Goodbye Cruel World

Hello readers. I am moving my blog to a different (competing) blog site as I am having difficulty accessing my blog here to post new entries. Not sure why that is happening but it has been very irritating. All of my previous posts will be posted there for your convenience. Just click on the title of this blog post to go to the new blog. Thanks for supporting me in my musings. Will Servant

It's Been Awhile

Yes, it has been awhile since I graced these pages with my turgid prose. Part of the reason was not having anything earth shattering to say for some time and a large portion of the reason was my nearly big one heart attack of November 2009. Five stents in two arteries later, plus a new diet and not enough exercise to satisfy my doctors I am still not back to normal normal but am close enough to feel like I have a satisfactory life once again. Like most of us who suffer from heart disease I neglected to take seriously the warning signs until I was nearly dead. Thankfully my local hospital has an excellent cardiac unit and some top rated cardiologists. I received the best care and consider myself an exceedingly lucky man.

Almost dying gives one an unusually acute sense of their own mortality. You notice all of the silly and detrimental things you have done by habit all your life and reassess your uncanny ability to undermine your good health. This ability extends out into our society in many ways. For example it is nearly impossible to dine in any restaurant without having to order food which comes nowhere close to meeting the terms of one's heart healthy diet. This is especially true for fast food. If I ate one of KFC's new double down chicken sandwiches without the bun I would be consuming over two days worth of saturated fats. One can of Progresso soup has nearly an entire days worth of sodium. My rant about American food, its production and distribution is for another blog entry but suffice it to say that as Americans we have been given what we crave for a price that is often under the cost of production. Humans crave three tastes, salt, fat and sugar. These items exist in rare quantities in nature but largely because of government subsidies and sophisticated food processing they are made readily available to us in large quantities, easily accessible and inexpensive.

Every day I see people eagerly wolfing down foods that cannot be healthy for their hearts. No wonder heart attack and stroke are major killers of Americans. But the huge corporate food, or as I prefer to call it, edible food like substance, industry just gets us more and more hooked on the worst kinds of stuff. All to make a buck.

Scandalous.

A Votre Sante

Lots of talk is swirling around health care reform. Everyone seems to have an opinion and those with the means to promote theirs are now actively seeking to persuade and influence the public, many of whom do not fully understand just how our health care system works. People with a vested interest in maintaining insurance industry profits deride the single payer option as government control over health care. They say the government will come between you and your doctor in the sensitive area of determining what care is needed. They say there will be rationing and waiting lines. This is clearly the pot calling the kettle black. We already have non-medical personnel in the form of insurance actuaries determining what procedures can be done and we already have rationed care from insurance companies in the form of rejections due to preexisting conditions and from managed care conglomerates choosing which doctors we can see. We already have long waiting lines for specialized care in America. What single payer does not have is almost 30% administrative costs.

Single payer, simply told, is merely a different way to finance health care. If you were to finance a car and were told you had two choices, one in which 25% of your payment went to administrative costs and one in which 3 % went to those same costs which would you choose. I believe any sane person would choose the plan where more of his payment went to actually paying off the principle and interest. As long as the powerful interests of the insurance industry, big Pharma and managed care companies can hoodwink us into continuing to justify people making profit from financing and providing health care then we will get a broken system. Does the fire department make a profit? Do we not pay for fire protection, hoping we will never use it, but feeling good when our neighbor does, regardless of their economic status? What is the difference between fire protection and health care? Simply put, we have come to see fire protection as a right of all citizens. We have yet to see health care in the same light, largely because it has traditionally been a privileged commodity, subject to the profit driven market, which the wealthy can afford and the poor cannot.

People would be outraged if their neighbor's home was allowed to burn because they could not afford fire protection insurance. Until we see health care as one of our inalienable rights we will not be able to reform it to the degree that it will cease becoming a greater and greater economic burden. Ask why we are the only major nation in the world without a national health plan and we only need look as far as the continued greed of the insurance industry. If we continue to allow the profiteers to define the health care debate I am afraid we will never get the kind of health care reform we deserve.

Makes for a very sick nation.

Sowing Seed in Good Earth

The American Dream used to involve hard work as a function of reaping the benefits of a vibrant economy. Even in today's tenuous economy if one sows their seed in good earth and tends to it lovingly one should expect a life giving harvest. It has always been posited that if one works hard and plays by the rules ( The quintessential American state of being) they would be assured of partaking in the fruits of the alleged "Greatest nation on earth".

This axiom is assumed by many as the recipe for success in America. At least it is sold as such to the aspiring underclass. Work hard, abide by the rules and you too can climb the ladder high enough to perhaps grab some low hanging fruit, something to make life a little sweeter, regardless of your last name or the number of acronyms behind it.

There exists, though, a class of people for whom this time honored method of achieving the American Dream is not good enough. It is beneath them to actually work for anything, having been raised in an entitlement society. This is not the entitlement of the poor to wealth without work as is complained about by so many conservative pundits but rather the entitlement of birth. These people feel entitled to the fruits of the dream simply because they exist. What is really worth something to them is to manifest wealth without working at all. This is what they expect from life and this is their goal. They have been born into wealth and they have been taught from an early age, through example, that making lots of money without working is an honorable and admirable goal. Something for nothing is the only acceptable result of waking up each day for these seemingly 'tortured' souls.

These are the ones who look for insider trading deals on Wall Street, who look to use social networking to arrange sweetheart business deals and use the accident of their monied birth to exclude those who can't get a good tee time from ever having the advantages they enjoy.

When we look at why the American Dream is fading away, before our very eyes, look not to those who still believe in hard work, but have no access to the good earth on which to sow their seed, to assign your blame. Look rather to those with rich, dark earth in abundance that they are all too eager to sell to the highest bidder, never having ever so much as run their hands through it, to understand its real value or appreciate the very fact that they are so lucky as to even imagine it running under their feet.

Making a living without working is a necessary, temporary social safety net for some people. Is there fraud? Certainly there is. But the greater fraud is the wealthy seeking to make a killing without lifting a finger. As long as our goal is to get rich without having to work some may gain momentary riches as individuals but as a whole society our seed will fall on the hard rocks and suffer.

The spectre of Specter

The recent news that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has decided to switch parties has dominated the news for the last 24 hours. As the major news story of its time ( They will be on to something else tomorrow, maybe the swine flu once again) this news is, on the surface, a boon to those who would like to see a filibuster proof Senate (Providing there is an eventual decision in the Minnesota Senate race, which is not a foregone conclusion). However if one looks a little closer at the basis for Specter's decision we find that it is primarily political in nature, as, sadly, most legislative decisions appear to be in this day.

Specter was to be faced with a strong, right wing, primary opponent in 2010 and was advised that he could not win. In his lust to remain in a position of power he determined that his best chance of winning reelection was to run as a Democrat. It's really that simple. Having seen the writing on the wall he took the path of least resistance.

Those who think that this change will suddenly make Specter a screaming liberal are sadly mistaken. In fact, he has changed parties once before and has always been a moderate who seems to enjoy holding up a wet finger rather than make definitive stands of principle. Anyone who feels that the Democrats will have, with the inevitable seating of Franken in Minnesota, an automatic 60 vote cushion in the Senate will have a somewhat rude awakening. Specter's disapproval of the Employee Free Choice Act is an indication of how loosely he will toe the party line.

So don't get your hopes up.

Battle Royale

Lots of talk lately has focused on the relative merits or demerits of President Obama's stimulus plan. People have gone back and forth saying it is too much or not enough, that it will destroy America or save us. In essence this conversation comes down to pitched battle between two of the primary modes of economic thought of the 20th century, Neo-Keynesian economics and Monetary economics as favored by Milton Friedman and the Chicago school.

To oversimplify, Keynesian economics is a demand side philosophy and Monetary economics is a supply side philosophy. Another overly simple explanation of these somewhat opposing schools of thought is that Keynesian economics offers that in times of economic hardship demand must be created by the infusion of cash into the populace by government, creating the ability to purchase, thus creating demand where there was once none, due to lack of available capital in the marketplace. Monetary policy as roughly defined by Friedman advocates that government stay out of the market and that it can be kept solvent by a steady and measured influx of capital from a source outside government.

Another simplistic way of understanding these theories is that Keynesian economics favors government intervention in the market and Monetary policy favors a totally free market. Although Friedman himself was primarily a libertarian his economics have been most recently advanced by conservative republicans such as Reagan and both Bushes. Keynesian economics has been used by most Democrats since Franklin Roosevelt.

The dramatic difference of opinion on the role of government in our economy between these two schools of thought is at the crux of all of the discussions about our current financial crisis. It is like a championship bout is being fought between those who feel government must regulate the market and be active in it when it falters and those who think the market will adjust very well all by itself thank you.

In its extreme Keynesian economics can lead to a socialist state with the government controlling business and in its extreme Friedmanesque economics can lead to a fascist state where business controls the government. Neither extreme is particularly attractive for a democratic republic such as America. Both of these economic systems were designed for the nationalist political systems of the 20th century not a modern global economy. This is why both have struggled in the last 40 years.

Hopefully from the ashes of this battle both of these 20th century modes of economic thought will be adjusted and modified to the degree that a new, 21st century appreciation of economics will emerge that has neither the roller coaster up and down markets that are the hallmark of Keynesianism nor the bankrupting, failed, trickle down, unregulated fiasco that has resulted from our latest venture into Chicago style economics.

It has been said one should trust but verify. Perhaps it is time for a new economics that will do the same, a regulated but otherwise free market for a 21st century global economy. Where are the Keynes and Friedman of this century?

A New Day For Man, A New Era For Mankind

This day, Monday January 19, 2009, as we celebrate the wisdom and work of Martin Luther King Jr., the world awaits the momentous occasion of the inauguration of America's first black president, Barack Obama. We look forward to this event not simply because he is black but because the world stands on the precipice of great upheaval, economically, politically and socially. President elect Obama (thankfully this will be the last time I must refer to him that way) and his historic election represent in the minds of many Americans a break from the past, from the tired ideas of the 20th century, and hope for the future of not only America but the entire planet.

Perhaps the collective will of humankind is still being heard out there in the vastness of space, where the real decider still awaits our reunion with right thinking and action. Maybe, just maybe, we are finally getting it and are beginning to realize the challenges of the new century can be met with a true 21st century consciousness instead of the worn out world view of those who would still tell us that imperial style world domination is not only possible, but necessary.

Obama is clearly a man for whom history has carved out a place. Yet that place must also be populated with caring, loving human beings who will support him as he strives to carry us into a brighter future, who will give their every effort to seeing to it that all men and women of this fragile planet have every opportunity to live productive and successful lives. This must be done with the utmost respect for everyone, not just the wealthy and powerful, not just the intelligent or connected, but every single person existent.

If we cannot move this nation and the world strongly in this direction I fear the new century will be a short one. The challenges we face are grave and daunting. If we simply hand over the responsibility to this one man, however talented, we will never be able to hand over a better world to our progeny. Mankind is driven to improve, to evolve, yet there are obstacles at every turn. Today, as our new President calls us to give of ourselves back to our communities on this day of service let us redouble our personal efforts to make ourselves better, stronger and more compassionate people.

After all, there is no one else but us who can make a difference.

In With the Good

One of my New Year's resolutions, among the many I have already broken, was a vow to write more entries into this blog. It's not easy, seeing as how I only write when I feel I have something of modest significance to say, which isn't often. It's nearly the middle of January and I have yet to think of any world shattering prose. To be honest I rarely, if ever, do think of anything likely to change anyone's heart or mind. However, that should not stop me from trying.

I have several concerns as 2009 begins to settle in and we are merely days from inaugurating a new American President. The first is creeping complacency. Progressives have fought hard working their fingers to the nub to get someone elected who sees America not as a conquering empire but a helpful older brother to the world. My worry is that now that Barack Obama is to be our president there will be a letdown, a relaxing of diligence, similar to a football team playing a lesser opponent who lets down its guard, mails in the effort and gets beaten like eggs for an omelet. We cannot afford to simply breathe a great sigh of relief and go back to our daily lives content that because we have our man at the top everything will magically be wonderful again.

There are still issues which have uphill struggles if they are to come to pass. Single payer universal health care, instant runoff voting and the establishment of strong local sustainable economies all have many detractors and need our best efforts to make them realities. They will not just happen by themselves as we drive our Priuses to the co-op. A redoubling of our efforts is needed if these progressive policies that will help people's lives are to come to pass. Get cracking people.

Another thing that worries me (yes, even though I am an optimist I have plenty of worries) is the fact that deep partisanship is so firmly entrenched in our legislatures, both state and federal. Even though the times call for strong bi-partisan leadership to carry us through the hard times we face and which lie ahead of us I fear that small minded people in government will continue to fight the creation of policies that must be instituted if we are to avoid great pain for many Americans.

I can easily imagine obstructionist legislators fighting tooth and nail to prevent the level of government investment in our infrastructure needed to both infuse the economy (read people) with money to circulate and pull us out of the stagnation we are sliding into and refurbish the physical foundation upon which that economy depends for its lifeblood. I hope this is not the case, but it seems that too many of our leaders still model the corporate world when it comes to visionary thinking and only look to quick fixes and easy solutions which have no political ramifications for their puny careers.

Join me in continuing to fight the good fight, in resisting complacency, and in keeping our leaders feet to the fire as we navigate the very rough waters into which we sail. Society as we know it hangs in the balance. Don't let our progeny down.

Merry Christmas ???

As I sit today pondering the delights of the holiday I cannot help but wonder if Christmas and the other solstice holidays, with their alleged emphasis on "peace on earth, good will towards men" do not concentrate all that good will into one small portion of the year, leaving us free to be our normal mean spirited selves the rest of the year. I don't man to go all Grinch on everyone here but it does seem to me that we all too often assign good behavior to particular holidays, using that as an excuse to behave poorly the remainder of the time.

Chestnuts roasting on an open fire is a wonderful image, full of the promise of loving our neighbors, but do our busy lives compartmentalize these positive opportunities into compact segments, much as we do with most of the other things we do with our lives, giving way to a sort of culturally acceptable schizophrenia; work now, then the drive home, then play with the kids, then sleep, then back to work, ad infinitum. Doesn't it appear sometimes that we are radically different people depending on the circumstance; kind and loving here, cruel and heartless there. We shift back and forth into these becomings easily, never giving a thought to the fragmentation of our existence.

So we cram all of our feelings of gracious community and empathy into these short, swift, preordained periods of time and then return to our thoughtless striving for financial glory and social oneupsmanship the remainder of our fractured lives.  That conservative Uncle of yours gets the benefit of the doubt over turkey and all the trimmings, at least as long as it takes to unwrap the presents, and then its back to reviling him as a monster. We hold off our criticism about Cousin Mary's unfortunate divorce until well past dessert, after the tryptophan wears off and we get off the couch looking for someone to dominate once again.

Perhaps this is a harsh assessment. Maybe the ghost of Scrooge has descended upon me in a fit of bah humbuggery. I just wish everyone would treat everyone else with the same loving kindness and forgiveness they muster up every Christmas day for the other 364 days of the year. Things might be better all around.

What Kind of Together Do You Want?

It's been awhile since my words have graced this corner of cyberspace. Electoral politics reared their ugly head and I was embroiled with this, that and the other thing, trying to get those I identified with elected. Oh, I had plenty of time to write, but when I arrived home after a day of campaigning I was exhausted, partly from the work but mostly from the stress of not knowing if the country would be led in a better direction. Besides, if I had anything to say it would probably be a diatribe against my candidates opponent and lord knows there was plenty of that to go around, offered by better minds than mine.

I have been devoting those brain cells I have left to a concise definition of the difference between the two isolated and polarized political camps that populate modern American politics. This conundrum has perplexed lots of pundits from both camps, although traditionally conservatives have done a better job of lying about liberals than vice versa, thus giving the appearance of clearly delineating a definition of "those who hate America". These distortions aside, few experts have been able to divine a concise and accurate presentation of the differences between conservative and progressive character. Perhaps George Lakoff has come closest to the pin, describing conservatives as espousing "strict father" values with progressives choosing "nurturant parent" values instead.

The understanding of strict father and nurturant parent mentality unfortunately drifts about too much for my tastes. In general they provide a fairly accurate description of the two dominant modes of political thinking we see expressed today but who really knows exactly what they mean.

To accurately pin down a clear understanding of these differences in a sound bite easily digestible by the masses we must use few words (a struggle for this writer it is clear). They must be easily understandable by a majority of Americans and have elements both of commonality and separation, as that is the true nature of Americans, separated by ideology but bound by great commonality of purpose. Let me offer my contribution to this struggle to nail down a definition once and for all. I do not say it is the best solution, only mine. I do feel it has merit however slight it might be.

Lots of people I have talked to say that conservatives are about me and liberals are about we. This is concise to be true and descriptive but, I feel incomplete. I know plenty of conservatives that care about people and progressives who look out for number one. I hear others say conservative favor corporations and progressives are for workers. This again is basically true but narrows the scope of consideration to issues of commerce. Once again, in refutation, I think we all know conservatives who care about working people and progressives who are quite corporate in their approach to business.

I have always loved words and their etymology. Where words come from gives us a clue as to the reason for their creation. Words arise from a need to communicate something. Their roots give us a glimpse of their real meaning. The words I have chosen to describe the difference between conservatives and progressives are simple and related. Simply put conservatives compete and progressives cooperate. Both of these words are from the Latin and have as a prefix the Latin co or com, meaning together. Everybody, whether they care to or not, acts together. Even the hermit, far away in his mountain cabin, cannot get absolutely everything he needs from the land. He had to buy an ax somewhere and for some unknown reason most hermits drink coffee, necessitating some kind of relationship with Juan Valdez or his surrogates. Society is a series of individual acts that impact other individuals. We cannot escape it. We are social animals.

The roots of these two words are also related but subtly different. Compete has as its root the Latin verb petere, which means to aim at. Put the prefix and root together and we come up with an intentional meaning of aiming at something together. To compete means we all have the same thing in our sights but the implication is that only one of us will reach the goal, that all others will fail, unless you are Robin Hood and can split the sheriff's arrow at the bullseye. Few of us can compete at that level. This type of problem solving implies that we all start with a quiver of arrows and a bow, essentially equal, but the skill of one individual will out. There is only one winner and everyone else loses.

Cooperate, on the other hand, has at its essence the Latin verb root operari which means to work. The word means to work together. As we can see there is great similarity in the two words. Both of them refer to people acting together to accomplish a given goal. The difference is in the focus of the two roots. When people cooperate i.e. work together, they accomplish a common goal and all benefit. They use their skill not to outwit or defeat an opponent but in accord with and augmenting the skill of others to produce a given result. Of course, there must be accord from the beginning of the task. In competition there are a variety of personal goals in play. Some compete simply for the thrill of winning, some to glorify themselves, some to prove a point. When people cooperate they have already thought out and agreed on the goal. This is work, something that many ego oriented competitors find boring and ultimately wasteful. Just set up the damn target and lets go at it.

So how do these related but finely differentiated words describe what I say they describe? Conservatives believe competition is the way to solve problems and act in the world. They posit that the most skillful will find the best solutions and that it is in all of the losers' best interests to meekly accept that superiority. They believe in the competition of the free market system. They believe that each human interaction is a test of competence (notice where that word comes from). They believe that only the strong survive and that as Orwell so succinctly put it "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". They believe in helping those who have less than they do but from a philosophy of "charity" which they tout as a virtue but from which they most often simply confirm their superiority. They give to those "beneath" them to feel good about themselves and their higher status. The people they give to do not deserve charity but the magnanimous conservative grants them the clemency of his gifts if they jump through whatever behavioral hoops he sets out before them, like a Roman gives the thumbs up to a particularly effective slave warrior in the Colosseum. 

This is not to say that many conservatives give for altruistic reasons for there is such a thing as compassionate conservatism but unfortunately the former reasons are all too prevalent among those who worship the modern philosophy of Objectivism which rejects altruism out of hand as a weak and timid response unworthy of those who understand and have the strength and discipline to be powerful. Conservative give of their treasure to show they have won, to confirm their competitive victory.

Conservatives believe that the purity of one man's (or corporation's) skill and power trumps the "compromised" and inherently weak mutual decisions of people working together in cooperation. They believe winning is everything. They want to drill in ANWR because not to drill is to admit weakness in the face of the power of foreign oil. They teach their kids to kick ass and take names. They teach them that making money is essential in proving their value. They believe in personal responsibility but twist the meaning of that noble pursuit into one where one is only responsible for oneself and not for others. The conservative world is one where all individuals are constantly bumping heads and chests with the winner becoming the Alpha and everyone else cowers. It is innately animal and hierarchical. It is regressive, involutional and wastes an incredible amount of energy.

Cooperation, while retaining the same aspect of acting together as competition, does so from an entirely different philosophic perspective. Progressives cooperate because, in the words of the late Paul Wellstone "We all do better when we all do better". In fact there are plenty of bromides that describe a progressive philosophy of cooperation, " A rising tide floats all boats", "...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. ", "United we stand, divided we fall", etc.

The point of cooperation is to maximize the collective skills available to best and most efficiently solve problems and accomplish tasks. Progressives believe that no one person has all the answers. They feel that we all have gifts, in different areas, and that together we can apply those gifts to the benefit of all. Progressives teach their kids to share. They tell them to be whatever they have a passion for. Progressives value what are apparently weaknesses in others for they know that accompanying those weaknesses are commensurate strengths. Progressives believe not only in individual responsibility but in mutual responsibility where people are responsible not only for their own actions but also look out for others. They temper their decisions with honest concern about the welfare of people they don't even know, save that they are members of the human race and thus worthy of that concern.

The progressive world is one where people work together to make things better than any one of them ever could acting alone. It is evolutional and always looks forward, knowing the past is to be learned from but can never be relived. Progressives seek out win-win situations. They recognize that resources are scarce and precious and work to be efficient in their use of energy, especially human energy.

So in essence we find two systems, one which envisions being together as individuals all vying for the same prize and another where being together means we give up a small portion of our individuality for the good of the whole. To be frank both systems work. The true question is which system will bring us closer to potential extinction and which will bring us into a new dawn of human endeavor. For me the answer is clear but then again I am but one man. Perhaps we can work together to determine which course leads to a future and which does not. I am ready to help.

Mad Avenue

Does anyone else see the relationship between Madison Avenue culture and values and the moral and ethical decline of America? I don't think it is a topic that comes up often, with such juicy stuff as Iraq, oil, the economy, health care, the environment and transportation dominating the sociopolitical dialogue. The pervasive culture of advertising in America is probably more effective as a back burner issue than if people were discussing it daily. I believe that strategy is by design. Madison Avenue doesn't want you to know just how much they effect your life. 

It's ok for men to lie to their wives and girlfriends in order to go out drinking with the boys. An expensive, hot car will help break the glass ceiling for women. Fast food is cool. Having gray hair means you won't be getting any more sex. Go ahead and marry that trophy wife, you will still be able to satisfy her with the help of our pills (although you may have to invest in matching bear claw bathtubs). There is such a thing as clean coal and it is good for America. These are just some of the myriad lies, half truths and myths that advertising would have us believe. And I haven't even addressed the female body issues which permeate our marketing landscape.

Advertising is such a deeply established tradition in America that we barely notice how ingrained in our consciousness the messages have become. I continually tell my teenage daughter that someone has spent plenty of money trying to get you to spend yours. She sort of gets it. I also tell her that if somebody is spending lots of money trying to convince you that something is good for you it probably isn't. 

Advertising is a multi-billion dollar business and much of our broadcast entertainment would not exist without it. I often wonder if paying for TV and radio would be a better alternative than being subjected to the constant brainwashing of ad after ad imploring us to buy stuff we don't need. In any event, not everyone has the requisite will to resist the bombardment we are under over the airwaves and in print media, not to mention the supersized billboards that distract us on the highways.

Americans must change their lifestyles to adjust to the drastic changes they will experience in the 21st century. Madison Avenue isn't helping one iota.

Driving Ms. Crazy

One metaphor I have often used to delineate the stark difference between conservative world view and progressive thought is the freeway analogy. In it one compares conservatives and progressives with drivers on a freeway. Conservatives champion individual responsibility and this is a good thing , make no mistake about it. But a world full of people practicing individual responsibility implies that responsibility is tied to individual self-interest. Humans naturally feel responsible for taking care of themselves and a focus on individual responsibility is only as valuable as the individual's interests allow.

If someone's self-interest goals are to make lots of money they will take the responsibility upon themselves to make that happen. If a person's goals are to assure his family is safe their responsibility may take the form of buying a gun and learning how to use it. This, in and of itself is not a bad thing. It is when individual's needs intersect with other's needs that volatile situations can be created when self-interest goals clash.

It is for this reason that I have always felt that the progressive value of mutual responsibility is a more evolved form of commitment than simple individual responsibility. In mutual responsibility the individual tempers his own self-interest by considering the needs of others as well. They not only take responsibility for caring for their own family but recognizes that the needs of others also have value. After all they would hope that those others would be cognizant of their needs.

Most religions and great cultures have in their creed some form of the Golden Rule. We teach it to our kids and expect that society will run smoothly largely because of it. But a philosophy of individual responsibility can circumvent the Golden Rule in certain instances by narrowing ones focus onto their own interests and ignoring others. This is often not by choice but evolves out of the nature of single-mindedness that is essential to achieving goals. In order for society to function properly there must be some give and take between people with conflicting goals. Individual responsibility can exacerbate this conflict while mutual responsibility can temper it.

The freeway analogy is simple. While driving on a busy rush hour freeway who would one wish to be driving the other cars, persons practicing individual responsibility or ones using mutual responsibility? If you think about it for a minute those practicing individual responsibility might be thinking, "I have to get home as fast as possible because I was late getting out of the office and I have to take Tommy to soccer practice". They may dart in and out of traffic, dangerously, in an effort to shave several seconds of their commute time. They may be hungry and eating a sandwich. They may have a big client on their cell phone. In each instance these people are doing normal things but they are self driven. They make no considerations for other drivers and therefore become dangers to everyone on the road.

The driver surrounded by people practicing mutual responsibility is aware that they also have things to do for themselves but they recognize that erratic driving is dangerous to others. They resign themselves to the fact that Tommy might have to be late for practice. This use of mutual responsibility principles also works to make the individual safer on the freeway. Tommy will never get to practice if dad is in an accident on the freeway. So we see that mutual responsibility serves individual responsibility too, just not always in the way the individual imagines it will. This also models the basic Christian principle that God's plan for us is greater than any plan we can come up with.

The next time you are on a busy freeway try to model mutually responsible behavior. Remember the old slogan, "Drive carefully, the life you save may be your own". And remember that when you do you are living out a progressive value.

For Tom and Michael

I have lost two male friends to massive heart attacks in the last month. These men were the kind of close that meant regardless of how long it had been since we had seen one another there was always an implicit nearness, born of occupying the same cosmic space. We didn't exchange daily e-mails, nor did we have to. There was an easy comfort that they were merrily leading their remarkable lives without needing to consult me. These were the type of friendships that time could not alter.

Each man was famous for being who he really was. One was a leading architectural voice in the sustainable co-housing movement. The other was a master luthier of other-worldly talent. One built, and taught others to build, housing complexes that were communities where neighbors developed familial relationships and lead lives full of meaning. The other built instruments played in major concert halls the world over. His innovations set a new paradigm of artistic capability. The music played on his guitars had meaning.

I have taken two important things from their passing. For perhaps the first time in my life my own mortality is painfully apparent and real to me. There is a hard liberty in this. Also, they each call to me to swiftly burn through any and all impediments to my own becoming, real or imaginary. My mother's passing showed me the path and these two trailblazers have cleared the way for me to assume my true destiny, a road previously thickly grown over with the gnarled and impassable vines of my own self doubts. God brings himself to us in numerous forms and ways, if only to reveal that we, too, are in him.

I treasure these friends, in life and death. I will honor them by emulating their strong connections to the reality of existence with the truest memorial I can imagine by building a meaningful life of my own and for being famous for who I really am.

Wherefore Doest Thou Goest, Education?

As Christians learn that they are not so much "educated" to become good Christians as they are "formed" so did the educational system of the past "form" good citizens rather than simply educate youth. This was a public/private collaboration between the school and the family. School provided the "Three R's"; readin', 'ritin', and 'rithmetic and not much more. The family provided the moral and ethical foundation for good citizenship, they "formed" the good citizen. Why? Because the family felt a moral and ethical obligation to produce good citizens. The civic "honor" of the family demanded it.

The "greatest" generation is a perfect example of this partnership. Men and women with mostly an eighth grade education defeated two dictatorships and became the world's primary superpower. How did they do that with such a "meager" educational experience? They had a well developed sense of moral and ethical certitude. Their parents had insisted on it.

Unfortunately, modern parents are too busy with this that and the other thing, don't have the same cultural imperative or simply lack the requisite skills to impart those same values to their own children. Perhaps becoming the "best" has made us lazy. Whatever the reason today's children are not taught through a public/private collaboration that "forms" them to become good citizens. Rather they are "formed" through the needs of private business for worker bees. This has manifested an educational system that has been given the tacit task, through parental abrogation of duty, of making their sweet young ones into complete citizens without their own input. Educational systems nearly always fail at this task. It is not what education is meant to do. Failing that, the system is capable of turning out good, pliant and unquestioning workers with little conscience or ethics in their stead.

Without the checks and balances of a moral education in the home or with the imbalance of one with a marked agenda, these kids are thrown into the workplace with technical skills but little critical thinking abilities. They are easy to pressure and manipulate and they think nothing of eagerly participating in the cruel and unethical tactics of modern corporate culture. They backstab and step on their associates with ease. They push ahead for profit at any cost without compunction.

Perhaps we should just stop financing this type of "education" altogether. We can just vote away any and all public funds for education. It is certainly not serving the republic. Let corporations fund education if they want to create a specifically skilled but mindless workforce. The homeschooling crowd is onto something. Unfortunately most of them are into forwarding their own personal agendas as well. After all, who but ideologues have the time and energy to educate their own kids.

There is a segment of conservative thought that is deathly afraid of alleged "ultra liberal" bias in higher education. They claim that super liberal professors pressure students to see things their way. College students are not dumb. They play along with the liberal profs, knowing that the realities of life are much different from that which they have been told. They are already aware of the dog eat dog nature of the world from the caustic text messaging and judgmental stares of high school. Not much in the way of liberal thought can pierce that veil of ignorance. Only the truly empathic remain liberal in the face of these "cold, hard facts". They accept that they will never be effective cogs in the machine of private enterprise.

So to change education maybe we need to change who benefits from it. Educational processes need to stop serving business alone and start serving society once again. And the way to do that is to return to the sharing of responsibilities of the past. Parents need to reacquire the civic pride they once cherished and become responsible for "forming" their children to become quality citizens. Quality citizens are the engine that drives democracy. 

Our slavish devotion to commerce is a strong and vicious circle to break but we must place our efforts there instead of spinning our wheels on adequate funding formulas, class sizes and mainstreaming. It is a monumental task but one that must be done.

Are you ready to go back to the future?

Obfuscation As Art Form

I had the opportunity several weeks ago to listen to an ostensibly "fair and balanced" presentation about global warming. They even showed a major portion of "An Inconvenient Truth". It was, however, followed by "The Great Global Warming Swindle", a British shockumentary that contends that dramatic global climate change is a scam and has several allegedly important scientists backing up it's claims. 

The whole thing was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, plus a plethora of local Republican legislators, and featured James M. Taylor, the Institute's featured writer on environmental matters, as host and chief naysayer. Mr. Taylor came armed with lots of "facts" that asserted that: 1. The earth is not warming and is in a natural cycle of climate fluctuation, probably going colder than warmer. 2. If, indeed, the planet is warming it is definitely not anthropogenic (caused by man). Notwithstanding that these are mutually exclusive statements this scenario was interesting to me in that the Heartland Institute is considered a free market think tank. Here is their mission statement, quoted from their website.

" Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do better than government bureaucracies."

 

Reading through this mission statement it is clear, to me at least, that the Heartland Institute is by no means a free-market advocate and is instead a sock puppet for preserving the status quo in major corporate interests and promoting new age conservative ideals. All of their stated missions have more to do with maximizing corporate profits and undermining government than simply advocating for free markets. They reveal a worship of the University of Chicago School of Economics championed by Milton Friedman. According to Friedman the free market is better than government in providing public services. In that sense the Heartland Institute is a free market advocate. However, new age conservative politicians have co-opted Friedman style economics to suit their own global domination politics. To them Friedman's economics means that only profit is moral and that government is always bad. It is these folk who use the Heartland Institute to forward their own purposes.

One must remember that Freidman was also a strong social libertarian and had an extremely narrow view of government intervention in people's lives. This viewpoint informed his economics and has led new age conservatives to the distorted contention that all that is needed to save the world is to give all the money to private corporate interests. This is what the Heartland Institute is really advocating. If they were truly champions of the free market they would recognize the solid science behind global warming and favor economic development of alternative energy sources and means of delivery as the natural shift in paradigms that they are, and allow the market to adjust as is normal.

Instead they advocate for the obfuscating statement "market based approaches to environmental protection". According to the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and Mr. Taylor's rhetoric this simply means continued use of carbon based fuels for energy. Their denial of global warming in the face of overwhelming scientific information is not a call for a free market solution but support for an old paradigm in the face of a natural switch to a new one. By denying that global warming exists they claim that carbon based fuels are cheaper and therefore better than wind, solar, safe hydroelectric and other alternative fuels. This position could only arise from abject monetary support from the oil and coal industries and does not represent the spirit of the supposed mission of the Heartland Institute at all.

It is a sad world where anyone with enough money can buy scientific support for their agendas. This means anyone, on either ends of the various political spectrums, can buy junk science and claim anything. As a result science is being cheapened as we move away from a rational world into one where things are true simply because someone says so. 

How sad is that?

Mere Hours in the Limelight

Would that there were a way to assure that those hard working, long suffering, non-whining political activists, the ones who get everything done without complaining or expecting any great reward, could be the very same delegates who get to choose party nominees and conduct other party business at the state conventions held every two years. Alas, it would be extremely difficult to insure that these folks, the ones who know how to get things done, were elected to those august positions. The system is set up to promote democracy, which is a different thing altogether from efficiency.

The way the DFL system works (I have no desire to spend much time finding out how the Republican system works) delegates move forward either by being elected by vote of delegates present at senate district or county unit conventions (from those elected at precinct caucuses) or by an enigmatic system known as walking sub-caucuses, a system I will not attempt to describe, it being so esoteric as to confuse even the most knowledgeable politico. Suffice it to say that in either case if one is a comfortable, polished public speaker able to persuade one has a better chance of being elected. Unfortunately not all knowledgeable, dedicated activists have this requisite skill. Many folks who know what is going on with the party and in their own communities, and would make excellent delegates, are averse to tooting their own horn in public. It is not in their natures to gloat over their accomplishments.

The result of these truths is, although meant to increase democratic participation, the system often elects delegates who simply want to be in the spotlight for that one weekend every two years the party meets to convene. They hang out, go to the parties, feel important when the candidates want to personally talk to them, do some voting and then disappear into the crowd, not to be seen again until the next time delegates are selected at the precinct caucuses, starting the selection process for another election cycle's convention.

Try as I might I have yet to figure out a way this peculiar type of perversion can be overcome without also ruining the democratic process. Perhaps we will just have to get used to having democracy run by those who know how to worm their way into the photo ops without ever doing any appreciable work. Wait, aren't we already governed by professional election winners instead of real statesmen. Maybe if we could see past how well a person looks in a suit or how effectively they can sell themselves we might be able to elect delegates and subsequently nominate and elect candidates who are willing to roll up their sleeves and get a little dirty for the common good.

Heaven forbid we elect citizen/statesmen/women who actually remember how to manifest good old American know how.

Important or Impotent?

One thing that conservative politicians tend to do that fascinates me is their proclivity to support relatively meaningless legislation in a blatant attempt to foster the good graces of the working class. They want to show the little guy that they are on his side but cannot bring themselves to support something that would actually help them, like single payer health care or publicly financed elections, but rather find these obscure, ostensibly populist issues to champion instead. Heaven forbid they might do something that would really mean something for the people.

One shining example of this practice is Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-MN) recent sponsorship of a bill that would roll back the current bill that would phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of the more energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs for residential and commercial use. As is most often the case with these left field issues there is a modicum of truth to her contention that the mercury content of the fluorescent bulbs poses a modest health and environmental risk. Rep. Bachmann argues that folks should have the right to choose what bulbs they use and the government should not be sticking it's ugly hand into their utility closets and bulb sockets. See, I am standing up for your right to do whatever you damn well please regardless of it's wisdom.

When properly disposed of, the fluorescent bulbs pose little danger to anyone and the reduction of energy used by the bulbs themselves means a reduction in the amount of coal used to create that energy, which means a concurrent reduction in the measurable amounts of mercury released directly into the atmosphere by that coal burning process. Rep. Bachmann didn't happen to mention that in her statement. Perhaps she thought it would confuse those good folk who don't want Washington telling them what damn light bulbs to use.

A second example of this creative means of bonding with the working class was then Minnesota State Senator, Dave Kleis' (R-MN) advocacy of making Texas Hold'um poker tournaments legal in Minnesota bars and service organization's clubhouses. Another one of those "common sense" bills that appealed to the breakfast cafe intelligentsia of the heartland. Hell, no one is getting hurt by this friendly gambling. Why can't the boys get together and pound a few beers and have some fun. See, I care about you guys. Why should the state tell you how to have fun. Kleis was so passionate about the issue he got a major New York newspaper to write a front page article about it.

Why did we send him to St. Paul anyway? Was it perhaps to strive to work together with other representatives from around the state to make day to day life better for hard working Central Minnesotans? I thought it was. I guess he was scared to sponsor any bills that made a real difference.

There are plenty more examples out there of this type of false populism from conservatives who, if they follow the party line, (and they ALL follow the party line) rarely if ever do anything that really helps the working class. They dream up these mostly meaningless issues to forward, like knights in shining armor, appearing to be caring, concerned public servants who work hard to reverse injustice but are actually working PR scams.

Instead of working for meaningful health care reform we get light bulb wars and instead of proper state funding of education we get good old boy poker night. The self promotion of these weak attempts to help the people is shameless. Did all of these politicians grow up admiring the circus.

Gee those elephants look cute in those outfits.

Bitter Struggle ???

The powers that be in the media would have you believe that a protracted "struggle" for the Democratic nomination between the two remaining candidates will bitterly divide the Democratic party and destroy their chances of winning in November. It is my estimation that this is simply a fabrication dreamt up by media heads to keep their coverage of the "monumental struggle" in the forefront of the news.

To be frank, I feel that a continued, contested race for the Democratic nomination only serves to help the Dems, through the effect of keeping the race on the front burner of American media expression. It is Senator McCain who is and will continue to struggle to get face time on the news as long as there is a contested race for Democrats. In this sense the race will have the exact opposite effect that the pundits proclaim. The mistake they make is in underestimating the very lack of long term memory that they have fomented in the public themselves, in order to continue to sell sensationalized infotainment instead of focusing on hard news. They are saying (and trying to get us to believe) that a protracted Democratic race will divide the party irreparably, opening the door for a McCain victory. They do this because motion toward a victory for one candidate or another serves their needs. It will make McCain relevant again. A continued race only dilutes the kind of coverage they can offer. After all, you can only spin the same stuff so far before America realizes it is bored. The race itself, however, will offer real intrigue and not the fake kind dreamed up by media types desperate for ratings

People have such a short attention span that they will soon forget any animosity between Senators Clinton and Obama. Once a candidate is chosen Democrats will unite once again against the common issues of continued waging of an Iraq war that grows more unpopular daily, plus the disastrous effects of stone age Republican economic policy. The "bitter struggle" will be forgotten in two weeks. In the meantime Senator McCain will barely be able to get arrested on TV until after the Democrat's convention.

A brokered convention could be the best things American Democrats have ever experienced. It will create a sense of drama that cannot be bought at any price and will thrust the eventual Democratic winner into a limelight they will not relinquish. America has not had a brokered convention for decades. Most Americans have never experienced the thrill of ballot after ballot, bottoms planted firmly on the edge of their seats. It is almost as dramatic as the NCAA basketball "March Madness". We deserve an opportunity to see American democracy at it's contentious best, factions fighting desperately for victory. The Democratic Party can give us this thrill, and as a nation of thrill seekers reacts the Republicans may not be able to match it, no matter how Machiavellian they are able to act.

I, for one, look forward to the possibility of a brokered convention with glee.

Apparencies

I'm not sure if I am appalled or amused, but I certainly took notice of the abrupt introduction of the "fait accompli" guilt by association attack on Barack Obama, which was carefully crafted by Fox Infotainment. As it appears to me, Eliot Spitzer did us all a service by falling on his sword (or was that someone else falling on his sword) so dramatically. In order to get the attacks on the "Ultra Liberal Democrats" back onto the front burner they decided to trot out one of their trump cards. My guess is that if the ex-governor had not screwed up so ignominiously the Fox brain trust would have been able to hold off until later in the game with their footage of Pastor Wright and subsequent lobbing of heavy artillery. 

I mean, really, Spitzer had bought us a good 48 hours of respite from the incessant over-analysis of the presidential race, and Fox would have none of it. In their blood lust for opportunities to make Democrats look ridiculous I believe the media manipulators at Fox mistimed their assault on Obama. By tax day it will be a non issue. The media can only support a major issue for several weeks at best. This would have been much more effective released in October. Perhaps Fox got wind that someone else was going public with this stuff and would not have their own poison parade rained upon. In reality we should be thankful, because the scenario has provided America with a real teachable moment, something the Obama campaign seized upon by cleverly, dramatically, and inspirationally crafting his "A More Perfect Union" speech.

Could this speech be the proverbial sliver lining in the cloud of caustic and acerbic bile that is major media coverage of our impending presidential election? Could Hannity and the like be hoist on their own rapier sharp petards? As I have stated, it is difficult in today's world to manifest truth for more than several weeks. Untruths tend to last a little longer. Obama's words are worthy of the ages. If the moving, meaningful words of this great orator become yet another sound bite, a mere bookend for bracketology, then I suppose we will deserve the missed opportunity that diminishment will represent. Unfortunately my sense is that this speech will become another in a long series of unfulfilled insights offered freely to America by the more visionary of her sons and daughters. As much as those words pain me I hope to God they someday will no longer be true. Obama may not be the person to become our next president but he has much to teach us.

We still have so very far to go.

Changing Horses In Midstream

Up to this point I have used this blog to post my longer, more philosophic, essay-like ramblings. It was my own little universe and I did not feel the need to post daily diatribes on the state of the universe, trying to one up other bloggers on some scoop of political dirt. I had posting permission on another multi-author blog that I used to interject more pithy, succinct commentary on the day to day world of politics into the blogosphere when I felt the desire to do so, and that worked just fine for me.

Recently the owner of that blog removed it from publication. I wasn't even warned in advance lest I had wanted to save some of my more self important posts to drool over, internally patting myself on the back late at night after checking all my sports chat lines and still not feeling tired. Needless to say I was almost aghast. I say almost because I believe I understand why the blog was pulled. That still doesn't make me feel any less upset over losing some good material. Oh well, life is an omelette, not sunny side up.

The sum total of all of this is that the tone and nature of this, my lovely blog, pretty blog, angel baby blog will change somewhat as I incorporate the timely with the timeless and seek to produce work that is either reflective and deep, or au courant and sexy, depending on my state of mind, chemical imbalance and/or frustration with whatever part of the existence by which I am currently flustered.

This means that not only will I wax poetic, posting marvelous musings no one ever reads, but I will also reveal which candidates turn my crank and which particular issues of momentary import have my dander up. I hope you, blessed reader, gains from this change in direction, this course correction. I trust that it will, at the very least, mean more frequent posting, which will be a boon for all of us, don't you think?

A Plan for Education

Let's see. Suppose I were a new age conservative strategist working at a conservative think tank like the Cato Institute and I was being handsomely funded to solve a persistent problem. The public schools are turning out too many liberals. What would I do?

First I would squeeze the federal monies going to education by claiming that the states know better how to fund their own education systems and nobody likes the federal government telling the states what to do with their own money anyway. Then I would pass some stringent federal education standards because "too many of our kids are failing" and allow the funds to help the states meet those standards be cut off in committee, creating an unfunded mandate which squeezes more school funds.

Second I would squeeze the state monies for education by claiming that the local school districts can fund their own local education systems better than the state and besides who wants the state running local education. This would force local school districts, facing massive cuts, to come to the public with the only funding method left to them, the regressive, highly unfair property tax. The public knows levies are only for capital improvements, brick and mortar funds, and begin to mistrust the school boards, believing that their unwise, wasteful use of funds is the real problem and they are asking the overburdened taxpayer to bail them out. The taxpayers have had enough and inherently understanding that they are being played. They vote down the levies.

More and more levies fail and the schools begin to crumble under the weight of insufficient funds. Prominent conservatives point their fingers and say "See, the public schools are failing. What they need is some good old honest American competition. Our tax dollars would be better spent in vouchers that will give poor kids a choice in the schools they attend. People should also have the choice of giving their tax money to a private school if they wish or keep that money to home school their own children". Sounds pretty good on the surface, real American ingenuity. But consider the ramifications.

Certain select poor children will be "anointed" and given good conservative private school educations. This will result in less liberals coming out of our schools, especially the poor who tend to be more liberal (when they choose to vote that is). Double whammy. Public schools will fail and their administrations taken over by private concerns (think Sylvan Learning Center). This sad fact is a part of No Child Left Behind, read the provisions. More children removed from the horrible liberal influence of the real problem, the teacher's union. God forbid our teachers actually get paid a living wage and have meaningful benefits. After all they are only poisoning our children. These children will also now get a good conservative education. Fewer leberals still. More folks are disgusted with the state of education and home school their children at great personal cost. Some of these people are liberal and their kids get a liberal leaning education but most are conservative. Even fewer liberal kids. See the pattern. This is one good strategic initiative.

My supervisor at the Cato Institute will be thrilled. I have solved a big problem and now instead of producing liberals with critical thinking skills our newly privatized schools will produce good little consumers who are just skilled enough to operate our corporation's systems but too dumb to know they are being screwed. The other poor kids who still go to public schools will make good fodder for our constant wars.

The Cato Institute is giving me a raise.

Peace Is Normal

While contemplating my first Mother's Day without my Mother, in the midst of sadness I remembered that the original idea for a "Mother's Day" grew out of a desire for peace and disarmament. Women, Mothers, have a deep connection with humankind's empathic nurturant nature. They innately understand that peace is desirable, at all times and on all levels. It is primarily men who promote the idea of violence as normal. This is not to say that women cannot be coerced and co-opted into accepting male ego based violence and it's most cherished son, war, as acceptable means of resolving crisis.

It is precisely this concept of viewing violence as normal which leads us, to my mind, to any number of the societal ills which have befallen us in both the distant and recent past. This concept is the primary causal impetus behind a perpetual and pervasive worldwide cycle of violence, a quagmire from which we seem unable or unwilling to extricate ourselves. It is most unfortunate that this idea has a so-called "natural" element to it's composition, which fuels the notion that it is inherent to our nature and unchangeable. The argument that violence is elemental to our humanity bolsters those who support violence as normal, who see war and violence as intuitive methods of resolving conflict, and therefore correct.

There is an element of truth to their statements which makes it all the more difficult to reveal violence as the mutable, relative concept it truly is. The violence as ingrained biological truth position stems from the most basic fight or flight reflexes which all animals display to varying degrees. Men seem selectively capable of denying their animal realities but this part of their autonomic response system is ostensibly universally accepted. Although man's alleged evolution from caveman to Homo Sapiens is glorified by our constant efforts to deny our prurient animal sexuality we fully accept the fact that we are programmed, as animals, to respond violently to crisis situations.

I have always felt that these contradictions in how we appreciate our animal natures were simply a function of how closely the "natural" attributes served certain political motivations. It is easy to claim that a homosexual can "override" his biologic programming through mental discipline but it is often the same people who throw up their hands and assert that "we will never overcome our tendency to violence". I believe it is exceedingly difficult for us to override biologic imperatives, but it is possible, especially when a new understanding of truth creates a more compelling reason to change than the original situation the programming was meant to address. This is evolution at it's most basic, an imperative to manifest an ability that exceeds our previous abilities.

Addicts are able to overcome destructive, biologically driven, behaviors through mental discipline and a clearer understanding of the consequences of their behavior. They have understood the deep truth that what their bodies have been chemically progammed to do is damaging, and efforts to supercede that programming are worthwhile.

It is time for mankind to admit that our ancient instincts to fight when we feel powerful are damaging to all of us under most circumstances. These intuitive reponses can still be valuable when we can consciously affirm the instant instinctual decisions and realize we are without options to violence. Defense against an unrelenting enemy who clearly threatens our lives and from whom there is no escape from violence will always be a regrettable but appropriate response. We should never open ourselves to exploitation. Eastern Martial Arts are clear on this concept. They promote peace through strength. But we HAVE evolved and we CAN temper our instincts for gore with a deeper understanding that our chemical hardwiring can, should, and must be changed for the good of the world's societies and people.

As has been posited by Gene Roddenberry in 'Star Trek' we can move society past the place where violence is necessary or even viable and move the world toward a level of peace that will allow us to concentrate on using our boundless energies to help each other achieve greater heights. It's not far fetched. It's not out of the realm of possibility. It should be the goal of all civilized people, to remove our bondage from continued reliance on violence as a normal and acceptable means to resolve our differences. Only when the idea that it is PEACE and not violence which is the norm for human beings, when that idea permeates to the deepest, most impenetrable, segments of society, will we ever be able to imagine a world of prosperity where all people have a good chance at a meaningful, successful life.

From the Obvious to the Obscure

And why would anyone connect the recent Don Imus flap with the more recent and tragic Virginia Tech murders? First let me rant by voicing my objections to the media's constant use of the term "massacre" to describe Seung-Hui Cho's murderous rampage. Although an accurate word to describe the carnage, to my mind it elicits a powerful hot button response from most people, which is perhaps desirable from a cutthroat journalistic point of view. It smacks of the same type of media manipulation that creates the scenario of competing news outlets running footage of banal interviewers asking meaningless questions of strictly ancillary figures simply to prevent viewers from changing channels in the rare circumstance that a competitor might be broadcasting anything more germane on the topic. The major "news" media broadcasters will run 240 straight hours of a story in fear that their competitor might run 241. A massacre is easier to sell than a murder, even a mass murder.

Primarily the term massacre focuses on the act rather than the perpetrator. This has some level of merit. Ultimately, though, it implies that the perpetrator, to the media, is only valuable in terms of the act. He has no value as a human, only as perpetrator of a massacre. When perceived as a murderer, the act and the perp take on a more balanced level of importance. A murderer is still a human. By focusing on the act rather than the actor the media can run feel good stories of how wonderful the victims were while reducing the actor to stock interpretations of sickness and depravity. It makes for good theatre but does little to address the societal problems raised by the act that must needs be addressed by maintaining the humanity of the murderer in balance with the humanity of the victims. Enough of my rant.

What I care to espouse is the relationship I perceive between Don Imus and Seung-Hui Cho. The sociopathic acts of each involve mental disorder and the first amendment. In legal circles the presence of a mental disorder in the perpetrator of an offense cures a multitude of ills. Mental "illness" is in and of itself a viable defense strategy. There is a tendency in American society to create distance between the actor and the act by any number of means, the least of which is certainly not the insanity defense. In its most benign becoming it manifests in the " I didn't mean any offense. I was only trying to be funny" defense of Don Imus and countless other bigots before him that point to a momentary insanity, a lapse of taste rather than the expression of systemic hate it nearly always truly represents.

In this instance the perp is already famous and seeks to pass himself off as "I'm only human. If I wasn't so famous you would have never known about this. What about everybody else who did this?". The offense was, to the perp, a nearly non existent short blip on the screen of perception, barely registering at all and not worthy of the symbolic scrutiny it is subject to.

In the second instance the shocking remarks are "ex post facto" relative to the shocking events. In this case the revelations are from someone who has, through extreme force of will, made themselves famous through the heinous act they retroactively justify, "nobody understood me, I was abused, why didn't anyone listen. See how powerful I really am".

In both cases the fame of the speaker, whether earned through tears, sweat or blood, moves the acts into the realm of the symbolic exemplar. They are both individual expressions that project into our collective consciousness to the degree that we see both ourselves as individuals and ourselves as a corporate culture within them. We relish in examining at length the rationales and motivations. Unfortunately we mostly concentrate on how different they are from us instead of how closely they resemble us.

One could say that the primary, and quite significant difference between the two acts was that in the former case only a few women's pride was hurt and in the latter over one and a half score of people lost their lives with the accompanying ripple of dramatic effect on literally thousands, from loved ones through vicarious acquaintances. Death, however, does not only transpire on the physical plane, as dramatic and painful as that may be, but also on the mental and spiritual planes, to as consequential effect.

Such transgressions of the heart, and not the body, may not have the same initial impact as the violent removal of many lives from this mortal coil, but have virtually the exact same effect on life wholly considered, when we realise that the reality of ideas is the only possible precursor to the reality of physical existence. That is, when ideas are murdered it is only a matter of time that the loss of those ideas brings a meaningful and measurable loss, a murder, to the real world. Left unchecked, if Don Imus' comments had deterred even one of the Rutgers basketball players from becoming the doctor or teacher or lover she was meant to be, because of shame or self doubt, it could be considered a type of murder, especially from a Christian concept of that soul's value to the corporate body of Christ.

Although it is very much less easily perceivable than in the Imus case, the Cho situation marks an issue relevant to the first amendment. That the statements were made by Cho after the fact does not mark his remarks any less in the purview of the amendment than Imus'. What is relevant about each is although both were, are, and always will be, under the American Democratic Republic's Bill of Rights, free to say what they said, they are also, implicit in the sense of "to each right a responsibility", responsible for the consequences of their remarks. This is the soft underbelly of human rights, the concurrent and immutable responsibility that accompanies that right.

It would suit us to consider the responsibilities that coexist with our rights. Second amendment rights would include dialogue about the appropriate use of personal firearms. Instead of absolute arguments over punitive measures dialogue on the issue would center on appropriate use, a positive response to the use of weaponry having a real chance of discovering something that may contribute to the advancement of society rather than the personal gain of politicians and/or the lobbyists who are so often their puppeteers.

There will always be a gap between the appropriate nature of the relationship of a right to it's mirror responsibility. This is the price of freedom. We cannot prevent 100 percent of improper gun use by citizens with the implicit right to use them. But a clear national discussion of the coexistent responsibility of rights would go a long way to identify potential opportunities for abuse, and that national dialogue should carry the same weight as that addressing the parameters of the right to begin with. The considerations of balance between the individual and the state are often dependent on the balance between rights and responsibilities and privileges and duties.

In essence, both Don Imus and Seung-Hui Cho have personally suffered the consequences of their expressions, to varying degrees. What cannot be lost in the accompanying dialogue surrounding each case should be the complicity of society in creating the circumstances allowing such egregious affronts to our allegedly civilized nation. Both of these "crimes" one civil, one criminal, reveal substantial flaws in the current fabric of what passes for society. It is my contention that the "crimes" are equally damaging to the planes they directly effect, i.e. physical and emotional, and should be treated with an equality of concern.

Both of these acts demonstrate a failure of society in toto. We have allowed for the creation of an underclass in which the perception of certain women as "Hos" is acceptable. That we deny association with that underclass does not forgive us our responsibility for it's effects on real people. That we tend to worship "naughty" and/or "cutting edge" entertainment to create a false relativity to measure our own failings against for the sake of finding ourselves worthy does not relieve us of responsibility for the psychic and future fracture of human endeavor caused by our desire to laugh at the expense of other's loss. That we still cannot, or perhaps more correctly, refuse to see mental disorders as real and true diseases and not as vague but concrete character flaws does not forgive us for not developing effective, socially acceptable and uniformly accessible means of assisting the mentally disordered that do not carry a permanent stigma, a stigmata that bleeds just as in those favored by God, beyond the ability of the afflicted to control. That violence is still widely and uniformly considered a perfectly viable and yes, desirable, method of conflict resolution continues its traditional and child rearing based use, serving as a primary bane to our many attempts to govern in a civilized manner without the constant threat of warfare from the individual fistfight to national efforts to effectuate genocide.

As long as we, as a culture, fail to recognise and address our own corporate creations as causal to the cancers that we widely try to blame on the unfortunate individuals who succumb to the traps so readily set for them, then we will have precious little chance of ever growing out of the amoebic stage of our spiritual evolution both as beings and as a society. It is increasingly difficult for me, and so far as I can tell, many of my peers to withstand the ignorant power of our own shortsighted and often cruel manifestations.

Unchecked, we will continue to chastise the individual practitioners of these sociopathies and not consider the welcome smile that accompanied the creation of the space they occupy. Without a national self evaluation of conscience we will continue to create gulfs between us and those who cannot quite handle the pressures as well as we do. It was they who failed, not us, not as individuals or a culture. Passing the buck to the famous or the dead or both can only serve us so long. It is a petri dish overflowing with the ripest of mediums in which we foster the societal bacteria that fester and infect us, from which we vainly attempt to disassociate or hide with analogous make up and turtle necks.

I, for one, have had enough.

Toward a Productive and Livable Future

Easter, 2007


Think of some things you know are important to have under any circumstances, like shoes, cloth, or herbs.

Think of how they are made or grown.

Think of making or growing them without using electricity, sophisticated mechanical devices that need lots of energy or chemical additives that do not exist in nature.

From these important things or plants choose several that are special to you and learn how to grow or make them.

Learn how to do something everyone else has forgotten how to do.

Learn to sew, how to tan leather or build barrels.

Learn a physically challenging trade that has a clear and indelible value, like carpentry, masonry or farriery.

Have skills you can barter, even if some people think they are silly and worthless, like songwriting or poetry.

Learn how to do something people need to enrich their lives, like perfectly steaming rice, growing extra tasty tomatoes, or expert winemaking.

Learn how to dance without inhibition.

Learn techniques to fulfill your lover's desires and needs.

Learn how to share and enjoy sharing.

Learn to see abundance in the face of scarcity.

Learn how to grow things that don't normally grow where you live.

Use efficient ways of moving things and people around, like railroads, boats, bicycles, and animals.

Speaking of animals, learn how to raise healthy ones, animals to eat and animals of burden and, of course, lots of therapeutic pets.

Learn how to draw things that are pretty, practical or both.

Learn to expect God's grace to manifest in everyone, just in different ways.

Learn how to live off the land, by yourself, for a week or more, without leaving any sign you have ever been there.

Learn to give more than you take.

Learn how to both tell and listen to a good story.

Laugh often and at anything you think is funny.

Learn how to express LOVE in everything you do.

Learn how to forgive and mean it.

Learn both how to care for a child and let a child care for you.

Learn to be humble enough to exalt in how wonderful you really are.

Learn everything you can about baseball.

Accept the discipline of a martial art.

Learn to recognize herbs, flowers, insects and birds in the wild.

Learn to give away the gifts God has given you, understanding that you have more than enough and will never run out.

Learn how to walk tall and always make your friends and family look good.

Learn how to take direction when you need to and give direction when you have to.

Every day, wake up proud and go to sleep thankful.

Be generous with your praise and stingy with your criticism.

Remember that the most important word in any language is LOVE.

Across the Sea of Ignorant Lies: A Framing Fantasy-----Part Four

As things turned out, the long years of the King's willful dispensing of ignorant lies throughout the kingdom had turned the great sea slightly acid, enough to melt metal, but not quite enough to eat away wood with any speed. The King had long past refitted his fleet with wooden boats. Somehow this fact was never passed on to the citizens of the beautiful island. The longshoreman said it was because the King feared the free thinkers from the island and wished to isolate them from the mainland.

The neighbor told the great truth to the longshoreman and over a draft of beer together they planned a meeting of all the longshoremen and stevedores from the harbor. "Everyone must hear this great truth" declared the workers, after they had heard the neighbor speak. Soon, the common people of the kingdom had spread the truth far and wide and a mighty call went out to force the King to accept the truth, or face a coup d'etat. Thankfully, the King, knowing the truth and its power all along, capitulated, handing the government over to a council of tradesmen.

The neighbor thanked the longshoreman, and vilified, boarded the sleek hardwood boat given to him by the council and set off for his beloved island to the boisterous fanfare of the people. "The smart man will be happy", he thought. His great truth did change the world after all.

The moral of this story is simple. When attempting to change the world by spreading the truth, the residue of constant falsehood will prevent you from succeeding, if you use only the methods of conventional wisdom. All you need are the simplest of tools, and courage, to get the message across the sea of ignorant lies.

Across the Sea of Ignorant Lies: A Framing Fantasy-----Part Three

The neighbor asked the smart man if he had ever sent anyone to see what had happened to his great ships. Neither the smart man nor the crafty man could answer his question. They were too busy being sad and angry. After all, they had used the best materials known to man to send the great truth, and had failed. "I'll go investigate" said the neighbor. " I want to know why the truth cannot be spread. That's not natural".

The neighbor could only afford a simple wooden boat. The crafty man said " You'll never make it in that flimsy wooden boat. I'll fortify it with metal for you". The neighbor thanked the crafty man and assured the smart man that he would get to the bottom (no pun intended) of this.

The neighbor got into the boat and set sail for the opposite coast. Soon, he began to hear an odd sound, like someone drinking the last few drops of a milkshake through a straw. He smelled a foul smell. He looked all around to see if he could find out what was happening. To his horror he found that the metal reinforcements the crafty man had made were melting way from the wooden shell of his boat.

The neighbor was terribly frightened. Surely the the simple wooden boat would not last the hour, and he would be drowned without ever discovering why these mysterious things had happened. A half hour passed, then an hour, then two, then six. The wooden boat was damaged but after several days journey, the neighbor succeeded in reaching the other side.

The neighbor said a thankful prayer as he stepped from his boat at the kingdom's great port city. He had been thinking about all of the strange circumstances surrounding the smart man's quest and his own harrowing journey. Being quite thirsty from his difficult voyage he visited a local pub and striking up a conversation with a local longshoreman discovered that the royal scientists knew all about the melting metal.

to be continued...

Across the Sea of Ignorant Lies: A Framing Fantasy-----Part Two

The smart man was sad. He couldn't understand why his great truth never reached its destination. The crafty man said "We need a better boat". He crafted a boat of bronze, much stronger than the boat of aluminum. Together they carefully gave the truth to another friend, who carefully put it in the bronze boat and cast off for the mainland. Neither their friend or the truth ever reached the mainland shore.

The smart man was now angry. How could the fake priests get here from the other side when his great truth in its sturdy boats couldn't make it across the sea. The crafty man built an extra powerful ship made of steel. "This will make it across the sea for certain" he said, confidently. With great fanfare they sent the mighty ship off into the night. It never arrived.

The smart man was ready to give up. His great truth was in danger of being lost to the people forever. The king was winning. He went back to his cottage and didn't come out.

One day the smart man's neighbor heard him angrily complaining about his plight. This neighbor had a strange hobby. He spent most of his time figuring out why people said the things they said and did the things they did. He became very curious as to why the fake priests could get here to say their words, but the great truth could not get back across the sea to be heard by the people on the other side. He thought about this for a great while. Then, an idea came to him.

to be continued...

Across the Sea of Ignorant Lies: A Framing Fantasy-----Part One

Once upon a time a smart man, who lived on a beautiful island which was part of a powerful kingdom, discovered a great truth. He knew that the truth would make everyone's life better, throughout the kingdom. He told all his friends the truth but their lives did not improve, because the king's men would not let them use the truth. The smart man thought that if the people across the sea also knew the truth then the entire kingdom would rise up as one and demand that the king let them use the truth. If he didn't they would be strong enough to throw him off the throne and find a new king who would.

The smart man had a problem. How do I get the truth to the people across the sea? I can't swim and I can't even see across the sea, much less throw the truth to the other side. I would travel across the sea myself but the people here need me to be a smart man. I can't leave them alone. Besides, lately, king's men, masquerading as priests, have appeared on the island, saying that the truth is false and that I am silly and not smart at all.

The smart man went to his friend, the crafty man, and told him of his dilemma. The crafty man built him a sturdy boat of aluminum. They wrote the truth on a scroll and gave it to another friend, who was a talented seaman. He cast off toward the mainland in the sturdy aluminum boat with the scroll. The smart man knew that as soon as the truth got to the other side the people would force the king to let them use it to help themselves and the kingdom would prosper. The boat never reached the other side.

to be continued.....

Gettin Sirius

It has come to my attention, after several good jolts to my head from friends I trust, that it's about frakking time that I begin to use this marvel of cyberspace, my Blog, for the porpoise it was intended for. They also have recommended that I, heaven forbid, promote my Blog by informing folks that, verily, it exists. What a concept!!!

Therefore, I will make every effort to post essays of import and substance to it on a semi regular basis. I actually have some relevant content to post and will soon begin installments of "Framing as an Expression of Chakra Energies" by Will Servant hisself. That bastion of self serving prose will be followed by "A Framing Fantasy" which may or may not appear in installments as well.

Most of my meanderings are, as Boots always enjoys reminding me, wordy, and I will have to experiment a bit with the relative lengths of individual posts. Living as we do in the MTV world of short, rapid edits most of us are best served by the literary equivilant of the sound bite. Unless I have the power to capture the imagination of someone such as Will Shakespeare, which I do not, (although I did steal my name partially from him) it is unreasonable for me to expect that readers will follow and digest excessively long posts (like this one is becoming).

We will see what works and I hope that readers will chime in on that and other issues of comparative communication in their comments.

to the victor go the spoils

to the victor go the spoils
you can tell a lot about a person by what he fears most, isn't that right george orwell!!
ask someone what they fear more, things or ideas
if it's things, they are most likely progressives or moderates with progressive values
if it's ideas they are likely to be repressive neo-con pigs, just kidding, they will adhere to mostly conservative values
nothing wrong with either, intrinsically
the sanskrit name for tool and weapon is the same
it's what we DO with our values that matters
we most clearly express our values, at a base level, in how we protect our children
if we fear ideas we tend to try to protect our children from ideas
we try to get books banned at the school library
if we fear things we are more likely to remind them to wear their helmet
we know ideas will make them strong
if one must fixate on something let him fixate on the heart chakra
balance can only be achieved there
fix on the throat chakra and you will depend on what you say, to make things real
the heart chakra feels your gut and primal needs
it speaks, hears and ascends
attach to your fortitude and you will try to prove things are real
you will be called to reveal yourself
they will hit you in the gut
it sucks your energy
this is how we are defeated
its vampyristic
use your fortitude to support your voice, not be it
what used to be is never what is
don't look to have things back, like yesterday
look to have them like tomorrow
the future can only come from what is
Now is a good time to start