Recently, I've had a few discussions with friends regarding the current Senate health care bill. Is the death of the public option ok, since it got Medicare eligibility lowered to 55? That helps some people, right? More than are helped now, right? So that's good, right?
Wrong. We have apparently been subjected to the obstructionist policies of the right wing for so long that we now have some form of Stockholm Syndrome. They toss us some scraps in the guise of "reform," and we are thankful. Though every day the bill moves further and further away from anything resembling actual reform, still we are so thankful to get whatever crumbs the Right deigns to allow us.
Why should we be thankful? That they've watered down the bill enough that it doesn't deserve the word "reform"? That our own representatives (with a very few exceptions) never even TRIED for a single-payer system, that they just wimped out and "settled" for less right from the start?
My friends are intelligent, educated, and well-meaning. But I must respectfully point out that they are playing right into the Right's hand, behaving like good little Democrats who take the beating they are given and then say "Please sir may I have another?"
If we never fight for the highest, fullest goal that will bring about true change, then how can we possibly ever achieve it? If we say, "that's not realistic," then how can it ever be? We are cutting off our own hands by not even trying.
If we had started out with single payer as our stated goal, then a strong public option might have been a reasonable compromise. But we didn't do that. We gave up before the fight even started. And let me tell you, right or wrong, turning the other cheek and "reaching across the aisle" doesn't mean squat to the Right. It only shows that we are weak and defeatable, that they don't have to take us seriously, that they can bulldoze whatever they want through either house and will get it in the end.
These friends of mine will say I'm too idealistic. As if that is an insult! It is only by striving for our ideals that we can make them reality. Yes, we must compromise along the way and take baby steps -- but on the bottom line we are still aiming for the highest goals. Sadly, being idealistic (on the Left) is not viewed as a viable option. It is instead akin to being a naieve dreamer.
But someone has to dream, and someone has to fight to make that dream come true.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Disenlightenment
Let's step back into the far, musty reaches of our minds and pull out some high school history lessons. I want to talk about the Age of Enlightenment, or more simply, just The Enlightenment. This period was marked by a flourishing of thought and philosophy that centered on rigorous rational analysis, the scientific method, and reason. It saw increased questioning of religious orthodoxy and dogma. Immanuel Kant described it as "the freedom to use one's own intelligence."
Sadly, it seems a new age is upon us. Because it's ideology is diametrically opposed to that described above, I'm calling it the Age of DisEnlightenment. This movement is primarily evidenced by the increasing prominence of fascist ideas all over the world.
(note: by fascist I refer to the common, if incorrect, definition of ultra-authoritarian policital and religious regimes. I do not refer to the original definition which also includes a corporate economic structure).
We saw a frightening rise in fascist ideology in the US during the last Administration. A President who is a "Decider" (just do what I say cuz I said so). Removal of civil rights (warrantless wire tapping). Politicizing of the justice system (firing of US attorneys who didn't arbitrarily target Democrats). And so on. And lest you say, but Obama is here now, might I remind you that he did not overturn any of the civil rights reductions instituted by the Bush. And, we are still "at war" (or something) in Afghanistan, fighting exactly whom or what at this point? And yea though he walked through the valley of the shadow of Iraq, he has not gotten us out of that unholy mess either.
But it's not just here, and it's not just politics. All over the world, religous fascism is rearing it's ugly head. So-called Islamofascists perpetrated 9/11. Religious fundamentalists are doing their best to subvert health care reform, women's reproductive rights, science education, and global warming. The French have banned the wearing of Muslim headscarves by girls in school. Unbelievably, the Swiss have recently banned minarets. And in what is possibly the most heinous move yet, Uganda is proposing a death penalty for being gay.
Such ideologies can flourish only in an age of non-thinking. Where people do not think critically; where in fact, they are discouraged from or penalized for doing so. (Remember: science in the classroom is under attack. No science, no understanding of scientific method.....) Find a dogma, chant the mantra, wave your flag and stay the course. And don't you dare say a word out of lockstep. Dissent will not be tolerated.
Maybe it's always been there and I just never noticed it. Maybe it's just getting more news coverage these days. Or maybe it really is an increasing trend. What, then, would cause a global disenlightenment?
