Our US Constitution works

These are difficult times for our nation with continuing disasters, a lethal pandemic, and political unrest including an actual insurrection on Jan 6th of this year.

And our US Constitution has been repeatedly questioned as to efficacy in our modern world.

But read the document, and preceding president should have been removed for what US Constitution calls: high crimes and misdemeanors. 

The US Senate simply refused.

From very clear instructions, members of US Congress complicit with insurrection should have been removed from office.

Go back further, and under guidelines of US Constitution, the Speaker of the House had a duty to investigate fraudulent claims that lead to second Gulf war.

Over and over again, we have politicians who just ignored and did not do what US Constitution required them to do.

We, the People, have watched them in a political system gamed to make it difficult to remove politicians who know can flout our rules as a nation without fear of punishment or removal from office.

Notice how our nation has been saved though as only the federal judiciary of the three major branches has held the line. 

Our federal courts protected our nation relentlessly, and continue to do so, as blocked repeated attempts by politicians to ignore or break our laws.

Note, the US Supreme Court refused to support the previous president attempting to dispute election results.

When followed, our US Constitution has saved our nation.

What to do though about politicians who figured out how to ignore it, and are still in power?

That my fellow Americans, is up to us.

Believing the truth

There is a powerful movement which has gained force recently with personal truths leading to accountability for people who abused power, including sexual predation. Where a phrase have noted often is--believing the victims. Which makes me think of bank robberies for an analogy.

Like, imagine you know someone about whom you deeply care who has been accused of robbing a bank, and is facing prosecution. That person either did, or did not, rob the bank.

Thankfully, there is likely to be lots of evidence like video footage, and witnesses, as well as the cash stolen, to establish whether or not the robbery did or did not occur.

But your opinion is not relevant.

Did or did not that person rob the bank?

In situations with sexual assault there can be a problem of evidence, but the truth exists.

Whether you believe a victim or not, is relevant for an investigating authority, including of course for a court case, if you are a prosecutor, or on a jury. But in terms of the truth which we may find difficult to determine--did, or did not that person accused do the sexual assault?

If one person carefully and clearly describes an event, which is a sexual assault, then is a question of truth. Which does not have anything to do necessarily with how you feel about the accused.

A mother can still love her child who is a bank robber, correct? -- Even after conviction, and mountains of evidence.

Your feelings about an accused to me are not important to me at all.

If I knew someone closely, accused in any arena am confident would have feelings about that, and especially want those things to not be true, if there was ANY room for doubt.

But if that person robbed a bank? Would my feelings have anything to do with the truth?

No. And I think it interesting in our times, with things so obvious, you can at times witness people in the media, talking as if their feelings about believing a victim or an alleged victim have relevance to the truth.

What actually matters though is what actually happened. Best when that can be determined, beyond a reasonable doubt. But regardless, there is a truth there.


James Harris

When distribution won

Lessons sharing knowledge of the past have been replaced by more potential where simplifying can be key to getting the best of the present. And with the web? Consider you reading this message which I can expect to have free distribution around planet Earth. But as importantly--YOU can do the same with something you might wish to present to others.

And many of you are so doing, as more and more people come online.

The ease with which we can distribute information, which is of course best when useful, is a sharp contrast to the past, where for instance to get political analysis, I would look to a few sources, as was far more limited in choice. For much might go to certain leading newspapers for that sort of thing. Or would consider certain magazines. And on the daily there were brief briefings expected on nightly news, or could look at a morning of content on Sunday talk shows, as discuss a very American experience which is what I lived--until the web revolutionized information distribution.

Today your political representative, rather than wishing on a press conference to reach constituents, or a newsletter probably signed on to by few, can send a tweet! Where that tweet can be a concise position, which is impossible for some news person to misquote. And yes, can be hard to put a position into a single tweet of 140 characters or into a few such, but that can push people to know their positions inside and out.

And everything else is still available. The news people are still working at delivering stories, though news organizations reportedly worry more and more about how they get paid, and the Sunday talk shows are still there as well as nightly briefings, though television struggles with holding on to viewers, as it must maintain relevance in a world where information flows freely from so many sources so people have choices.

I say it pressures all to be the best they can. From politicians pushed to be able to state positions they now know constituents probably WILL read versus in the past where maybe an interpretation through others might reach some, to news people pressured to get it right, with less leeway to interpret from personal bias, to politically active able to put their own messages out there, with same pressures.

Across the board with so much information available, people can check, and are checking.

Focusing on information distribution can help you figure out where you wish to be in the process am sure. Emphasis on that position is to look for a functional way to simplify.

And social media is most powerful as a conversation.

Conversation on social media is where political positions can be both presented and considered with reply from interested constituents. In the conversation, news stories presented can be challenged by parties represented as well as any people who know, or simply critiqued endlessly from almost anywhere, or anyone as people need their information to work well for their present day-to-day.

Sure some may simply work to disrupt the conversation maybe even simply for attention to themselves, but the need of the many is too great. We need to know, and people will work for what they need. And in our times? Information rules.

Sharing information? Helps us empower each other. And I think is a great thing.

Ease of information distribution has won the global conversation by enabling it.

And am so much happier with the potential to know more where before there was so much filtered through others on which I tried to rely. But also appreciate the work that is involved to get information I need, as to do so must learn to check sources! Must be able to cross-reference against multiple presentations. Must try to learn how you learn to understand how information can be manipulated.

It can be exhausting.

Knowledge takes work!

It can be mentally invigorating as well, but more importantly, can give a sense of being part of the conversation when so much additional change is happening. And based on how our country is set up the people of the United States have the duty and believe as a national community, have the knowledge--to govern the outcome as best we can for our nation.

The brilliance of the national conversation of course is not just a factor here in the United States but in nations around the globe where people are figuring it out, if they have free information distribution too. Not something to be taken for granted and not all have it.

But we do, and now is far easier for the people of the United States to discuss from coast-to-coast or wherever they are matters of importance with each other, and with others around the globe.


