Adendum to "Robots' Rights Now!" or Just A Crusafix in a Jar of Pee?

I never thought I would get so much pleasure from these three words...The Summer Movie. If you have read my "Robots' Rights Now!" blog from a few weeks ago, you may understand how I have been personally transformed by Transformers. But after reading this article about Transformers as an art film, I have had a much different experience with the film. Please read this article.

clipped from io9.com Since the days of Un Chien Andalou and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, filmmakers have reached beyond meaning. But with this summer's biggest, loudest movie, Michael Bay takes us all the way inside Caligari's cabinet. And once you enter, you can never emerge again. I saw this movie two days ago, and I'm still living inside it. Things are exploding wherever I look, household appliances are trying to kill me, and bizarre racial stereotypes are shouting at me. this isn't a movie, in the conventional sense. It's an assault on the senses, a barrage of crazy imagery. Bay has put all of this excess of imagery and random ideas at the service of the most pandering movie genre there is: the summer movie. You try in vain to understand how the pieces fit, you stare into the cracks between the narrative strands, until the cracks become chasms and the chasms become an abyss into which you stare until it looks deep into your own soul, and then you go insane. You. Do. Not. Leave. The Cabinet.

My Wo"Man In The Mirror".

I'll add my remarks to this later. I should be getting back to work.

clipped from www.commondreams.org In celebrity culture we destroy what we worship. The commercial exploitation of Michael Jackson’s death was orchestrated by the corporate forces that rendered Jackson insane. Jackson, robbed of his childhood and surrounded by vultures that preyed on his fears and weaknesses, was so consumed by self-loathing he carved his African-American face into an ever changing Caucasian death mask and hid his apparent pedophilia behind a Peter Pan illusion of eternal childhood. The stories we like best are “real life” stories—early fame, wild success and then a long, bizarre and macabre emotional train wreck. O.J Simpson offered a tamer version of the same plot. So does Britney Spears.

What Were They Not Thinking?

Wow. This was the first thing I read this morning and not exactly how I wanted to start the day. Since it is here, it should be commented on.

I have two reactions to this story. The first was, ew! The "ew" feeling is my wrenching but expected feeling of disgust with those making the comments. It is this behavior that has been given a pass by the Free Republic types. Usually the remarks aren't so obviously racist/sexist/homophobic, they have more nuance. In this case, they were obvious. This is why I had a second reaction.

I may be an optimist, but I also thought "at least they DID take them down". It may have taken a day or two to make the right decision, but the site moderator did remove them. This is a sign of progress rather than regression. Those who are wrong, are now becoming more conscious they are wrong. It may not change them to the positive, but it could be one stress that moves them toward the positive later. I was proud that at least some (if only a few) of the bloggers on the Free Republic site did stand up and tell others that the remarks were inappropriate. It has to start somewhere, even if it is like 40 years later then everyone else.

I also have two other thoughts on the topic. One was about how shaded the new racism is. There is sometimes debate upon whether something is or is not racist. My definition of "racist" is when outdated stereotypes are used to infer behavior. "Racism" is when the outdated stereotypes are used to deny equal power to a group. In this example there are a few outdated incorrect stereotypes. Bitasking a comment with a skin color characteristic in the same one as "monkey" is a reference to the eugenic and, what I would call, poorly done physical anthropology of the past. It is a historical reference. Which lead to my second thought, would history lessons reduce racism?

History is not directed at changing behavior like "sensitivity training", "diversity" workshops, and even batterers' treatment models, are. Is describing the history and ordering it so we learn where our unconscious beliefs come from a way that those who still are using outdated stereotypes to be addressed without the immediate defense going up? When we call for particular histories to be told that have been lacking (Black History, Women's History, Gay History, ect...) we aren't just wanting examples of heroes, we are asking for our own lives to be put into context. We are asking for counter examples to the outdated stereotypes. Could it be history that is lacking in education, more than any intercommunication training?

I'm not sure, but I'd like to have the discussion.

And my last thought, real quick before I go get my waffle fix...
This behavior is not unexpected from the Free Republic site. White supremacist groups use sites like these to recruit new members. "Tea Parties" and small libertarian groups, and even small Christian congregations, are being perverted by the bad guys out there. It makes me sick.

clipped from www.vancouversun.com Conservative Free Republic blog in free speech flap after racial slurs directed at Obama children These are a small selection of some of the racially-charged comments posted to the conservative 'Free Republic' blog Thursday, aimed at U.S. President Barack Obama's 11-year-old daughter Malia after she was photographed wearing a t-shirt with a peace sign on the front. The thread was accompanied by a photo of Michelle Obama speaking to Malia that featured the caption, "To entertain her daughter, Michelle Obama loves to make monkey sounds." Such was the onslaught of derision on the site that the person who originally complained about the slurs, a Kristin N., claims only one comment in the first hundred posted actually criticized the remarks as inappropriate. Only after significant negative attention from a host of left wing political blogs did the maintainers of the Free Republic site place the thread under review for a second time, before finally pulling it.

