Ukraine: A Test for Humanity or International Chess?

Leave a reply

Machiavelli, Bismarck, and Richelieu knew how the game was played. They made the moves that either maintained the balance of power or tilted it in their favor. Napoleon and Hitler played the game to win it all, but overextended their resources, losing it all in the end. Europe today is facing a new power broker who wants to reengage the contest for territory a/o hegemony. Will he pull Europe and the United States into another war? Will the western allies follow the path of World War I where mutual defense treaties drew nations into the fray like falling dominoes? Or will the allies begrudgingly give ground like the various diplomatic appeasements that further emboldened Hitler on his chosen course? So far Western Europe, following our President’s leadership, has taken a middle course in dealing with President Putin: gradually escalating his country’s isolation from the international diplomatic and global economic system while acceding to his historical claims to Crimea. But will this strategy compel Putin to change his game plan? Do we understand his goals, or even him, well enough to counter his moves?

Not too long ago our Vice President claimed he looked into Putin’s eyes and told him that he did not see a soul there. Putin allegedly replied that the same could be said of our VP. This interchange between the two men I find revelatory on at least two levels. First, Biden clearly states what is missing from Putin’s perspective: he is unable to see the human consequences of his actions—he is coldly detached. The people of the Ukraine—like the people of Georgia earlier—are merely pawns on his chess board. Currently, the citizens of Donetsk are dying as the Ukrainian army drops artillery shells on the separatists there who are armed and led by Russian agents. Putin, like other leaders consumed with their place in history, has no other persona than his mission which in his case is the reestablishment of the Soviet Union. To his people, Putin has become a hero, a national archetype like the Fuhrer in pre-war Germany. Russia’s prominence in the world depends upon his leadership. His setback is a setback for Russia itself; his success is Russia’s as well. Though he earned his status as a surrogate for his country, Putin loses his identity in the process. Not only does he have no connection with the soul of humanity or anything transcendent of material gain and domination, he also has little personality or ego identity other than his self-perceived role as Russia’s savior. He is a tabloid caricature, an empty façade. Although he has amassed a huge fortune, he doesn’t appear to live extravagantly. In fact, he is divorced, lives alone, and, like Hitler, apparently does not drink or carouse. He would hardly be called an ascetic, but his dedication to his mission is no less paramount in his life than that of a jihadist. Putin is his mission.

Secondly, Putin clearly sees his adversaries as projections of himself: the leaders who oppose him must be playing the same game without regard for its human toll. This inability to relate to people as anything other than objects for use or power is not unusual. We have seen it before in history, in our time, and even in our own country. Beyond our borders, we call such folks fanatics; within our borders, we call them radicals (left or right wing). But labels fail to reveal the underlying problem or how to deal with that problem. These people are disconnected to a specific reality: the unique though shared identity of the human experience. When you can look into the eyes of another and see the numinous aspect of a shared self, you find not only yourself but your presence in that experience. We can call this experience humanism for lack of a better name. But it is not an ideology like nationalism or theocracy; it is an experience of relation that must be lived, else it is inauthentic. People like Putin are perversely inauthentic. But when they gain a platform on the world stage, they can be destructive on a level that the 20th century has already exemplified. So how do the western allies deal with the danger this failed human being presents?

Within our own country, we need to weigh carefully the arguments of warmongers, military adventurists, and political opportunists (those who invent any rationale that will provide them with a political advantage rather than political effectiveness in governing). These people want to play Putin’s game and are playing by his rules: pander to the electorate (propaganda) while discrediting the political opposition (suppression)—in this case, by endless criticism of those trying to deflate an international crisis. At one point, they raised up Putin as a more effective leader than our own President, bringing to mind the 1938 Times cover announcing Hitler as the “Man of the Year.” Shortly afterwards, Hitler invaded Poland. These voices are not raised in support of peace or justice, but out of a hidden agenda for power. They are the counterpoint for Putinism and are equally inauthentic and manipulative. Cloaking their position in American “exceptionalism” and invulnerability as the lone super power, they attempt to dupe the public into believing we can exercise our power without incurring any deleterious consequences. But the wisdom we gleam from history clearly tells us great power must be wielded with restraint. Otherwise we risk a humanitarian crisis at our hands—witness the Vietnam or Iraq wars.