James Harris

Where one party rules

One of the more diabolical schemes in the history of the United States is still in process as the Republican Party decided to ignore a nominee for the Supreme Court made by President Obama, so they could try to install a presumably more malleable one. And that is one of the things on their agenda under President Trump who has nominated someone.

And with one party over all three branches of the US Government many may take it for granted that they will not seek to check each other. Though the system was designed with the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch supposedly doing that to protect the American people.

The pursuit of one party rule in the United States fascinates me, especially as we can see problems with it notably in one country, China. And am not someone who talks China in the negative as believe the country has done much to modernize, and people have a right to their government. And the people of China have a Communist government which unapologetically has one party.

However, it must be accepted that it is hard for a single party to critique itself, and provide checks and balances.

That the United States is facing a constant attempt for one party rule in the modern era is rather puzzling and a cynical electorate seems to take for granted that our politicians have a certain level of corruptness. I, however, do not find it acceptable.

That the Supreme Court is being undermined with one of the one party schemes is a case in point, where small-minded partisans care not for their country, but for a mindless pursuit of an agenda of a segment.

Who knows where this attack on legal authority in the United States will lead. But we can be certain that those engaging in it, do not care.

They're too busy crafting schemes to get through while they have the one party dominance that they clearly believe removes the checks and balances carefully put into the system.

And as critical as I am of Republicans am not at all confident in Democrats either. After all, they seem to operate with the same ideas in mind trying to gain one party dominance for themselves, and the American people have to deal with the see-saw of partisans who seem to have lost concern for their country as a whole, working to divvy it up to advantage in the moment.

Where will it lead? How can we be sure?

When our political leadership is dominated by people who seem to crave a political model from China as to dominance of one party, how could anyone know?

I'm sure even China gets confused.

We Americans deserve the system that was envisioned where the three branches of government do not go into collusion with each other routinely, but vigorously defend the rights of ALL Americans, always.


James Harris

Paying attention is where capitalism lost

To me capitalism is another one of those words where people use it a lot without being careful with its definition, where many think of large scale capitalism, like with massive corporations but is broader than that and give my own explanation. However there IS an area where I think big scale capitalism clearly lost, which is in directing attention as the web took over.

Information distribution in the past on a large scale involved a lot of capital, like for a major newspaper or a television station. It STILL requires large scale capital in those areas, yet here I am on a blog, with the potential to talk to people all over the globe, without needing all that.

And I think we're finally seeing now how far that can go. Where for instance social media can empower all kinds of people to reach lots of others, where also in politics can see that doesn't have to be for the good of the people, as some demagogue can destabilize society too.

The new tools of information distribution do not care, but then again I don't think the big capitalist who wielded so much control in the past over distribution of information cared either. But their monetary motivation is not shared by the web.

What's fascinating to me is that a lot of people got things wrong early about how easier information distribution might work, assuming it would turn all humans into thieves who would quit paying for information they could take! Which to me was so wacky. It also I think betrayed a dismal opinion of the human species.

Those who think thievery is a typical human behavior of most probably say more about themselves than their fellow humans, am sure.

It can still take money to distribute information, yes. But potentially in our times information distribution often can be done with little to not cost to the producer.

The web does cost money but who pays for the web is remarkably not discussed much in our times.

Today the reality of information distribution is a spectrum, where yes, there is still immense capital involved, say, in a major studio release, but also you can have lightweight players with limited capital who can compete equally and even crush such competition.

And fans do still pay to support those who provide content they love--if you give them a way.

So yeah, big capitalism lost when it comes to paying attention. Many in our times can go for quite some time ignoring much that is still pushed at them through major capitalist systems. And capitalism in general also lost as conceivably a person could go to the library and get on free computers and change the world with their creative efforts.

Seems worth mentioning to me. And there is an irony in a world where lots of people can move things that STILL at least in my country people seem stuck with chasing after those with wealth first. Where I guess there is social inertia involved.

However am confident that in time more and more people will learn to look best when it comes to their attention as society learns better.


James Harris

New public self

Web does something interesting in that even if not on it, it can push your public self in ways not previously true. Like if I meet someone and ask a few questions: Like, are you on social media? Do you watch web video? How do you get your news?

If a person is not on social media, doesn't watch web video and gets their news from television then I feel like I know a lot about that person quickly. If they ARE on social media for instance though then I may just go look and see what public they have up!

That public person is the modern persona which is available 24 hours a day.

We have a new kind of public self.

Like it dawned on me recently that MOST people who know of me anywhere, probably know of me because of things I have public on the web, like here.

Sat and pondered that sentence for a bit as very different from world I was trained to face as a kid, as that world evolved into our modern one, and a public reality that is increasingly default, even in the null case.

You have a public persona in the modern world whether you like it or not, even if it is a null one driven by NOT being on the web as people can find that out too!

For me the public persona is fun. It intrigues me that people can literally spend days reading through things I've written and maybe learn a bit about me, if they wish. Choice rules. If they lack interest though is not a negative for me as I will not know either way for most regardless. I will not know what choice was made by most people who come across my content. That is the new public reality that is true for all. Is maybe weird though? Thought and pondered that for a bit too.

Trying to measure though is the web analytics problem which consumes many.

And people trying to figure out where your interest goes is defining the web, and pushing back into society, as can help figure out decisions that will be made, like how you might vote in an election, like the recent one here in the US.

The web has the unique ability to potentially have information readily available on every single person on planet Earth. That potential is driving so much whether you like it or not, consider it or not, or know of it or not.

Your public self will matter, even if is null from trying to stay off the web.

And there will be people who will learn about you whether you wish them to know anything or not. For instance for many it's as simple as web search, as web search will likely tell.

Thinking how you present in public will define you, as how you think? Will determine how you act. And your actions will define the behaviors others may notice.


James Harris

How to define success?

Coming up with the simple approach to money as a social IOU for a favor that is guaranteed by society turned out to be extremely useful to me. And that approach was one I posted back August 2014 and have been working with it ever since. While how I present the idea has shifted a bit, while focus on favors is constant, and helps explain why things like teaching or firefighting, or being a soldier can have pay problems as those involve things NOT favors.