Gay Panic Defense

I normally don't do two blog posts a day, and I'm sorry to anyone who came to the blog today expecting my tech blog to be first on the list, but after reading this I really have to say something, or at minimum raise some good questions.

I found this article through some friends on Facebook who I totally respect. However, while the brutality toward gays, and especially Chad Gibson, the 26-year-old Fort Worth resident who was put into a coma during a police raid of a gay bar last week , should be brought to light, this particular article (and a few others I have read on the subject) deflect from one of complications of the story. I understand this is a compelling story for many reasons. One is the brutality by police. Second is the group it was directed to and their historical struggle. Three is the issue of sexual assault. I would like to bring up a few points for discussion about the latter.

The following are excerpts from the article. I suggest reading it, but beware, it is not a news article, it is an opinion piece. For a more objective piece check out "Raid at Club in TX Leaves Man in Coma." The author did however collect relevant quotes from TX newspapers that are important pieces of evidence to their argument. Their emotional reaction is very understandable and I love those gut-reactions because I think they have the most individual truth in them of how the person will treat the situation unconsciously. Consciously, I think we step back and correct our behavior for affectiveness.

clipped from slog.thestranger.com Fort Worth Police Chief: That Faggot Had It Coming The officers who raided the Rainbow Lounge claim that the men in the bar made "advances" on them[.] This is a classic example of the Gay Panic Defense. In the very recent past all a straight man who brutally murdered a gay man had to say was, "He made a pass at me!", and the jury would ignore the evidence and let the murderer off. The Gay Panic Defense doesn't fly in many courts of law these days but it still has currency in the court of public opinion. And the chief of police in Forth Worth, a major U.S. city, is attempting to use the Gay Panic Defense to convince the citizens of Fort Worth to ignore the evidence—to ignore photographic evidence and credible eyewitness accounts—and let his officers off. Gay men don't grope police officers when they enter gay bars

This article brings up a very importance idea, this of the "Gay Panic Defense".
Gay Panic Defense a real problem. This idea that people deserve a "pass" for behavior because it is fair is, well, unfair. An officer was assaulted, so force was excused. But if we extend this analogy does it remain true? Look at the example of the prosecution of Nazi prison guards. Most guards were individuals caught up in bad politics and had a terrible job. Was their murder of Jewish "criminals" (as defined by Germany at that time) a justified reaction? Sometimes reactions are not fair. Being angered at the police isn't about punishing the individuals, it is anger about unjust society. We are trying to create a just society and creating a society that has laws that clearly define unacceptable behavior. In this case we have the excuse that because there was a preceding event, the police's reaction is justified. If the police are allowed to use the "Gay Panic Defense", then why not also accept the "Jewish Panic Defense"...the Jews in Germany did have jobs that Anglo-Saxon Germans would have had, and fear of losing a jobs in a poor economy uas used as a reason for a Nazi prison guard to just do their job. Both are justified because of a preceding events. In the case of the TX officers, they say the bar patrons were groping them.

The NYTimes article reports a more moderate version of the story. The TX Police captain is defending the officers, the people who were there have a different interpretation. I seriously doubt that every officer was groped, and that every bar patron involved in the violence were the ones doing the groping. But I doubt it has never happened before either. However, the author is using their own experience of gay bars to describe the behavior of a very large and diverse group. Basing a the argument on their personal experience is great if they are expressing an opinion, or using it to introduce information with respect to their point of view (as I am about to do), but it doesn't fit into the argument that this author is making; that the behavior of the police is equivalent to a hate crime.

This author's argument that he personally knows that "gay men don't grope police officers when they enter gay bars" brings up a good topic of conversation because I have had a different experience. I don't think my experience is universal at all, but it is my experience.

I have had many times with different men in Idaho had a similar conversation; I know at least a dozen straight men who are LGBT allies and gay men, however they are uncomfortable in Pocatello's gay bar, Charley's. They have been made to feel uncomfortable because of behavior by people that if I saw in any other context would be sexual assault. Their experience was caused by the behavior mostly of men, and a few women, not all of one sexual orientation. I can't claim it is a "gay thing", but these questions are raised because of their location not the sexuality of the participants. These assaults are not always physical, but has been enough that I would say that physical sexual assault is not rare.

Men, and some women, have commented that when they go to Charley's they are touched inappropriately. They may also have comments made to them of a sexual nature, but not just one comment, often it is a lot of them in a row. I wouldn't say every time this happens it would be categorized as sexual assault, but when the victim asks for it to end, and it continues, that moves beyond playful. I have also seen it used as a weapon to discourage people from returning to the bar, both intentionally and unintentionally. And really, any unwanted physical sexual touching is assault, especially when used to make the victim feel less powerful.