I’m no foreign affairs expert, and I certainly am not privy to the effectiveness of current economic and diplomatic policy aimed at isolating Russia. However, if World War II had not ended the regime of the Third Reich, I suspect Hitler would have been overthrown by the German people once the consequences of his actions were made known and his true character exposed. Putin needs to be exposed now for who he is, before his Ukrainian venture inadvertently leads to a broader conflict or further Russian excursions into Eastern Europe. He maintains his power today because he has successfully controlled the narrative in Russia through state-sponsored propaganda and the effective suppression of opposing voices. But we live in the digital era of the internet and wireless/satellite communication. The western allies need to use every media outlet available to expose Putin to his people.

You may conclude from what I have written here that I’m a foggy idealist. But, in fact, I believe it is likely that America will be pulled into future wars. We have been on a war footing for almost all of the last 100 years. I’m a realist who recognizes that throughout human history there has never been a lasting international order. Nations do not—and probably will never—subscribe to a uniform moral code. No Pax Americana is likely to endure. Nevertheless, I believe we must strive to build a better world. The first step in doing so is to pledge allegiance to our common humanity which can only be lived as individuals in relation to other individuals. It is only in that relationship that we will learn to build bridges between people of differing ethnic, cultural, and religious heritages. The inauthentic among us are simply incapable of building these bridges, for they view others as pawns to be played in a zero sum game. The human suffering they may cause is characterized by them as the collateral damage necessarily incurred in pursuit of larger goals. We must unmask their tactical maneuvering for its lack of compassion and of any actual relevance to the human condition. If we don’t begin to do so, there will never be peace among the sentient primates of this planet.

Men like Putin (for women seem to exclude themselves from these excesses) will bring violence into the world. But eventually they will encounter a Waterloo or a gun pointed at their temple. Their violence will reverberate upon themselves, even while they will have succeeded in making history, perhaps their only self-justification for their actions. But I’m not advocating for a military response to Putin’s interventions, though I recognize events could spiral into that option as a last resort. Personally, I put aside arms while still a foot soldier. My only response is in words. I advocate for the bonds of relationships between individuals, groups, and even nations.

In conclusion, may I suggest a more personal message? Embrace a loved one and be caught up in the mystery of the other; be drawn into the timeless awareness that is recreated in each relation. Look into the eyes of a newborn and witness that unnamed reality yet to be formed and potentially transforming—a new human life and perhaps the incubation of a new world order. The game of life is not a calculated, detached contest for power, but a lively, joyous dance between and within beings of incalculable substance. The change we hope for will not come in one lifetime. But it will never come unless it begins in each one of us now.

Womb of Life

Leave a reply

There is an old myth that in our mother’s womb we know the universe but forget it at birth. I recently became reacquainted with this motif while rereading Martin Buber. It made me think about our wayward path in personal development. Do we lose something of our prenatal innocence—that undifferentiated awareness of and dependency on an all-encompassing nurturer? At birth we enter into an alphabet soup world of limitless diversity where we struggle to put together the pieces that define and delineate the boundaries of our existence. In the process of explaining this complexity, we not only map the world into our consciousness, but also create ourselves, that is, the person perceiving this world and living in it. But what happens to that prenatal awareness in the process?

It does not seem likely that any of us would want to return to a primal state. But we do recognize a naive innocence there at the beginning: we see it in babies as they reach for their mother’s breast. Our search for physical security begins there. That initial “reach” is only the first of lifelong efforts to gain control of our future and eventually to define our history. But these efforts can never be fully realized. For our powers are limited, and nature has its own course outside of our control. We are too soon separated from our mothers’ bosom. However tempted we might be to envy that infantile innocence, its comfort quickly vanishes when confronted with our personal mortality. But what about that primal awareness: can it and should it be somehow regained?

At birth we enter a physical world and begin the process of discovering our place in it as a person. I believe we carry with us from our prenatal existence a longing that not only propels us into our time and space but motivates us to transcend them. That longing can only be innate in our primal state, but it gradually manifests itself in the course of our lives as we ponder the meaning of our existence, seek a lasting legacy, or wonder about life after death. We never stop reaching; else we succumb to a meaningless life and equally vacuous death. What in our lives can overcome the inevitable tremor mortis and promise something beyond the moveable here and evanescent now?