While in contrast, someone favoring you with a beautiful song? Well that can garner that person millions of dollars or more if millions of others see it as a favor to hear as well. And the social IOU is guaranteed by society! That person favors you with a song, say at a concert, in exchange for an abstraction enumerating the value of that favor, we call money.

And money is best to keep up with favors from strangers, as people in communities do each other favors all the time, and the people who keep up with those very carefully? Can be kind of obnoxious. But a stranger can walk into a store, talk briefly to another stranger, and in exchange for social IOU's, have the favor of useful items or just wanted ones. In other words, you walk into a store, find what you want, and buy it. Seems so simple, as in much of the world, it is.

Looking back at ancient human communities knowing who was doing what was probably easy most of the time. You could see the leaders organizing the community around things like food gathering, caring for members of the group, and even if necessary defense. You were together with members of that community doing things. And people could have a rough sense of favors as well, who was doing what for whom. And also keep up with those not pulling their own weight.

In contrast with vastly larger numbers of people in our times money can give a number on value people are bringing to their community to some extent. And societies can grow to vast sizes, and it is very granular who is watching whom, so that an employer can look over work being done, to see who is doing what.

The greater value in getting work from strangers, as hiring family or close community can cause problems in and of itself, can help build social cohesion, give greater independence, and push human beings to be more communal on the large. Yes, some families will admit do apparently work well for each other as employees or bosses of each other, but society as a whole can see greater benefit in the linking of strangers by work bonds.

People are usually pushed by the need for employment to make connections outside of their family or close community.

Without the connections between peoples that money facilitates it's hard to see how modern civilization could exist.

However as efficient as it can be in principle, money does run into problems, like with things valued by community NOT favors, like teaching and caring for children, putting out fires or police work though I didn't mention that above, and also national defense. Soldiers are not doing you a favor by protecting their nation! And without perspective, societies can struggle to pay properly in important areas.

The favor system can also be deliberately broken by deceit. People can quite simply steal money, as the abstraction in hand in the form of the concrete like with cash can imply something that was not actually done. And on bigger scales entire nations can simply print money, running up deficits that can be more about politics than national necessity.

Thankfully the web, which allows me to push these thoughts out to those willing to read them around the globe easily enough, also helps us keep up with information that helps bring money back to its greatest efficiency.

That person who manages to use means harmful to society to get the appearance of value can be undone by an informed public.

People understandably prefer that money to be earned. And will accept inherited to some extent, even though there can be battles over how much should be passed to a next generation of favors earned not by them, or even won, like with lotteries, but few tolerate simply stolen, or counterfeited.

Money is a way to do a favor for a stranger, or receive a favor from a stranger in a way that limits social trust I argue. It is a great system, and can help see those who are helping society by being of use to others.

Still I'm sure that communities will also use the web to see those people who are great at organizing their community, regardless of how much paid, or very good in helping others, even if not amply compensated, as well as so many others who are NOT doing favors for social IOU's as successful as well.

And in fact, some of those who don't charge could be the most successful of all, not from the favors for which they are paid, but for the duty which causes them to serve.

Finding success I think is something a lot about what we see in each other, so will be so much about communities and what they value. And the fate of those communities?

Well that fate is what will happen, as decisions are made, and consequences follow.

The human story is always a work in progress. And that progress I am certain will always be so much about what people do for each other, and why.


James Harris

Equality under the law

Some of the most thrilling words in the history of political thought for a long time seemed bittersweet to me:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

From the Declaration of Independence

Much has been said about Thomas Jefferson, and as I contemplated his political genius along with his contradictions I realized something: our world was better for the ideal.

What if instead he'd said, you know, it would be really great for everybody to be equal, but some of us are, and some aren't, and, um, I got slaves, so there.

The ideal of equality is a wonderful one, and in practice I find it easier for myself to grab hold of "equality under the law" which is something the United States took its time in getting. But it IS there now. And increasingly so, as new groups of people find protections.

Today I feel simply pride for a political framework which could shine a light in a direction that could move a world. And expressed my mature opinion in a tweet:

the united states has done so many things wrong, but so many things right! i believe its best idea is that we must always try to do better.

— James Harris (@jstevh) December 24, 2009

Back then I didn't capitalize in tweets. Kind of regret that now. It was a fad kind of thing.

Imagine our world if the Founding Fathers had eschewed ideal for a more brutal reality, or chased pragmatism about what they could make people actually do in their time, instead of vision for a better future.

To me the greatness in the American ideal is not in our reality but in our sense of promise for our future. And as each generation faces its tribulations and trials we are committed to our ideals, as one nation, one people, with liberty and justice for all.

We are "the people" of the United States of America.

So much political wisdom in our history, isn't there? And I relish it, here as I have so much from which to draw from as an American and I'm very appreciative of that as someone who can speak freely as I do here. And in my own way, express myself.

As a nation we are not just what we are now, nor are we what we were, as our best is yet to come I firmly believe.

We will get better. That's what we do. We are Americans.


James Harris

Money and limited social trust

Been pondering the subject of money for many reasons and realized recently that we tend to NOT use money for plenty of things where deep trust is important, like personal relationships, but find it most useful in areas where trust needs to be limited.

For example in many civilized countries you can meet a stranger, have them sign a written contract, give them some money, and expect that person to do very important things for you, without fear.

That trust in the situation is backed by the machinery of your society, which will work very hard to ensure that such transactions can take place, for the good of the society. You do need a business trust that the person will fulfill the contract--but it is a limited social trust.

In contrast if I meet a nice lady, and we fall in love, there is a deep trust. And there is no written contract in the world that can cover all the bases, so most people go with simple vows in a public wedding.

That trust is so deep that society expects a couple in love to care enough to die for each other if necessary, which is as deep a level of trust as you can get. It is then, unlimited trust. Pick the wrong person for unlimited trust and God help you. (Though it occurs to me should add, wealthy often rely on a prenuptial agreement as well.)

So money is most effective in areas where people need limited trust, and means you can do work for someone, say, in the state of Georgia, USA, and get a promise of value in return in the form of scraps of paper called money, which you can use just about anywhere in the world you might travel as long as US dollars can be exchanged for local currency or are accepted.

