I heard a conversation on Talk of the Nation on NPR the other day (March 12, 2010) about whether or not genetically modified crops are living up to their billing as a solution for starvation in impoverished countries. The upshot was that mostly they aren’t, but apparently one of the “successful” GMOs is the high-vitamin cassava or yucca. The expert guest had the temerity to say that cassava, in its natural state, is “deficient.” I ask you, how can a vegetable be deficient? The very definition of a healthy diet is a varied one. We get a full complement of nutrients from eating a delicious plate that appeals to the eye and palate with lots of different colors and flavors. Who would want to eat yucca exclusively anyway? Don’t get me wrong, I love yucca, but just yucca?
What? You say some people in this world are so poor, yucca is all they can eat? I say what’s deficient is an economic system that doesn’t allow all people to afford to eat the variety of foods human bodies want and need.
Maybe that economic system is what we should be re-engineering.
Link to the show:
http://www.wbur.org/npr/124618560
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Friday, March 19, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
On the green revolution:
It snowed 3 feet in Washington D.C. a few weeks ago and for some Americans that’s an excuse to give up on the hard work it will take to make our society sustainable. (Never mind that climate scientists have long predicted that more powerful storms would be one more symptom of what’s ailing planet Earth.)
Is it me, or is this easy-way-out attitude completely un-American? Did our forbears found a great nation on greed, gluttony, denial? Manifest destiny at any cost? Well ok, maybe they did, but they also worked hard and never gave up. They invested in the long term as they built the infrastructure of their communities. They adapted to harsh conditions, endured and overcame hardship again and again. If we humans manage not to kill ourselves off, what do we Americans want our legacy to be? Do we want to be remembered as the indulgent fools who took advantage until there was no advantage left to take, or as the scrappy revolutionaries who survived because they reinvented themselves to meet their new reality?
Whether or not you believe climate change is being caused by humans, sustainability is good. There’s no controversy about reliance on foreign oil. There’s no ambiguity in mountaintop removal. There’s no up-side to an oil slick.
While we continue to do nothing, the problem we face gets harder to solve. While we make our excuses and our political calculations we get closer to the day when our fate is sealed. My understanding is that we won’t know that day has come and gone until it’s too late.
We can all buck up and begin the hard work of changing ourselves and our way of life TODAY, or we can keep hiding our heads in the snow…or the flood waters or whatever’s in store for us next as climate change advances inexorably.
Is it me, or is this easy-way-out attitude completely un-American? Did our forbears found a great nation on greed, gluttony, denial? Manifest destiny at any cost? Well ok, maybe they did, but they also worked hard and never gave up. They invested in the long term as they built the infrastructure of their communities. They adapted to harsh conditions, endured and overcame hardship again and again. If we humans manage not to kill ourselves off, what do we Americans want our legacy to be? Do we want to be remembered as the indulgent fools who took advantage until there was no advantage left to take, or as the scrappy revolutionaries who survived because they reinvented themselves to meet their new reality?
Whether or not you believe climate change is being caused by humans, sustainability is good. There’s no controversy about reliance on foreign oil. There’s no ambiguity in mountaintop removal. There’s no up-side to an oil slick.
While we continue to do nothing, the problem we face gets harder to solve. While we make our excuses and our political calculations we get closer to the day when our fate is sealed. My understanding is that we won’t know that day has come and gone until it’s too late.
We can all buck up and begin the hard work of changing ourselves and our way of life TODAY, or we can keep hiding our heads in the snow…or the flood waters or whatever’s in store for us next as climate change advances inexorably.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
On the house that greed built:
Several months ago, I began thinking about writing a post on the dangers of credit and how it has allowed the values of homes and tuition to get so out of whack. Well, I’ve been busy and haven’t gotten around to it, but now it must be said. Yesterday the Dow fell more than 700 points and I just know we are living several dismal paragraphs in my grandson’s history text book.
Aces and Kings are dropping off the teetering house of cards that is our economy, and the politicians and the financial analysts and the Wall Street moguls want us to shore it up.
Yes, I am outraged that they are telling me—a law abiding, hard working, barely middle class single mom-- to mortgage my child’s future to bail out people who’ve been proudly and happily stealing from us and undermining our economy in ways they understood much better than I can-- even now. But I’m against the bailout for an even more important reason. I’m not an economist, but it has occurred to me that our economy’s basis in credit may be a major reason for the development of the chasm of inequality that divides the haves and the have-nots in this world. By shoring up this untenable system, we may be unwittingly perpetuating the oppression of the majority of the world’s people and missing the only opportunity in generations to undo it.
Think about it: could the price of a “starter” condo in a city neighborhood reach $300,000 without credit? Could college tuition rise to a similar level? Before borrowing for school was widely done, my parents worked their way through, and on the other side, their wages were their own. I will probably be paying down my education debt (at the rate of over $300 a month) for the rest of my life. And in comparison to recent graduates of private institutions and to those who attended medical or law school, my debt is downright tiny. Having this debt at the very beginning of one’s adult life often means incurring even more debt to own a car and a home. It can mean building up large credit card balances to fulfill daily needs.
Credit may allow us to do lots of wonderful things. It also allows us to live beyond our means, and to pay interest on the debt which increases the cost even further. It allows the prices of things to go up disproportionately in regard to our salaries and for us to continue to believe we can “afford” those prices. Meanwhile, the masters of the universe who run the companies which supply the credit, make greater and greater profits. Relative to them and to the cost of living, we become poorer and poorer.
We may as well be indentured servants--even slaves-- to this credit economy.
Now our masters have driven the plantation into the ground and they want us to rebuild this tool of our own oppression by borrowing against our future and our national security. I say, “Enough!” A house of cards reinforced by still more cards will fall just as easily and with a greater flurry.
I have no doubt it will be hard to quit the credit habit. The next few years may necessitate changing The Great Depression’s moniker to “Great Depression I.” But if there is any promise of freedom from debt and equal opportunity on the other side, I think it will be worth it.
Since I doubt the vast majority of the people will agree to go cold turkey with me, I have a back up proposal. Any money the government puts into the crisis should be used to bail out the individuals who were sold bad loans, rather than the rudderless companies who sold them. If we’re going to intervene, let’s make sure we intervene on the side of the innocent.
Aces and Kings are dropping off the teetering house of cards that is our economy, and the politicians and the financial analysts and the Wall Street moguls want us to shore it up.
Yes, I am outraged that they are telling me—a law abiding, hard working, barely middle class single mom-- to mortgage my child’s future to bail out people who’ve been proudly and happily stealing from us and undermining our economy in ways they understood much better than I can-- even now. But I’m against the bailout for an even more important reason. I’m not an economist, but it has occurred to me that our economy’s basis in credit may be a major reason for the development of the chasm of inequality that divides the haves and the have-nots in this world. By shoring up this untenable system, we may be unwittingly perpetuating the oppression of the majority of the world’s people and missing the only opportunity in generations to undo it.
Think about it: could the price of a “starter” condo in a city neighborhood reach $300,000 without credit? Could college tuition rise to a similar level? Before borrowing for school was widely done, my parents worked their way through, and on the other side, their wages were their own. I will probably be paying down my education debt (at the rate of over $300 a month) for the rest of my life. And in comparison to recent graduates of private institutions and to those who attended medical or law school, my debt is downright tiny. Having this debt at the very beginning of one’s adult life often means incurring even more debt to own a car and a home. It can mean building up large credit card balances to fulfill daily needs.
Credit may allow us to do lots of wonderful things. It also allows us to live beyond our means, and to pay interest on the debt which increases the cost even further. It allows the prices of things to go up disproportionately in regard to our salaries and for us to continue to believe we can “afford” those prices. Meanwhile, the masters of the universe who run the companies which supply the credit, make greater and greater profits. Relative to them and to the cost of living, we become poorer and poorer.
We may as well be indentured servants--even slaves-- to this credit economy.
Now our masters have driven the plantation into the ground and they want us to rebuild this tool of our own oppression by borrowing against our future and our national security. I say, “Enough!” A house of cards reinforced by still more cards will fall just as easily and with a greater flurry.
I have no doubt it will be hard to quit the credit habit. The next few years may necessitate changing The Great Depression’s moniker to “Great Depression I.” But if there is any promise of freedom from debt and equal opportunity on the other side, I think it will be worth it.
Since I doubt the vast majority of the people will agree to go cold turkey with me, I have a back up proposal. Any money the government puts into the crisis should be used to bail out the individuals who were sold bad loans, rather than the rudderless companies who sold them. If we’re going to intervene, let’s make sure we intervene on the side of the innocent.
Friday, September 5, 2008
On an organizer for our American community:
The other night, instead of telling us what their candidate plans to do in office, Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin chose to mock the significant life experience of Barack Obama.
They seem to have contempt for community organizing. What is it they find so contemptible? The people of our national community? The fact that, with the skilled guidance of organizers, those people are more powerful than any politician or any one party will ever be?
I spend my days (and sometimes my nights) working to raise funds and friends for an amazing group of skilled professional organizers and about 75 teenage organizers who work for the Hyde Square Task Force in the Roxbury and Jamaica Plain neighborhoods of Boston. I work so hard to support them because the work they do is unique and essential in our community. Last fall, our youth used sophisticated organizing tactics like identifying targets, power analysis, utilizing the media and negotiation to persuade the mayor and school superintendent of Boston that they should add a dynamic civics class to the city’s high schools. This summer, the youth labored with 2 curriculum writers and the head of history and wrought the curriculum they believe will make all students of the Boston Public Schools (BPS) as thoughtful and active as they are.
As a former BPS teacher myself, I can tell you that these “kids” have accomplished more meaningful reform in one year than BPS, and indeed, the federal government has in more than ten.
As someone who has seen first hand the results of community organizing on an inner city neighborhood, I can say that organizing is, in fact, the perfect preparation to be president at a time when reform is so sorely needed. Unlike lifetime bureaucrats, who tend to become part of the problem, community organizers come from the outside, analyze the problems, determine what the community needs—what the people need—and then set about strategic action and negotiation to help the people get those demands met. Good organizers are able to get people fired up; a leader who makes moving speeches about hope and the need for change is exactly what helps mobilize the power of the people to make that change.
No, organizers don’t have responsibilities-- to lobbyists or special interests or even to themselves. In fact, their greatest responsibility is to the people with whom they work. It’s not the positions they’ve held that prove their worth—it’s the skills. They understand how to navigate complicated political terrain—how to bring opposing parties to the table. I believe these are exactly the qualities we need in a leader today.
