Social Gardening Helps Society Grow Stronger

Whether it is flowers, house plants, vegetables or trees, we care for them and do our best to nurture them, keeping them healthy.  One of the ways we care for them is by pruning; removing stems, leaves, branches and blossoms that are hurting the plant.  We do this because we know that removing the diseased or otherwise non-productive parts of the plant we make the plant stronger as a whole. We do this to help the plant thrive.  Often the plant will die if these unproductive parts are not removed.  We prune out of love for the plant, not out of hate for the parts we remove.  We prune with the same understanding with which we discipline: in the long run, everything will be more healthy.  And when we prune we don’t try to justify why we prune, because pruning in itself is a good thing.

In 1965 my father was diagnosed with melanoma, a form of skin cancer.  As in 1965, the only known cure for melanoma is surgical removal of the cancer.  A sort of pruning of the cancer, really.  Without pruning, the melanoma will course through the body and kill the body.  In order to save the body we cut out the cancer.  This is logical.  So logical in fact that you may be wondering why I choose to dwell on the subject.  There is no love lost for the cancer that is removed from the body.  The cancer is seen as unproductive to the health of the body.  We remove the cancer out of love for the person.

So, where does that bring us?  All this talk of gardening and cancer?

We all want our society to be healthy, whether it is our immediate family, our neighborhood or community.  If our society is thriving then it benefits us as individuals.  If our society is ailing then we also are adversely affected as individuals.  It is logical that we want a strong society, whether it is our family or our country.

It also makes sense that if we want to be members of a healthy society then we need to actively work to make our society better.  By each member working to a common goal of a healthy society each member of the society has an investment in the society.  Because each individual has an investment in the society each individual has an obligation to ensure the society grows.  The growth of the society also is the vehicle of growth for the individual.  A rising tide lifts all the boats, if you will.  In order for each of us to thrive as individuals we must ensure that the society thrives; we reap the benefits of our gardening skills.

If we look at the example of society as a garden we can draw many comparisons.  In a garden we plant seeds or bulbs, we weed out the unwanted foliage, we nurture the young plant so it may mature and we reap the benefit of our labor in the bearing of fruit, or flowers, for us to enjoy.

Unfortunately it is here where logic ceases to exist.  While we all agree that pruning a dead branch from a tree is good for the tree and we all agree that removing a malignant tumor is good for the body, we stop agreeing when discussing removing unproductive people from our various societies.  Why is this?  Is there confusion about what makes a society healthy?  It is not logical that a person who does not contribute to the society makes the society stronger.  In fact that person has the opposite effect; by consuming from the garden without working in the garden this person harms the other gardeners.  Why would you want a person who is harmful to the society, and by association you as an individual, in your society?   Even if you are the most altruistic soul on the planet, having a harmful person in your society makes it harder for you to be altruistic.

It is this lack of logic that harms our society, whether the smallest one, our family, or the largest one, our planet.  This irrational approach is detrimental to the planet as a whole and to each of us as individuals.  Simply put, we, the members, or gardeners of society, are killing the garden.  Why?  It is as if we want our societies, and therefore each other and ourselves, to fail, not to thrive.

So what is the solution?  Changing people is the solution.

We need to change the way a person considers his or her part of any society so this person realizes that to be a member requires each of us to contribute to the society, not just to take from the society.  The more productive members a society has, the better the society will be, whether it is a neighborhood, a town or a state.  Being a productive member of a society helps everyone and must be encouraged, but also recognized as a duty that isn’t optional.

We need to instill in people to not be afraid of saying, “Hey.  You need to help out around here if you are going to be here.”  We have lost the ability to keep each other and ourselves accountable.  We need to be accountable for our actions since, as members of a society, our actions directly impact other members.  As good gardeners we need to tend to our garden often and with a resolve that our garden will flourish.  Sometimes we all need a reminder that we need to work with the society if we are to benefit from the society.  There should be no stigma attached to reminding a member of the society of his duties and responsibilities.

And, we need to not be afraid of pruning the society when it needs to be done; of weeding the garden so the tomato plants can thrive, of cutting out the cancer so that the patient will live.  It is the courage to prune that will save us as a race, and the illogical fear that dooms us all.

Copyright 2009 Mark D. VandenBerg All Rights Reserved

Have We Acheived Ethnic Equality in the United States?

Throughout recent history there are heroes in the fight for civil rights.  An incomplete list includes names like Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Thurgood Marshall and Dionicio Morales.  Each has done great things in the quest for ethnic equality.  Thousands upon thousands of unnamed individuals joined in this quest, many at great personal sacrifice, some paving the way to the future with their very lives.  Groups and associations, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) each formed with the same goal in mind.  Great things have been accomplished.  Great strides have been made.

The New York Times published this article regarding the CBC and it got me thinking: now that the USA has elected a person of African descent to the office of President of the United States, the “most powerful man in the world,” what, if any, are the next steps for groups and individuals for whom the primary reason for existence is the fight for ethnic equality?

Allow me to clear up one thing before I move forward.  Many people hasten to point out that Barack Obama is a product of a mixed ethnic background.  This is true.  However, he associates more closely with his African heritage and other politicians seem to associate him the same way.  As proof I offer two parts of the aforementioned New York Times article: one that reports that Barack Obama is a member of the CBC, and another that states that the CBC has never had a member who is not black.  So logically, if Barack Obama is a member of the CBC and the CBC only allows black people to be members, Barack Obama views himself, and is viewed by others, as black.

The questions are simple to ask: Have we achieved the goal of ethnic equality as evidenced by the fact that the United States of America has elected a man of African descent as its leader?  If we have, what is the new goal?  What implication does this have on the political power of groups like the CBC, which has members in some of the highest political offices in the country?  What about smaller groups, such as the RainbowPUSH Coalition or the National Action Network; are they still relevant?  Is the NAACP, a group that uses only ethnicity with which to identify itself, now a relic of an older time?  Do we still need “Affirmative Action” (which is a term used to group together many actions and laws that grant favors to one ethnic or gender group at the expense of another)?  If these groups are no longer relevant and will lose political clout, are the members of these various groups feeling happy at the achievement of their work but resentful of their diminished importance?  With reduced political sway also comes less funding; is this also an issue for some of the charitable works these groups underwrite, especially the UNCF, and therefore a cause for resentment?  There are many more questions that could be added.

That is a lot of difficult questions, but in order to ask all of them does the answer to the first question, “Have we achieved the goal,” have to be “Yes?”  If the answer to that question is “No,” are the rest of the questions moot?  More importantly, can the first question be answered by a “Yes” or a “No,” or is the answer somewhere in between?  Or do we skip over the first question and ask the others anyway?

I will make an attempt at some of the questions.

The answer to the first question, “Have we achieved the goal?” is, sadly, a negative.  The last fifty years in the USA we have seen wonderful progress.  As I wrote we have made great strides towards ethnic equality in the USA but I think it would be foolhardy to think we have reached the end of the quest.  I also think you would be hard-pressed to find an intelligent person who disagrees with my answer.

Does that eliminate the second question, “What is the new goal?”  Maybe.  Smaller advocacy groups, community leaders and individual activists such as Al Sharpton focus more on the individual.  One of their important roles is to bring instances of individuals that suffer an ethnocentric abuse to the forefront so that these incidents are not hidden and the abusers are cast in to the light of public scrutiny so that we all may learn.  But the large groups may have to slightly alter their paths.  For instance, the CBC’s main function in the past has been to make sure that the needs of citizens of African descent are not forgotten in the halls of Congress or by the President.  The CBC also helps underwrite many charitable works.  Now that the President, and several important congressional posts are held by members of African descent, will the CBC be perceived as unnecessary by some and consequently lose some of their funding which in turn would hurt the charities it underwrites?  I believe this will happen. I believe this exact scenario will also occur with the NAACP but I am unsure of the UNCF.  To recap the answer to this question, the very large groups will see a change in their respective roles and have to adjust their agendas accordingly; the smaller groups and the individuals are still necessary and need not reset goals that have not been achieved.  This also effectively answers the third and fourth questions.