That is a HUGE thing which allows the world economy to function, as money allows people to trust each other, even complete strangers, in a way that is limited versus the potentially unlimited trust of members within your community.

So for instance firefighters are willing to give their lives in defense of their community as are soldiers, and we wouldn't even think of allowing that to depend on monetary reward! While the best people willing to do it, wouldn't either. So there is a deep social trust involved.

In contrast, we happily give money in limited social trust situation, where contracts of various kinds specify exactly where those limits might be! And in society there are written contracts and verbal ones, as well as socially understood ones, so for instance, if you go into a store, and make a purchase you don't have to sign a contract to have legal protections.

Why emphasize these basic points? Because the web has created seemingly muddled situations where people can do things of great importance to community, with very little or NO money in return.

And others get very wealthy, where it can seem very unfair.

However, consider that person who does things for others for the benefit of humanity, versus that guy who maybe becomes a billionaire looking out mostly for himself, whom would you rather be?

Different people may have different answers.

Better might be to be that billionaire who does things for others for the benefit of humanity, but really, how many do you think there are?

And how many billionaires can there be? But how many can do their best for the benefit of humanity?

Each of us can ask ourselves questions, and see how it shifts how we look at people in our world.

Like can you imagine if firefighters arrived at a burning house and started a bidding war for how much you'd be willing to pay before they put out the fire?

Or what if top US Army generals informed you that pay up, or defend yourself?

And what if--what if our military leaders were the wealthiest people in our society as they made you pay for what your life is worth before they would defend you?

Would you give control of nuclear weapons to such people?

I wouldn't. Bad enough anyone has such weapons, but think of how much worse things could be, if the people controlling them cared only about money, and God help you if you didn't pay them what your life was worth to you.

Seem like too much? Well those things are out there whether you like it or not, or think about it or not, and there are people who control them. It matters what kind of people they are.

Throughout human history I think MOST people have figured these kinds of things out on their own, after all, deep social trust has been around as long as humanity, while money is a recent invention. But lately I think there has been quite a bit of advertising pushing the notion that money is what truly matters. People with lots of money kind of have a lot of ability to push things on others you may have noticed.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing. We need modern society.

Modern societies can push things that I say are about limited social trust as that is required for them to function, so they need you to plunk down your hard earned cash and buy something. That helps fuel the vastness of modern human enterprise which has done so much for so many. But there must be a balance. Most of us also treasure deep trust, and the unlimited nature that can make it terrifying, but without it...well go back to that part about firefighters.

We are so very lucky to have people who will put their lives on the line for us and yes they should be well paid, but money is not the reason.

Whether you accept it or not, I'm certain that deep social trust will define how well your life is lived, while limited social trust through the invention of money, helps your society to function, but will never guarantee you the best that life has to offer.

So yeah, sorry, but you can produce something of tremendous value to VAST numbers of human beings who will thank your commitment to community, and not pay you anything at all, as it's not about money then.

The most important things in life are about our humanity.


James Harris

American politics and learned helplessness

Was glad to hear about a Justice Department review of the police department in the city of Ferguson, Missouri. That review is part of what is often called a breaking news story at this point, as it just recently happened, and I'll link for reference to one article addressing it at The Atlantic from Conor Friedersdorf here.

And national attention has apparently revealed much that should have been known and addressed a long time ago, in a nation where racial issues have long been problematic.

So why wasn't it?

Another recent example involves allegations against a wealthy team owner which lead to his loss of his team, and for me it was strange listening to extremely wealthy and powerful athletes, who seemed certain that as Black men they could do nothing except accept.

Which has me thinking about learned helplessness.

In a country where Black people dominate at many levels from the presidency, to giants in the entertainment industry, and yes, in business though less visibly, why would it be taken for granted that there's just no way to address these kinds of situations as in Ferguson, Missouri until they explode?

How could the Justice Department have a Black Attorney General, who somehow can't handle a police force like in Ferguson, until intense national attention forces him?

Isn't it the job of his department to protect American citizens?

And why did those powerful Black athletes, tolerate what they did for as long as they did, until a dramatic story forced people around the globe to wonder?

As a Black man myself I am often amazed to listen to others tell me how hopeless the situation supposedly is, how supposedly impossible it is in this country, which they believe is just relentlessly hostile to Black people where they also believe it will never change.

When pressed they may calmly inform you that nothing has really changed in this country for Black people. And they are certain it never will.

Absorb that for a moment: the history challenging belief that NOTHING has really changed in this country for Black people and never will.

Psychology covers this area well. And it turns out there are basic reasons for why people can learn that there is no reason to try, when they have been oppressed for long periods of time.

If someone believes such a thing, why would they address injustice? What would be the point?

Too many supposed leaders of all races, as I don't think race is actually a real political issue any more in the US, get away with not addressing real concerns of citizens, based on a de facto belief that the system is too rotten to support justice.

So what makes them think they are then loyal Americans? If they no longer believe in their country?

Science has many of the answers we need. But it takes leadership to protect the people.


James Harris

When money is too abstracted

Was a relief for me to sit down and process basic thinking on money, where I found myself focusing on favors, somewhat to my surprise, as I concluded that money lets you give an IOU that society makes good in exchange for someone doing you a favor. So at its simplest it's not that big of a deal so why do so many have issues with it?

I think the problem is that money is too abstracted. We need to bring money back to concrete reality.

One of those sayings that I ponder now is the claim that money is the "root of all evil", and I'm like, huh? Doing people favors is the root of all evil? I don't think so.

How did things get so distorted? How do you have people who will kill for money? Lie, cheat and steal for money?

Well, it's what you can DO with those owed favors. Like, feed yourself. Or have a home. Or buy luxuries. Or impress other people. Among many, many other things!

The monetary system allows society to have many people doing many things and facilitates transactions between people without which our modern world society could not operate as it does, and I don't think anyone has come up with a better way to do things.

Money lets you separate your action from the reward.

You can mow your neighbor's lawn, get paid some amount, and then get the return on that action, months later when maybe you use the money to take your wife to dinner. You then give that restaurant an IOU from which they can get their reward when they so choose.