So, the question I have are the following:

Does sexual assault get minimized by being in a place where sexuality is expected to be on display, such as a bar, especially a gay bar?

What is an appropriate response to physical sexual assault?

Men in society are traditionally, although unfairly, the creator of the norms of behavior. Is their violent reaction (in this case) the correct one for women to imitate? Is a violent reaction the correct reaction to begin with?

What are women taught and expected to do in the same situation at other bars?
What are women taught and expected to do in non-bar situations?

Why is the sexuality of the perpetrator and victim given more weight then the offensive act in most of the discussions of what happened in Texas?

Why location is given weight to the activity?

Eve Elsner's "My Short Skirt" applies here. If you haven't heard "My Short Skirt" watch this video.

I agree with it's premise that the police uses excessive force and there are some major problems to be addressed about treatment of minorities by police, brought up by this article. I am conscious I have spun this from the first article's intention, but I'd like to have this discussion. Please let me know your thoughts.

Social Media Lessons of the Week

I decided to browse NPR and the NYTimes for "technology" this morning. Two interesting article came up. The first one is about Power.com.

Power.com is a program where you can log into multiple social networking sites at once. Sound's pretty awesome. I'll take it for a test drive this afternoon and see if I like it. I'm logged into facebook like 16-20 hours a day so if there is a way I can keep up with my other lesser used sites during the day, that would be cool. Sure I love my twitterfox, and I'm becoming more and more fond of tweetdeck, but I'm always looking to one better my tech connection. The NYTimes article is about how Power.com is suing Facebook for monopolizing social networking. They are likely to lose, but they are getting some attention from it, even if it is just from me and the NY Times.

Second lesson of the day is from NPR. One of the reasons I like Facebook and my Google mail is that the marketing towards me is getting smarter. I like most of the ads that I get on Facebook. They are set by profile information, not text written in messages, statuses, and posts. This is both too bad, but also makes it more affective then how Google does it.

Google will pull words from the text of e-mails. This is frustrating to me sometimes. I had to click on Jim Risch ads everyday because they would be generated by my e-mails during the Nov '08 election. I clicked on the ads, mostly just to cost him money through Google's pay-per-click. I also marked his ads as "offensive", like I often do on Facebook hoping they will get the picture that I am not interested in the Young Republicans' ads, or any ad for republican candidates or issues. I wish there were a preference of excluding ads instead of just adding data that will generate better ads. If Google base more of the ads on profiles and less on key words generated in e-mail conversations, I think the ads would be more relevant. I also wish I could request types of ads. I love all the ones for vintage clothing and would like more of them.

I guess in the end it doesn't matter. I'm of a generation that has been so advertised to since youth, I am pretty good at tuning them all out. Unless it is a picture of a girl in a vintage swimsuit. That always catches my eye.

clipped from www.npr.org Facebook Ads A Big, Fat Wrinkle For Some Users But, I recently found myself in a dilemma, and it all had to do with Facebook and my age. I noticed, as I thought about it, that all the Facebook ads on my page were about wrinkle creams and diets. Whoever was advertising had focused on my age and on nothing else revealed in my profile; for example, a love of science fiction or birding. [Then she removed her age from her profile, and] started looking again, and I noticed no ads for diets or wrinkle cream. It turns out that now you can vote ads on Facebook up or down, and even vote them out. I'm guessing a lot of people voted against those ads for wrinkle cream. And when she took her birth year out, "there was an obvious decrease in the number of those types of ads. Now the ads are geared more toward key words in my profile, and seem based on my interests."

Robot Soup

Robots are in the news again. This time taking the variety out of taste. Soup is even getting some robot flavor.

clipped from www.npr.org A ramen shop owner in Japan has blended his love for noodles with his passion for electronics. Customers enter his store and tap into a computer their preferred levels of salt and soy sauce and broth richness. The robot then whips up the perfect broth. Humans are still needed to make the noodles and place them in the bowl. Robot Attracts Customers To Ramen Shop

The Obama Administration and LGBTQI Rights

As people who believe in social justice and as Americans, we are all wanting our government to parallel our personal beliefs and ideals. We all have high hopes for the Obama Administration and want them to represent and act on issues we hold dear and affect us and those we love. I've participated in many discussions, especially on LGBTQI rights, and heard a lot of criticism of the Obama Administration, both fair and some of it unfair. When I think about it, I always think of it like the Audre Lorde quote about how I view progress and what is happening around us.