Science can tell us nothing about life after death. It does, however, remind us that the basic elements of the universe make up our physical body, that we freely exchange molecules with our environment, that we absorb air and nutrients from earth’s abundance to fuel our life processes, that our intellectual life is born of and fostered by the delineation of objects we encounter in nature, and that we exist and are nurtured by the most improbable galactic circumstances that locate our planet in exactly the right place and time within the duration of our solar system. Science clearly shows our dependence on nature—its physical laws and its processes. And, further, the wisest amongst us have told us through all of human history that we walk the face of this planet as individual manifestations of a transcendent reality. Our religious myths speak of rebirth, resurrection, and salvation. Is it possible that we can either have immortality and/or experience its promise in the course of a normal lifespan? But if the universe has so conspired to bring us into existence and support our life processes, how is it that we are left abandoned in the end, destined to be recycled into the dust of mother earth?

A baby does not know of its death. An adult cannot know otherwise. I think the death we fear is the loss of the person we have created in the course of our lives. That person is not immortal, but the universe is. Our salvation depends upon our identification with the hidden nurturing force that has been with us from our gestation. A baby in the womb does not know its mother until sometime after birth. But it does have a generalized awareness of that which nurtures it. As adults, it behooves us to do the same. The difference, of course, is that we approach this awareness from a very different starting point. Our life’s experience and personal decisions have mapped both the world we live in and our own self-image. These are defining and therefore limiting concepts. It is only when we can see ourselves from outside ourselves that we begin to understand what modern science and the wisdom of the ages have revealed. We exist in a womb of life throughout every phase of our existence, not just in its prenatal phase. In the very realization of this fact, we become liberated of our finite existence and begin to see our personal life as part of an interplay the universe has engaged with itself. My personal role is part of a musical score that transcends my lone note. When I truly recognize my part, I can find the wisdom that brings harmony to my life. I realize that I am of the universe and must act in concert with it. The Bible says that we were created in the image of God. I believe that image is our identification with the universe which extends further than we can see and far longer than human imagination can fathom. In other words, in those moments when we reach for and touch that identification, we experience our immortality.

Every human being is born of woman. In the mother’s womb, a baby experiences a primal awareness before it even knows itself. In life, that same human defines his/her self, but can easily lose his/her place in the universe. Herein is the ultimate mystery of human life. Becoming a person is just the first step toward maturity. The penultimate is an awakening to the Transcendent within the womb of life.

Women Must Be At Fault

Leave a reply

Worldwide, we find women bear the brunt of men’s violence. They are raped, beaten and even murdered, especially during wars as witnessed in Bosnia, central Africa, and currently in Syria (where over 30,000 sexual assaults have been reported to the UN). They are subject to genital mutilation in 27 countries in Africa and to a lesser extent in Asia, the Middle East, and within immigrant communities elsewhere. In India and Pakistan they can be stoned, stabbed or beaten to death for refusing an arranged marriage or for engaging in a sexual relationship before marriage. In Afghanistan, parts of Africa, and the Middle East, they are denied an education and may be physically attacked for attending school. If it is true that we measure the punishment to the crime, then women must be at fault. Otherwise why are they so brutally punished?

In America, we like to think that women are treated fairly. They can vote, work beside men, run for office, and live without fear of physical mistreatment. But is this the reality that actually exists, or the restricted frame in which we place the picture we choose to see? It is true that women can vote. The women’s suffrage movement won that freedom, but more than a hundred years after our nation’s founding. And women do now work in jobs previously held exclusively by men. Their entry into that job market accelerated during World War II, when their men were off at war. Since then, women have gained access to nearly every job our economy has to offer, but at an earning’s ratio of 77 cents to the dollar compared to their male counterparts in equivalent jobs. And yes, they can be and are elected to public office, but at a rate well below their proportionate number in the population. (For example, we have 20 women in the US Senate, where 50 would be a more representative number.) So the rise of women in America is still a work in progress, some might say; and our rosy picture may still seem untarnished. At least American women, according to this self-justifying account, are not viewed as property the way women in other countries are. The international sex trade, for instance, involves millions of women, whereas only tens of thousands are American. As a statement of fact, sex slavery affects only a small minority of Americans and, it could be argued, in no way exemplifies the objectification of American women as a whole. But let’s reframe our picture and paint with a broader brush. Consider a few facts:

