Category Archives: Human Interests

Walking in a Sunlit Drizzle

Yesterday I walked in a sunlit drizzle, wondering what the forecast would bring. Would the sky open up into a warm spring day? The temperature was about 70 degrees. Or would the clouds convene into a darkened shroud and unleash a downpour? There were already reports of flooding in my area. The northwesterly winds that normally bring our cold winter rains had ceased for the last two years, leaving most of California in drought conditions. But the clouds that hung over my landscape on this day came from the more tropical south, carried on a Jetstream that has wreaked havoc for the entire United States. Our normal winter pattern has been interrupted by this Jetstream which has carried our winter north, where the polar front bounced it southward to entrench the eastern half of the country in rain, snow and ice. Whether I was to be drenched or warmed, clearly my only choice was to walk in a sunlit drizzle. Life has its risks, including everything from a rare spring deluge to death itself.

Our species has lived on this planet for a very brief part of its history. Yet we have developed timeless world views to explain our place within it. In much of human pre-history, our forebears believed that life never ends: the cave bear returns as does the buffalo; life extended beyond death, ever to return in various forms. With the advent of agriculture, the cycle of planting, harvesting and seeding brought the system of death and rebirth into our world view. Nearly all our orthodox religions have mythologized these two perspectives into their structure and organization. We either believe in immortality of some sort and/or the need to surrender to death in order to be reborn into new life.

It has long been believed that only humans are aware of their own mortality. I’m not sure this belief is valid, since we cannot get into the mind of other animals. Elephants, for example, recognize themselves in a mirror. The ability to objectify one’s self is the first step to visualizing your future self—and therefore your death. Whales clearly become kamikaze when a whaler kills their mate. Life without this lifelong bond seems not worth living to them. Choosing death over survival presumes acceptance of death—and that acceptance seems to presume awareness. Nevertheless, it is clear that animals have not developed world views or religions to help them deal with life’s uncertainties or even with their own mortality. We have. But have we cheated death, the mysterium tremendum?

The word “religion” comes from the Latin verb religere, “to bind or link back.” Like the word “yoga”—which means “yoke” or “bind”—religion is the experience of connecting to the source of life and consciousness. What else could a sentient, self-conscious being connect to, other than to all that is? For in our minds we can conceive all that we observe and conjecture the rest. We can relate to things, because we share their substance. We can relate to living organisms, because we are the same. We can relate to the patterns we find in nature—the laws and organization of matter and energy—because we pattern our lives and societies after conventions and laws we create for ourselves. My point is that religion is not a static belief system, but a living experience. The belief systems of organized religion may differ on particulars (and you are free to believe in any one of them), but they cannot exist without the experience of connection to the world we inhabit. Intrinsic to that connection is foreknowledge and acceptance of death.

And so I continued my walk yesterday, pondering life’s many uncertainties. Like the weather, I suddenly realized I had very little control over much of my life, including my death. All that I am or will be is no more than the flicker of a candle that will eventually burn out many eons after my time. And yet I was walking in the midst of it all, alive and aware of what overshadowed my every step. But this was not the time to entertain anxieties and fears. There may be devastating floods or springtime birdsong. It is all the same. The Buddhists say one must participate with joy in the sorrows of the world. Likewise, I think it best to walk blithely in a sunlit drizzle.

Is Culture or Dunn Indicted for Murder?

The answer to the question in my title seems obvious: Michael Dunn, like Zimmerman before him, is indicted and stands trial for murder. That murder resulted from his actions is without doubt. But was he guilty of the deed? The answer to that second question lies in his state of mind as well as in the circumstances of the case. The latter has been explored in the trial, but the former may tell us more about our state of mind.