"There's always someone asking you to underline one piece of yourself--whether it's Black, woman, mother, dyke, teacher, etc.--because that's the piece that they need to key in to. They want to dismiss everything else. But once you do that, then you've lost because then you become acquired or bought by that particular essence of yourself, and you've denied yourself all of the energy that it takes to keep all those others in jail. Only by learning to live in harmony with your contradictions can you keep it all afloat. You know how fighting fish do it? They blow bubbles and in each one of those bubbles is an egg and they float the egg up to the surface. They keep this whole heavy nest of eggs floating, and they're constantly repairing it. It's as if they live in both elements. That's something that we have to do, too, in our own lives--keep it all afloat. It's possible to take that as a personal metaphor and then multiply it to a people, a race, a sex, a time. If we can keep this thing going long enough, if we can survive and teach what we know, we'll make it. But the question is a matter of the survival and the teaching. That's what our work comes down to. No matter where we key into it, it's the same work, just different pieces of ourselves doing it."

I took Gender and The Law from Dr. Adler and we specifically went over civil rights of minorities in the class. Also with a basis in the history of the U.S. Constitutional law, I see the move towards LGBTQI full equality as going to take awhile and I see the small gains are being strategically placed. The goal, long term, is to use the Constitution to illuminate our rights, but to do that, we (LGBTQI) must reach "suspect class" status. This status is gained by challenging laws, one at a time, until their is a substantial number of cases with a precedence. There also must be sound research that also shows the costs and affects of the laws being unequally applied. There must also be the practice of our government to use sound science in law. To reach full equality, without states being selective/obstructive of rights, the road must be set down first. Demanding everything "now" is not going to make the for full equality, it is actually fodder for "separate but equal" proponents. I also trust and hope Obama and Biden have more vision of what they are doing because of they both have knowledge of constitutional law and how legal change comes about. Full equality under the law must come through law if it is to be permanent.

I think what has been done so far by the Obama Administration is to recognize rights that will help to move forward the evidence for further legal rights later. For the U.S. to recognize the same-sex benefits to federal employees, is a excellent place to begin. It is not where it ends. It sets a precedence of treatment and respect that more gains can be built on; and it didn't cause huge debate. It was a great test of the waters and a real practice change that moves forward the cause without using too much energy.

I don't think things are static, I think they are moving along at a steady pace. Slower than I would like? Absolutely! But, we also must respect that LGBTQI rights should not just be forced upon the majority or there can be a dangerous re-action. With the change in the age and ideas of the next generation, there can be both a change in the law and a change in culture that isn't forcing others to behave in a certain way. I don't want to force others into a belief, but in as little as 4-10 years, demographically and through education, the changes will move themselves toward the positive. This is a link to one of the models that shows a positive change. I am more scared than anything that in if a case comes up too quickly to the courts (Prop 8 is an example), that more could be lost then gained. Picking battles is very important and I see the Obama Administration is making positive moves for sustainable change.

Also, as someone who (rather dangerously sometimes) sees all the connections between human rights and other issues, I think that picking the winning battles and making friends in other movements, then linking those issues, is a better way to build a coalition who will choose the right thing with minimal effort. It is like judo. In judo you use other's momentum to win the battle and save your own energy. Judo just means "the gentle way". The Obama's Administration's lack of quick movement on LGBT issues isn't as pressing for me, right now because I see them taking the gentle way. For example, many environmental issues are about respect. We must respect Earth and change our behaviors to illustrate our respect. Human rights are also about respect. We can teach respect by working on environmental issues. Respect can then applied when describing human rights and we have something in common; and working together we have the added benefit of creating alliances. People can then make better decisions on their own without it taking so much force, doing it the judo way. Van Jones has said it best when he asked why would anyone care about the polar bears and global warming when they can't get a job, or they have a sick child and can't afford health insurance. While I don't think health care or the environment should come before human rights, I try to understand where people are before we can move forward together. It makes progress slower then I would want sometimes but by taking the long view I can keep a balance that I hope moves humans towards respect of their own energy.

The same goes with how I see the Obama Administration's work on international human rights and peace/war. We must engage where we can make the most positive and sustainable change as it comes up. LGBTQI rights haven't moved to the top of the list yet, but they are in que and ready to addressed in the near future when momentum will make the job easier and make the results more permanent.

Thoughts of the Day, Is a M.A. Useless to Me?

Aw geeze. I didn't want to hear this. Really not a great story, but something to chew on for someone like myself who is looking for a M.A. program. Looks like a J.D. is a good idea after all. Boo.

clipped from roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com Room for Debate recently published two forums on the burdens of student loans, and heard from a lot of former students, parents, professors and others who shared personal horror stories, blunt advice and critical observations about higher education. Degree inflation increasingly obliges more degrees to compensate for the devaluation of earlier degrees. Jobs that once were filled by high school graduates and later by college graduates today often require a master’s degree. This is largely optical, but one deals with the world he or she lives in. Still, just as the double and triple undergraduate major is a form of gilding the lily, a form of product enhancement, meant to seduce the hiring partner or the human resources director, the growing interest in the M.A. reveals the inadequacy of the baccalaureate. Not all degrees are equal — a master’s in anthropology or art probably has less incremental earning power than a M.B.A. or advanced engineering degree.