I won't pretend to have any clue as to the answer. But I sure would like to see Fareed Zakaria or Reza Aslan take this one on. Maybe it's just the political/philophical pendulum swinging back. In any case, the rise in zealous fundamentalism is frightening. How does it bode for our future, if we become reduced to a species of bigots? If we are so busy focusing on our differences that we no longer see the similarities?
Sadly, it seems a new age is upon us. Because it's ideology is diametrically opposed to that described above, I'm calling it the Age of DisEnlightenment. This movement is primarily evidenced by the increasing prominence of fascist ideas all over the world.
(note: by fascist I refer to the common, if incorrect, definition of ultra-authoritarian policital and religious regimes. I do not refer to the original definition which also includes a corporate economic structure).
We saw a frightening rise in fascist ideology in the US during the last Administration. A President who is a "Decider" (just do what I say cuz I said so). Removal of civil rights (warrantless wire tapping). Politicizing of the justice system (firing of US attorneys who didn't arbitrarily target Democrats). And so on. And lest you say, but Obama is here now, might I remind you that he did not overturn any of the civil rights reductions instituted by the Bush. And, we are still "at war" (or something) in Afghanistan, fighting exactly whom or what at this point? And yea though he walked through the valley of the shadow of Iraq, he has not gotten us out of that unholy mess either.
But it's not just here, and it's not just politics. All over the world, religous fascism is rearing it's ugly head. So-called Islamofascists perpetrated 9/11. Religious fundamentalists are doing their best to subvert health care reform, women's reproductive rights, science education, and global warming. The French have banned the wearing of Muslim headscarves by girls in school. Unbelievably, the Swiss have recently banned minarets. And in what is possibly the most heinous move yet, Uganda is proposing a death penalty for being gay.
Such ideologies can flourish only in an age of non-thinking. Where people do not think critically; where in fact, they are discouraged from or penalized for doing so. (Remember: science in the classroom is under attack. No science, no understanding of scientific method.....) Find a dogma, chant the mantra, wave your flag and stay the course. And don't you dare say a word out of lockstep. Dissent will not be tolerated.
Maybe it's always been there and I just never noticed it. Maybe it's just getting more news coverage these days. Or maybe it really is an increasing trend. What, then, would cause a global disenlightenment?
I won't pretend to have any clue as to the answer. But I sure would like to see Fareed Zakaria or Reza Aslan take this one on. Maybe it's just the political/philophical pendulum swinging back. In any case, the rise in zealous fundamentalism is frightening. How does it bode for our future, if we become reduced to a species of bigots? If we are so busy focusing on our differences that we no longer see the similarities?
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Price of Civilization?
(Originally posted in April 2009 on another site).
Taxes play a large role in our national political dialogue. Yesterday’s “tea bag” parties got me thinking about our for-them-or-against-them ideology. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this too, so read on, no matter which side of this issue you’re on!
Time and again I hear “Why should I pay taxes?” or “Why should I give the government my money?” And I think, what a failing of our educational system that so many people don’t understand that taxes actually serve a purpose. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said: "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."
Taxes are what pay for our common good. They pay for our roads, our schools, and yes, the “welfare” programs that are also hotly debated. And as one online commentor posted: “my taxes pay the salaries of those brave Navy SEALS.” What better way to support our troops than to pay them for their service?
Politics aside, it seems to me that we need at least some level of taxation. If we had no taxes at all, how would such things be paid for? Would all roads become toll roads? All schools private? And our nation’s military – would that become privatized also?
I understand the Libertarian point of view, and honestly I kind of like it. But I just don’t understand how things would work with no government involvement. And truly, I’d like someone to give me a good example of how the aforementioned commonwealth necessities would be cared for if not through taxation and government oversight. (So post those comments, please!).
I’m not saying the government has done a good job, mind you. The state of our nation’s schools makes me sick. But that is a separate issue (and one I will avoid here). The fact that it hasn’t always worked well doesn’t mean we throw the baby out with the bath water.
The public dialogue needs to move out of “no more taxes” and into a discussion of what taxes are needed, how they are levied, and how they should be allocated. Because that is the core of the argument.
I, for one, would gladly pay higher taxes if it meant increased access to well-run programs with higher standards. But I would also like to be able to weigh that option against a possible system of lower taxes that provided the same things. Inquiring minds want to know: how exactly would that work?
I’ve tried asking a couple of my more conservative friends, but they haven’t provided me the answers I seek. So now I’m asking you.
Taxes play a large role in our national political dialogue. Yesterday’s “tea bag” parties got me thinking about our for-them-or-against-them ideology. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this too, so read on, no matter which side of this issue you’re on!
Time and again I hear “Why should I pay taxes?” or “Why should I give the government my money?” And I think, what a failing of our educational system that so many people don’t understand that taxes actually serve a purpose. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said: "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."
Taxes are what pay for our common good. They pay for our roads, our schools, and yes, the “welfare” programs that are also hotly debated. And as one online commentor posted: “my taxes pay the salaries of those brave Navy SEALS.” What better way to support our troops than to pay them for their service?
Politics aside, it seems to me that we need at least some level of taxation. If we had no taxes at all, how would such things be paid for? Would all roads become toll roads? All schools private? And our nation’s military – would that become privatized also?
I understand the Libertarian point of view, and honestly I kind of like it. But I just don’t understand how things would work with no government involvement. And truly, I’d like someone to give me a good example of how the aforementioned commonwealth necessities would be cared for if not through taxation and government oversight. (So post those comments, please!).
I’m not saying the government has done a good job, mind you. The state of our nation’s schools makes me sick. But that is a separate issue (and one I will avoid here). The fact that it hasn’t always worked well doesn’t mean we throw the baby out with the bath water.
The public dialogue needs to move out of “no more taxes” and into a discussion of what taxes are needed, how they are levied, and how they should be allocated. Because that is the core of the argument.
I, for one, would gladly pay higher taxes if it meant increased access to well-run programs with higher standards. But I would also like to be able to weigh that option against a possible system of lower taxes that provided the same things. Inquiring minds want to know: how exactly would that work?
I’ve tried asking a couple of my more conservative friends, but they haven’t provided me the answers I seek. So now I’m asking you.
Leadership: Caesar or Machiavelli?
(Originally posted July 2008 on a different site.)
There comes a time in your career when you must decide what sort of role you will occupy in your company or agency. Will you be worker bee, one who focuses on the tasks at hand and keeps the wheels turning? Will you be a bean counter, making sure all the I’s are dotted and T’s crossed? Will you be the friendly face of customer service, or the techie who saves each day for the technically challenged? Will you be a leader?
I hadn’t thought much about leadership, other than being a role model for children. And I was always aware of my behavior when in uniform and serving as a representative for my agency. But that was about it.
Then one day, I became a supervisor. At first I was the team lead – sort of a go-between for the staff and the head manager. Two years later, I was ready to grab the reins and go solo. I don’t know if it was age, experience, or all the history I’d been reading, but somehow I found myself considering what sort of supervisor I wanted to be.
Though I hadn't yet read it, I’d heard an awful lot about Machiavelli and The Prince. I wasn’t so sure that an authoritarian approach was what I wanted – after all, it didn’t work when my parents tried it on me! Leading through fear and cruelty just seemed like a bad idea, especially in a workplace where stress and low morale were rampant problems.
I considered instead a documentary I’d recently seen about Julius Caesar. It explained that a key element of his success was the loyalty of his troops – loyalty he earned by showing them respect. Rather than sit in his warm, well-outfitted tent after battle, Caesar walked among his troops, greeting each man by name and knowing something about each one. He fought alongside his men and showed that he was one of them, not some precious ruler on a shining pedestal. A soldier’s life was far from glamorous and was often grueling, yet Caesar could inspire his men to carry on. For such acts, he won loyalty to such an extent that he was able to become ruler of all Rome.
I decided that was the path for me. I would inspire my staff to do their jobs well by letting them know I cared, that I understood their concerns and hardships, that I had been in the trenches myself. I didn’t realize it then, but this was my first step towards leadership.
That particular experiment in leadership met with mixed success. I think perhaps if I’d had a little more wisdom under my belt, and maybe a few more years in age, it would have been better. Still, it wasn’t bad for a first attempt. And I do believe the staff was more responsive to me than to other supervisory figures, which counts for something.
A lot has happened in the years since. In addition to professional development, it has been a period of intense personal growth – becoming a parent, practicing mindfulness, and realizing my responsibilities as a member of my community (both local and global). I have realized that leadership isn’t just about being a good supervisor or occupying a particular position on an organizational chart. It’s about what kind of person you are.
I have recently become enamored of a Gandhi quote: “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” I discovered it at a time when I had been implementing that exact sentiment – making my walk match my talk more closely. I began biking to work and composting and looking into solar options for my house, etc., which is all fine and dandy. But the real lesson is this: the quote represents the true nature of leadership – it’s a state of being, not a job title.
And that’s what Caesar had going on. So whether you are a worker bee, a bean counter, or in an actual position of leadership, be the change you want to see. Live it, breathe it, create the reality you want. People are attracted to that kind of idealism and will be inspired to follow your example.
There comes a time in your career when you must decide what sort of role you will occupy in your company or agency. Will you be worker bee, one who focuses on the tasks at hand and keeps the wheels turning? Will you be a bean counter, making sure all the I’s are dotted and T’s crossed? Will you be the friendly face of customer service, or the techie who saves each day for the technically challenged? Will you be a leader?
I hadn’t thought much about leadership, other than being a role model for children. And I was always aware of my behavior when in uniform and serving as a representative for my agency. But that was about it.
Then one day, I became a supervisor. At first I was the team lead – sort of a go-between for the staff and the head manager. Two years later, I was ready to grab the reins and go solo. I don’t know if it was age, experience, or all the history I’d been reading, but somehow I found myself considering what sort of supervisor I wanted to be.
Though I hadn't yet read it, I’d heard an awful lot about Machiavelli and The Prince. I wasn’t so sure that an authoritarian approach was what I wanted – after all, it didn’t work when my parents tried it on me! Leading through fear and cruelty just seemed like a bad idea, especially in a workplace where stress and low morale were rampant problems.
I considered instead a documentary I’d recently seen about Julius Caesar. It explained that a key element of his success was the loyalty of his troops – loyalty he earned by showing them respect. Rather than sit in his warm, well-outfitted tent after battle, Caesar walked among his troops, greeting each man by name and knowing something about each one. He fought alongside his men and showed that he was one of them, not some precious ruler on a shining pedestal. A soldier’s life was far from glamorous and was often grueling, yet Caesar could inspire his men to carry on. For such acts, he won loyalty to such an extent that he was able to become ruler of all Rome.
I decided that was the path for me. I would inspire my staff to do their jobs well by letting them know I cared, that I understood their concerns and hardships, that I had been in the trenches myself. I didn’t realize it then, but this was my first step towards leadership.
That particular experiment in leadership met with mixed success. I think perhaps if I’d had a little more wisdom under my belt, and maybe a few more years in age, it would have been better. Still, it wasn’t bad for a first attempt. And I do believe the staff was more responsive to me than to other supervisory figures, which counts for something.
A lot has happened in the years since. In addition to professional development, it has been a period of intense personal growth – becoming a parent, practicing mindfulness, and realizing my responsibilities as a member of my community (both local and global). I have realized that leadership isn’t just about being a good supervisor or occupying a particular position on an organizational chart. It’s about what kind of person you are.
I have recently become enamored of a Gandhi quote: “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” I discovered it at a time when I had been implementing that exact sentiment – making my walk match my talk more closely. I began biking to work and composting and looking into solar options for my house, etc., which is all fine and dandy. But the real lesson is this: the quote represents the true nature of leadership – it’s a state of being, not a job title.
And that’s what Caesar had going on. So whether you are a worker bee, a bean counter, or in an actual position of leadership, be the change you want to see. Live it, breathe it, create the reality you want. People are attracted to that kind of idealism and will be inspired to follow your example.
ClimateGate: Setting the Record Straight
You may have heard that someone recently hacked into some climate scientists' emails, took statements out of context, and has been using them as "proof" that climate change is a hoax. And of course, this has been predictably dubbed ClimateGate (god forbid we have any originality in naming things).
Of course the far-right fanatics and zealots are having a field day with this. Most of the online comments I saw posted over on HuffPo were things like "Hey Gore, it's snowing here in Houston. Give your Nobel back." Once again, I shake my head in disbelief that people have no understanding of the actual facts on the issue.
So let's set the record straight, shall we?
Right Wing Talking Point #1: "It's snowing in Houston. So how can that be warming?"
The answer lies in the title: Global warming. Not location warming. The entire planet is heating up. And if you think just a couple of degrees isn't a big deal, just take a moment to think about how much energy it takes to heat the entire planet even just one degree.
This is why the current favored term is Climate Change. Because too many people, none of whom bother to read actual scientific literature, get confused over the concept of global warming vs. localized weather trends. These people also do not understand the difference between climate and weather (wiki it).
Right Wing Talking Point #2: "So what if the Earth gets warmer? Won't that mean better weather for everyone?"
No, it won't. It means more extreme weather. So whatever is the usual weather for a particular location, the trend will be towards more extreme variations: hotter summers, colder winters, wetter rainy seasons, drier dry seasons. More storms, more intense.
I'll presume my readers are intelligent enough that I don't have to point out the problems with melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and so forth. Those should be pretty self-explanatory by now. And if they aren't, google it.
Right Wing Talking Point #3: "The Earth has had many extreme fluctuations in climate, from really hot to really cold, so how do we know this isn't natural?"
It's true, the earth's climate has ranged from ice ages to swampy greenhouse. But these changes occurred over millions of years, not decades.
The issue is not really about the temperature. It's about the rate of change. The Keeling Curve shows quite clearly how atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased in recent decades. Extrapolating back through time using other sources of paleoclimate data, shows that this trend began at the dawn of the Industrial Age. No natural change in the past has ever mimicked the quickness of this trend.
We have reliable climate data stretching back hundreds of millions of years. The association with the Industrical Age indicates without question that the current trend is man-made.
Right Wing Talking Point #4: "Scientists don't agree that climate change is real."
Completely false. Yes, there are a few fringe elements out there (mostly on the payroll of petroleum, gas, and coal companies), but the overwhelming majority of scientist all over the world agree. Those that don't are considered nut jobs. This is the lamest of all anti-environmental talking points. Can we just bury this one, please?
I suppose I cold go on forever, countering myriad talking points. But constantly countering willful ignorance is exhausting. These four are the arguments I hear most often, so let's just leave it at that for now.
Climate change is real. It is not a vast left wing conspiracy. The only conspiracy here lies with those who parrot the invalid claims of those who have a political and economic interest in denying the truth.
Of course the far-right fanatics and zealots are having a field day with this. Most of the online comments I saw posted over on HuffPo were things like "Hey Gore, it's snowing here in Houston. Give your Nobel back." Once again, I shake my head in disbelief that people have no understanding of the actual facts on the issue.
So let's set the record straight, shall we?
Right Wing Talking Point #1: "It's snowing in Houston. So how can that be warming?"
The answer lies in the title: Global warming. Not location warming. The entire planet is heating up. And if you think just a couple of degrees isn't a big deal, just take a moment to think about how much energy it takes to heat the entire planet even just one degree.
This is why the current favored term is Climate Change. Because too many people, none of whom bother to read actual scientific literature, get confused over the concept of global warming vs. localized weather trends. These people also do not understand the difference between climate and weather (wiki it).
Right Wing Talking Point #2: "So what if the Earth gets warmer? Won't that mean better weather for everyone?"
No, it won't. It means more extreme weather. So whatever is the usual weather for a particular location, the trend will be towards more extreme variations: hotter summers, colder winters, wetter rainy seasons, drier dry seasons. More storms, more intense.
I'll presume my readers are intelligent enough that I don't have to point out the problems with melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and so forth. Those should be pretty self-explanatory by now. And if they aren't, google it.