• Over 400,000 rape cases have not been prosecuted for months and even years for lack of public investments in rape kits. In many cases, serial rapists have been allowed to continue their rampage, free of prosecution as a result.
• On our college campuses as many as one in five coeds have reported themselves victims of sexual assault. Authorities believe many more such assaults go unreported. Until recently, this victimization of young women has gone relatively unnoticed and shamelessly unaddressed.
• Healthcare provisioning for women is often restricted and/or provided at more costs than for men. (The Affordable Care Act has begun to address this inequity, at least for those States that have chosen to support fully its implementation and accept Medicaid expansion.)
• Maternity leave is still not universally available and often not paid where it is provided. Moreover, women of child bearing age are often passed over for promotion. Motherhood or its prospect should have no bearing on a person’s promotion in the workplace. Where it is so, we find a unique form of job discrimination specifically targeted at women.
• Clinics that specialize in women’s care have been closed in many mid-Western and Southern states where anti-abortionists have gained political leverage in State legislatures. Whatever scientific or religious views one might have on the viability of human life in the womb (at conception or after 20 weeks), the closing of these specialized facilities is a callous disregard for women’s health and well-being.
• Here in America, we have the highest incidence of spousal homicide in the developed world. The victims are almost always women.

Are not denial of medical care, disregard for women’s maternity requirements, sexual assault, rape, and even murder examples of cruel and unusual punishment? Why do we expose our wives, daughters, and sisters to this inhuman treatment? Is there any possible justification for the way they are punished? Or must they be found at fault?

“The man (Adam) said, ‘The woman you placed at my side (Eve) gave me fruit from the tree (of the knowledge of good and evil) and I ate.’” (Genesis 3:12) These are the words of accusation that justified the curse placed upon women by the God of the Old Testament. He condemned them to bear their children in pain and be subject to their husbands who shall “have dominion over you” (Ibid.). Adam too was cursed and sentenced to work for his livelihood, “because you have listened to your wife” (Genesis 3:17). With those words of justification, the perennial reign of the Goddess came to an end in the West.

For those who interpret the Bible’s words literally, I have no words to express my meaning. For the rest, I ask you to consider what is in your heart. Does that primal curse against women linger there? Should they not be heard and their subjugation and pain remain unnoticed or, worse, be seen as somehow innate to their gender? Surely, the “fault” lies not with women, but in a subconscious misogyny at the root of our culture. We are all born of women. But we need to be reborn in spirit if we are truly to appreciate them. They are our mothers and the bedrock upon which all human life and compassion are built.
(This blog is written on Father’s Day in grateful recognition that fatherhood does not exist without women.)

A Congregation of Life Forms

Leave a reply

Have you ever been entranced by a flock of birds flying in formation and wondered about their togetherness? Recently, I watched a documentary entitled “The Migration of Penguins.” These birds do not fly, but they know how to huddle together in defiance of the subzero cold and turbulent wintry gusts of the Antarctic. Their togetherness defines their survival. The ducks below my window are also together: they arrive and depart the local pond as one unit. I never see a lone duck there. And, of course, ducks fly in triangular formation just like migratory birds. Canadian Geese, for example, traverse my sky twice per year. The lead bird at the point of the triangle always points due north or south according to the season and the promise of warmer venues. But birds are not alone in finding security in cooperative groups. There are elk, deer, zebra, buffalo, and so on, that find security in herds, as well as social animals that feel compelled to live in tribes and communities. We humans, like all primates, are amongst the later. As I pondered this fact, I thought of the word “congregation.” It comes from two Latin words—con-, “together” and grex, “flock, herd, crowd”—that capture this symbiotic relationship. My initial association was that of a simile: we are like other animals in our need to form close structured relationships with our own kind. We may not always find it necessary to huddle together against the cold, march in formation, or line up together in subways or food courts. But we do have a basic need and compulsion to organize ourselves with rules, customs, and conventions that keep us together as a functioning society. We are like other congregations of life forms or species on our planet.

But there is more than a simile here. Did you know that the human body contains many life forms that are not human? In fact, our human genes are outnumbered 10 to 1 by the genes of other species cohabitating in our bodies. These parasitical species that live in us actually serve us, enabling many functions of our vital organs. Without them, we could not survive. (As a parenthetical note, recent studies have pointed out the threat antibiotics pose to these cohabiting life forms and, therefore, to us.) You see, the simile can be seen as a metaphor: each one of us is a congregation of life forms. A scientist, however, would not find a metaphor here, but a statement of fact: each of us is a colony of life forms. So what metaphor do I find in this fact? And how does my metaphor differ from the obvious simile with other animals?

The fact that we individuals are many is conceptual, but not experiential. I know that microbes and bacteria live in my body, but I experience myself as one person in mind, body and soul. My introspection uncovers only my lone existence. But is not this experience a microcosm of the world in which we live: one supreme consciousness, but myriad forms, both organic and inorganic. Now you might not “believe” in a world consciousness aware of itself. Physicists, however, have no better explanation for the quantum transformations at the heart of the universe. You might call this new physics metaphysics for it looks to a non-physical dimension to explain the discontinuity and non-locality of the forces underlying the visible world. It is because I can use the term “metaphysics” that I can see a metaphor in the collective existence of an individual composed of some 200 genomes, including the human genome. You see, each one of us mirrors the world: outwardly, the congregations of many life forms make up the world we inhabit; inwardly, we are a congregation composed of many life forms. Yet, upon reflection, each one of us is only aware of his/her self. Would the creative consciousness at the heart of quantum physics be aware of anything other than itself as the dynamic source of everything?

If you can accept a non-physical dimension—a quantum consciousness—at the heart of everything, then you can see the metaphor I see in the human individual as a congregation of life forms. Every human being is reflective of all that is. Perhaps the best expression of this metaphor is the ancient Sanskrit often quoted by Joseph Campbell: “Thou art that.”

Is Obama Conservative or Liberal?

5 Replies

This blog’s title presumes there might be a realistic answer to a political question. But is that presumption justified? Let’s examine the matter further, both in terms of political assessments and comparable historical antecedents. We can begin with a few political perspectives. Conservatives have said that President Obama is against the 2nd Amendment, American “exceptionalism”, industry/corporate “job creators,” religious freedom, and family values. They would conclude that his style of progressivism was far too liberal, even radical, for America. Progressives, on the other hand, claim him as their own because of his advocacy for more income equality, universal health care, gay and women’s rights, and his alleged restraint in the use of executive war powers. These assessments are far too expansive to be addressed thoroughly in this medium. But I feel we can determine how he fairs in answer to this question by reviewing some illustrative highlights of this President’s policies, as follows:

• Economic policy – Given the recent financial crisis, how far left or right did our President lean? With his support of the Dodd/Frank bill, he often quoted Theodore Roosevelt as the architect of corporate regulation. It is true that Theodore Roosevelt fought crony capitalism. But his fight was not the same as William Jennings Bryan, the leading progressive of that era. The latter sought the betterment of the commonwealth, whereas Teddy wanted a better run economy where the barons of industry were curtailed. His was a management philosophy that included both prosecution and regulation. On the progressive side, Bryan supported the former, but not the latter. He, like other progressives of that era, feared that regulatory agencies would eventually fall under the influence of those they were tasked to control. The Obama administration has more often relied upon government regulation rather than the prosecution of miscreants. So he was not aligned on the left or the right with either of these men. Perhaps this fact explains why his economic recovery actions have not wholly won over either side.
• Campaign finance reform – William Taft, considered more conservative than Roosevelt, was wary of the influence of money on politics and passed the first campaign contribution disclosure act. (He eventually became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Therein is an irony, considering the “conservative” makeup of our current Court and its recent rulings on campaign financing.) President Obama, for his part, has repeatedly voiced his concern about hidden money in politics. But he does accept money from the OFA PAC (which does, incidentally, publish its donor list) and has done little to support those in Congress who advocate campaign finance reform. In fact, he declined public financing in both of his presidential campaigns. So whether you consider campaign reform a liberal, conservative, or non-partisan issue, you would have to say that our President is ambivalent on this matter.
• Foreign policy – The President has wound down two wars and has declined to take the bait of armed conflict in Syria, the Ukraine, and Libya (at least as far as putting troops on the ground). By contrast, his four predecessors have waged wars in South America, Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. In fact, with the exceptions of Harding, