messages along with thoughtful and perhaps light-hearted discussions about why.  Limit 'screen' exposure for the whole family, perhaps as a collaborative decision.
• Stay focused; use opportunities to point out and discuss how advertising is exaggeration, overstatement, and an attempt to get money, nothing more.  Do the same with celebrity issues, famous for being famous.
• Live on a thoughtful budget, and include the kids in the planning.  Do some discount and thrift store shopping; it can help put brand and style in perspective.
• Be part of a community and church that does a lot of things outside, together, and apart from the 'style' culture.  Sports, ballet, and gymnastics can be great motivators.  Worship and getting together with like-minded folks in church is a great way to refocus on what matters.
• Leave the country.  Go live for a while in the developing world with maybe one television channel and no internet.  Live like the other 80% of the world and learn how survival works.  Okay, that's not for everybody.
• Have a goal; discuss it, write it down, do the work for your own life and for the person your child will become.  It is not a small thing.  

Kids are smart; with help, they can learn how to make their own decisions about such things with objectivity and a good conscience.

For a cultural counterpoint: in the airport between flights, I met an interesting Middle-Eastern fellow with whom I shared a conversation for perhaps half an hour. His wife and children were with him, but I didn't have permission to speak with them nor were they inclined to join in the conversation with me, being that I wasn't family or community. That's the way his culture works.

Currently, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Tennessee, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico allow advertising on their school buses.  Additional states are considering overturning their long-standing prohibitions on school bus ads in a misguided attempt to solve their budget deficits. That's the way our culture works.

Note:  McDonald’s, the world’s largest fast food restaurant chain, reportedly spends $500 million a year on ads, of which approximately 40% is targeted to children. They serve 60 million customers a day.  (Horgen et al, 2001).   Virtually all children’s food advertising is for junk food, and in addition to child-targeted ads, children are heavily exposed to food advertising nominally directed at adults. (Byrd-Bredbenner and Grasso 1999). Nationwide, schools are reported to receive $750 million a year in marketing dollars from snack and processed food companies. (Egan 2002).

The Politics of Respectability, and other things

Gabby Douglas and her hair.  When this incredible athlete won her first gold medal, the twitterverse was filled with critical comments ... about her hair! We wondered about that for the longest time until discovering there are minimum standards for respectability. 

Depending on our class, ethnicity, and culture, there are various rules; e.g.,

• don't go out looking like that ...
• polish your shoes, do your nails, fix your hair ...
• clean up a bit before you go to the store where folks will see you ...
• at least wear a shirt with a collar ...
• it's Sunday, so you have to look nice ...
• I'll be ready in a minute; I've got to do my makeup before we go out in public ...
• we need a nicer house and a better neighborhood if we're going to be anything.

"A … core intuition of the politics of respectability is that, for a stigmatized racial minority, successful efforts to move upward in society must be accompanied at every step by a keen attentiveness to the morality of means, the reputation of the group, and the need to be extra-careful in order to avoid the derogatory charges lying in wait in a hostile environment." ~Randall Kennedy; Race, Crime, and the Law

The persistence of such rules impacts minorities rather dramatically.  They extend inclusively beyond race and class to everyone else, of course, and most play by the rules without a thought.  Culture is rife with such content, not necessarily to its benefit.

Historically, there are times where new rules get added to the existing list.  Following the turmoil, cultures adjust and adapt.  Rule-changing content emerges and circles the globe in ensuing years. Some recent additions:

• The Politics of Respectability - 1880-1920 up to today, ... still seeking to overcome the legacies of the nation’s original sins, continuing as minorities attempt to fit in
• The Green Revolution - 1940's through the 60's and continuing today as environmental science
• The Hippie counterculture movement - 1960's - the drug culture and casual relationships
• The Jesus revolution - 1960's into the 80's and beyond with radical changes for the church

• Neomaterialism - 1980's and '90's - the 'me & mine' or 'yuppie' years of consumerist growth and corporate bottom-line prioritization
• Hyper-consumerism - 1990's to today - the culture of 'more' rather than 'enough'

The fact that such figures exist is troubling, along with the fact that
after a decade, the issue has yet to reach the public forum.

The various effects of each continue visibly today, having seeped into every facet of our lives; many conflict and are incompatible.  Some are troublesome, especially when we, like lemmings, just go along with the common thought.

Do we need to think differently about some things, perhaps radically different?  Is it important enough to be worth the fight?  Will we waste years of life if we get it wrong?

You might want to see:  Class and the absence thereof or perhaps Gabby Douglas and her hair or The Politics of Respectability

Abou Ben Adhem

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:—
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the Presence in the room he said
"What writest thou?"—The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still, and said "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."

The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.

~ James Henry Leigh Hunt

I remember first reading this when I was quite young. The poem thoughtfully opens the question of how someone might please God.  Is it a religious question or a life question.  Does one please Him by perfect faith and religious practice?  Or, might God encourage something more relevant to real life, a genuine reflection of His heart in those who hope to do what is right and good with the opportunity they have?

In today's widespread quasi-religious turmoil, much is revealed from the hearts of those who harm others while claiming God's approval.  While no political argument is pristine, that one is particularly toxic.  It has been twenty years since the Bosnian massacre, and the trouble continues today in Syria, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere.  Everywhere, actually.