That flexibility is unrivaled. It's a great thing.

The alternative is that you return the favor immediately. Or that they trust you to return it at some later date. But such trust is best between people who are close, like in a well-knit community.

Money lets you trust society to guarantee you will get a return on your efforts--not each and every individual within that society with whom you have a transaction, as they just hand you an IOU, which we call money.

So for you to lose a return on the favor your society would have to fail you.

That's why for instance legal tender in my country is backed by the US Government.

We need to talk more about money, and about doing things for others, and why giving a lot of other people something they want and getting an IOU in return is not necessarily a reason to flaunt it, put yourself above others, or do any number of things that really have nothing to do with money.

Like, imagine, you sing to a crowd of thousands and they show their appreciation with an IOU for you to use later, and that was a lot of people to whom you gave something of value so their appreciation has a great value as well!

If you see it that way, how might you think about how you get a return on what you gave?

And from there it's easy to consider where I think money does distort things, where my emphasis on money as an IOU on a favor really works well to explain some striking distortions in monetary distribution, as is a schoolteacher doing you a favor by teaching your child? Does a police office do you a favor when she protects you from robbers? Or a soldier protecting you from enemies foreign or domestic?

I don't think most consider serving your country as a soldier as doing a favor.

But with the money system someone who can do favors or as more people might consider it, give a service like a catchy song, can make much, much more than people who save a nation.

I think societies do try to make an adjustment though for those areas money is not designed to handle well.

That explanation isn't satisfying to me either, though I guess it makes sense. It's kind of unsettling so I find myself talking it out more. A person with a well designed product might sell it nationally. Today, because of the web it's easier and easier for products, like songs or movies, to go international, allowing so much more money in return. You're just doing that many more people a service and getting a return on it. It's about sheer numbers.

But for a schoolteacher? Even when lessons go online aren't they usually free? I think people just don't see lessons as a favor. So society still has to step into the breach to provide some form of support?

So community rises in importance yet again.

So much of how you see things is about community, and what values your community has given you.

To me, considering money less abstractly and concretely as an IOU from society as a return on a favor is very useful in explaining what it can bring, and also what it doesn't.

But maybe that explains why people can be most satisfied with their community regardless of money, when that community is supportive, well-knit, and most importantly its members know and trust each other.


James Harris

But what is work?

There are many productive things that people can do which can be considered work, and it is interesting to me how conflicts can arise and you can get less positive outcomes by not figuring out what work means to you.

My perspective is a broad overview I think as I was born to Black parents in Tifton, GA, USA, which is a farming community in a mostly rural area. When growing up my parents found it important to instill in their kids a work ethic, which meant for instance helping my father out at his job at the local hospital working in the laundry, or with my mom at times we'd go to the fields.

Did the work but wasn't happy with it. I was really into books. So into books that when I had to walk to school I'd read a book along the way. My classmates would tell me excited stories of their parents concerned about me walking along the side of the road with my face in a book! Guess they were worried I might wander out into the road or something.

So there were times I'd rather be reading than doing things like working in the fields, much to my mother's frustration.

Of course the reality is there is a lot of value in learning from physical labor and I appreciate those lessons, but there is MUCH more money in working with one's mind. Parents who focus their children on intellectual activity over physical and show a value for it are more likely to guide them towards things like college.

But if parents don't value mental labor, maybe because they have no appreciation of it, then it can be harder for their kids to value it as well, even when they have an aptitude for it.

Eventually I would go on to college and get my degree in physics. That was despite the disdain I'd often hear from for instance one particular older male relative who would dismiss "book learning". He worked with his hands as a brick-mason. I deeply respect such work. I wish he'd respected the kind of work I do.

But you can't make people.

Reality that can be lost on those who wonder about differential outcomes among groups is the extent to which parents and cohorts may guide their children against certain types of work!

Recently I got into a bizarre discussion with an older Black male who actually had highly technical skills who also had kids who had done well and gone on to college where we were arguing about what was hard work!

He was convinced that physical labor was harder than mental, and in case you think there was a problem with the meaning of "hard" he also told me he had taught his children to go on to college so they wouldn't have to work hard!!!

The peculiarities of this point of view may simply reflect a sad reality for many Black folks who when Black people were slaves were not meant to think. You don't want slaves to think, you just need them to do physical labor.

And physical labor can be a lot more direct. If you need to harvest hay, for instance, in the morning you can look out over your hay fields and have a good estimate of what it will take. Then it's just a matter of working through till it's done.

But what if you're a city planner trying to figure out whether or not a particular intersection needs a stoplight or not?

You may find yourself spending time in meetings with other people just talking. Sheer laziness maybe to people who figure when you got a job you just get to it. Why sit around and talk about it? There may be nights where you spend hours just pondering, with people not understanding how complicated such a thing may be wondering why don't you just DO IT already?

But feel a unique satisfaction when you figure it all out, and realize your decisions are a great help to your town. Where yeah, you can make a huge difference for a lot of people.

Both you and the hay farmer have done work. Both of you are a benefit to your communities, but you're coming from very different work realities.

One last story that puzzled me for a while. I was a software developer--or computer programmer depending on which you prefer where the former is more popular I think lately--and for a wonderful brief time had my own office at this software development company.

There was a Black janitor who was very well liked, but I began to dread when he would come to my office, as often I'd be working on a very hard programming problem staring off into space.

EVERY SINGLE TIME if he arrived at that point he would gently remonstrate me, asking me if I was "on the beach". Then he'd chit-chat with this kind of exhausted, paternal air about him, and I would just tolerate it until he would finally leave and I could get back to work.

I feel a little guilty telling this story. He really thought he was helping me. Thought I was a Black guy I'm sure with a unique opportunity to do well who was unfortunately goofing off staring into space, and maybe thought he was helping the Black race by trying to get me to focus.

Efforts in this country should also be about educating people about the many worlds of work and ensuring that children get their efforts valued across that world.

You see, the United States of America needs all its workers across a vast array of work possibilities.