Robots Rights NOW!

So, while many of the NPR commentators on this story say it is a waste of time, they weren't looking at the representations of what it means. This simple "Should Robots Speak 'Jive'?" question is asking us to look at many deep topics.

The question of stereotypes is deep. Stereotypes are useful markers to help humans make quick decisions, and stereotypes are often based in some reality. The problem is when we hold on to an idea of a stereotype too closely, we may not let people out of the ideas and it may harm them. Is 'jive' an ethnicity? When we use ethnic characters are they ethnic 'caricatures'? They are ideas in their simplest form. My opinion is, if the ethnicities are represented as heroes, and are shown to be of value, they are likely good. If the ethnicity is a marker to distinguish them from the good guys or as a bad guy, the use of ethnicity/culture is racist. Racism is using race/ethnicity as a distinguishing trait for preferential or negative treatment. If we use the marker of ethnicity especially with accents (like is all too often the case) to mark negative traits, we associate the two. Bad guys have accents=people with accents are bad guys. If you don't believe me, just think...The chef who tries to kill Sebastian in The Little Mermaid, Jafar from Aladdin, and it isn't just in Disney movies.
A great link to check is http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A891155 It is analyzing some of the reasons so many villains have British accents.

One of the hot debate points about the use of ethnicity towards the Robots in Transformers was how one particular character had both physical distinguishers and was described as "gleefully illiterate." I laughed aloud when I first read "gleefully illiterate"...but what was my own reaction based on? It is "common sense" that to be illiterate is a trait that my peers would not be proud to have. My laughter was because of the lapse of logic about being "gleeful" on a right that most Americans may take for granted. I interviewed a woman this week who will tell you about how the right to read was taken away from her and other ethnic Albanians just 2 decades ago.

Writing has been around since for about the last 6,000 years. But modern humans have been around for about 200k-160k years. I'm talking Homo Sapien Sapien. We have had the same wiring for that long. This means we have been physically capable of being literate for that long. There is still debate about how we may have been mentally capable before being physically capable...but I digress. I ask, why is being literate a marker of being more advanced? For over a hundred thousand years we didn't need writing. We have strong evidence that oral traditions were what held the knowledge we needed. So why today do we hold literacy in such high esteem? I wonder if it is the same reason we love our iPhones...because it is the newest and coolest technology. Or are we ethnocentric. Either way, we should check ourselves before we wreck ourselves.

The most interesting comment I came across was the Robots Rights NOW! comment. It went as following

"Why isn't anyone talking about the stereotypical way that giant intelligent robots from outer space are portrayed? I for one am sick of Hollywood portraying them as bent on the destruction of mankind when all they want to do is harvest us for their interstellar carbon farms. Robots rights now!"

Now, seriously, why are robots stereotyped they way they are. Their audio voices are based on a history of technology that is outdated. Don't programmers have ethnicity? Does the primary language (or bi-, multi- lingual ability) of the programmer change the code that affects computers? Is it not foreseeable that robots would have linguistic distinguishers or diversity that would at times mimic what we know?

If intelligent robots from out of space are just farmers, then aren't we demonizing farmers? I'm still worried about the Robot Holocaust (see previous post).

And I have to have my last word on gender, but I'll quote a comment from the NPR website.

"what about the way female robots are often depicted? Why would a robot need gigantic breasts or wear high heels?"

Why is un-gendered & uni-sex most often male. This is a blog for another day. Believe me, it will come.

clipped from www.npr.org Should Robots Be Allowed To Speak 'Jive?' One of the more fascinating discussions on the film (besides the varied and creative ways film critics are finding new ways to insult director Michael Bay) is whether the personalities assigned to some of the titular robot stars could be considered racist. (Or at least grossly stereotypical.) The robots in the film could be considered an extension of our fascination with high-tech gadgetry (only in this case, bigger is better). When we're at the point where we can assign a Homer Simpson voice to our GPS devices, do we owe it to give them a little bit of dignity. Does it matter that they're fictional?

Mind Your Manners, Mind Your Blackberry

This article made me think. While, I am personally annoyed by people who use their mobile devices (not just Blackberries) too much, especially when they are in social situations; I can see the point the article makes. I have been in positions where replying to e-mail immediately was necessary and showed professionalism. When I think of good behavior, and what is good for the spirit, I often refer back to the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. Every person should read this book. It discusses manners, but also is important to teaching people the skill of dealing with people. The positive ideas it suggests, in they style of Affirmative Inquiry, teach more than behavior. The book teaches how to have a positive outlook to working with people, even difficult people. This new behavior surrounding polite behavior seems to break some of the rules.