Answering the question about the relevancy of the NAACP is above my pay grade, so I choose to not answer the question.

What about the many “Affirmative Action” policies and laws? Are some/most/all of them still necessary?  The easy answer is that some are and some are not.  The hard part is to figure out which ones are which.  Is there a need for schools to use ethnic bias for admissions as a means to achieve the goal of ensuring those applicants of economically poor backgrounds get a fair chance?  Even the US Supreme Court can not answer this one, allowing the University of Michigan School of Law to continue this policy, but ruling that the same university undergraduate admission policy of using ethnic origin was unconstitutional (NPR news article for reference).  What of so-called “ethnic quotas” used as a determining factor in civic industries such as police and fire departments?  That these types of policies were necessary in even recent history is indisputable.  Whether they are necessary now is debatable.  That we will not need them in the future is the goal.  And that is my answer.  Sadly, some of them are necessary since we have not reached this goal.

Finally there is the issue of resentment.  This is a tough issue with which to deal.   If your entire life you have been devoted to an important struggle, and the struggle is won, your devotion has no direction.  While not resentment, some may feel an emptiness.  Others have made a living from the struggle and become leaders in the struggle.  If the struggle is no more, will they no longer be seen as important in the community?  As relevant?  Will they become resentful of their obsolescence?  Will they no longer have an income?  Since we have not achieved the goal we will not see the results, but I think there will be some, when true equality is reached, that will be melancholy about it.

Well, there you have it.  When discussing the quest for ethnic equality, we have certainly made great accomplishments as a society but we still have more to do.  That the United States of America will, in less than two weeks, have a sitting President of African descent is monumental, note-worthy and certainly a big step in the quest.  But we have not achieved the ultimate goal.  When we no longer describe each other or ourselves in terms of ethnicity we will have achieved the goal.  I think though, that for many people, the election of Barack Obama as President has helped turned an ideal that was only a concept in to one that will be a reality someday.

It is this paradigm shift that is the real change the the election of Barack Obama has brought to the USA.  This, for many people is the hope that before this past November they did not dare to have. This hope is demonstrated by the transition from the dream of which Dr. King so eloquently spoke to the reality that it will happen and, to many, is the most important change in history.

I relish the opportunity to make this topic an ongoing discussion.  I heartily recommend that and encourage you to make comments to this article in hopes that intelligent discourse leads us all to learn, both about this topic and about each other.

Copyright 2009 Mark D. VandenBerg All Rights Reserved

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right, But Two Lefts Do.

This is interesting:  the California Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments in the Martinez vs. Regents of the University of California, No. C054124.  The case revolves around California State Law AB 540 that states, among other things, that any non-resident (of California) who has attended high school in California for three academic years can go to a California State university at in-state resident tuition prices.  AB 540 originally became a California State statute in 2001, and the Martinez case has been bouncing around superior and appellate courts since 2005.

So far it sounds innocuous enough, even fair-minded. I mean, the student has completed three years in high school, that’s almost residency, right?

Martinez et. al. are a group of non-resident students (and graduates, I hope) who are suing for a partial refund of the tuition they paid.  They base the lawsuit on AB 540.  This is frivolous!  How can Martinez et. al. have a case?  How can the Supreme Court waste the taxpayers’ money to hear this?  The appellants are all from out of state and none went to a California high school once, let alone for three years!

There must be more to this.  Let’s dig a little deeper.