Kids who were like me shouldn't have to work their way through disdain of family members and ethnic community with a heavy burden in order to make through to higher paying jobs that involve intellectual activity. While it's also true that we should value skilled labor of any type, or unskilled labor.

Work is a great thing.

What work you do, as long as it helps your society, should be about your choice.

The more we value the myriad worlds of work and understand them, the more we can all work towards a brighter future, with equal opportunity for all.


James Harris

What is your work worth?

The growing disparity between the middle class worker and top earners in the United States should be confusing as technology has helped to greatly grow worker productivity across the board so that an individual American worker can do much more today in the same time than before and thus generate more revenue for a company.

If you noticed at a job that you seem to be doing 4 times as much work since you were hired years ago as technology and workplace improvements help you along, are you paid 4 times as much as then?

My guess is, no.

You may be paid somewhere over 20% more, with a 5% annual raise for 4 years--not going to compound here--despite maybe doing 400% as much work based on productivity increases and just being that good as you've learned your job.

And all of that additional work value goes up the chain in your company, where if it is a corporation the CEO probably gets paid a LOT more than he did when you got hired as a system has been rigged where most of the money is being cycled to the top.

Some say that workers should simply force higher pay, like through unions, but let's face facts: can you imagine say, demanding under any circumstance a 100% increase in any given year? With steep increases, not quite that high but still high, so that after 4 years you're getting paid 4 times what you got when you were hired?

People who are the top earners probably can, especially those in the financial industry.

Few people outside of the financial industry can probably imagine under any circumstances doing such a thing, and besides, how do you really know if you're that valuable?

Some blame globalization as, for instance, call centers went outside the United States, which technology made possible, and I have had more than one conversation where I have been frustrated with talking to some person in another country who really was not good at the job. So what if they were cheaper to the company using them? That cheapness had a cost. And I have talked to excellent people in other countries who did a great job over the phone. I suspect they were underpaid!

If you think it through, those great phone people were probably vastly underpaid. But how would they know what their work is worth?

Let's say over time people start figuring it out, then people overseas who are great on the phone charge more, and eventually achieve parity with people in this country who are great over the phone, and businesses lose the cost advantage of hiring overseas!

People may suspect that wage differences are so steep because work is valued differently in different cultures but currency exchanges tend to shift to balance over time, which means that the real situation is arbitrage.

A lot of companies are taking advantage of a global situation where workers do not know their value.

So the surprising solution is that people need to work harder at figuring out what they're worth, and the web can actually help there as well, as I have been pleasantly surprised by web sites that will help you figure out a salary to request in a job interview.

These issues are really important to me as I am currently unemployed. And I use the situation of someone worth a LOT more than they are being paid as I have been in such situations where I realized I was doing the work of 4 people because technology helped me and I was really efficient at using it!

But I was being paid the salary of one.

Eventually I got laid off, and no I had never made any salary demands. At the time I thought of it as a "day job" while I figured out how to make money on the web, so I was treading water trying to figure things out. No way I was going to rock things by pushing for more money. Nevertheless, got laid off with some other folks.

(Maybe I should add that while it was a group lay-off my being part of it was a bit of a surprise to me, though in retrospect it might have had something to do with me finally putting up a photo on the web the month before. But don't know for sure. Who knows.)

Figure out what your work is worth I think is the best advice, especially at a company where you have worked for a while and watched people leave without being replaced!

Your suspicion should be, especially if your company is still doing well or better, that you simply are doing work that is THAT MUCH more valuable: but are you getting paid for it?

Or are you in essence now doing quite a bit extra--for free?


James Harris

Government that enables

One of those puzzles of society which I think should be clear, is the role of government, so I went ahead and defined it as part of my platform for a new political party I call the Core Middle Party.

What I came up with for the role of government is:

The role of government is to protect and enable its citizens.

And I think that the idea that government should enable its citizens is the concept that is often missing, and can it really all be that simple?

How can such a powerful concept as governance be encapsulated in such a simple, single sentence?

Well I think government enables people in strong countries to focus on their personal lives and their families without worrying too much about constantly marching off to war.

I believe a good government should enable you to have electricity, and clean water.

Can you imagine working hard to get clean water? Plenty of people around the world DO have to work hard to get clean water, but many people in my country the United States get to take it for granted because government regulations, and institutions around water enable us to have clean water. (Though we shouldn't take it for granted, and need to keep careful watch so that we really do.)

Consider a counterpoint when government disables: the US Postal service is going through hard times and some politicians have talked about ending Saturday delivery of mail.

That is removing a service. Here government would NOT enable Americans to receive mail on Saturday, and in fact since we do so now, the change would DISABLE Americans from receiving Saturday deliver instead!

Now then, sound like a bad idea? Yup.

Why would you want your government to disable you?

Isn't that easy?

Easier?

So much from a simple sentence! We just set some US policy for the US Postal service!!!

That's politics that works, and works for you. (And yes, we're doing politics here if you hadn't noticed.)

If you just think government protects or should protect, you lose the ability to evaluate whether or not we should have Saturday delivery by the postal service based on whether or not it enables or disables its citizens.

Do you want your government disabling you?

Unfortunately, some people do.

For instance, some hate entitlements, thinking that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are enabling people in a bad way, so they wish to disable those programs.

Notice "enable" is not really a loaded word one way or another.

To some it is a bad word! To them enabling citizens to not worry about food with Food Stamps is a horrible thing! And they will tell you it is, and try to explain why they wish to disable these people and send them scurrying about looking for food, when their government has enabled them to consider other things, like educating their children.

See how powerful a concept it is to be enabled by your government?

I want your government to enable you to do many things, and to enable you to worry about fewer things.

That position is a political position and defines me and people like me.

We're called Progressives.

And I decided at some point I needed a definition for that word too, and here's what I decided worked best.

Progressive (noun):  a person with a political position valuing intelligent governance with the belief that in an intelligently governed world people's lives tend to get better, not worse.


(Yes, I made that up. It's NOT an official definition from a dictionary. Maybe someday it will be?)

Notice it also makes it easy to define those politically who wish to take things away from you.