I would also like to know from a psychology perspective how this constant changing of direction of behavior and interest affects the brain. Are we so dynamic and mentally agile that this is not a concern? I wonder if our quality of work goes down when we are doing this jumping. As an anthropologist I wonder if these constant changing multiple social statuses (i.e. business person, mother, friend) and moving them into the same 5"x3"x1/2" space means the line between them is thinner and thinner.

My personal opinion is that this constant movement and the use of mobile devices is unhealthy for the human spirit. I am under the opinion that time is NOT money. Time is the most valuable resource we have while alive. You can make more money, but you can't make more time. Vicki Robbins wrote a book called "Time is not money: waking from the work-a-holic American dream" and talks about how our time should do a better job of illustrating our values. When you are in a business meeting, you are representing something bigger than yourself. You are symbolic more than literal. By not using the time allotted to you to being in the postion, you are destablizing the status of the business/organization. It is self-important to use the time to play another role that you may find more pressing.

Remember when we didn't have cell-phones? We would have to wait until we got home or back to the office to return calls. The world didn't end, and honestly, we did quite well as a nation. There are certainly positions that should take precedence over others. I don't want police officers to be without a phone in the case of an emergency, but there are few positions that the person has to be self-important to think you can't take 10, 30, or even an hour from that other position to show respect for another human being. Undivided attention is important.

One of the points Dale Carnegie makes in "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is that people like a good listener. This is something that I have also learned from being taught to council people or intervene in a crisis. Active listening is one of the most important skills a person can have. People do, by nature even, want to feel important. This is why the Blackberry religion has grown so quickly. It is also pretty much a universal in every culture to find ways of controlling that individual desire too. Religions do it, in fact one of the major focuses of thesist religions do is to take the focus off of the individual and put it towards their Godesses and Gods. "There is no God but God" is the Islamic mantra. Hare Krshnas' sing and praise God many times a day as well. Christians also are asked to give thanks and prayers towards God many times a day. The Blackberry prayer is also a kind of "check-in", but not with a higher-power, but with one's own life. And it isn't a self-check-in which is suggested by more wellness coaches' it is a redirection towards ones responsibility and others in a misdirected effort to become more productive. It is what makes us work-a-holics. It can also increase our individual personality, like the NYT article says-we may often say things in text we wouldn't say aloud.

This points out another negative consequence of too much pda. To be a balanced human being, we must communicate openly. If you are texting during a meeting, you are not communicating, especially if you are making comments to others in the room. This would destroy a marriage, and the same goes for relationships in the business world. Just like a partner that loves you, they may excuse the behavior, like they do in this article. Over time the behavior adds up until it has ruined the relationship.

When time is the most important thing we have, and we use time to give power to our values, this use of technology shows that we may not value the now and people physically around us. for us not to be in-the-now is not showing respect. It may be my religious opinion, but people should be more centered and sincerely where they are rather then the mind drifting to other places or fantasizing about being somewhere else. When you are in balance, you are where you are without distraction. Every action is intentional and sincere. Personal mobile devices seem to get in the way.

I have a job that constantly jerks me in different directions. I love my job, but I have to get up and press buttons or speak words into a microphone 16 times a day. I am not ADD, or ADHD so this moving direction make it hard to get quality in whatever else I am doing. Because I have many 5 minute breaks throughout my shift I get pulled in many directions. My Palm phone used to do the same thing when I was alone. It wasn't until I re-listened to Vicki Robbin's talk about how our time should refelect our values I became more fre from my computer life. sure I have twitter and facebook, and even myspace updates sent to my phone, but these days I also set time aside to free myself. The best way to show respect to the people around you is to not answer that e-mail or text immediatly, but ignore it and center yourself with the person you are with.

By not recieving an immediate reply to an e-mail or text, it is an illustration that the person on the other end is balanced and is respectful to those around them.

If none of this makes sense, it was becuase I was inturrupted 16 times while writing it, and had to check my facebook on my mobile phone.

clipped from www.nytimes.com As Web-enabled smartphones have become standard on the belts and in the totes of executives, people in meetings are increasingly caving in to temptation to check e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, even (shhh!) ESPN.com. But a spirited debate about etiquette has broken out. Traditionalists say the use of BlackBerrys and iPhones in meetings is as gauche as ordering out for pizza. Techno-evangelists insist that to ignore real-time text messages in a need-it-yesterday world is to invite peril. Mr. Reines said. “BlackBerrys have become like cartoon thought bubbles.” like gunfighters placing their Colt revolvers on the card tables in a saloon. “It’s a not-so-subtle way of signaling ‘I’m connected. I’m busy. I’m important. And if this meeting doesn’t hold my interest, I’ve got 10 other things I can do instead.’ ” Despite resistance, the etiquette debate seems to be tilting in the favor of smartphone use Mind Your BlackBerry or Mind Your Manners

What is in a title, Ma'am?

Yeah, of course I would post this. It has to do with gender. I remember the first time I was called "Ma'am". It was like being called "adult". I wasn't offended as much as I was surprised. As an anthropologist I like to examine the unwritten rules for how we decide on the appropriate use of titles like this. What is in a title? Plenty when you are an anthropologist. It represents, rank, age, responsibility, and social status.

clipped from www.npr.org Weekend Edition Saturday, June 20, 2009 · In every woman's life, there comes a time when someone calls her "ma'am." It's usually an indication that you've reached a certain age or bearing that signals you are an elder, or someone who deserves a certain level of respect. Some women don't like it because it makes them feel, well, old. Some women don't like it because they are senators. BRIG. GEN. MICHAEL WALSH: Ma'am, at the LACPR ... SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA): You know, do me a favor, could you say "senator" instead of "ma'am"? BOXER: It's just the thing. I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it. Yes, thank you. But people can be touchy about titles, especially when they've worked hard to get them. If you slaved away on weekends and missed family dinners at home to be that senior vice president of your company, admit it — it would get under your skin a bit if someone introduced you at a large meeting as just a veep. Showing respect is never a bad thing.

American Ritual

As my co-worker and I often do, we discuss the morning local news, or I just complain about the Idaho State Journal. This morning my co-worker was trying to find a way to point out that on one hand, construction has already began at the PMC but the formal ground-breaking has yet begun. This makes me think. Why do Americans, who may not recognize that we have formal traditions as a nation, still engage in these ceremonies?

Ceremonies are very important to humans. Every culture has some. A. Van Gennep, the anthropologist who wrote Rites of Passage, and Victor Turner, who wrote The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, would say we must use ceremony to move into new social statuses. While this is usually performed on people, we can say that in the case of a Grand Opening, or Ground Breaking, we are changing the social status of Earth.

I often complain orally (and this is the 2nd time in text) that Earth should be more respected. Linguistically, I would argue the word "Earth" should always be capitalized. The rules of capitalization says that proper nouns should be capitalized. Right now the rules on the capitalization for the word "Earth" is when you are talking about the planet.

"Webster says:

Do not, however, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun."

A proper noun is a one-of-a-kind object. It demands respect, and we should treat Earth more like how we would ideally treat a person. It also will remind us it is not a generic object, but our one chance to interact with it.

But I digress. While many people can't think of an American ritual off the top of their head not related to a National Holiday, we do have many that may go unrecognized. Our ceremonies still abound, especially in the business world. But who is involved in the ceremony, and who decides how it should go? What happens when there is no ceremony?

This example of the PMC ground breaking is an interesting expression of how we do it in the current day. From my knowledge of anthropology and experience being an Pocatello, Idaho native, I can answer some of it.

Who is involved in this ceremony?

Mostly, the public relations people from the PMC and Legacy Partners. Public relations staff are some of the newest creators of rituals. They organize the event, are the ones responsible for inviting guests and deciding which guests will be invited to participate and who will just attend. As an example, a journalist from a TV station is not a participant in the ceremony itself. However, without the media in attendance, events may not exist in the consciousness of the public, just like the ritual creates the change in social status. It is not real without their attendance. To PR and business, while the public is invited, media representatives are of a different status. General public are not given pre-access to information or private time with the guests of honor. In this case, the guests are the Shoshoni and Bannock tribal representatives, and Idaho Lt. Governor Brad Little. In this case, Lt. Governor Little is likely acting in the stead of Governor Otter. Often times when high offices are asked to attend ceremonies and they have more important business, but want to show respect and participate in a social status change but cannot attend, they send their second in command to represent them. Pocatello Mayor Chase will be there so will Chubbuck Mayor England, along with the Bannock County Commissioners ( only 1 was so valuable to the community having this new business opportunity but all 3 will be there).

Why are other people not invited? Tribal people are invited for many reasons. For one they are the traditional "owner", but more like stewards, of the land the PMC will be built on. But they are also invited because without them there would be more trouble. Sincerely, or insincerely, the tribes must be invited. They are a powerful economic force in the area. They must be recognized by the other powerful as here and not invisible. The history of the First Americans in the area, and the city and American history informs this decision. The participation of the tribe re-inforces the importance of the people living in the area. Others that will have an interest and will be recognized at the event would be the President of ISU, Arthur Valais. Idaho State University is an important ally for future partnerships and business opportunities.

But while the event has picked who should be included because of their power and status in the area, we also have those who are not included, I would say, because of their tacit power, or uber-minority status. For example, while people living in the area would say the LDS Church has a lot of influence in the area because of their number of members and the monetary power of their members, they are not performing their religious rites at the ground breaking. The same goes with Hindus in the area. There are plenty of religious diversity in the town that for such an important ceremony that more groups would be included, but the minority groups without power are the ones who are not invited. Only those with power were invited to be incuded.

Another question is what would happen if it did not happen. Technically, ground has already begun at PMC because change have been made to Earth to make upcoming construction easier. Ground has been clearned and literally and figuratively, a stage has been set. The ceremony is not needed to make the construction happen, just like we don't need a birthday ceremony to get older. The point of the ritual is to gather together as one group to move forward. By having a ceremony, the public or groups involved cannot say "I didn't know they had started". It is also a time when you find out who your friends are, by both invitations being sent, and by who shows up.

While it may just be the creation of a non-human business, or the industrial complex's creation. The American ceremony of "ground breaking" is one that carries importance. It is what ideologically creates and memorializes changes.

What I Learned from Twitter Today

This summer, my attempt to get a second job is being interrupted by my desire to put more self-improvement practices into play. So instead of getting a job, I'm really working on myself this summer. First, I decided I need to make better friends with the huge number of people I know and like, but don't spend time with. Second, I looked at what things I have an interest in and what opportunities I have to put my time and energy into which will reflect my values more. Third, I am looking for ways I can work towards my future goals and things I can learn that will help me later, professionally. Fourth, I am spending time working on my physical health.

So in my second part of my goal, I am putting time and energy into volunteering at the Janet C. Anderson Gender Resource Center at ISU. It was the first place I was given an opportunity to learn what I wanted to know, and get paid for it. I also know they took a very large cut financially from the ISU budget cuts. It seems like a good place where my talents can be put to use.

In the third part of my goal, I want to learn and improve on skills that are practical and even neccessary for organizations I would like to work with in the future. For this reason I am teaching myself XHTML, CSS, and some other fancy languages so I can design and maintain websites. I had planned on going to school for it, but I'm so sick of school right now, and itching to get on with my life outside of Pocatello, Idaho, I didn't want to add 1 more year to my time.

To mix my marketing knowledge and my professional skills, and my interest in acitivsm, I've been learning how to use social networking for marketing. I am working on 3 marketing plans for the JCA Center surrounding events and one of the ways I wanted to improve the center and move them to the next level is by using Twitter. But I get a little distracted sometimes.

I've been addicted to search.twitter.com lately. My favorite search phrases have been NPR, Women, womyn, Gender, ISU, Pocatello, and Poky. But really, the one that is the most fascinating is what people are saying about "gender". As a hashtag "#gender" it doesn't come up much, but when reading through other posts it is a common theme that regularly gets ignored.

For people who don't know what a #hashtags is, check out
http://twitter.pbworks.com/Hashtags. The cool thing about hashtags are that they are meant to be followed. I also like them because they are used to put context on some posts people make. So, for example, you may say "found a place to stay on couchsurfing.org" then #hashtag it with #travel or a place you are talking about like #SLC. They are often implicit references to topics.

I don't expect others to be as highly interested in twitter or gender as I am, but I have been spending a lot of time trying to understand all the neat Twitter possibilities for activism and education and the absence of hashtags is one of those things I noticed when I asked "what are people not saying". This came about because of an article that someone was RTing (re-tweeting) when I searched for "gender". Select bits were posted in the previous blogpost.

So, by searching for "gender" rather then #gender, I get to see what people are talking and thinking about in-the-now. I'm not sure where I was going with this, but if I remember, I'll e-mail a post about it from the car. Currently I am headed down to SLC and the Spanish Fork, Utah to learn about Hinduism.

I'll be posting some pictures from my trip here on my blog as well.

I'll come back to "what I learned on twitter today" next week.

Good article, See next post for context

clipped from smartgirlnation.com Mind-Rape: Silencing Gender Traitors The intent of rape is to silence. It is about hatred, power, and shaming your victim. The women are to be kept quiet. I’ve seen entirely too much silencing lately. This is an issue that goes beyond party lines. It’s beyond politics. What is happening is justification of the offense, not support for those who are being attacked. [As an example talking about Letterman's joke ]Others said her daughters were “fair game” because Palin kept them in the public eye. “Well, if Palin didn’t parade her daughters around they wouldn’t be talked about". [While correct, no person "deserves" to be treated disrespectfully! Everyone seems to be in the wrong on this one. Behavior like this is intended to shame.]...The result is silencing – and that is their goal. In the past couple months, we have had the Playboy hate-sex article, Letterman’s comments regarding the Palins, and the media attacks on Carrie Prejean. This type of sexually charged hate speech is mind-rape: an attempt to silence women who don’t fit the traditional “progressive” image. The language used against these women is vile, demeaning, and hate-filled – and their profession [media] is being used to excuse it.