As a former soldier, I know what it takes to pull that trigger. That act is occasioned by fear, by hatred, by righteousness, or by some mixture of the three. Military commanders of all stripes and nations will go to great length to justify the conduct of a war, usually drawing a combinative portrait of purpose and negative effect: democracy over communism; freedom over dictatorship, nationalism over terrorism, or simply good against evil. In the trenches, soldiers will sometimes vilify the enemy in order to justify their acts of aggression: the enemy is variously demonized as chinks, gooks, ragheads, or whatever derogatory term suits the purpose. But when the bombs begin to fall and bullets fly overhead, soldiers are gripped in fear for their lives and fight to save themselves and their fellow soldiers. During the Vietnam War, I never met a Vietnamese I didn’t immediately like or at least respect (really!). Nevertheless, I found myself on the other end of the gun barrel in that conflict. What put me there was not completely dissimilar from Michael Dunn’s situation. Both of us felt fear and both of us experienced some level of societal conditioning. The main difference, of course, was that my fear was real, whereas Dunn’s was also conditioned along with his attitudes towards blacks. After all, the bogeyman is black, is he not? Don’t blacks occupy the largest segment of the incarcerated? Aren’t black communities unsafe for white people, especially after dark? And, for some, rap music may seem merely an expression of this dark, malicious force in society or, as Dunn termed it, of “thug” music.

So is Michael Dunn guilty? Well, as I write this, the jury is convinced he is on four of the five counts of his indictment. But what does his case say about the state of our society in its depiction of racial minorities? Isn’t it time to admit the only way that bogeyman can be real is if we accept conditioned attitudes that have existed since the foundation of this republic? When FDR said the “only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” he inadvertently was addressing all fear, including irrational fear conditioned by history and unfortunate circumstances. The enemy we fear in this case is in ourselves, a delusion that has existed before and after the passing of the Thirteen and Fourteenth Amendments to our Constitution. It is time to put this delusion to rest.

Having made this declarative statement, I’ve hardly touched the core of the problem. My personal racial biases were only gradually transformed. As a young man I played sports and later served in the military with men of various backgrounds and ethnicity. I also formed relationships with people of color before and after my time in the service. These experiences formed the basis for uncovering unexamined prejudices and for discovering the truth about our humanity. That truth is about our interconnectedness. People of all types and races share not only a common humanity but depend upon each other to evolve that humanity. The personal lesson I wish to share with my readers is the necessity to reach out to others who may appear different or even “scary.” If you have not already done so, I guarantee you will be surprised to find yourself reformed and free of delusion.

In truth, living this delusion is an indictable offense against our shared humanity—as is murder.

A Dog’s Life

Why do dogs show such little interest in TV? My dog used to sleep at my feet while I watched the screen. Her only reaction to the set was an occasional show of irritation at its noise. What did interest her was a patch of grass or bark where she seemed entranced for extended periods. My initial assessment of her was that she would rather smell than see, until one day a nature program explained the mystery about my dog’s peculiar perception apparatus. It seems that dogs process images much faster than us; and, of course, their sense of smell is several hundred times as sensitive as ours. The latter knowledge did not surprise me. But the fact that she did not share my view of TV was a revelation. She saw a slide show where I perceived moving images. Suddenly, the references to “dog years” made sense: my dog lived more in the moment than I—at least when she wasn’t snoozing. Although I have already outlived her in human years, she lived longer in the moments of her life then I have in dog years. My life term has yet to reach a conclusion whereas hers has. By this yardstick, she lived a fuller life then I have as yet.

So why should I take notice of this difference between our species? Well, it turns out that many species have more acute senses than us. And in that fact lies a lesson for human kind. Have you ever noticed how time seems to fly by, especially when you are caught up in your daily activities? You rise in the morning, go to work, and return at night day after day. We often pass our time like a metronome, repetitive, non-stop, ever advancing towards tomorrow’s yesterday. Of course, we can’t hold back time’s relentless progress. But we can slow down the metronome, take in more of the moment, and, in effect, extend our lifetime.

My dear reader, hug you child, smile at your coworker’s silly joke, hold a sunset in your gaze, inhale deeply life’s invigorating air, and live the moments of your life. I wish you all well!

Perception: A Curse or a Blessing?

Often in this blog, you have borne with me as I assumed that individual differences were beneficial to human progress. America, in particular, is the grand “melting pot” where peoples from other lands and cultures intermingle, creating new energy, innovation, a broadening social awareness, and an expanding workforce. But I have also written about the failure of legislators to find common ground, about the absence of dialogue in debates at all levels in our society, and the illusions we create to preserve our self-image as a people and as individuals. What is the basis for this disparity in my view? Well, I think I can best explain myself by recounting what I expect is a relatable experience: watching a football game with a relative.