Yes, the Republicans show a great deal of contempt for great Americans like Barack Obama who do tough, selfless, essential work for little compensation, but I’m not sure that’s what they really feel. It's possible that contempt masks a fear that a President Obama might help bring about changes to a status quo that’s pretty good for the fat cats who run the Grande Olde Party.
How happy are you with how things are today? With the help of a few good organizers, some good people, and a great president we might just be able to change them.
They seem to have contempt for community organizing. What is it they find so contemptible? The people of our national community? The fact that, with the skilled guidance of organizers, those people are more powerful than any politician or any one party will ever be?
I spend my days (and sometimes my nights) working to raise funds and friends for an amazing group of skilled professional organizers and about 75 teenage organizers who work for the Hyde Square Task Force in the Roxbury and Jamaica Plain neighborhoods of Boston. I work so hard to support them because the work they do is unique and essential in our community. Last fall, our youth used sophisticated organizing tactics like identifying targets, power analysis, utilizing the media and negotiation to persuade the mayor and school superintendent of Boston that they should add a dynamic civics class to the city’s high schools. This summer, the youth labored with 2 curriculum writers and the head of history and wrought the curriculum they believe will make all students of the Boston Public Schools (BPS) as thoughtful and active as they are.
As a former BPS teacher myself, I can tell you that these “kids” have accomplished more meaningful reform in one year than BPS, and indeed, the federal government has in more than ten.
As someone who has seen first hand the results of community organizing on an inner city neighborhood, I can say that organizing is, in fact, the perfect preparation to be president at a time when reform is so sorely needed. Unlike lifetime bureaucrats, who tend to become part of the problem, community organizers come from the outside, analyze the problems, determine what the community needs—what the people need—and then set about strategic action and negotiation to help the people get those demands met. Good organizers are able to get people fired up; a leader who makes moving speeches about hope and the need for change is exactly what helps mobilize the power of the people to make that change.
No, organizers don’t have responsibilities-- to lobbyists or special interests or even to themselves. In fact, their greatest responsibility is to the people with whom they work. It’s not the positions they’ve held that prove their worth—it’s the skills. They understand how to navigate complicated political terrain—how to bring opposing parties to the table. I believe these are exactly the qualities we need in a leader today.
Yes, the Republicans show a great deal of contempt for great Americans like Barack Obama who do tough, selfless, essential work for little compensation, but I’m not sure that’s what they really feel. It's possible that contempt masks a fear that a President Obama might help bring about changes to a status quo that’s pretty good for the fat cats who run the Grande Olde Party.
How happy are you with how things are today? With the help of a few good organizers, some good people, and a great president we might just be able to change them.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
On martial law in Trinidad—USA:
On June 7th, martial law came to America. Police in Washington, D.C. set up checkpoints on a one way street leading into the city’s Trinidad neighborhood. Anyone attempting to enter the area is asked for ID and a “legitimate reason” for going into the so-called "Neighborhood Safety Zone". Since when does an American innocent of any crime need to justify his or her travels around our free country as “legitimate?” This extreme and un-American tactic is being used ostensibly because there were 3 murders in a weekend and they are trying to prevent more drive bys. It is interesting to note that many of the media reports about this development mention that there were 7 murders that weekend, despite the fact that the majority of them were not in Trinidad. This smacks of the fear-mongering that Naomi Wolf identifies in her book, The End of America, as a tool utilized by many a would-be dictator seeking to precipitate a fascist shift in a free society.
“All those who seek to close down an open society invoke a terrifying external threat [internal threats are also invoked, see tens steps below]. Why is it so important for such leaders to whip up this kind of terror in a population? Free citizens will not give up freedom for very many reasons, but it is human nature to be willing to trade freedom for security. Before 1922 in Italy and 1933 in Germany, citizens of those nations suffered from mayhem playing out in the streets, and labored in economies ravaged by inflation and war. In both Italy and Germany, many citizens were eventually relieved when fascists came to power because they believed that order would be restored.” (The End of America, Naomi Wolf, 2007, p 36)
“Among the themes that fascist elites develop when they are driving toward an authoritarian system are: a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions…” (Wolf p 37)
When I first read the review of Wolf’s book, subtitled Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, I saw that she devoted a chapter to each of the ten steps she says dictators always take to close down a free society. They are:
1. Invoke an external and internal threat
2. Establish secret prisons
3. Develop a paramilitary force
4. Surveil ordinary citizens
5. Infiltrate citizens’ groups
6. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens
7. Target key individuals
8. Restrict the press
9. Cast criticism as “espionage” and dissent as “treason”
10. Subvert the rule of law
I knew the Bush administration had taken some of these steps but I did not understand how far down the road we’ve come until I read more carefully. Wolf spells out how each of these steps has been taken—is being taken-- and how each causes us to allow our freedoms to slip away.
We need to address this, despite the upcoming election, because our laws have been altered, reinterpreted and ignored such that Bush and any subsequent executive has too much power.
"Hitler could never have ascended to power as he did if the Reichstag [Parliament] had not first cravenly, but legally, weakened Germany’s system of checks and balances. Lawmakers who were not Nazis—who in fact were horrified by Nazis—unwittingly opened the door for Nazis to overturn the rule of law, and did so before the Nazis came formally to power." Wolf, p 39
"Hitler’s predecessor… was a centrist… but he tampered with the framework of the German democracy, reduced the power of the Parliament, and restricted civil liberties in a way that Nazis seized upon. Increasingly the republic was governed by emergency decree. The erosion of the rule of law unbolted the door for Hitler then he used the law to burst it open and let the flood ensue." Wolf pp 39-40
• Nazi “Hermann Goering informed Germany it was now on a ‘war footing’ because communist terrorists… planned to poison the water supply…” Wolf, p 41
• Another Nazi “introduced clause 2 which suspended parts of the German constitution” which, among other things, “gave police forces the power to hold people in custody indefinitely without a court order…” Wolf, p 41
• Then Hitler convinced Parliament to amend the constitution with the Enabling Act, “which would allow him to permanently circumvent some powers of the Parliament—it was now legal for the state to tap citizens’ phones and open their mail.” Wolf, p 41
• “Not wanting to be seen as unpatriotic, there was little debate: lawmakers of all parties passed the Enabling Act by a wide majority…From then on, Hitler could govern by decree.” Wolf, p 41
Sound familiar?
We have already come too far down the road. One tactic of the ten that has not yet been widely employed is the turning of strong arm tactics on ordinary citizens by the state, usually by a paramilitary force (Don’t think Bush has one?—read the book!). If we go there, either because of fear of an outside threat like Islamic terrorism or an inside one like urban gang activity (or both!), I am afraid we will have passed the point of no return.
I heard about the checkpoints in Trinidad on National Public Radio, but I’m concerned that I haven’t heard a major outcry. When I googled to find articles about it, I couldn’t find them easily on the web (I had to search NPR’s site). The press is being restricted in insidious ways (read the book!). Wolf says bloggers, like the patriots who circulated pamphlets in the run up to the Revolution, must take over the responsibility of reporting the truth, thereby giving the people the ability to judge when action needs to be taken.
I believe that time is now.
“All those who seek to close down an open society invoke a terrifying external threat [internal threats are also invoked, see tens steps below]. Why is it so important for such leaders to whip up this kind of terror in a population? Free citizens will not give up freedom for very many reasons, but it is human nature to be willing to trade freedom for security. Before 1922 in Italy and 1933 in Germany, citizens of those nations suffered from mayhem playing out in the streets, and labored in economies ravaged by inflation and war. In both Italy and Germany, many citizens were eventually relieved when fascists came to power because they believed that order would be restored.” (The End of America, Naomi Wolf, 2007, p 36)
“Among the themes that fascist elites develop when they are driving toward an authoritarian system are: a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions…” (Wolf p 37)
When I first read the review of Wolf’s book, subtitled Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, I saw that she devoted a chapter to each of the ten steps she says dictators always take to close down a free society. They are:
1. Invoke an external and internal threat
2. Establish secret prisons
3. Develop a paramilitary force
4. Surveil ordinary citizens
5. Infiltrate citizens’ groups
6. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens
7. Target key individuals
8. Restrict the press
9. Cast criticism as “espionage” and dissent as “treason”
10. Subvert the rule of law
I knew the Bush administration had taken some of these steps but I did not understand how far down the road we’ve come until I read more carefully. Wolf spells out how each of these steps has been taken—is being taken-- and how each causes us to allow our freedoms to slip away.
We need to address this, despite the upcoming election, because our laws have been altered, reinterpreted and ignored such that Bush and any subsequent executive has too much power.
"Hitler could never have ascended to power as he did if the Reichstag [Parliament] had not first cravenly, but legally, weakened Germany’s system of checks and balances. Lawmakers who were not Nazis—who in fact were horrified by Nazis—unwittingly opened the door for Nazis to overturn the rule of law, and did so before the Nazis came formally to power." Wolf, p 39
"Hitler’s predecessor… was a centrist… but he tampered with the framework of the German democracy, reduced the power of the Parliament, and restricted civil liberties in a way that Nazis seized upon. Increasingly the republic was governed by emergency decree. The erosion of the rule of law unbolted the door for Hitler then he used the law to burst it open and let the flood ensue." Wolf pp 39-40
• Nazi “Hermann Goering informed Germany it was now on a ‘war footing’ because communist terrorists… planned to poison the water supply…” Wolf, p 41
• Another Nazi “introduced clause 2 which suspended parts of the German constitution” which, among other things, “gave police forces the power to hold people in custody indefinitely without a court order…” Wolf, p 41
• Then Hitler convinced Parliament to amend the constitution with the Enabling Act, “which would allow him to permanently circumvent some powers of the Parliament—it was now legal for the state to tap citizens’ phones and open their mail.” Wolf, p 41
• “Not wanting to be seen as unpatriotic, there was little debate: lawmakers of all parties passed the Enabling Act by a wide majority…From then on, Hitler could govern by decree.” Wolf, p 41
Sound familiar?
We have already come too far down the road. One tactic of the ten that has not yet been widely employed is the turning of strong arm tactics on ordinary citizens by the state, usually by a paramilitary force (Don’t think Bush has one?—read the book!). If we go there, either because of fear of an outside threat like Islamic terrorism or an inside one like urban gang activity (or both!), I am afraid we will have passed the point of no return.
I heard about the checkpoints in Trinidad on National Public Radio, but I’m concerned that I haven’t heard a major outcry. When I googled to find articles about it, I couldn’t find them easily on the web (I had to search NPR’s site). The press is being restricted in insidious ways (read the book!). Wolf says bloggers, like the patriots who circulated pamphlets in the run up to the Revolution, must take over the responsibility of reporting the truth, thereby giving the people the ability to judge when action needs to be taken.
I believe that time is now.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
On a nominee for all of us:
It’s a bizarre irony that in this age of political correctness, tolerance and supposed acceptance, the latest excuse for why we can’t have a black president is that the candidate is a member of the elite. They used to tell us that black people were too dumb or backward to even vote, never mind run for office. Black people were portrayed as dirty, poorly dressed, slang-spewing monkeys. Now we’re presented with a guy whose intelligence can’t be denied, and he’s too smart?
The idea that Barack Obama is an elite who is out of touch with what real Americans face is a non-starter. (Compared to Dubya, who is seen as an everyman, despite the silver spoon in his mouth since birth, only because he sticks his foot in beside it constantly??) The fact that this is the only objection offered is proof that those who oppose a non-white president are fresh out of arguments. (I’m not sure it’s even possible to be black and elite in America. Blacks who have amassed wealth or been educated are just not entitled in the same way as white elites—but that’s another post.)
I’ve been quiet till now. We do need to be careful about this issue of race in America-- we are most certainly not past it. I have to say that it has been my experience that biracial people have a special ability to transcend race and understand it at the same time. My dad—who is looking down from up there somewhere smiling in giddy disbelief tonight-- made sure I understood, despite my lily white skin, the challenges of being black in our society. But he also lived his life in mainstream America and he did pretty damn well despite having to work twice as hard as any white person to get half as far. That taught me more than any bitter words he could have uttered-- though he uttered quite a few.
The next generation in mixed families—Barack and I—have a somewhat different perspective. The clothes and the degrees and the positions of power have come a little easier to us thanks to those who have come before. We haven’t forgotten the pain of our fathers (and mothers) but perhaps since its not our own, we can see it, give it its proper weight, and also manage to look past it to see the pain that defines and shapes the experience of others. Because we can "pass" in both worlds, we can see the racism and also know (and even love) the people behind it: the fears, the misconceptions, as well as the commonalities. That’s what Barack was talking about in his speech a while back.
Barack Obama looks at the same battlefield as the Reverend Wright and he refuses to take sides, ignore the problem or surrender to the difficult task of working it out.
Our nominee is mixed. It’s not his only feature, but it’s not something I think we should ignore because I believe it’s the reason he might actually—finally—offer Americans of all races, colors and creeds reconciliation.
(Dare we hope that he’ll offer the same to America the world actor and its enemies?)
We’re ready. Let’s elect a president for all of us.
The idea that Barack Obama is an elite who is out of touch with what real Americans face is a non-starter. (Compared to Dubya, who is seen as an everyman, despite the silver spoon in his mouth since birth, only because he sticks his foot in beside it constantly??) The fact that this is the only objection offered is proof that those who oppose a non-white president are fresh out of arguments. (I’m not sure it’s even possible to be black and elite in America. Blacks who have amassed wealth or been educated are just not entitled in the same way as white elites—but that’s another post.)
I’ve been quiet till now. We do need to be careful about this issue of race in America-- we are most certainly not past it. I have to say that it has been my experience that biracial people have a special ability to transcend race and understand it at the same time. My dad—who is looking down from up there somewhere smiling in giddy disbelief tonight-- made sure I understood, despite my lily white skin, the challenges of being black in our society. But he also lived his life in mainstream America and he did pretty damn well despite having to work twice as hard as any white person to get half as far. That taught me more than any bitter words he could have uttered-- though he uttered quite a few.
The next generation in mixed families—Barack and I—have a somewhat different perspective. The clothes and the degrees and the positions of power have come a little easier to us thanks to those who have come before. We haven’t forgotten the pain of our fathers (and mothers) but perhaps since its not our own, we can see it, give it its proper weight, and also manage to look past it to see the pain that defines and shapes the experience of others. Because we can "pass" in both worlds, we can see the racism and also know (and even love) the people behind it: the fears, the misconceptions, as well as the commonalities. That’s what Barack was talking about in his speech a while back.
Barack Obama looks at the same battlefield as the Reverend Wright and he refuses to take sides, ignore the problem or surrender to the difficult task of working it out.
Our nominee is mixed. It’s not his only feature, but it’s not something I think we should ignore because I believe it’s the reason he might actually—finally—offer Americans of all races, colors and creeds reconciliation.
(Dare we hope that he’ll offer the same to America the world actor and its enemies?)
We’re ready. Let’s elect a president for all of us.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
On tilting at Windmills:
Every once in a while, sitting in traffic or looking out the window of a tall building, I have a moment where I involuntarily step back and look at the world and see it literally swarming with cars. It’s at these moments that I become pessimistic and I say to myself and whoever will listen, “we’re doomed.” And though I think we probably are, I believe we owe it to the Earth that has sustained us to at least try to change.
I know how hard it is. I try—I recycle my toothbrushes (Preserve brand) and use paper produce bags (or none) for just a couple of examples--but because of my situation I find I have to drive my car. It takes several buses to get to my son’s daycare and I have nowhere to store a bike.
But we need to try harder. We need to start making wholesale changes. We need to use tax breaks and subsidies and market forces to push people and corporations to change.
Cars are a major problem-- for me and for everyone. We’ve got the technology to make cars more efficient, but more efficient hybrid cars remain more expensive and hard to get. The government should be putting its research dollars and brains into this rather than into landing on Mars. Large scale production of biofuels is wreaking havoc on our food system. Maybe they’re not the answer (or maybe we need to change the focus of the food system—corn sweetners and soy are ruining our health anyway). I think we need to look not just at how to continue driving as we always have, but at ways to restructure our communities to make long distance travel an occasional indulgence, rather than a daily necessity.
Eating locally would also cut down on emissions generated by the transport of food. This would probably mean curtailing sprawl (maybe even taking back already developed land) to make room for farms. Finally, a justifiable use of eminent domain.
The silver lining in the ridiculously high gas prices we’ve been experiencing (we’re finally beginning to catch up to the rest of the world—it’s been $6+ in Turkey for years) is that people are starting to reduce their use. They’re buying smaller cars and taking the bus more. The gas tax holiday that’s been proposed will only help undo the positive work high prices have done and won’t help consumers much anyway. Let’s make sure policies make sense and don’t just pander to desperate consumers who often can’t see beyond their next paycheck. Government is supposed to help us take the long view not let us avoid facing reality.
The considerable power of the sun, water and wind remain largely untapped. Massachusetts has been tied up in the controversy over putting a windmill farm off Cape Cod for years. I don’t really understand the controversy. There are several large turbines in the marshes outside Atlantic City, where I grew up, and the birds don’t seem to mind at all. People like them too. Don Quixote was right: they are a bit like giants—though these are beneficent ones. Once again, I think the government needs to take a stand against wealthy interests on the Cape who don’t want their view “spoiled.”
Maybe we are tilting at windmills but, paradoxically, policies that let us build a few more windmills might give us a fighting chance.
I know how hard it is. I try—I recycle my toothbrushes (Preserve brand) and use paper produce bags (or none) for just a couple of examples--but because of my situation I find I have to drive my car. It takes several buses to get to my son’s daycare and I have nowhere to store a bike.
But we need to try harder. We need to start making wholesale changes. We need to use tax breaks and subsidies and market forces to push people and corporations to change.
Cars are a major problem-- for me and for everyone. We’ve got the technology to make cars more efficient, but more efficient hybrid cars remain more expensive and hard to get. The government should be putting its research dollars and brains into this rather than into landing on Mars. Large scale production of biofuels is wreaking havoc on our food system. Maybe they’re not the answer (or maybe we need to change the focus of the food system—corn sweetners and soy are ruining our health anyway). I think we need to look not just at how to continue driving as we always have, but at ways to restructure our communities to make long distance travel an occasional indulgence, rather than a daily necessity.
Eating locally would also cut down on emissions generated by the transport of food. This would probably mean curtailing sprawl (maybe even taking back already developed land) to make room for farms. Finally, a justifiable use of eminent domain.
The silver lining in the ridiculously high gas prices we’ve been experiencing (we’re finally beginning to catch up to the rest of the world—it’s been $6+ in Turkey for years) is that people are starting to reduce their use. They’re buying smaller cars and taking the bus more. The gas tax holiday that’s been proposed will only help undo the positive work high prices have done and won’t help consumers much anyway. Let’s make sure policies make sense and don’t just pander to desperate consumers who often can’t see beyond their next paycheck. Government is supposed to help us take the long view not let us avoid facing reality.
The considerable power of the sun, water and wind remain largely untapped. Massachusetts has been tied up in the controversy over putting a windmill farm off Cape Cod for years. I don’t really understand the controversy. There are several large turbines in the marshes outside Atlantic City, where I grew up, and the birds don’t seem to mind at all. People like them too. Don Quixote was right: they are a bit like giants—though these are beneficent ones. Once again, I think the government needs to take a stand against wealthy interests on the Cape who don’t want their view “spoiled.”
Maybe we are tilting at windmills but, paradoxically, policies that let us build a few more windmills might give us a fighting chance.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
On slowing down:
In a world where the U.S. mail is now compared to a snail rather than a pony, a dial up modem-- which can bring information from all over the world in a matter of minutes-- is considered intolerably slow, and where slow is defined unflatteringly as:
apathetic, crawling, creeping, dawdling, delaying, deliberate, dilatory, disinclined, dreamy, drowsy, easy, gradual, heavy, idle, imperceptible, inactive, indolent, inert, lackadaisical, laggard, lagging, lazy, leaden, leisurely, lethargic, listless, loitering, measured, moderate, negligent, passive, phlegmatic, plodding, ponderous, postponing, procrastinating, quiet, reluctant, remiss, slack, sleepy, slothful, slow-moving, sluggish, snaillike, stagnant, supine, tardy, torpid, tortoiselike,
it’s easy to forget what’s so good about slow.
All kinds of clichés and pop songs point out the wisdom of taking things slowly at least some of the time:
Take time to smell the flowers.
Slow and steady wins the race.
Slow down. You move to fast. Got to make the moment last…
Truth is:
Slow food tastes better and is usually better for you than fast food.
Hypermiling (coasting and slow acceleration) saves gas and the planet.
Relationships which have developed slowly often seem to last longer.
But if conventional wisdom and anecdotal evidence isn’t enough to convince you to slow down, maybe scientific evidence that slow is better for your health will do it.
According to the American Institute of Stress, 75 - 90 percent of doctor visits stem from stress. Though itself somewhat intangible, stress causes various undeniably real physical reactions:
• “heart rate and blood pressure soar to increase the flow of blood to the brain to improve decision making,
• blood sugar rises to furnish more fuel for energy as the result of the breakdown of glycogen, fat and protein stores,
• blood is shunted away from the gut, where it is not immediately needed for purposes of digestion, to the large muscles of the arms and legs to provide more strength in combat, or greater speed in getting away from a scene of potential peril,
• clotting occurs more quickly to prevent blood loss from lacerations or internal hemorrhage.
These and myriad other immediate and automatic responses have been exquisitely honed over the lengthy course of human evolution as life saving measures to facilitate primitive man's ability to deal with physical challenges. However, the nature of stress for modern man is not an occasional confrontation with a saber-toothed tiger or a hostile warrior but rather a host of emotional threats like getting stuck in traffic and fights with customers, co-workers, or family members, that often occur several times a day. Unfortunately, our bodies still react with these same, archaic fight or flight responses that are now not only not useful but potentially damaging and deadly. Repeatedly invoked, it is not hard to see how they can contribute to hypertension, strokes, heart attacks, diabetes, ulcers, neck or low back pain and other "Diseases of Civilization".” American Institute of Stress http://www.stress.org/americas.htm
“In conditions of stress, our adrenal glands must work very hard to create numerous hormones that regulate the blood sugar and help the body heal.” What Causes Heart Attacks by Tom Cowan, Wise Traditions, Fall 2007. If the adrenal glands are worn out by chronic stress or repeated episodic stress, they can’t do this essential work.
Slow. Because the tortoise beat the hare (who had a stress-related heart attack). Best of all, the tortoise got to smell the flowers along the way.
www.slowdownnow.org
www.slowfoodusa.org
apathetic, crawling, creeping, dawdling, delaying, deliberate, dilatory, disinclined, dreamy, drowsy, easy, gradual, heavy, idle, imperceptible, inactive, indolent, inert, lackadaisical, laggard, lagging, lazy, leaden, leisurely, lethargic, listless, loitering, measured, moderate, negligent, passive, phlegmatic, plodding, ponderous, postponing, procrastinating, quiet, reluctant, remiss, slack, sleepy, slothful, slow-moving, sluggish, snaillike, stagnant, supine, tardy, torpid, tortoiselike,
it’s easy to forget what’s so good about slow.
All kinds of clichés and pop songs point out the wisdom of taking things slowly at least some of the time:
Take time to smell the flowers.
Slow and steady wins the race.
Slow down. You move to fast. Got to make the moment last…
Truth is:
Slow food tastes better and is usually better for you than fast food.
Hypermiling (coasting and slow acceleration) saves gas and the planet.
Relationships which have developed slowly often seem to last longer.
But if conventional wisdom and anecdotal evidence isn’t enough to convince you to slow down, maybe scientific evidence that slow is better for your health will do it.
According to the American Institute of Stress, 75 - 90 percent of doctor visits stem from stress. Though itself somewhat intangible, stress causes various undeniably real physical reactions:
• “heart rate and blood pressure soar to increase the flow of blood to the brain to improve decision making,
• blood sugar rises to furnish more fuel for energy as the result of the breakdown of glycogen, fat and protein stores,
• blood is shunted away from the gut, where it is not immediately needed for purposes of digestion, to the large muscles of the arms and legs to provide more strength in combat, or greater speed in getting away from a scene of potential peril,
• clotting occurs more quickly to prevent blood loss from lacerations or internal hemorrhage.
These and myriad other immediate and automatic responses have been exquisitely honed over the lengthy course of human evolution as life saving measures to facilitate primitive man's ability to deal with physical challenges. However, the nature of stress for modern man is not an occasional confrontation with a saber-toothed tiger or a hostile warrior but rather a host of emotional threats like getting stuck in traffic and fights with customers, co-workers, or family members, that often occur several times a day. Unfortunately, our bodies still react with these same, archaic fight or flight responses that are now not only not useful but potentially damaging and deadly. Repeatedly invoked, it is not hard to see how they can contribute to hypertension, strokes, heart attacks, diabetes, ulcers, neck or low back pain and other "Diseases of Civilization".” American Institute of Stress http://www.stress.org/americas.htm
“In conditions of stress, our adrenal glands must work very hard to create numerous hormones that regulate the blood sugar and help the body heal.” What Causes Heart Attacks by Tom Cowan, Wise Traditions, Fall 2007. If the adrenal glands are worn out by chronic stress or repeated episodic stress, they can’t do this essential work.
Slow. Because the tortoise beat the hare (who had a stress-related heart attack). Best of all, the tortoise got to smell the flowers along the way.
www.slowdownnow.org
www.slowfoodusa.org
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
On election day:
It was quiet at my polling place tonight. No, city council elections aren’t all that sexy, but we Americans need to start exercising that voting muscle before it atrophies completely.
According to Naomi Wolf (The End of America) and some other non-crazy students of society, it’s entirely possible that our rights are being chipped away, so this is no time to stop using them.
Our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave us the electoral college and a diluted democracy. It works pretty well when citizens do their duty and vote. When they don’t, a few people can exert disproportionate power over our national destiny.
Relatively few votes were coerced (by Fox News) in 2000 and (by post 9/11 fear mongering) in 2004 and even stolen (mostly from black Americans through what might be called voter profiling). These crimes were magnified through our (probably flawed) electoral process to change the results of an election and, yes, even the course of history.
Today members of our government are defying our Constitution and the Geneva Convention and Naomi Wolf (among others) says they’re starting to act like a fascist dictatorship. And Americans don’t vote. By shirking our civic responsibility we are tacitly allowing our democracy to be hijacked.
Through the institution of the electoral college, the founders were trying to protect their own aristocratic asses from the whims of the “riff raff” (aka the people). It’s ironic, but it turns out that the riff raff are the only ones who can save us now.
With respect, Riff Raff: get out and vote.
According to Naomi Wolf (The End of America) and some other non-crazy students of society, it’s entirely possible that our rights are being chipped away, so this is no time to stop using them.
Our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave us the electoral college and a diluted democracy. It works pretty well when citizens do their duty and vote. When they don’t, a few people can exert disproportionate power over our national destiny.
Relatively few votes were coerced (by Fox News) in 2000 and (by post 9/11 fear mongering) in 2004 and even stolen (mostly from black Americans through what might be called voter profiling). These crimes were magnified through our (probably flawed) electoral process to change the results of an election and, yes, even the course of history.
Today members of our government are defying our Constitution and the Geneva Convention and Naomi Wolf (among others) says they’re starting to act like a fascist dictatorship. And Americans don’t vote. By shirking our civic responsibility we are tacitly allowing our democracy to be hijacked.
Through the institution of the electoral college, the founders were trying to protect their own aristocratic asses from the whims of the “riff raff” (aka the people). It’s ironic, but it turns out that the riff raff are the only ones who can save us now.
With respect, Riff Raff: get out and vote.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
On getting the lead out:
I’m looking for an apartment for myself and my 3 year-old son. In the great state of Massachusetts, we have a lead law that says if a landlord rents to a family with a child under 6 years old, s/he must delead the apartment. This seems like it can only be a good thing but turns out to be a double-edged sword. It’s expensive to delead, so landlords—being in business to make money, or at least to cover costs-- find ways to refuse renting to people with young kids if they don’t want to delead. This is discrimination and is technically illegal, but unenforceable since no one can say a landlord didn’t have another legitimate reason.
And realtors are complicit because they don’t even want to waste their time showing tenants with young children apartments that aren’t deleaded, making it that much easier for landlords to avoid facing the issue.
Some landlords seem to have plenty of money to do extensive renovations to make their units able to demand more rent, but they don’t go the extra mile to delead. So deleaded apartments are rare and in high demand. Having also cost a substantial sum to be deleaded, they are not surprisingly, more expensive than non deleaded apartments with the same features in the same areas.
A law that must have been intended to help families with young children ends up reducing drastically their choices in housing and increasing their costs.
There must be another way.
When we as a society realized that it was completely unfair that many buildings were inaccessible to the significant segment of the population with disabilities, we didn’t make a law that made it voluntary for building owners to add ramps and elevators. We made a law—the Americans with Disabilities Act-- that required that buildings be changed. It wasn’t overly onerous. Some buildings didn’t have to be changed right away, but when major renovations were to be done, they had to include measures to bring accessibility in accordance with the law. The effectiveness of the (decidedly non voluntary) ADA is apparent all over our built environment (lower light switches and door handles among other details). At my alma mater, venerable old buildings now have wheelchair ramps artfully designed to blend with 19th century architecture. Ramps have become an integral part of today’s new buildings and it’s a good thing.
There must be at least as many families with young children as there are people with disabilities, and the lead issue really is a matter of accessibility too.
We need a law that-- either now or over a reasonable period of time (maybe 15 years)-- actually solves the problem of toxic lead in homes and makes affordably-priced, safe apartments accessible for families like mine.
And realtors are complicit because they don’t even want to waste their time showing tenants with young children apartments that aren’t deleaded, making it that much easier for landlords to avoid facing the issue.
Some landlords seem to have plenty of money to do extensive renovations to make their units able to demand more rent, but they don’t go the extra mile to delead. So deleaded apartments are rare and in high demand. Having also cost a substantial sum to be deleaded, they are not surprisingly, more expensive than non deleaded apartments with the same features in the same areas.
A law that must have been intended to help families with young children ends up reducing drastically their choices in housing and increasing their costs.
There must be another way.
When we as a society realized that it was completely unfair that many buildings were inaccessible to the significant segment of the population with disabilities, we didn’t make a law that made it voluntary for building owners to add ramps and elevators. We made a law—the Americans with Disabilities Act-- that required that buildings be changed. It wasn’t overly onerous. Some buildings didn’t have to be changed right away, but when major renovations were to be done, they had to include measures to bring accessibility in accordance with the law. The effectiveness of the (decidedly non voluntary) ADA is apparent all over our built environment (lower light switches and door handles among other details). At my alma mater, venerable old buildings now have wheelchair ramps artfully designed to blend with 19th century architecture. Ramps have become an integral part of today’s new buildings and it’s a good thing.
There must be at least as many families with young children as there are people with disabilities, and the lead issue really is a matter of accessibility too.
We need a law that-- either now or over a reasonable period of time (maybe 15 years)-- actually solves the problem of toxic lead in homes and makes affordably-priced, safe apartments accessible for families like mine.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
On Blog Action Day: possible solutions to global climate change
Today is Blog Action Day! Thousands of bloggers around the world will blog today about the environment. Here’s my contribution:
The elevation of Al Gore to demigod status has got me thinking about the enormity of the global climate change problem. It’s so difficult, in large part, because by developing as we have with far flung suburbs dependent on urban jobs (and with the proliferation of office parks, the reverse) and hermetically sealed tall buildings, we’ve locked ourselves into driving long distances and using H, V or AC year-round. Many egregious carbon-generating luxuries have become needs. It’s too hard to unravel energy use from the lives and economy we’ve worked so hard to build and maintain, so we just don’t. Some Americans seem to be blithely unaware that there’s even a need to do things differently, but even those of us who think about it and work at it every day, find it nearly impossible to make significant change. (For an amazing example of someone who has, visit http://noimpactman.typepad.com/)
Even countries that have made a commitment to reduce emissions are coming up short. I was listening to national public radio the other day and heard a report about Japan’s failure to meet its emissions reduction goals set out in the Kyoto protocols. It is widely understood that even if the US were to reduce its emissions, increases in emissions by developing countries like China and India would more than cancel them out.
We are going to have to make dramatic changes quickly in the way we live and work if we want to keep Earth inhabitable for humans.
A Brave New World Wide Web
A friend of mine, I’ll call him P, floated an idea for a possible solution that I think has merit: technology. P’s not talking about new energy technologies, though I’m sure he’d agree we should continue to work on those. He’s suggested that internet technology and computers (which are being built to use less and less energy) could soon allow everyone to telecommute so that we wouldn’t have to drive in order to work. In fact, what he said was that we could live our entire lives on the net. He may have said it tongue in cheek but I think it’s an interesting idea.
During the last Congressional election, I participated in the Move On “Call for Change” campaign, which used nationwide conference calls and video teleconferences to bring all the volunteers together. Having experienced the power and the great sense of community during that campaign, and right here in the blogosphere (and the lack of community in my neighborhood), I wonder if eliminating the need for proximity and cultivating our ability to form affinity groups globally, wouldn’t be a very good thing.
Back to Our Agrarian Roots
That said, I’m a bit of a traditionalist and even though it’s been a long time since I’ve lived in one, I love the feel of a small town. The process of a town meeting is, at least in some ways, more satisfying than any web forum or national conference call. Despite technology, proximity still creates affinity (or at least interdependence).
I’m also a believer in Traditional Nutrition (see Weston A. Price Foundation link at right) and thinking about how to get better quality food (usually direct from farms) has led me to realize that our ancestors had a lot of things right.
A sort of purposeful regression as a society to a small town, agrarian model would cut down on our need to travel long distances regularly and eliminate the great quantity of emissions created in support of our current food distribution system (almost all of our food is trucked to market in tractor trailers and more and more is flown in from other countries). Returning to our agrarian roots would put people back in touch with the land and, very probably, would lead to the planting of more carbon neutralizing vegetation. As a bonus we’d likely have richer lives in close-knit communities. We could more effectively and more naturally provide social supports for young families, elders… for everyone really. We'd also eat better.
Perhaps the most feasible and livable solution would be some combination of these two. Picture yourself churning butter from fresh raw milk in the morning, attending a teleconference with other hedge fund managers on farms in the UK and Hong Kong in the afternoon, and, climate change having stabilized, blogging about humanity’s next great challenge (by the light of a solar-powered lamp) deep into the night.
The elevation of Al Gore to demigod status has got me thinking about the enormity of the global climate change problem. It’s so difficult, in large part, because by developing as we have with far flung suburbs dependent on urban jobs (and with the proliferation of office parks, the reverse) and hermetically sealed tall buildings, we’ve locked ourselves into driving long distances and using H, V or AC year-round. Many egregious carbon-generating luxuries have become needs. It’s too hard to unravel energy use from the lives and economy we’ve worked so hard to build and maintain, so we just don’t. Some Americans seem to be blithely unaware that there’s even a need to do things differently, but even those of us who think about it and work at it every day, find it nearly impossible to make significant change. (For an amazing example of someone who has, visit http://noimpactman.typepad.com/)
Even countries that have made a commitment to reduce emissions are coming up short. I was listening to national public radio the other day and heard a report about Japan’s failure to meet its emissions reduction goals set out in the Kyoto protocols. It is widely understood that even if the US were to reduce its emissions, increases in emissions by developing countries like China and India would more than cancel them out.
We are going to have to make dramatic changes quickly in the way we live and work if we want to keep Earth inhabitable for humans.
A Brave New World Wide Web
A friend of mine, I’ll call him P, floated an idea for a possible solution that I think has merit: technology. P’s not talking about new energy technologies, though I’m sure he’d agree we should continue to work on those. He’s suggested that internet technology and computers (which are being built to use less and less energy) could soon allow everyone to telecommute so that we wouldn’t have to drive in order to work. In fact, what he said was that we could live our entire lives on the net. He may have said it tongue in cheek but I think it’s an interesting idea.
During the last Congressional election, I participated in the Move On “Call for Change” campaign, which used nationwide conference calls and video teleconferences to bring all the volunteers together. Having experienced the power and the great sense of community during that campaign, and right here in the blogosphere (and the lack of community in my neighborhood), I wonder if eliminating the need for proximity and cultivating our ability to form affinity groups globally, wouldn’t be a very good thing.
Back to Our Agrarian Roots
That said, I’m a bit of a traditionalist and even though it’s been a long time since I’ve lived in one, I love the feel of a small town. The process of a town meeting is, at least in some ways, more satisfying than any web forum or national conference call. Despite technology, proximity still creates affinity (or at least interdependence).
I’m also a believer in Traditional Nutrition (see Weston A. Price Foundation link at right) and thinking about how to get better quality food (usually direct from farms) has led me to realize that our ancestors had a lot of things right.
A sort of purposeful regression as a society to a small town, agrarian model would cut down on our need to travel long distances regularly and eliminate the great quantity of emissions created in support of our current food distribution system (almost all of our food is trucked to market in tractor trailers and more and more is flown in from other countries). Returning to our agrarian roots would put people back in touch with the land and, very probably, would lead to the planting of more carbon neutralizing vegetation. As a bonus we’d likely have richer lives in close-knit communities. We could more effectively and more naturally provide social supports for young families, elders… for everyone really. We'd also eat better.
Perhaps the most feasible and livable solution would be some combination of these two. Picture yourself churning butter from fresh raw milk in the morning, attending a teleconference with other hedge fund managers on farms in the UK and Hong Kong in the afternoon, and, climate change having stabilized, blogging about humanity’s next great challenge (by the light of a solar-powered lamp) deep into the night.
Friday, August 17, 2007
On how our stuff owns us:
“I have to work.” I hear that from moms all the time. I say it myself. But is it strictly true?
I am not taking issue with individual moms or families and the choices they make within the societal context. We all do the best we can. I’m taking issue with the context. Somehow, the end result of women’s quest for the freedom to make choices about our lives is that we’re locked in to the two-earner household model which, ironically, leaves us with little choice.
Come to think of it, it’s not just women, but men too. Not only do we work, but we work harder, faster and, enabled by technology, we work during a greater percentage of our time than our parents did. American workers are more productive than ever, but employers still demand more. In fact, many workers demand so much of themselves that leisure time ceases to exist-- carrying PDAs, bringing laptops home for the weekend, answering cell phones at the park or mid-conversation with friends.
Why do we do it? In order to own the things many in the middle class have come to think of as necessities: a home with a bedroom for each child, 2 cars, many of the same electronic devices that allow us/goad us to work more!
My answer is: I love beautiful clothes, to decorate my house like a picture in a magazine, to drive a nice car, to eat out at restaurants and cook with the highest quality food at home. I live in Boston, Massachusetts, which boasts some of the highest home prices in the country.
Call me over-privileged. I am. We are. We have more, and more expensive stuff than our parents ever dreamed of.
It’s possible that we’ve been duped into believing that we need all this stuff in order to fill the coffers of the makers of the stuff and the lenders of the credit that allows us to buy all the stuff we can’t even afford.
I have fantasies of jettisoning most of my stuff, buying a farm, installing solar panels or a windmill, growing my own food and home-schooling my kid. It doesn’t seem like a very realistic view from my current vantage point in our consumer society. But it sure would be liberating to own stuff that allows me to live my life rather than living-- and working-- to own my stuff.
I am not taking issue with individual moms or families and the choices they make within the societal context. We all do the best we can. I’m taking issue with the context. Somehow, the end result of women’s quest for the freedom to make choices about our lives is that we’re locked in to the two-earner household model which, ironically, leaves us with little choice.
Come to think of it, it’s not just women, but men too. Not only do we work, but we work harder, faster and, enabled by technology, we work during a greater percentage of our time than our parents did. American workers are more productive than ever, but employers still demand more. In fact, many workers demand so much of themselves that leisure time ceases to exist-- carrying PDAs, bringing laptops home for the weekend, answering cell phones at the park or mid-conversation with friends.
Why do we do it? In order to own the things many in the middle class have come to think of as necessities: a home with a bedroom for each child, 2 cars, many of the same electronic devices that allow us/goad us to work more!
My answer is: I love beautiful clothes, to decorate my house like a picture in a magazine, to drive a nice car, to eat out at restaurants and cook with the highest quality food at home. I live in Boston, Massachusetts, which boasts some of the highest home prices in the country.
Call me over-privileged. I am. We are. We have more, and more expensive stuff than our parents ever dreamed of.
It’s possible that we’ve been duped into believing that we need all this stuff in order to fill the coffers of the makers of the stuff and the lenders of the credit that allows us to buy all the stuff we can’t even afford.
I have fantasies of jettisoning most of my stuff, buying a farm, installing solar panels or a windmill, growing my own food and home-schooling my kid. It doesn’t seem like a very realistic view from my current vantage point in our consumer society. But it sure would be liberating to own stuff that allows me to live my life rather than living-- and working-- to own my stuff.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
On a real patriot act:
I flew in from DC today. Flying, with its attendant security routines and prohibitions, has become an unwelcome chore for many, but for the most part we put up, shut up and shed our shoes because we want to get there in one piece. Today I’m feeling a little less willing to accept that this is our only option, thanks to a colleague and travelling companion who’s not quite as docile as most—I’ll call him J.
J and I got into the security line behind two women who were elderly and infirm. One was in a wheel chair with a cast on her foot. We waited as a line which had previously moved at a good clip stalled completely, but that wasn’t what raised J’s ire. The woman was made to take off the boot that covered her cast (and, of course, her other shoe), get out of her wheel chair and limp assisted through the metal detector.
Miffed, J announced to me his intention to leave his pancake-thin flip flops on instead of removing them and standing barefoot on the bacteria laden floor where legions of others had done the same. This is my least favorite part of the process and I was interested to see if he’d be allowed to pass. He wasn’t. And to add insult to injury he was reprimanded for bringing a gallon-sized plastic Ziploc bag rather than a quart-sized one even though it was only about ¼ full and all his containers were 3 ounces or fewer. With a smugness born of useless authority, the TSA employee actually provided him with a standard issue quart-sized bag for the next leg of his trip. It was all J could do to remain somewhat polite.
In the relative comfort of an airport eatery—flip flops on—we discussed what had happened. J felt what the elderly woman was put through was cruel and unnecessary. Brainwashed, I defended the stupidity of the policy saying they have to treat everyone the same, otherwise it would be profiling when they subjected people who seemed more likely suspects to more thorough checks. Of course that is true, but it misses the point. J said requiring us all to be subjected to this level of inconvenience and humiliation because of fear means the terrorists have already won. I had to admit he was right-- which is particularly disturbing considering that David Mackett, the president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, says: "[TSA’s] entire approach to airline security is almost completely ineffective."* They’ve got us jumping through hoops and for what? All that jumping doesn’t even protect us from what we fear. It also begs the question: who is the “they” we really need to fear, the terrorists or the fascists in our government who are using 9/11 as an excuse to gain unchecked power and run roughshod over the bill of rights?
The scariest part of all this for me is that when J got a tone of defiance in his voice while talking to a TSA agent, I wanted to shush him. I wanted him to just go along.
In explaining his position, J referenced the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller, which I recognized because they are engraved on the Holocaust Memorial in Boston:
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me."
We need to speak out-- about the security line at the airport and about the Patriot Act itself. This is a question of our most basic rights. How much are we willing to give up for what is, in reality, a hollow promise of safety? Our shoes? Our dignity? The very freedoms all this security is meant to protect? J shouldn’t just go along, and neither should any American patriot.
*Read the full text of David Mackett's comments at:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/16/
a-pilot-on-airline-security/
J and I got into the security line behind two women who were elderly and infirm. One was in a wheel chair with a cast on her foot. We waited as a line which had previously moved at a good clip stalled completely, but that wasn’t what raised J’s ire. The woman was made to take off the boot that covered her cast (and, of course, her other shoe), get out of her wheel chair and limp assisted through the metal detector.
Miffed, J announced to me his intention to leave his pancake-thin flip flops on instead of removing them and standing barefoot on the bacteria laden floor where legions of others had done the same. This is my least favorite part of the process and I was interested to see if he’d be allowed to pass. He wasn’t. And to add insult to injury he was reprimanded for bringing a gallon-sized plastic Ziploc bag rather than a quart-sized one even though it was only about ¼ full and all his containers were 3 ounces or fewer. With a smugness born of useless authority, the TSA employee actually provided him with a standard issue quart-sized bag for the next leg of his trip. It was all J could do to remain somewhat polite.
In the relative comfort of an airport eatery—flip flops on—we discussed what had happened. J felt what the elderly woman was put through was cruel and unnecessary. Brainwashed, I defended the stupidity of the policy saying they have to treat everyone the same, otherwise it would be profiling when they subjected people who seemed more likely suspects to more thorough checks. Of course that is true, but it misses the point. J said requiring us all to be subjected to this level of inconvenience and humiliation because of fear means the terrorists have already won. I had to admit he was right-- which is particularly disturbing considering that David Mackett, the president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, says: "[TSA’s] entire approach to airline security is almost completely ineffective."* They’ve got us jumping through hoops and for what? All that jumping doesn’t even protect us from what we fear. It also begs the question: who is the “they” we really need to fear, the terrorists or the fascists in our government who are using 9/11 as an excuse to gain unchecked power and run roughshod over the bill of rights?
The scariest part of all this for me is that when J got a tone of defiance in his voice while talking to a TSA agent, I wanted to shush him. I wanted him to just go along.
In explaining his position, J referenced the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller, which I recognized because they are engraved on the Holocaust Memorial in Boston:
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me."
We need to speak out-- about the security line at the airport and about the Patriot Act itself. This is a question of our most basic rights. How much are we willing to give up for what is, in reality, a hollow promise of safety? Our shoes? Our dignity? The very freedoms all this security is meant to protect? J shouldn’t just go along, and neither should any American patriot.
*Read the full text of David Mackett's comments at:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/16/
a-pilot-on-airline-security/
Friday, July 27, 2007
On verbalizing nouns:
The English language probably has more words than any other language on earth.* So why is it that, lately, people feel the need to replace perfectly serviceable verbs with nouns masquerading as verbs?
A dictionary is perfect for gifting.
You can keep it on the mantle in your fireplaced living room.
Take it out when you liaise with friends.
Outreach to those who’ve developed the jargon habit.
I’m visioning a future in which we can still understand each other.
A language is a living thing and we can’t expect it to stay static. English needs to grow and develop if it is to maintain the capacity to articulate the changes in our culture and our world. I don’t object to the additions of a new meaning for “mouse” or eight million words with e as a prefix, but I have to object to replacing effective, widely used words like “giving” out of sheer laziness or mistaken self-importance.
If, after reading this post, you are looking back at the title and thinking: “that doesn’t mean what she seems to think it means,” well-- you’re right.
*http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/
aboutenglish/mostwords?view=uk
A dictionary is perfect for gifting.
You can keep it on the mantle in your fireplaced living room.
Take it out when you liaise with friends.
Outreach to those who’ve developed the jargon habit.
I’m visioning a future in which we can still understand each other.
A language is a living thing and we can’t expect it to stay static. English needs to grow and develop if it is to maintain the capacity to articulate the changes in our culture and our world. I don’t object to the additions of a new meaning for “mouse” or eight million words with e as a prefix, but I have to object to replacing effective, widely used words like “giving” out of sheer laziness or mistaken self-importance.
If, after reading this post, you are looking back at the title and thinking: “that doesn’t mean what she seems to think it means,” well-- you’re right.
*http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/
aboutenglish/mostwords?view=uk
Saturday, July 21, 2007
On little things that mean a lot:
Little things you can do about global warming…
Walk when you can
Ride your bike when you can
Hypermile when you drive (see 6/23/2007 post)
Combine errands to cut down on car trips
Park once at shopping centers and walk between stores
Carpool
Get a stainless steel water bottle (www.gaiam.com, www.klean canteen.com) and a filter; filter your own water and carry it in your bottle (stainless doesn’t wear out as fast as plastic and, as a bonus, won’t leach dioxin into your water—47 million gallons of oil are used and 1 billion pounds of CO2 emissions are produced each year to supply America with plastic water bottles!*)
Use tempered glass food storage containers (glass doesn’t wear out as fast as plastic and, as a bonus, won’t leach dioxin into your food)
Buy some cloth grocery bags or reuse plastic bags rather than using new plastic or paper bags every time
Buy post-consumer recycled products
Cloth diaper or use g diapers or eco-disposables with less plastic
Reuse plastic produce and grocery bags for wrapping diapers or as pooper scoopers rather than buying new bags on a roll
Wash zipper bags and reuse (dry them on large serving spoons stuck in the utensil rack of a dish drainer—this will also save you a fair amount of money)
Use non-petroleum based products for cleaning (Seventh Generation, Ecos, Ecover, BioKleen etc. or just baking soda and vinegar)
Save air conditioning for the hottest days or find other ways to keep cool; if you must use it, set your thermostat slightly higher
In winter, set your thermostat slightly lower and wear a sweater
Replace incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs (these use up to 75% less energy than with standard incandescent bulbs*)
Shut off lights when you’re aren’t in a room
Shut off computers when not using them
Unplug appliances and chargers when not in use
Get Energy Star appliances
Run dishwasher and washing machine only when full
Install a low flow shower head (saves water and energy that would have been used to heat that water)
Buy local produce, fish and meat – eat only what’s in season here (lots more fuel is used to bring foods from far away)
Read the newspaper and catalog shop on line (ask companies you do business with to stop sending catalogs)
Get on the national Do Not Mail list: https://www.directmail.com/directory/mail_preference/
Use the library
Plant a tree
*www. gaiam.com
Walk when you can
Ride your bike when you can
Hypermile when you drive (see 6/23/2007 post)
Combine errands to cut down on car trips
Park once at shopping centers and walk between stores
Carpool
Get a stainless steel water bottle (www.gaiam.com, www.klean canteen.com) and a filter; filter your own water and carry it in your bottle (stainless doesn’t wear out as fast as plastic and, as a bonus, won’t leach dioxin into your water—47 million gallons of oil are used and 1 billion pounds of CO2 emissions are produced each year to supply America with plastic water bottles!*)
Use tempered glass food storage containers (glass doesn’t wear out as fast as plastic and, as a bonus, won’t leach dioxin into your food)
Buy some cloth grocery bags or reuse plastic bags rather than using new plastic or paper bags every time
Buy post-consumer recycled products
Cloth diaper or use g diapers or eco-disposables with less plastic
Reuse plastic produce and grocery bags for wrapping diapers or as pooper scoopers rather than buying new bags on a roll
Wash zipper bags and reuse (dry them on large serving spoons stuck in the utensil rack of a dish drainer—this will also save you a fair amount of money)
Use non-petroleum based products for cleaning (Seventh Generation, Ecos, Ecover, BioKleen etc. or just baking soda and vinegar)
Save air conditioning for the hottest days or find other ways to keep cool; if you must use it, set your thermostat slightly higher
In winter, set your thermostat slightly lower and wear a sweater
Replace incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs (these use up to 75% less energy than with standard incandescent bulbs*)
Shut off lights when you’re aren’t in a room
Shut off computers when not using them
Unplug appliances and chargers when not in use
Get Energy Star appliances
Run dishwasher and washing machine only when full
Install a low flow shower head (saves water and energy that would have been used to heat that water)
Buy local produce, fish and meat – eat only what’s in season here (lots more fuel is used to bring foods from far away)
Read the newspaper and catalog shop on line (ask companies you do business with to stop sending catalogs)
Get on the national Do Not Mail list: https://www.directmail.com/directory/mail_preference/
Use the library
Plant a tree
*www. gaiam.com
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
On what’s patriotic this July 4th:
I’ve never been what most people think of as patriotic. I’m not much into waving flags or decorating my house red, white & blue for the 4th. But I love my country and what it used to represent. I love that when America is at its best, if there’s a reasonable doubt, the accused isn’t guilty. I love that in the age of technology that can make Big Brother a reality, I have a right to privacy under the law. I love that I get to participate in choosing my leaders and can critique their actions on my blog.
Election results always disappoint some of us. The losers galvanize, reorganize, work to elect their candidates in the next election, secure in the knowledge the system of democracy holds a place open for them if they have the votes.
I’m beginning to think maybe we feel a little too secure. We’ve got rogues in power. Dick Cheney and George Bush have stopped working within the system, playing by the rules. But it seems like we’re still waiting, sure that the next election will offer the opportunity to resolve everything that’s left us unsettled: the signing statements that circumvent the legislative process, the vengeful outing of a CIA agent, the illegal wiretaps, the unlawful holding of detainees, the rendering of detainees for torture, the firing of U.S. Attorneys, the commuting of the fall guy’s sentence. But if we allow them to set the precedent that the person in the position of Vice President is not subject to subpoena, we may never get our democracy back. If we allow the world to think we approve, we may never regain our place in it.
Of crimes against our democracy, they’re guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. This July 4th, the most patriotic thing we can do is impeach the criminals.
Election results always disappoint some of us. The losers galvanize, reorganize, work to elect their candidates in the next election, secure in the knowledge the system of democracy holds a place open for them if they have the votes.
I’m beginning to think maybe we feel a little too secure. We’ve got rogues in power. Dick Cheney and George Bush have stopped working within the system, playing by the rules. But it seems like we’re still waiting, sure that the next election will offer the opportunity to resolve everything that’s left us unsettled: the signing statements that circumvent the legislative process, the vengeful outing of a CIA agent, the illegal wiretaps, the unlawful holding of detainees, the rendering of detainees for torture, the firing of U.S. Attorneys, the commuting of the fall guy’s sentence. But if we allow them to set the precedent that the person in the position of Vice President is not subject to subpoena, we may never get our democracy back. If we allow the world to think we approve, we may never regain our place in it.
Of crimes against our democracy, they’re guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. This July 4th, the most patriotic thing we can do is impeach the criminals.
Monday, June 4, 2007
On losing the first primary and the last democrats:
That’s democrats with a small “d.” (A brilliant college professor of mine named James Morone used the size of the d to distinguish between citizens of a democracy and members of one of the two major parties in our political system.)
There was an article in the Globe yesterday morning (“Despite Challenges, N.H. Primary Thrives,” by Lisa Wangsness and James W. Pindell, The Boston Globe, June 3, 2007) about the encroachment of other states on New Hampshire’s status as first primary state. So far candidates are still paying attention to NH but they are spending less time than they used to and holding fewer small events. One long-time NH resident was lamenting the loss of intimacy in the campaign this season.
There’s been a lot of talk about how changing the order and density of the early primaries and caucuses will lead to earlier selection of the nominee and big money’s playing an even greater role in that selection. These are certainly real concerns, but there’s a threat that we’ll lose something even greater.
Reading the article yesterday, I was struck by the idea that NH in a presidential election year is one of the last places where old-fashioned democracy can be found. In this day and age when, for most of us, politicians are reduced to sound bites and scandals, NH is a place where they still kiss babies and learn voters’ first names. It’s where the talking heads sit down in someone’s living room and ask ordinary people what they think.
The whole reason other states want to move their primaries up is to try to gain back some of that attention and importance; to ensure that their votes will mean something. Unfortunately, we will probably accomplish the opposite by indulging them.
Instead of undermining the special status that makes real democracy possible in NH for a few months every four years, we need to discover ways to replicate that level of civic engagement elsewhere-- every day of every year.
http://www.casefoundation.org/spotlight/civic_engagement/
summary
The link to the Globe article can be found below.
There was an article in the Globe yesterday morning (“Despite Challenges, N.H. Primary Thrives,” by Lisa Wangsness and James W. Pindell, The Boston Globe, June 3, 2007) about the encroachment of other states on New Hampshire’s status as first primary state. So far candidates are still paying attention to NH but they are spending less time than they used to and holding fewer small events. One long-time NH resident was lamenting the loss of intimacy in the campaign this season.
There’s been a lot of talk about how changing the order and density of the early primaries and caucuses will lead to earlier selection of the nominee and big money’s playing an even greater role in that selection. These are certainly real concerns, but there’s a threat that we’ll lose something even greater.
Reading the article yesterday, I was struck by the idea that NH in a presidential election year is one of the last places where old-fashioned democracy can be found. In this day and age when, for most of us, politicians are reduced to sound bites and scandals, NH is a place where they still kiss babies and learn voters’ first names. It’s where the talking heads sit down in someone’s living room and ask ordinary people what they think.
The whole reason other states want to move their primaries up is to try to gain back some of that attention and importance; to ensure that their votes will mean something. Unfortunately, we will probably accomplish the opposite by indulging them.
Instead of undermining the special status that makes real democracy possible in NH for a few months every four years, we need to discover ways to replicate that level of civic engagement elsewhere-- every day of every year.
http://www.casefoundation.org/spotlight/civic_engagement/
summary
The link to the Globe article can be found below.
Friday, June 1, 2007
On bullying, Hollywood style:
I hesitate to admit that I’ve watched American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance but if you’re going to comment on social phenomena, you’ve got to keep your finger on the pulse of society. If the number of votes for Taylor Hicks last season-- more votes than any president has received-- is any indication, American Idol has captured a lot of hearts. (I’ve also got a small child, which tends to limit one’s evening activities.)
I can appreciate good singing and dancing. I enjoy watching an amateur’s journey to accomplishment. I think, watching these competitions, we all get excited about the possibility of making that kind of unlikely transformation from our own ordinary selves to someone celebrated by the masses. That’s why the shows draw so many votes.
On the whole, these are feel good shows, so why is it necessary for them to sanction schoolyard bullying in the name of entertainment?
The same possibility that makes the shows fun to watch, brings everyone and his brother out to audition. Sure, some of them have self-esteem that’s greater than their talent. I think that‘s a positive thing. Why do the ultra-rich, ultra-successful judges need to ridicule people they consider pitiful? If it is so obvious when someone has such an egregious lack of talent, why does it need to be mentioned at all? And why are viewers so entranced by the spectacle? It reminds me of the worst of the behavior I witnessed on the playground as a child. It wasn’t fun to watch then and it’s no better now.
I wish I could shrug them off as just a few more stupid TV shows, but what America tunes in to tells a lot about what our values are. For me this talent/humiliation show phenomenon is just another indicator of how uncivil our society has become. Yes, the impulse to raise ourselves up by putting others down has always existed, in just about everybody in some measure, but have we always approved it with 60+ million votes (and millions of advertising dollars)?
I’ve heard parents discussing American Idol as one of the few “safe” choices for family viewing. With weeks of ruthless audition episodes kicking it off each season, is it really safe for anybody?
I can appreciate good singing and dancing. I enjoy watching an amateur’s journey to accomplishment. I think, watching these competitions, we all get excited about the possibility of making that kind of unlikely transformation from our own ordinary selves to someone celebrated by the masses. That’s why the shows draw so many votes.
On the whole, these are feel good shows, so why is it necessary for them to sanction schoolyard bullying in the name of entertainment?
The same possibility that makes the shows fun to watch, brings everyone and his brother out to audition. Sure, some of them have self-esteem that’s greater than their talent. I think that‘s a positive thing. Why do the ultra-rich, ultra-successful judges need to ridicule people they consider pitiful? If it is so obvious when someone has such an egregious lack of talent, why does it need to be mentioned at all? And why are viewers so entranced by the spectacle? It reminds me of the worst of the behavior I witnessed on the playground as a child. It wasn’t fun to watch then and it’s no better now.
I wish I could shrug them off as just a few more stupid TV shows, but what America tunes in to tells a lot about what our values are. For me this talent/humiliation show phenomenon is just another indicator of how uncivil our society has become. Yes, the impulse to raise ourselves up by putting others down has always existed, in just about everybody in some measure, but have we always approved it with 60+ million votes (and millions of advertising dollars)?
I’ve heard parents discussing American Idol as one of the few “safe” choices for family viewing. With weeks of ruthless audition episodes kicking it off each season, is it really safe for anybody?
Saturday, May 26, 2007
On why I enjoy paying my taxes:
I was listening to the news yesterday and I heard that the citizens of very wealthy Milton, Massachusetts have declined to pass an override that would increase their taxes in order to balance the town’s school budget. The alternative may be shutting down all sports programs or raising the fee for participation in a sport to over $700! They may have to excess 30-some teachers and make other cuts. But Milton residents so dislike paying taxes that they are willing to allow the quality of public education suffer rather than pay a little more. Maybe some of them think having to pay for shared community services is unfair. Maybe some of them consider paying taxes "throwing money down a hole." Maybe they don’t trust government to spend the money wisely.
People want everything but they don’t want to pay anything for it. They want better public transportation, better roads, cheap gas and cleaner air. They want infallible homeland security, a big bad standing military, and (though many may have changed their minds since) during the last election, a majority apparently wanted to pursue the suicidal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. They want American students to pass high stakes tests, to be well-rounded, to go to college, and to be able to compete in a world market.
In the last few years, conservatives have gotten very good at controlling the language of the debate in the American political arena. Like “liberal,” they have made “taxes” a bad word. But taxes are really good for us all and for our community. Rampant individualism has made us forget about the benefits of living in community even as we continue to receive them-- for now.
I don’t know about you but I want my trash picked up so my neighborhood doesn’t smell like a dump and the streets repaired so I don’t lose a hubcap or break an axle in a pothole. I want good quality free public education for all children because it’s only fair, but also because when we don’t educate all children well, we, as a society, have to deal with the consequences. I even want the government to provide help to people who are struggling to get by, because I know there will always be people who need help. Equal access benefits from the government seem more fair and more effective than relying on individuals to notice people in need and invite them into their homes or churches for a meal, a bath or a place to sleep. I believe these necessities need to be provided on the community level and that they are worth paying for.
As for the argument that government can’t be trusted to spend money wisely... um, this is a democracy and we choose the people who run the government and, through them, what its laws and policies are. Yeah, sometimes elected officials don’t do what we want. There’s a remedy: vote them out! (Actually there are two. If we need to get someone out quick, before he starts World War III, we can impeach him!)
Maybe we should drop the term “taxes” and call them “dues” instead, or a “membership fee.” That’s basically what they are. You want to belong to this club? You want to get the benefits of driving on roads, of public services, of the national defense? Then you have to pay your dues.
Don’t let rich conservative republicans like George Bush (whose real agenda is for themselves and their cronies to make more money and pay fewer taxes) tell you that “taxes” is a four letter word. Taxes are the life’s blood of our society. I’m happy to pay mine to keep its heart pumping.
People want everything but they don’t want to pay anything for it. They want better public transportation, better roads, cheap gas and cleaner air. They want infallible homeland security, a big bad standing military, and (though many may have changed their minds since) during the last election, a majority apparently wanted to pursue the suicidal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. They want American students to pass high stakes tests, to be well-rounded, to go to college, and to be able to compete in a world market.
In the last few years, conservatives have gotten very good at controlling the language of the debate in the American political arena. Like “liberal,” they have made “taxes” a bad word. But taxes are really good for us all and for our community. Rampant individualism has made us forget about the benefits of living in community even as we continue to receive them-- for now.
I don’t know about you but I want my trash picked up so my neighborhood doesn’t smell like a dump and the streets repaired so I don’t lose a hubcap or break an axle in a pothole. I want good quality free public education for all children because it’s only fair, but also because when we don’t educate all children well, we, as a society, have to deal with the consequences. I even want the government to provide help to people who are struggling to get by, because I know there will always be people who need help. Equal access benefits from the government seem more fair and more effective than relying on individuals to notice people in need and invite them into their homes or churches for a meal, a bath or a place to sleep. I believe these necessities need to be provided on the community level and that they are worth paying for.
As for the argument that government can’t be trusted to spend money wisely... um, this is a democracy and we choose the people who run the government and, through them, what its laws and policies are. Yeah, sometimes elected officials don’t do what we want. There’s a remedy: vote them out! (Actually there are two. If we need to get someone out quick, before he starts World War III, we can impeach him!)
Maybe we should drop the term “taxes” and call them “dues” instead, or a “membership fee.” That’s basically what they are. You want to belong to this club? You want to get the benefits of driving on roads, of public services, of the national defense? Then you have to pay your dues.
Don’t let rich conservative republicans like George Bush (whose real agenda is for themselves and their cronies to make more money and pay fewer taxes) tell you that “taxes” is a four letter word. Taxes are the life’s blood of our society. I’m happy to pay mine to keep its heart pumping.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
On God, Jesus and gay marriage:
Most of the opposition to the extension of the basic civil right to marry to all people comes from so-called Christians. I hate to rain on the religious right’s parade, but their stance in these matters isn’t remotely Christian. Not in my interpretation-- and I’m a Christian too.
God made everything. God doesn’t make mistakes so he must have made the boundless diversity of living things on purpose-- including gay people.
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them… (Genesis 1:27 -28) God saw everything he had made and indeed it was very good.” (Genesis 1: 31)
Though the Bible doesn’t state specifically that God gave people free will, it is widely accepted that he did since Adam and Eve were able to disregard God’s warning about the fruit of the tree of knowledge. There are many credible and persuasive arguments against sexuality being a choice, but even if you believe it is, choice seems to be something God granted humans.
Who are we to judge another human?
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to [Jesus] “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They said this to test him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.” (John 8:3 - 11)
If it is the case that gay people are doing something against God’s law, which-- as we have seen-- is not for us to judge, intolerance and punishment through legal limits to their rights are not a Christian response.
Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. (Romans 14:10)
Would anyone who is not gay, but who is black or who lives with a disability or whatever other difference, want others in society to make laws that treat him or her differently?
In everything, do to others as you would have them do unto you. (Matthew 7:12)
What about laws that limit the rights of rich people? In a passage that is apparently subject to the selective amnesia of televangelists, George Bush and others, Jesus says to a man who tells him he has followed all the commandments, “You lack one thing; go and sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” (Mark 10:21) “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:25)
Christianity was, of course, named for Jesus Christ. I understand that many people who are very excited about their faith wear t-shirts these days that read WWJD?—what would Jesus do? So, what did Jesus do when faced with people who weren’t perfect? Jesus kneeled down and washed sinners’ feet. He cared for lepers no one else would touch. He gave people like the adulterous woman another chance and a choice. No matter how imperfect he believed others to be, he gave them the benefit of the doubt. He didn’t just tolerate them, he didn’t just accept them, he loved them.
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13.8 -10)
Should we grant all people in our society the same rights under the law? WWJD?
It is unlikely that the Bible is the unmodified word of God. It was written over centuries by many different authors in 4 different languages. The parts of the Bible as we know it were chosen and “stabilized” in a process of canonization that took place over the course of more than 6 centuries in various cultures and denominations across the world. (Until they were stabilized, the content was “flexible” or changing.) There is no original manuscript. Among the surviving ancient documents there are differences ranging from probable “typos” to substantive differences which change the meaning of passages. Scholars have to make decisions about what was meant by the original authors. And then there is the translation from ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Words and expressions don’t always translate directly from language to language (hence the expression “lost in translation”). Our understanding of how meanings have changed over time is still developing—therefore every new translation attributes new meanings. There is almost certainly cultural, worldly influence lent by the individuals who put the word on paper, or rewrote or printed it, or included or excluded it from the canon, or translated it. How else can God’s supposed endorsement of slavery be explained? That is only one example of many Biblical ideas we find difficult to reconcile with even a conservative interpretation of our current values. (Essay “The Canons of the Bible”, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, 2001, page 453)
We can’t know exactly what was meant by the authors of the Bible as we know it never mind what was meant by God himself. I think we can understand the spirit of the book (and therefore the Word), however. The Bible is allegory and parable, meant to teach us broad brush lessons. Is The Boy Who Cried Wolf applicable only to sheep herders? We are looking for the moral of the story, not the details. (What is it they say about the details?) To me the spirit of Jesus’ story is beyond laws or rules or exhortations to sin no more. It’s in the way he treated the sinners. And be assured, we are all sinners. Jesus, Prince of Heaven and Earth, got down on his knees and washed their feet.
Maybe gay people are sinners (why should they be different from anyone else?). That is for God to decide. If we are really Christian, here on Earth, we should do as Jesus did and taught: judge not, treat others as you expect to be treated, love your neighbor as yourself.
Source: The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version, 2001
God made everything. God doesn’t make mistakes so he must have made the boundless diversity of living things on purpose-- including gay people.
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them… (Genesis 1:27 -28) God saw everything he had made and indeed it was very good.” (Genesis 1: 31)
Though the Bible doesn’t state specifically that God gave people free will, it is widely accepted that he did since Adam and Eve were able to disregard God’s warning about the fruit of the tree of knowledge. There are many credible and persuasive arguments against sexuality being a choice, but even if you believe it is, choice seems to be something God granted humans.
Who are we to judge another human?
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to [Jesus] “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They said this to test him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.” (John 8:3 - 11)
If it is the case that gay people are doing something against God’s law, which-- as we have seen-- is not for us to judge, intolerance and punishment through legal limits to their rights are not a Christian response.
Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. (Romans 14:10)
Would anyone who is not gay, but who is black or who lives with a disability or whatever other difference, want others in society to make laws that treat him or her differently?
In everything, do to others as you would have them do unto you. (Matthew 7:12)
What about laws that limit the rights of rich people? In a passage that is apparently subject to the selective amnesia of televangelists, George Bush and others, Jesus says to a man who tells him he has followed all the commandments, “You lack one thing; go and sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” (Mark 10:21) “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:25)
Christianity was, of course, named for Jesus Christ. I understand that many people who are very excited about their faith wear t-shirts these days that read WWJD?—what would Jesus do? So, what did Jesus do when faced with people who weren’t perfect? Jesus kneeled down and washed sinners’ feet. He cared for lepers no one else would touch. He gave people like the adulterous woman another chance and a choice. No matter how imperfect he believed others to be, he gave them the benefit of the doubt. He didn’t just tolerate them, he didn’t just accept them, he loved them.
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13.8 -10)
Should we grant all people in our society the same rights under the law? WWJD?
It is unlikely that the Bible is the unmodified word of God. It was written over centuries by many different authors in 4 different languages. The parts of the Bible as we know it were chosen and “stabilized” in a process of canonization that took place over the course of more than 6 centuries in various cultures and denominations across the world. (Until they were stabilized, the content was “flexible” or changing.) There is no original manuscript. Among the surviving ancient documents there are differences ranging from probable “typos” to substantive differences which change the meaning of passages. Scholars have to make decisions about what was meant by the original authors. And then there is the translation from ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Words and expressions don’t always translate directly from language to language (hence the expression “lost in translation”). Our understanding of how meanings have changed over time is still developing—therefore every new translation attributes new meanings. There is almost certainly cultural, worldly influence lent by the individuals who put the word on paper, or rewrote or printed it, or included or excluded it from the canon, or translated it. How else can God’s supposed endorsement of slavery be explained? That is only one example of many Biblical ideas we find difficult to reconcile with even a conservative interpretation of our current values. (Essay “The Canons of the Bible”, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, 2001, page 453)
We can’t know exactly what was meant by the authors of the Bible as we know it never mind what was meant by God himself. I think we can understand the spirit of the book (and therefore the Word), however. The Bible is allegory and parable, meant to teach us broad brush lessons. Is The Boy Who Cried Wolf applicable only to sheep herders? We are looking for the moral of the story, not the details. (What is it they say about the details?) To me the spirit of Jesus’ story is beyond laws or rules or exhortations to sin no more. It’s in the way he treated the sinners. And be assured, we are all sinners. Jesus, Prince of Heaven and Earth, got down on his knees and washed their feet.
Maybe gay people are sinners (why should they be different from anyone else?). That is for God to decide. If we are really Christian, here on Earth, we should do as Jesus did and taught: judge not, treat others as you expect to be treated, love your neighbor as yourself.
Source: The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version, 2001
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