In this article we read that the “statute violates a 1996 federal law banning states from giving undocumented college students benefits they don’t offer to all U.S. citizens.”  Wait, what?  Undocumented?  So, if I understand it correctly, criminal aliens are not only attending state universities in California under AB 540, but doing so at drastically reduced prices?

I will put this as plainly as I can: in the State of California criminal aliens attend state universities for much lower tuition than citizens of the USA.  Let that sink in a little.  Put another way, the very fact that these students are inside the border of the State of California makes them criminals, and the state, as a punishment, gives them a huge tuition discount.

This is a symptom of a deeper problem that is so pervasive we as a society fail to even recognize it any more.  In an effort to be “politically correct” we give criminals gifts instead of arresting them.  And don’t start with the “but they’re only children” missives; these criminals are old enough to be in college, that means they are adults and should be tried, in a court of law, as such.  ”We have a moral obligation to help them” is another phrase I hear often.  Really?  Their own country has an obligation to help them; to this I would agree.  Just as my country has an obligation to me, a citizen.

So, what then, is the solution?  Close the borders?  Round them up?  No.  Those are reactionary responses to an already bad problem.  We can start in the right direction by rescinding laws, like AB 540, that actually give criminal aliens advantages over citizens.  We can eliminate so-called “safe-harbor” cities that blatantly aid and abet these criminals.  We can stop electing people to legislative offices who do more for the citizens of another country than citizens of their own country.

Let me be clear, here; I am absolutely in favor of immigration.  Nothing builds our country better than diversity as we constantly learn new things from each other.  In fact we probably should approve more residency applications than we do, as a country.  I am absolutely against letting crimes go unpunished.  If a law is bad, change the law, don’t ignore it.

In light of all this I still think the Martinez case is a bust and the Supreme Court of California is wasting time and dollars.  Clearly the overall intent is that students who are residents should get a tuition discount, and the appellates in the Martinez case are all not residents.  They may make a good argument that criminal aliens are being given a discount, and by doing shed light on a ridiculous loophole in the law but in the end, in their situation, the law was fair and was applied correctly.  Two wrongs still don’t make a right, afterall.

Copyright 2009 Mark D. VandenBerg All Rights Reserved

You Are Entitled To Your Opinion, Of Course

There was an interesting article in the Los Angeles Times 5 January 2009, regarding Time Warner Cable, Inc. and the California’s Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA), a provision of a law passed by California State Legislation in 2006 that went in to effect Thursday 1 January 2009.  You are welcome to read the article as it gives a good description of the new law provision and some background on the remainder of this article.

I will not bore you with the details, but essentially the DIVCA allows a cable television company to pay a fee to the city in lieu of providing studios, equipment and training, for free, to the public.  The logic behind the provision was to make it easier for other companies (other telecommunication entities, such as Verizon) to enter the market without having to provide these services.  This was to promote competition to the cable television companies. All of these companies providing video delivery service are still obligated to provide a certain number of channels for local access.  Local access is normally religious or other amateur programming that would never be broadcast were it not for these access channels.  To be fair to California, twenty other states in the USA have enacted similar legislation.

Time Warner Cable, Inc. simply looked at the amount they were spending on twelve fully equipped, fully staffed studios, compared that to the amount of the fee and made an accounting decision based on cost.  It seems like good business.  This decision may not have been the best thing for public relations for the company, and there may be a moral obligation that Time Warner is skirting, but those thoughts never made the article.

So what is the problem, you ask?  There are advocacy groups that now claim that their First Amendment rights are being violated.

First of all, the access to have video productions broadcast for free still exists.  By law.  Secondly, no one is compelling any person or group to stop producing video creations.  Third, there are many video delivery services other than the local cable television companies, the most prominent being YouTube.  Since there is no new restriction being placed on the ability to create or broadcast an amateur video production what could possibly be the basis for claiming an infringement on the First Amendment?

As I read the article I realized the advocacy groups were not questioning the access to having their video productions broadcast.  Their claim of First Amendment violation came from no longer having access to free television studio equipment, time and instruction.  Hold on just a minute.  My right to free speech also includes a production studio?