My father spent the better part of his adult life in the Los Angeles area, whereas mine, was in the San Francisco Bay area. Our sports’ loyalties seem to have been formed by this divergence. After my mother passed, Dad moved to northern California to be closer to his family. It was a blessing to spend time with him on a regular basis, including the ritual of watching Sunday football games together. The problem, of course, is that we viewed the game from different perspectives, especially when our team loyalties conflicted. Arguments constantly arose over which team was more brutal, what penalty was justified, or what foul was missed by the referee. The psychological term for these disagreements is cognitive bias. We were not alone in seeing the world as defined by all our previous perceptions and experiences. The human brain fills in the blanks in our limited view of the world from its reservoir of past experiences, some of which were freely chosen and some, merely conditioned by society and circumstances. What happened between my father and me on those Sunday game days is reminiscent of what we see around us every day. Politicians, for example, only see scandal in the opposing party. In the business world, corporate “culture” can determine a person’s work appraisal and promotion eligibility. When an outlier in these circumstances proposes that our diversity is our strength, that we are one nation united by a common bond, or that an individual’s contribution to an organization can’t be measured solely by some generic yardstick, those proposals can fall on deaf ears. To some extent each of us is deaf and mute, for we naturally tend to hear and speak past each other. This is the curse of our unique perspective on the reality that surrounds us.

Those football arguments with my father were a source of embarrassment for me. I loved my father and couldn’t understand how I allowed myself to be pulled into those trivial disagreements. Of course, our meetings always ended with hugs; our affection for each other could not be altered by personal team alliances. But love alone did not prevent these mini-brouhahas on game days. Eventually, I did find the remedy: I pretended to root for my Dad’s team. In other words, I tried to see things through his eyes. Suddenly, my team seemed to deserve more penalties; and my Dad’s team sometimes seemed more sportsmanlike than mine. Watching a game with my Dad became much more enjoyable without the embarrassment and stress that I had previously brought to our shared time together. A side benefit was the fact that I became more appreciative of both sides in the football game. Even a bad call by the referee did not unnerve me, for I realized he was just as limited as I was in my perception.

We are not born with intact egos, but grow into them. Once we discover ourselves as “subjects” in a world of “objects,” we become the epicenter of all our experiences with the world around us. The problem, of course, is that this personal prism through which we see everything can be our prison. The world is in fact multifaceted. Its many refracted surfaces should offer us clues to the mysteries we leave undiscovered. To embark on that journey of discovery, we actually have to move beyond our limited perspectives and engage with the “other.” But how does one move beyond personal ego? Well, in order to see and live the game of life from another perspective, one must first admit our own propensities and exclusiveness. Then one must “tune in” to other viewpoints—truly listen, not just to others, but to the reality that stands outside us. Transcending an egocentric perception can become a mind-boggling experience, where, like a gymnast, you can leap from one position to another. The world becomes a diamond of such brilliance that it dazzles differently with every turn of the mind. The ego is diminished by its luster, while life becomes a learning experience—an adventure into its unfolding mysteries. We learn to value only what we can personally conceive, rather than what we have assumed from past conditioning. Our individual perception becomes self-transcendent; and our values evolve as our own rather than as the unexamined prescriptions of our past experience.

Most often we tend to interpret our differences in terms of values. For example, Fox and MSNBC news subscribe to opposing political positions. Christians and Muslims seem unable to reconcile the difference between social justice and Sharia law. Jews and Arabs disagree on the one true God and His chosen people. But, if you look beneath the surface, we find these differing values represent justifications for limited views of reality. News outlets report the same event from totally different perspectives. Christians and Muslims can live together in harmony whenever they rid themselves of the conditioned viewpoint that defines each other as enemy combatants. And the fight between Jews and Arabs is really over land rather than principle, so their struggle has more to do with occupancy than religion. So at all levels of society, our disagreements are more about facts than values. The latter serve as faux justifications for myopic perspectives.

To conclude, self-awareness is not only the beginning of wisdom, but the necessary steppingstone to a collective awareness. Without this step forward in our individual lives, it will never be possible to extend the moral boundaries of our value systems to include every human being on this planet. Whether human perception is a curse or a blessing depends upon the ability of individuals to break the bonds of ego and to live in the collective as a true participant in our common progress.

Optimism and the New Year

Since Americans believe in the pursuit of happiness, the expression “Happy New Year” should seem especially appropriate. We are the “can do” people of our time. But to the “old world” colonial powers, we often appear naïve. To the rest of the world, we appear willing to solve international problems that are intransigent, even to the extent of engaging our economic and military power. When faced with failure, we abandon the field to others and reengage elsewhere. In this iterative process, we don’t lose colonies we never established or imperial prestige and power we never sought. We simply regroup, sometimes after a period of withdrawal from the world stage, and reengage elsewhere. When one travels to the imperial cities of Europe—London, Paris, Vienna, or Rome, for example—the sense of awe can be equally tinged with nostalgia for what has been lost. For, in those cities, there must be an undercurrent of sadness below the surface of pride in place and origin. We Americans have for the most part been immune to such feelings of great loss. In general, we anticipate better days ahead, without remorse for past failures. Civil war, economic traumas, civil unrest, disastrous foreign interventions seem unable to unhinge what others might term our naïve faith in our future happiness. The French, perhaps understandably, may feel ennui; and the Germans may show some regret for past excesses in nationalist fervor. But we Americans are just simply optimistic about our future.

Many magazines publish specialty issues at this time of the year around the same topic, a forecast of the New Year. The year 2014 is predicted to promise another NASA mission to Mars and several resupply missions to the international space station, including the first manned flights in rockets not made and operated by NASA, but by private companies. In fact, the future of private enterprise is touted in many financial publications: 2014 promises an expansive and profitable global economy led by the American market. There will be new breakthroughs in genetic research, possible cures for specific cancers, growing energy independence, continued reductions in Federal deficit spending, and the promise of new labor saving inventions that will further ease the mundane burdens of everyday life. Of course, there are those negative forecasters who remind us that the hourglass continues to run down on issues such as global warming, the impending time bomb of economic disparity, desalination of our oceans, and the loss of ecological diversity, arable land and drinking water sources. These latter issues seem not of immediate concern and can’t compete with the prospects for better economic news on the horizon and with projected American achievements in space, in the global market, or even in the upcoming Olympic Games. Our myopic view of the future reminds me of the words of a very astute senator of a bygone era. Although satirized by Juvenal, I believe it was Cicero who first decried the Roman Senate’s policy of assuaging the masses with panem et circenses (bread and circuses) while busying the legislative agenda with short-term, often self-serving policies, in lieu of the republic’s future interests and actual betterment. In our time, the Roman Senate’s influence is reprised not only by our government, but by our free press. Moreover, that influence often abets a basic aspect of our national character: we Americans tend to be optimistic. We believe we can solve any and all problems, even those that seem endemic to our way of life: stress can be relieved by medication; (mainly) urban violence, by incarceration; marital problems, by divorce; social alienation or personal limitations, by money, title and/or power over others. But these bromides are not the solutions that touch our daily lives and cannot be a basis for personal optimism.

It is not my intent to demean anticipated American achievements in space, economic dominance or the Olympic Games. These endeavors are promising and truly laudatory if realized. But they are not sufficient justification for a naïve and stilted vision of future prospects for Americans. In fact, they have little or no bearing on our individual success or failure in the game of life. They are merely contexts, along with everything else not directly connected with the daily choices we make in our lives. Is context important? Of course it is. But there are happy and fulfilled people living in our slums and in the war torn countries we’ve vacated (I’ve met more than a few personally). Their optimism is not based upon things outside of their control, but upon themselves. Certainly, like all of us, they hope for a better future. But they rely on their individual abilities to learn how to adapt to their circumstances, to create value and meaning in their everyday activities, to connect with and love the people in their lives, and to discover the uplifting virtue of gratitude for the experience of being alive. In the end, optimism is not something given to us by government or circumstances. It is a right we have to claim for ourselves. Otherwise, that right will be usurped by a sham.

Our lives are short, but the process of human evolution continues. Each of us is a seed—part of the new crop and the next harvest. So I remain optimistic and wish for you all a very happy new year.

Words Have Meaning

Words have meaning. At least, we like to think so. Otherwise, how would we communicate to each other? For example, let’s look at the word “communicate.” It comes from the Latin communis, which means “common.” Interestingly, the word “community” has the same derivation. Could it be that what communities hold in common is the meaning of the words used in their communication? Indeed, the way in which we communicate to each other helps form a common understanding–the very basis for a common set of values, customs, dialects, and even slang. Given their importance, we should respect words: use them as precisely as we can to express our feelings, to state our perspectives, and to relate the common facts of our existence to each other.

We grant poetic license to the purposeful fabrications and imaginative analogies of fiction writers and poets. For whether we see war’s futility in a soldier’s story or life’s promise in a surging waterfall, it’s not the soldier’s travail or the water’s submission to gravity that captures our imagination. It is the significance of the analogies and symbols presented. Our words can function either as signs, representing physical things in our experience, or they can elicit abstract concepts, even those that defy not only physical representation but also any form of definition. What, for instance, does the word “god” mean to you? However we use our language, we become responsible to the community in which we live for its integrity. Our words not only define us, but also our community, our culture, and even our nation.

So what should we make of analogies that equate the President as Hitler, the Pope as Marxist, conservatives as racist, and liberals as communists? Are these the ruminations emanating from a psyche ward? No, they come from duly elected members of Congress. They are not expressions of the mentally disassociated, but the deliberate distortions of the socially disassociated. You might ask how those we elect can represent us so poorly. Well, the answer rests in a reversal of the power flow in our democracy. Ideally in a democracy the power in governing rests with the people; and the people’s representatives are elected to execute that power in the interest of all—to “promote the general welfare,” as stated in the Constitution. However, our representatives have too often chosen the Madison Avenue mode of influencing and manipulating Americans with false analogies in order to sell a product and to promote self-interest instead of the common interest. When words are used to misrepresent the truth, to excoriate the opposition, and to elicit emotions irrelevant to reality, then more than semantics are violated. The very fabric of the “public forum” in which democracy must flourish is torn to shreds. Public discourse on the merits of diverse opinions is replaced with name-calling and irrelevant accusations. The floor of Congress is no longer the people’s forum, but the stage where power brokers fight for influence, media attention, and the support of campaign financiers.

Now we are not a country of one tribe, but of mixed cultures, united by common principles and the rule of law. In the community in which we find ourselves it is imperative that all speech be tolerated and that all opinions or discourse be respected. But, more to the point, that discourse must be a real dialogue if the future of our democracy is to be advanced. “Dialogue” implies an actual transfer/sharing of meaning, not the emptiness of a diatribe, a shouting match, or false analogies. One of the advantages of our nation’s diversity is the richness of perspectives in its populace. We are not bound by any one tradition other that the words in our Constitution and the pledge of allegiance. Those words have meaning and are debased by those who use provocative language without regard for the truth. They vitiate the public forum so necessary in a democracy, corrupt honest communication of diverse perspectives, and pollute our communities with their vitriol. Words do have meaning if used with integrity. Preserving that integrity preserves our own.

Sandyhook Revisited

(This piece was written on 12/22/2012, shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting. Given the recent anniversary of that event, I thought it timely to publish that commentary at this time.)

For a while, the Sandy Hook tragedy seemed to motivate our political leaders to take action. Congress began to discuss laws that would ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, require background checks on all gun sales (incl. gun shows & internet purchases), and enhance mental health provisioning. These were all practical things that could have and should have been done. But they still addressed only the symptoms of a more deeply rooted problem in society: individual alienation or the dissociation of an individual from his/her role in and responsibility for the community. It isn’t just one man pulling the trigger and snuffing out scores of innocents. Many of us are falling victims to many forms of violence from road rage to muggings and to innumerable acts of discrimination and injustice. The perpetrators are us, trapped in our egos without real connection to the world around us. I’ve been mulling over the roots of this disassociation for over a year now. Why do so many of us in the West need to be shaken out of our ego-inspired isolation? We aren’t doomed at birth. Children naturally reach out to a world they assume is an extension of them. At an early age they discover the separation of subject and object, the initial sense of ego. But, for many, the evolution of ego (the accumulated memory of our responses to the world and their faux determination of who we imagine ourselves to be) does not necessarily result in an exaggerated sense of separateness. My best guess at an answer is that we are failing as a culture to incorporate true awareness in the hearts and minds of many of our children. If they are allowed to grow into adulthood without that illuminating experience of real participation in the world around them, then they are already handicapped and impeded from a reasonably normal human life. So how do we give them this experience? Interestingly, I was asked this very question recently by a young woman. My answer (humble though it may be) was that she should begin a daily regimen of meditation – either single-point or general awareness. I think that children naturally meditate when not hurried into action by adults. I’ve seen wonderment in their eyes. Too often we squash this natural, ecstatic arrest by defining the indefinable. We remove the mystery. But I’ve grown to recognize that it is only the imponderable that is substantial. I think this understanding opens us to the world and to each other. For we stand as equals before a universal consciousness and bear a responsibility to ourselves AND to each other to move toward that light.

The slaughter of innocents is inhuman. It reminds us that our humanity cannot be taken for granted. There is no drug that can cure what ails a disconnected ego. Although prescription drugs may help some who suffer from brain defects or serious psychological disorders, they aren’t a remedy for the general sickness of disassociation we too often find in our culture. Our evolution from this disassociation (mens insana), I believe, will be the result of a mass awakening. But the inspiration for that kind of awakening requires a less self-centered awareness that embraces our connectedness to the universe and to each other. We need a transformed society that nurtures outliers before they become deviants. We are, after all, agents of a higher consciousness. And that consciousness sits at the threshold of understanding and love.

Of course, these few thoughts don’t assuage the pain of Sandy Hook. Words alone cannot transform us as individuals or as a society. But they can point the way to change and give us hope for a better tomorrow.

Poor Tom and the Echoes of Silence

Today I had to bundle up for my daily stroll, still eager to encounter what changes nature had prepared for me. The sparkle of summer has long since gone, and fall’s promise of winter haunts the cold air. Skeletal branches face the Artic draft stiff and leafless, and the mildly ruffled bay waters mirror a darkened sky. I walked alone to my favorite bayside spot, my self-proclaimed hidden cove, where I often keep lonely vigil. One day past I was greeted by a seal that suddenly broke the water’s surface and stared at me. Perhaps he was surprised to see a human so close to his natural habitat.

Two days ago, I was the one surprised to find another human near my little “cove.” He was sitting on a bench, reading a book, his bed roll and rucksack beside him. I had walked past him, not wanting to disturb his concentration. A few feet away, I stopped at the water’s edge. Looking across the bay at the dominant presence of Mt. Tamalpais, I was content to let the moment have its way with me. Then his words broke into my reverie, “What’s that you’re reading?” He had noticed the book I carried in my hand. And so we began a dialogue about many things—about books, world affairs, politics, and the state of America. His perspective was that of a homeless man, like an outsider peering through a crack in the wall. Given his point of view, the world seemed ruled by an evil force ruthlessly persistent in maintaining his estrangement from it. He blamed the Nazis for most everything. They were the evil force that explained it all. After about an hour, I was beginning to feel chilled and told him I had to leave. He rose and warmly shook my hand. It was only at that moment that I noticed his bare, sandal-clad feet. We parted on a first name basis. His name was Thomas, reminding me of his namesake in Shakespeare’s “King Lear.” In the words of Poor Tom, “Who alone suffers, suffers most in the mind.” But who am I to judge: I may be one of Thomas’ Nazis.

Yesterday, I returned to where I had met Thomas. As I approached the same bench, I noticed another man stretched across its full length. He was asleep. Most of his head was covered by a furry hood; his body, by a heavy parka; and his feet, by hiking boots. What caught my attention was the contentment that seemed to infuse his face in repose. Perhaps he was dreaming. If so, his subconscious was rewarding him with a tranquility rarely found in waking states. I remember walking away unable to shake his countenance from my mind. It made me wonder what places or experiences filled my dreams. Unless awakened while dreaming, I rarely remember “what dreams may come” out of my subconscious. If not in purgatory, maybe I frolic in Elysian Fields. But how can one know what passes unawares in slumber: I may be very like this dreamer in quiet repose.

Today I walked the same path and steered myself to the same bench. There was nothing there to arrest my attention or spur my imagination. So I walked on where the paved walkway becomes a dirt path bordering the water. Ahead I saw a man standing on a rock. He appeared from my vantage point to be levitating over the water, standing so precariously on the precipice of the rocky breakwater that holds back the bay. Drawing near, I quietly made to pass him when he turned his head and smiled at me. Without aforethought I said, “You’ve chosen a good vantage point.” He responded, “Yes, I have.” I made another innocuous remark and moved on, but the look on his face stayed with me. He had the same look of peace I saw on my dreamer the day before. But he was fully present and so totally connected that he seemed integral to the scene before him. As I reached the end of the path, I wondered about the nature of my connections. The only meaningful part of my encounter with “Poor Tom” was our warm handshake. The dreamer in repose showed me there was a state of consciousness in which one can find peace and contentment. But his was not a waking state. It offered nothing I could connect with. But the man on a rock was fully aware. His smile seemed to emanate from an inner serenity. The simplicity of his response offered no insight into his thoughts.

Turning around, I was determined to engage him in conversation. I walked quickly back to his vantage point until I could see clearly that he was no longer there. I stood before that same rock and weighed the whim that floated in my mind. Then I stepped onto the rock. It swayed a bit, for its base was not level on the ground beneath it. Momentarily I glanced at the rocks six or seven feet directly below the tips of my feet. Should I lose my balance, I would either have to step back off the rock or, falling forward, be compelled to push off clear of the rocks, diving for the safety of the water. I quickly refocused my wayward thoughts. As I looked out over the bay, my body calmed and steadied on its perch above the water. The ground beneath me seemed to fall away. I floated on the swell of the bay as the rising tide found its course between moon and earth. The air that gently brushed my face pushed the clouds ever so slowly along its northwesterly direction, bringing with it the promise of winter’s rain. I soared with the slow movement of those clouds. I hovered there, caught in the midst of countervailing forces, drawn into a limitless horizon, and lost to the benchmarks of time.

Was it the flash of eternity I felt or merely the presence of silence? Whatever it was, I know that many have shared my experience. These words are but the empty echoes of that silence.

11-22-1963

(This blog was written on the anniversary of Kennedy’s assassination, except for the last paragraph which I added today. Like everybody else who lived through that day, I remember the time, the place, and the moment’s impact. Putting that moment into perspective is a unique exercise for each of us. Though I may disagree with other perspectives, I respect them and offer my own, with due regard for my own limitations.)

“We can never reclaim our innocence. But can we reclaim our faith in government?” This was the question put by a TV pundit today, on the anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s death. Was she using hyperbole, making a statement of fact, or merely attempting a transition to the next segment?

Well, her words did serve as segue to her next storyline. But, more to the point, do they reflect history–did America lose its innocence on that fateful day of JFK’s assassination? Many serious analysts and historians have described it as “the day we lost our innocence,” especially in view of subsequent assassinations and the concurrent tragedies of the Vietnam War and the outbreak of racial violence. But I do not accept their thesis. How can a country hold itself innocent of the Dresden and Tokyo fire-bombing or of the obliteration of two urban civilian centers by means of atomic bombs? Even the commanders of our final assault on the Japanese mainland feared that they would be subject to war crimes. Their self-admission was not that of innocents. Certainly it’s true that America was drawn into the two World Wars and was not an instigator in either. At the same time, there are no innocents in war. We Americans obliterated our enemies willfully and with “malice aforethought.” One of the ambiguities of war is this issue of culpability. A “just” war, a “defensive” war, or a war of “liberation” is how we cover the horror of war and escape the guilt for what we feel impelled to do in war’s behalf. Our supposed “innocence” is just a way of dealing with culpability. It was not innocence we lost with Kennedy’s assassination. The culpable can never lose their innocence, just the illusion of innocence.

Did we lose faith in our government on that fateful day 50 years ago? My parents, having lived through the Great Depression and World War II, certainly believed that government could deliver us from economic disaster and from foreign threats. The Phoenix-like emergence of America after the war held great promise for all Americans. People were getting college degrees, building new lives, buying homes, and raising families with the expectation that the next generation would benefit even more. We believed in ourselves and our ability to overcome anything: we were invulnerable. But, at the same time, children were diving under their school desks in monthly bomb drills, Senator McCarthy was conducting communist witch hunts in Congress, and our military was actively preparing for World War III. Behind the illusion of peace and prosperity was the reality of fear. The President’s assassination shattered this illusion. The President who almost single-handedly saved us from a nuclear holocaust was killed by a lone gunman. Americans sat in their living rooms and witnessed his gruesome murder and the horrific image of his beautiful wife bespattered with his blood. These were not the images of Camelot, but of a nightmare: we were confronted with our vulnerability. If our President could be gunned down before our eyes, perhaps our invincibility could be in doubt and our faith in the government’s ability to protect us might be shaken. Fear, after all, is contagious.

Life in the 20th century should have given rise to fear. When in history have more of us been slaughtered by our brothers and sisters in humanity? The temptation to withdraw into a cocoon of material comforts and consumerism is too enticing. Likewise, it’s too easy to play into the hands of politicians who promise to secure our material well-being and protect us from all harm in exchange for electing them. On the other hand, the 1960s did give rise to landmark social legislation, demonstrating our government’s ability to provide for the “general welfare” promised in our Constitution. Our current disaffection with Washington politics has not always been the case. Perhaps the problem is not with our faith in government, but with those who govern. That problem is on us, the electorate.

As Americans, we need to face our fears and accept responsibility for the way things are. We did not lose our innocence or our faith in government on that fateful day 50 years ago. But we did receive a wake-up call. The American dream is in fact a dream. It is up to us to define it and make it a reality. John F. Kennedy spoke of a “new frontier” and challenged us to consider what “you can do for your country.” His death was never about loss of innocence or of faith in government, but about the challenge his death left unfulfilled in his personal life—a challenge that still rests on each of us to fulfill.

ACA: Affordable or Not?

What the President could have and perhaps should have said: “you can keep you plan,” if you have employer/government sponsored health insurance (80-83% of the populace) OR if you have an individual policy that will be automatically grandfathered after ACA is implemented in March, 2010 (another 5% of the populace), PROVIDED your individual policy is not subsequently terminated by your insurance company. The remaining 12-15% of the populace will have the opportunity to buy affordable healthcare insurance through government run exchanges. Depending upon income, many of these exchange shoppers will qualify for government subsidies.

The current debate centers on those grandfathered individual plans. What happens if the insurance company cancels one of these grandfathered plans? Well, it has to offer a new plan that meets the ACA criteria (a minimum of 10 new health care benefits) AND the requirements of its respective state. These new plans may have higher rates (1) because they would have higher rates regardless of ACA depending upon circumstances in the respective state, (2) because they are tiered to match policies in the Exchange (which is not an ACA requirement though perhaps a predictable convenience), (3) because they must now meet the new requirements (e.g., maternity care or prescription drug coverage), (4) because medical history can no longer be used to determine rates (people with healthy medical histories will pay more so that others with unhealthy records can pay less). Some in the press have identified state ordered policy terminations with these grandfathered plans. But, at least in California, these terminations targetted non-grandfathered plans that were not compliant with ACA. Regardless, whether the state or the insurance company terminates a plan, the conditions for replacement are essentially the same.

Potential impacts for these new individual plans may include higher premiums and higher deductibles, though out-of-pocket annual expense is limited to $6350.00. Also, some insurance companies may change from PPO (preferred provider organization) to EPO (exclusive provider organization), forcing a potential change in doctors. On the plus side, many with terminated individual plans will find cheaper plans on the exchanges than what is offered by their current insurance company. Also, they may qualify for subsidies. Best guess is that most of these people had individual plans because they were unemployed or because they worked for small businesses that could not afford the premiums. Likely, many of these people will qualify for subsidies. There may also be some very rich people in the individual insurance plan market. Remember the richest 1% (who control 40% of the nation’s wealth) don’t necessarily work for a living. Like the recent Republican candidate for President, their income comes from securities in which case an individual insurance plan with low cost premiums and high deductibles may appear as a bargain for somebody in these circumstances with reasonably good health.

The bottom line is that there are too many variables in the implementation of ACA that must be worked through before any definitive statement on its success or failure can be made. Much of the rumble on cable TV and the distortions emanating from Washington polities are merely self-serving garble. We are at the beginning of a sea-change in America’s health care provisioning system. It’s going to take years to fully stabilize and hone this system, much as it did with Medicare.