Take away people can with pessimism distort the discussion, as for instance, why assume we have to cut Social Security? What if instead we could expand it?

I think your government should enable you to have health insurance regardless of your ability to pay.

Some people are so furious at that idea that they are willing to try and destabilize the entire United States of America to keep it from happening.

Now then, consider how much you can do with a concept. Can you look in your life now to see where your government enables you? Where it disables you?

Does that help you figure out where you stand on political issues?

If so, good! We have a lot of work ahead of us in the United States of America.

And the better informed you are, the better you can make choices that make a difference.

And the more you can enable a brighter future for a nation that has to keep working to be great, as otherwise, are we really Americans?

Our nation was built by work. It will stand by working harder.


James Harris

When security matters

When people decry a lack of leadership in my home country, which is the United States, there is I think too vague an understanding of how that relates to national security. And part of the problem is a failure to grasp the reality of a modern world where territory is no longer a goal.

In the past countries exerted their might with armies, and fought for ever more territory, which is anathema today, which is a good thing! For example at one time Americans believed it was our manifest destiny to control the entire Northern Hemisphere, which meant Canada was eyed as a possible military target someday.

Today, few Americans seriously think there would be any point in conquering Canada.

The world has moved on from territorial battles by the major powers and the big fights are in new domains where it looks like the United States is content to steadily fall behind.

People may notice--but it's hard to tell with the American public--that America no longer has a manned space vehicle of its own, so our astronauts hitch a ride with Russians. And I thank Russia for being such a partner in this regard. Soon China may also be such a partner.

We can't put our people into space on our own. It's just a reality.

We do still have a space program though, of course, so can put up probes, and of course, satellites including military ones, but somehow our political leaders let the ability to put our own astronauts into space, go.

They also don't seem to be working too terribly hard on cyber-security issues, except here and there whining about increasing data that our nation is losing terribly in that domain. That is, we're reportedly increasingly losing data.

So what do our political leaders do about security?

Seems they focus more on the physical military, and on "militants" and vague terrorist threats which while real, are constantly shifting, hard to nail down, and probably in the scope of history, of less importance to overall national security than having a data porous nation.

Nations compete. It's reality. And I find it hard to believe that enemies who can't even muster up enough strength to protect themselves from drones are going to decide the fate of the world.

I sometimes joke that certain other nations have the CIA and NSA as part of their own intelligence infrastructure because I fear our security is THAT BAD, so they can just raid our databases for everything.

Today major nations no longer fight for territory. Canada couldn't even offer itself to the United States to be conquered. But people can be slow to catch up to new realities and the US seems intent on waiting until it has completely lost before it even arrives to try and play the new game.

When security finally matters to Americans, it may only be when the wars of cyberspace have been completely lost, and a defeated nation wonders what might have been.

I don't want that to happen. It's past time for my country to wake up. Yes we must defend ourselves from terrorists, along with ALL our enemies.

Picking and choosing is a way to defeat. Reality doesn't care who you'd like to protect yourself from while you ignore another.

Don't let fakes distract you from your security, or when it's clear it doesn't matter to you, don't be surprised when you discover--you have none.


James Harris

Age Related Subsidy

One of the things that puzzles me are attempts to raise the retirement age, which I think is unnecessary and ignores human reality.

As people age, abilities unfortunately do tend to lessen and it's just not fair to tell someone 65 and older that they should compete against the younger workforce as if that's not true.

And I think the problem is the concept of "retirement" itself, which is not necessary for everyone at 65, and it can be deadly dangerous anyway, as if you go from being highly active to sitting in a rocking-chair doing nothing, you are likely to pass away sooner than later from the doing of nothing.

So rather than cruelly shift the age for "retirement" why not simply shift to an age related subsidy?

The current level of 65 is maintained, and people in advanced countries with social security simply start getting a check when that age is reached regardless of whether they have "retired" or not.

Those who choose to remain in the workforce will help their economies just by working and also would no longer pay into social security, which would be an additional benefit.

We can keep the current level of benefits without adjustment, for those, say, over 55, and evaluate the situation for those under, while noting that the 65 point of beginning of benefits is now locked in, without any reason to move it.

Monetary outlays may be less necessary in the future, with things like universal healthcare, and more efficient age related services, as, for instance, the United States throws away huge amounts of food on any given day.

Also in many areas, public transportation is not as good as in others, keeping more drivers in cars.

In a more efficient city, older citizens could enjoy a higher quality of life with less money if our society took it seriously and focused on reality versus political maneuverings that in the US usually are about cutting taxes for rich people, which is a subsidy as well!

It's just a more stupid one.


James Harris

My take on American racism

Having grown up "black" in the American South as I grew up a black kid next to a farm in a small town in Georgia, in the United States, I have my own unique view on American racism, which is a subject on which I've given much thought.

Here I will present my own very peculiar and highly opinionated take on what most people in the United States think is American racism, which is wrong: they think I suggest that it is physical repulsion for someone because of their race.

Physical repulsion is key here to the wrong definition!

That's important as I've encountered American "whites" that I see as being very racist who claim they aren't! And it's like, they may put a hand on my shoulder as if that proves it! See? Not physically repulsed!--they seem to be saying.

But racism is not physical repulsion.

It's believing you're superior or that another person is inferior because of the color of their skin for the most part, as that is usually the biggest racial indicator that people use, though they also go with a variety of physical characteristics.

Surprisingly to some, scientists are not quite sure what race is, and a good introduction can be seen on, yup, the Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)

I've noted on this blog that I believe that racism is actually about class in the United States and is an attempt by some people to believe they're members of a nobility (without actually saying it).

Why? Because I believe, a lot of early American settlers came from England, and pretending to be nobility was kind of a bad thing to do, which could be punished. Americans are dead-set on not actually stating that they believe they are noble by birth, so American racism is a bizarre variant where they behave as if they are, while refusing to state they believe they are.

It is an attempt at a back-door into English nobility, in my opinion.

So yes, a white man who is racist can not only date a black woman, he might marry her! Because American racism is not physical repulsion. It is a feeling of innate superiority on the basis of "race". So a racist white man might marry a black woman because he feels he can dominate someone he believes is inferior. Just like a noble in Old England might marry a commoner. (Of course, women can find men who will marry them because they're believed to be inferior for lots of reasons of which race is just one.)