What is my point to all of this?  Entitlements.  We have become a society of entitlements.  It starts with giving our children an allowance; they learn that they receive money without merit.  Then we give every participant in a competition an award, which demeans the winner of the competition.  And on it goes, teaching our society that it is normal to receive without the merit of earning.  Eventually we come to this particular story in which people actually believe that a fully stocked and staffed television studio, at no cost to them whatsoever, is a fundamental right granted to them under the protections of the Bill of Rights.  I have no doubt they truly believe this is a violation of their rights.

I hope, for everyone involved, that this group decides to sue.  They have quite a list of potential victims: Time Warner Cable, Inc., the city of Los Angeles and the State of California;  anyone who they feel owes them something they have never earned.  And when they sue, I hope the court system has the wisdom to tell these people that they can not force someone else to buy a studio and produce their videos at no cost.  If that happens it will be a small step on the return path towards sanity.

Apparently I grew up differently, in a strange world where people don’t depend on entitlements to get through life.  I wonder if we as a society will ever return to the value of merit.

Remember that this is simply my opinion on this particular event.  You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

Copyright 2009 Mark D. VandenBerg All rights reserved.

I Am a Social Media Expert

There has been a lot of talk, lately, amongst the social media heavy hitters about how to quantify a quality, on-line social media presence.  The discussion has become heated at times, with insults being hurled freely. Here is but one of many examples of the vitriol being bandied about.

Some of you are convinced that the number of subscriptions determines the quality being presented to those subscribers.  Others of you scoff at this and purport that  it is the number of times a posting is repeated that is the measure of the quality of the posting.  A third group wants to make a combination based on ‘efficiencies…’

To all three sides of this argument I have two words for you: Britney Spears.  Ms. Spears has many subscribers on Twitter.  If Ms. Spears asked, I have no doubt that many of her followers would happily repeat one of her postings.  For those of you who want to use some combination of counting followers and repeated postings to determine quality this is the deadly combination that breaks your argument.  There is no possible way for you to convince me that any of it would be of high quality.

This is comical.  To me, at least.  It is comical to me, I suppose, because I am outside the echo chamber looking in at you running around like mice in a maze with no exit, listening to you shout at no one in particular that you and you alone have the answer.  It is comical to me because you are so deep in the forest you can barely see the trees.

I will break down the essence of the problem for you.  Nearly everyone involved in this conversation is a designer, a developer, used to be a designer or a developer, or employs designers and developers.  Your entire world revolves around numbers, mainly one and zero.  You think in terms of ones and zeros.  You make sense of the world around you using ones and zeros.  You solve most of your problems by writing codes that are ultimately ones and zeros.  And that is the flaw in trying to quantify quality.

There are no absolutes in quality, only relative associations.  There isn’t a one or a zero in quality.  You can not write a code of ones and zeros to determine quality.  Trying to to determine quality solely based on a countable metric is impossible; it is just as impossible as trying to count using colors.  How many more is red than blue?  There is no answer.

Quality is not a yes or no answer.  Quality is only a comparative measure based on a past experience of each of us, and no two of us are able to see it exactly the same way.  Quality means that this is better than that, without numbers.  To paraphrase, I can’t explain what quality is, but I know it when I see it.

It is not your fault you think a certain way.  Blame genetics, blame society, blame whomever you choose.  It does not change the fact that you do think this way, and it is the way your brain is wired that makes you want to count everything, rank everything and assign numbers to everything.

The bottom line is you aren’t idiots.  Not one of you.  You are all extremely bright people, most with amazing skills.  But this topic is not one of those skills and you are frustrated.  And it is okay to be frustrated with this.  There is nothing you can do to change how you think.  We all can not be great at everything.

As to what makes me a “Social Media Expert?”  I had cards printed…

Copyright 2009 Mark D. VandenBerg All Rights Reserved