How I Met Your Mother

While The Pyramid of Screaming was meant as entertainment, it has an obvious foundation in reality: when we feel that someone has yelled at us unjustly, we have a predilection for passing on that frustration to someone easily within our power. It isn’t a nice human quality, but examples of it are abundant. This habit, of course, speaks to something larger: a dissatisfaction with our ’superiors.’  We are much more likely to feel maligned – that is, unjustly admonished – if we don’t respect the figure performing the act, or his/her position.

With skepticism about someone’s right to admonish us as pervasive as it is, it begs the question whether there is something intrinsically wrong with us (the followers) or them (the leaders)? Are we terrible followers or are they terrible leaders?

Some recent studies suggest what many of us have long suspected: that many of our leaders are not as advertised. Specifically, there is nascent evidence which suggests that – by virtue of their leadership roles – our bosses have increased capacities to fake their own competence and to lie.

As reported by Jeffrey Kluger at Time, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley subjected a number of groups to a series of exercises. After each, participants were asked to rate their fellows on specific qualities. Almost without fail, participants gave higher marks to individuals who spoke out more often and more loudly, whether or not what they said had any merit. In short, the participants demonstrated a tendencies to view someone as a leader based on how confident or competent they made themselves appear.

A study with similar experiences was detailed by the Harvard Business Review just this month. In it, Dana Carney divided participants into two distinct roles: either bosses or employees. They were subsequently given instructions to follow which involved lying to an interviewer. Participants were then studied to see how they dealt with certain biological and psychological results of lying. In Carney’s words,

“Just as kids don’t touch a stove once they learn it burns them, people don’t like to lie because it hurts them emotionally and physiologically. These data suggest that powerful individuals—CEOs, portfolio managers, politicians, elite athletes—don’t get burned when they touch the figurative stove. They seem to be more physiologically “prepared” to lie, which could lead to their lying more often.”

“Just as kids don’t touch a stove once they learn it burns them, people don’t like to lie because it hurts them emotionally and physiologically. These data suggest that powerful individuals—CEOs, portfolio managers, politicians, elite athletes—don’t get burned when they touch the figurative stove. They seem to be more physiologically “prepared” to lie, which could lead to their lying more often.”

After perusing these studies, it is easy to feel some angst towards people in all positions of power. But is that justified? Ask yourself these questions:

1) Who is to blame for this state of affairs?

2) Who can fix it?

The answer to both questions, of course, is “You” – the Everyman of American organizational culture. In a follower role, it is easy to persuade yourself to think you have less responsibility for your organization’s success. But that’s preposterous – followers have just as much responsibility for being good shepherds of their organization as their bosses do. You really are your bosses’ keeper. As Warren Bennis said:

“If I had to reduce the responsibilities of a good follower to a single rule, it would be to speak truth to power.”

Stewart seems to suggest that this is related to the miserable economy, where Japan’s massive debt has contributed to just 14% of respondents reported feeling confident in Japan’s direction, according to an Ipsos/Reuters poll cited by Stewart. But, what if the economy is just a single contributor among many? And what if hikikomori are cropping up across the globe and not just in Japan?

As I read Stewart’s brief column, I couldn’t help but remember a March 2007 essay published in Harper’s where I first encountered Internet Addiction (“I was a Chinese Internet Addict.”) That essay discussed the phenomenon, likely to be added to the DSM-5, in which individuals become so obsessed with the internet that they lose touch with reality (I’m dramatizing, but only slightly). What of the people who give up on physically social lives, and opt for solely (or predominantly) digital ones?

This bears keeping in mind. As social media develops and becomes more pervasive – as comprehensive connection to a digital world becomes more facile, what do we stand to lose?

This article suggests that the burgeoning amount of emails, instant messages, tweets, and texts we receive  are becoming a harmful and prohibitive cacophony of hyper-communication. So why can’t people reduce the amount of messages they send (and receive)? Well, they could be addicted (“e-compulsion”). In such instances researchers notice decreased attention spans, increased stress, and decreased productivity (Alarming statistics! Read the article).

The most frightful thing to consider? What if what we’re doing – emailing about – day-to-day really impacts our life in the long-term? Robinson brings to light an argument by Winifred Gallagher, authored of Rapt, that “humans are the sum of what they pay attention to: What we focus on determines our experience, knowledge, amusement, fulfillment. Yet instead of cultivating this resource, she says, we’re squandering it on ‘whatever captures our awareness.’ To truly learn something, and remember it, you have to pay full attention.”

As noted by Robinson, it pays to pay attention to attention.

This morning I read an article which quoted the victim’s family’s lawyer as having said,

“With tonight’s verdict, justice has been done for the tragedy which struck the Kercher family. They are satisfied. These are severe sentences for young people, so it is a tragedy for all concerned” (italics mine).

If we were to cut the fat from this man’s statement, translate it into an algebraic statement, and then put in true values for the variables, it would come out (when simplified) looking something like this: justice = tragedy + tragedy. Read his statement again. This lawyer suggests that an event which constituted a tragedy, required another tragedy of commensurate degree to be committed in order for justice to occur. Does this sound like justice to you? To me, it sounds like simple revenge – but the kind of revenge you can stomach without shame, because it happened in a court of “law.” (Any one recall “an eye for an eye makes the whole world…”?)

Now, I don’t know much about the case and haven’t taken an interest in it until now – so my words should really be taken cum grano solis. After all, I’m basing my entire perception of wrong-doing on one man’s statement. But, what bothers me more than the fact a court may have allowed revenge to take place in its proceedings, rather than true justice, is that, to my knowledge, no one in the media has been concerned with this same idea. I was inundated yesterday – online, on television, on the radio, in paper – with media buzzards swarming around this story. The aspects they were concerned about were, to me, mundane and irrelevant: “How does the family feel?” (We can all imagine how they feel – now let’s stop prying into their personal lives.) “How does the victim’s family feel?” (We can all imagine how they feel, now let’s stop prying into their personal lives and let them grieve on their own). “Was it sex? Was it drugs? Was it violent?” (Of course the media would pick up on such elements).

Why wasn’t the media evaluating the case? The proceedings? The fairness of the sentences?

In his 1996 essay, “Why American’s Hate the Media,” James Fallows suggested that the media has lost its way. That its focusing on the wrong aspects of the stories it covers. He focuses more on politics, but I think the same idea applies here. He says,

“the pressure to keep things lively means that squabbling replaces dialogue. The discussion shows that are supposed to enhance public understanding may actually reduce it…”

That statement seems to be the crux of what’s wrong with the media. It speaks to a confusion over their vision (not perception, but vision of their purpose). After all, what’s the point of the media? Is it to increase ratings? If so, they can focus on the sensational, but their choice of topic and manner in which they cover it will not enlighten us. So, then, is their purpose to increase our understanding of issues and events? I certainly hope so. But I can’t say I’ve seen evidence of that in the American media today.

• “Love” (630 times)
• “Thanks” (243 times)
• “Sorry” (211 times)
• “God” (175 times)
• “Lord” (130 times)

Of special interest to me was the large gap between the most commonly mentioned word (“love”) and the second most commonly used word (“thanks”) – a 61% difference.

This single page had more of an impact on me than the last thousand (of any publication) I have turned. There seems to me to be something sacred about what people say right before they die – criminal or not. And, Texas seems to agree. They’ve faithfully recorded every last statement and made them publicly available online, from 40 year-old Charlie Brooks jr who was executed in 1982 for kidnapping and killing a car salesman, to 34 year old Robert Thompson, executed just two weeks ago for robbing a convenience store and killing the store clerk.

These statements seem to prove Henry Drummond correct, when he reminded us that

“You will find, as you look back upon your life, that the moments when you have truly lived are the moments when you have done things in the spirit of love.”

Then again, I cannot, somewhat cynically, resist from recalling one of Toni Morrison’s poignant  lines:

“We die. That may be the meaning of life. But we do language. That may be the measure of our lives.”

Indeed, it may be that language is the measure of our lives. Something to think about, eh?

If you’re interested in reading these last statements, you can do so at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice website.

Starbucks Logo

As far as my imperfect memory recalls, the paragraph read something like this:

“The Siren. According to myth her song was beautiful and irresistible. We still can’t resist her.”

I cocked my head and re-read the justification for their logo once more. When I was certain I had read correctly, I started looking around me with an incredulous look on my face. No one else seemed bothered by what I noticed.

Based on my brief observation, I began to suspect that Starbucks suffered from a terrible disorder called mytholitis – that is, a condition in which one fails to recall mythological stories accurately or completely. Either they suffer from this terrible condition or, I’m afraid, they selectively retold this myth to hide an obvious truth about their product.

According to this cardboard prophet, Starbucks justifies the Siren in its logo because this creature was beautiful and irresistible to sailors. To the casual observer, this advertising sends a warm subliminal message which depicts hard working sailors (us – the consumer) being humored by the song of a beautiful woman (Starbucks). The appeal of this narrative – being pleased by a member of the opposite sex – is obvious. To rehash the Siren myth in this way, however, is a patent oversimplification.

As anyone who does not suffer from mytholitis could tell you, the real myth recounts a more tragic story of the Sirens. They were ugly humanoids – half bird, half woman in appearance – and were entirely wicked.  When unsuspecting ships would sail by Sirenum scopuli, the three rocky islands where the Sirens made their home, these creatures would begin to sing. Men who heard their ethereal voices became enchanted. Incensed, they sought to find the source of the music no matter the danger. Usually this meant turning their ships towards the noise and blindly sallying forth, wrecking their ships upon the rocks surrounding the Sirens’ islands and drowning, unfulfilled.

Initially, I was concerned that Starbucks was incorrectly rehashing a myth to justify their misuse of an icon. In hindsight, maybe that icon is appropriate – when the myth is correctly remembered. After all, Starbucks coffees aren’t necessarily healthy for us and, for many Starbucks regulars, their product does seem dangerously irresistible. Perhaps their marketing gurus put out this message to amuse themselves, fully cognizant of the fact that there are two vastly different ways of reading their logo: an incorrect way, which they’re peddling to consumers everyday; and a correct way, which would warn consumers away from heeding the Starbucks Siren’s call.

It seems we could refer to the nineties as the “Crackdown on Sex Offenders Decade” – a majority of ordinances and laws were passed in those ten years which have since become a part of our everyday lives: federal and state sex offender registries, living restrictions, and restrictions on where sex offenders can work (or even volunteer – Georgia had banned offenders from volunteering for churches, before it was overturned)  [1]. But, what have they accomplished? In our desperation to protect ourselves and our children, we fought in the name of reduced recidivism, but only achieved the creation of a new sub-class of human being: one with no home, no friends, and fewer reasons not to commit more crimes.

The Julia Tuttle Causeway, where some offenders reside at night.

The August 8th issue of The Economist tells the story of Wendy Whitaker who, in 1996, performed oral sex on a classmate. She was 17 and he was three weeks short of being 16. In Georgia at the time, oral sex was considered sodomy – and thus was she charged. Whitaker consequently spent more than a year in jail, the state women’s prison, and boot camp. She told The Economist, “I was in there with people who killed people. It’s crazy.” And, although oral sex is no longer considered sodomy in Georgia and a new law has categorized consensual sex

 between teenagers only a misdemeanor and not a crime, Whitaker has received no relief: her name, photograph, and address are made publicly available online at Georgia’s Sex Offender Registry. Recently, Whitaker and her husband bought a house, being careful to abide by the living restrictions Georgia has established for these vile sex offenders (they must live and work at least 1,000 feet from anywhere children may congregate). The Whitakers thought they researched their choice well enough, but were evicted when it became evident that a church nearby operated a child-care centre. Her dutiful husband moved with her and lost his job as a result.

A similar tale can be found in Miami, where legislation bans sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of places where children gather [3]. As a result, a new slum has been born: the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Under this bridge, a “colony of predators” eke out their meager existence – or so we think [3]. Most individuals only sleep at the Julia Tuttle Encampment, but live elsewhere during the day. After all, the ordinance just requires them to avoid places where children gather from 10p.m.-6a.m. As one sex offender observed, “We could be in front of a school all day, but we are under the bridge when all the kids are at home with their moms at night. This doesn’t make any sense” [4].

The sex offender registries have numerous flaws, including:

• Weak definitions of sex offenses: 13 states require registration as a sex offender for urinating in public [2],
• Discrimination against teenagers: 29 states require registration as a sex offender for teenagers who engaged in consensual sex with another teenager [2]. You can drive a car, smoke, fight for your country, and vote – but I’ll throw you in jail if you make consensual love to your girlfriend. The Economist cites one man who feels the pain of this flaw poignantly: he “was convicted of statutory rape two decades ago for having consenual sex with his high-school sweetheart, to whom he is now married” [2].
• The sheer numbers of offenders on the list makes it impossible for law enforcement to do anything effective with it. Terry Norris, of the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association, reported to The Economist that the man who had consensual sex with his high-school sweetheart, mentioned above, takes as much of their time and resources as someone who commits an especially “heinous” crime [2].
• These individuals are made into targets for harassment: Numerous examples abound, describing convicted sex offenders being physically assaulted, murdered, or psychologically abused. While some critics might say this is their just desserts – we have to think strategically. While it is fair to say a murdered sex offender poses no threat to anything but our conscience, a harassed sex offender is only more likely to commit a more crimes – after all, what’s the point of abiding the law if it doesn’t protect you?

As a result of these flaws, we can paint this portrait of your average sex offender, post-punishment:

• Destablized: “Well-intended policy is making the public less safe…[it] destablizes [offenders] by making them homeless” [4]
• Destablized: “20-40% have had to move house because a landord or neighbor realized they were sex offenders” [2].
• Emotionally unstable: “49% of sex offenders’ families report fearing for their own safety” [5] and most report feeling depressed, hopeless, or afraid [2].

Does it really seem logical to make a convicted sex offender more unstable? Admittedly, there is probably little “rehabilitation” for those who have committed heinous crimes – most of them are likely sick individuals who need to be imprisioned for the majority of their lives or medicated. But for the other individuals (those who were caught giving blowjobs, caught having consensual – though underage – sex, caught peeing on a building in public), do we really want to be creating an environment which is more likely to turn them into actual criminals, then just fools who made a silly mistake?

Building Blocks Towards a Solution

The Human Rights Watch is championing a better solution, where no other politicians have. Among other things, they propose the following adjustments to our sex offender laws:

• Those convicted of minor, non-violent offenses should be not required to register
• Juveniles should not be required to register
• Sex offenders should be individually assessed, and only those judged to rape someone or abuse a child should be registered
• Registrations will be regularly reviewed and offenders who are “rehabilitated” or who grow to old to re-offend, should be removed from the registry.
• The information on sex-offenders registries should be held by the police and not published online, except on a need-to-know basis.
• Blanket bans on all sex offenders living and working in certain areas should be abolished. Instead it makes sense for the most dangerous offenders to face tailored restrictions as a condition of parole.

——-

 References: 

1. The Economist (08.08.09), pg 21.
2. The Economist (08.08.09), pg22.
3. Newsweek (0803.09), pg 48. “A Bridge Too Far,” by Catharine Skipp and Arian Campo-Flores.
4. Newsweek (0803.09), pg 49. “A Bridge Too Far,” by Catharine Skipp and Arian Campo-Flores.
5. The Economist (08.08.09), pg23.

And yet, there are still some surprises out there – you might be surprised to read, for instance, that today, April 19, is the official start of Cowboy Poetry Week. In fact, this week hasn’t even made a blip on Epromos’ radar. You might think a week is overkill for honoring what sounds like an imaginary medium but, in fact, Cowboy Poetry Week has been steadily gaining steam and its sponsoring organization, CowboyPoetry.com is entering its tenth year. Although Epromos hasn’t caught onto the craze, Gov. “Ahnold” Schwarzenegger seems to be a fan.

Although the website isn’t a webcrawler’s dream in terms of navigation or pizazz, you might stumble on some gems. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll realize soon that there’s a new sheriff in town.

“Perhaps miracle is the wrong word. I was simply trying to speak your language.”

“My language?” Langdon was suddenly uncomfortable. “Not to disappoint you, sir, but I study religious symbology – I’m an academic, not a priest.”

Kohler slowed suddenly and turned, his gaze softening a bit. “Of course. How simple of me. One does not need to have cancer to analyze its symptoms.” (page 27).

In August of last year, I wrote “Emptying Pews Cry for Leadership,” in which I discussed my perception of religion as a dying institution, but one that’s dying needlessly, from a preventable disease. The quotation from Angels & Demons I’ve included above is a propos because I’m not particularly religious; I’m just fascinated by religion and how people engage themselves with it.

In these dire economic times, you’d expect more and more people would be going to church. After all, aren’t we used to seeing church attendance rise when tough times or hurdles lie ahead or when the future becomes cloudy and overcast? Furthermore, going to church is more or less free, so it’s not like you can use less cash as an excuse from attending.

Despite what you might expect, the Pew Research Center released findings on March 13 which suggest that people are just as unconvinced by the value of going to church now as they were before this crisis started.

From the Pew Research Center, March 13, 2009

From the graph to the left, you can see that church-goers remain at the same small handful in January 2009 as they did in January 2007.

I don’t know about you, but I fully expected that as the Dow Jones plummeted, church attendance would climb, a testament to our ability to ignore the good things in our life until all we’re surrounded by is the bad.

So what does this mean, that the flagging economy has failed to revive our interest in religion? Maybe, just maybe, it’s an dead horse that’s not worth beating anymore.

By now, you probably have heard of the sexting phenomenon. If not, in brief, it is the act of sending nude or semi-nude pictures of yourself to others via your mobile phone. Here’s the shocker: according to a survey performed last year by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 20 percent of teens “said they had sent or posted nude or semi-nude photos or videos of themselves” (MSNBC). Split out by gender, this was true for 22% of girls vs 18% of boys.

In the last couple of months, three sexting scandals have launched onto the media’s radar.In review:

Pennsylvania

According to MSNBC, six teenagers are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls (14-15 years old) “sexted” three male classmates (presumably of similar age). The sexting was discovered when one young gentleman’s phone was appropriated by school officials for violating a policy on cell phone use. They discovered the picture and contacted authorities. A short time later, Police leveled child pornography charges against the six teenagers. Police Captain George Seranko suggested this was to “send a strong message to other minors who might consider sending such photos to friends.” On the flip side of this coin, Philadelphia defense attorney Patrick Artur said these charges “run counter to the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws: preventing the sexual abuse of children by ‘dirty old men in raincoats’” (MSNBC).

On this topic, CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom retorts, “What are we going to do, lock up 20 percent of America’s teens?” (CBS).

New Jersey

In New Jersey, Passaic County authorities have charged another teenager girl (14 years old) with “possession and distribution of child pornography for posting nude photos of herself on MySpace.” (NPR) The mother of another New Jersey girl, whose death was the inspiration for Megan’s Law, criticized those prosectuors, claiming that such charges are more harmful than helpful (NPR).

Ohio

Perhaps the most infamous case of sexting yet occured in Cincinnati, OH. Last year 18 year-old Jane Doe (I don’t think we need to tarnish this young girl’s name anymore, so I’ll use a generic one) was getting ready to graduate from high school. She sent a nude picture of herself to her boyfriend. When they broke up a short time later, he sent it to some of his friends, who sent it to some of their friends…and so on, until the theory of six degrees of separation was proven in less time than it took for a girl’s heart to break. Hundreds of students all around the area came into possession of the photo.

Last May Jane Doe spoke to a local news station about the emotional cost of this event, expressing embarrassment and humiliation. Students teased her incessantly, inside the school and out. In my 11.28.2008 post, “Creating (and Destroying) Realities,” you can read about how readily one girl’s life was destroyed by the dark side of humanity equipped with advanced technology. Unfortunately, Jane Doe’s story met much the same end. Two months after speaking with the local news station about this event, she went to the funeral of a boy who had killed himself. When she went home, she did the same.

Sexting, Boiling Over

The parents of this Cincinnati Jane Doe have since started calling for tougher laws and more accountability. It seems like legislators are starting to take the hint. In Ohio, for example, one lawmaker said recently that he intends to introduce a bill making it a misdemeanor for minors to send naked pictures (MTV). As you read above, authorities in Pennsylvania waited not at all for a new bill to be introduced, but started charging minors under existing laws.  Another teenager in Texas has already spent a night in jail after his football coach discovered a nude picture of a friend on his phone (WFAA).

Placing each of these stories side-by-side, we see that in some instances authorities have gone too far (New Jersey, perhaps Pennsylvania), while other authorities haven’t gone far enough (Ohio). So here’s the question for the People to consider: Where should accountability for this lie?

Prosecutors in New Jersey seem to think it should lie with the person sending the picture(s).

Prosecutors in Pennsylvania seem to think it should lie with both the senders and receivers of the picture(s).

Lawmakers in Ohio, Jane Doe’s mom, and authorities in Texas seem to think it should lie with the receivers of the picture(s).

What do you think?

Personally, I can’t help but feel that this is an issue the government should keep out of. What people do with pictures of themsemselves is their business and their responsibility. Furthermore, what minors do with pictures of themselves is their parents’ business and their parents’ responsibility. Maybe they shouldn’t be giving them cell phones, if they can’t trust in their ability to use reason and good judgement?

Particularly in the last case I mentioned, the Ohio Sexting Incident, who should authorities have charged? The Jane Doe who sent the picture in the first place? The boyfriend who sent it on later? Each person to sent it after that? Or did they do the right thing in not charging anyone, because after all, as the ACLU is claiming, is sexting a privilege guaranteed by the First Amendment? (law.com).

—-

MSNBC - Mike Brunker, “‘Sexting Surprise: Teens Face Child Porn Charges.”

CBS – “Sexting” Shockingly Common Among Teens.

MTV – Gil Kaufman, “Teens Could Get Hit With Child Pornography Charges After Sexting.”

NPR – “‘Megan’s Law’ Mom Criticizes ‘Sexting’ Charges.”

WFAA – Craig Civale, “Student Faces Porn Charge Over Text Sent By Classmate.”

Law.com – Shannon P. Duffy, “ACLU Sues DA Over Threat to Prosecute ‘Sexting’ Teens.”

WLWT – Sheree Palello, “Mom Loses Daughter Over ‘Sexting,’ Demands Accountability.”

Enquirier – Cindy Kranz, “Family Wants Tougher Laws.”