And a white racist can have black friends!!!

He or she simply associates with people believed to be innately of a lower class.

So why again the dodge? Why is American racism presented so often as physical repulsion as if that's all that matters?

Again, because America inherits a lot of its heritage from England, and pretending to be royalty is a major crime under feudal law!!!

Commoners are not allowed to pretend to be of a higher class.

In the South where I grew up Southerners would claim to be "gentlemen" and engage in a lot of pretend royalty behavior, which they would not admit was pretending to be actual English royalty in any way shape or form because that is forbidden under feudal law!

But that's what they were doing and still do when they engage in such behavior.

You see, they wish to be English nobles. They wish to be better than commoners. They wish to be royalty.

So they find some people to be beneath them and that is American racism, in my opinion.

So how racist then is modern American society? I'd say, not really.

Most Americans actually shirk from seeing themselves as innately superior to anyone, and really are not racist. But God help you if you run into one who is.

He may lie to you incessantly. She may calmly inform you that she is not racist and then just as calmly insult your intelligence to your face, because of your race. He may quietly inform you of bizarre things as if they were absolute facts.

My favorite such thing is the assertion that Asians do not like black people.

Living in San Francisco, I know quite a few Asians and haven't noticed much if any American racism from any of them.

But I'll end with a story that puzzled me for a while.

I was at a private party a few years back at a new nightclub that had been rented for the occasion. In the course of a conversation with a seemingly nice fellow where it's pertinent for the story to note that he was white, I realized he was becoming a bit agitated as he talked about having lived in Chinatown, and not getting along well with the Asian community there.

Inwardly I shrugged, not particularly caring, as I was half listening to him, but he got my attention quickly when he said to me like a confidant that he was sure I knew how Asians were, and that they really didn't like black people, even more than white people.

So yeah, end of that conversation, but what made the story fascinating to me for years was that I was actually eye-flirting with a beautiful Asian woman, which was why I was distracted while I listened to him! He'd not only reacted badly to try and convince me of the hopelessness of my interest I surmised later, he'd tried to smear the entire Asian race while so doing!

But why? Well, it occurred to me that it made him feel inferior for her attention to be on me, if he thought himself the superior male, by race, then he needed to convince me.

More than once in San Francisco I've been informed by whites that Asians don't like black people. Isn't that fascinating? In my experience, Asians seem to take you as you are, more than anything else, and to adjust based on how you behave--not the color of your skin.

Which is what we should all do, and I think, thankfully, most Americans do.


James Harris

An ounce of prevention in finance

Link above goes to: The New York Times

Quote from the source:
Op-Ed Columnist
Lest We Forget
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 28, 2008
The story of how we failed to see this coming has a clear policy implication — that financial market reform should be pressed quickly, and that it should not wait until the crisis is resolved.

Yeah, if the best reforms are ever to be done, they have to be done while things are painful, and the realization is clear as a result that they are needed.

Past history guides us to the conclusion that whatever reforms are done now, in time, there will be calls to remove them and de-regulate.

So, if not now for the clearly needed reforms, when?

Giving the remarkable conclusion that as we fix the current financial crisis, we must also work to prevent the next one.

What they do, not what they say

Source: NY Times

Editorial
What the F.B.I. Agents Saw
Published: May 22, 2008
In light of a report by the Justice Department, the Democrats in charge of Congress should press for full disclosure of President Bush’s inhuman policy on prisoners.

Republicans touted "rule of law" until they decided that the laws didn't matter, when it suited them.

Here's a quote from the article:

...These were not random acts. It is clear from the inspector general’s report that this was organized behavior by both civilian and military interrogators following the specific orders of top officials. The report shows what happens when an American president, his secretary of defense, his Justice Department and other top officials corrupt American law to rationalize and authorize the abuse, humiliation and torture of prisoners:...

But Democrats haven't managed to enforce this country's laws either, now have they?

The American system is increasingly under trial because our political leaders are humiliating us along with those prisoners, and saying to the world that what we believe is just talk and not substance.

It is as if our political leaders threw out the United States Constitution a long time ago, but just kept saying otherwise.

We have a leadership of liars, who will say they are "conservative" or "liberal" or "democratic" or whatever it takes to maintain power--and then do whatever the hell they want, and this nation be damned.

Berkeley is right

Source: CNN

Showdown looms in 'treasonous' Berkeley

# Story Highlights
# Pro-military groups demand Berkeley take back vote urging Marines to leave
# Military supporter: "Their treasonous action ... is not acceptable,"
# Anti-war groups also gather, stand toe-to-toe against military supporters
# City Council is to meet later Tuesday to discuss its previous vote

Kings and Queens of Britain demanded absolute loyalty. We Americans demand citizenship.

Citizenship is not about blind faith, or standing in line when told.

It's not about asking for permission when freedom is at stake.

It is not about saying yes, sir, or yes madam, when demanded.

Freedom is about courage, and standing for what our national anthem sings.

Freedom is about being brave enough to state your opinion and stand for something.

Our country has faced its greatest challenge, not from the enemy without, but from the enemy within, and in that challenge, there have been the true patriots who have stood for America, for our Constitution, and for what it means to be all fully human--truly trying to be all that you can be.

That some would twist the very foundations of our democracy into something for control and domination is the reality of human life.

There are always those who would hurt through even our most grandest ideals if they can.

But as long as there are free people willing to stand for something, rather than fall for anything, then there is a voice and a cry for freedom and a reason.

We must stand for something greater than ourselves.

And where we find that is part of what it means to be free.

You do not tell me my answer!!!

I must find the truth or forever be a slave if not in body, then in mind.

As when you tell me what I must do, and who I must be then you make yourself my enemy.

And you stand against the Constitution of the United States of America that I have twice sworn to defend.

True patriots know freedoms worth. And they need dominate no one.

As when you stand with me, you understand me. And as we understand each other, we find the reason.

And reason binds us in common duty.

I am an American. And I am truly free.