Right Wing Talking Point #3: "The Earth has had many extreme fluctuations in climate, from really hot to really cold, so how do we know this isn't natural?"
It's true, the earth's climate has ranged from ice ages to swampy greenhouse. But these changes occurred over millions of years, not decades.
The issue is not really about the temperature. It's about the rate of change. The Keeling Curve shows quite clearly how atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased in recent decades. Extrapolating back through time using other sources of paleoclimate data, shows that this trend began at the dawn of the Industrial Age. No natural change in the past has ever mimicked the quickness of this trend.
We have reliable climate data stretching back hundreds of millions of years. The association with the Industrical Age indicates without question that the current trend is man-made.
Right Wing Talking Point #4: "Scientists don't agree that climate change is real."
Completely false. Yes, there are a few fringe elements out there (mostly on the payroll of petroleum, gas, and coal companies), but the overwhelming majority of scientist all over the world agree. Those that don't are considered nut jobs. This is the lamest of all anti-environmental talking points. Can we just bury this one, please?
I suppose I cold go on forever, countering myriad talking points. But constantly countering willful ignorance is exhausting. These four are the arguments I hear most often, so let's just leave it at that for now.
Climate change is real. It is not a vast left wing conspiracy. The only conspiracy here lies with those who parrot the invalid claims of those who have a political and economic interest in denying the truth.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
What's in a Name?
I imagine some of you are wondering what the **** I was thinking when I created the domain name for this blog, as well as the title. (Those who've known me longest won't be surprised one bit). So I guess explaining this tedious link might be a good first post.
First, I created this on somewhat of an impulse -- so I wasn't really prepared with a name and all. Plain old "geekchick" was taken, so I had to come up with something else. Not being one to sleep on things, I had to do it RIGHT THEN. (Yes, I am a little OCD). So I started thinking about what the purpose of my blog is, what the main content will be like. The first thing that came to mind was the old SNL Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey....But being a coastal, blue state elitist, I needed something a tad more intellectual.
Ubermensch is from Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." It translates as "overman" and refers to the next step in human evolution, a man greater than what we are today. We are to the overman as chimps and apes are to us -- not in a physical sense but intellectual.
And that's what I'm all about -- transcending our animal nature and undergoing constant evolution. This may take form as spiritual or intellectual growth, or an increase in one's social consciousness. It may take different forms at different stages of our lives. But the bottom line is that we have the ability to rise above our mammalian passions.
So, there you have ubermensch. But what's up with the Existential Manifesto part? Well, manifesto is one of my favorite words, so when in my browsings I saw it, I said, "That's it!" But what kind of manifesto? Ponderings on the state of humanity, our relationship to the Cosmos, and how badly we are screwing things up seem pretty existential to me.
But don't worry; I hope to be way more readable than Nietsche....though if I'm lucky I might blow your mind now and again. Or at least inspire you.
First, I created this on somewhat of an impulse -- so I wasn't really prepared with a name and all. Plain old "geekchick" was taken, so I had to come up with something else. Not being one to sleep on things, I had to do it RIGHT THEN. (Yes, I am a little OCD). So I started thinking about what the purpose of my blog is, what the main content will be like. The first thing that came to mind was the old SNL Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey....But being a coastal, blue state elitist, I needed something a tad more intellectual.
Ubermensch is from Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." It translates as "overman" and refers to the next step in human evolution, a man greater than what we are today. We are to the overman as chimps and apes are to us -- not in a physical sense but intellectual.
And that's what I'm all about -- transcending our animal nature and undergoing constant evolution. This may take form as spiritual or intellectual growth, or an increase in one's social consciousness. It may take different forms at different stages of our lives. But the bottom line is that we have the ability to rise above our mammalian passions.
So, there you have ubermensch. But what's up with the Existential Manifesto part? Well, manifesto is one of my favorite words, so when in my browsings I saw it, I said, "That's it!" But what kind of manifesto? Ponderings on the state of humanity, our relationship to the Cosmos, and how badly we are screwing things up seem pretty existential to me.
But don't worry; I hope to be way more readable than Nietsche....though if I'm lucky I might blow your mind now and again. Or at least inspire you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)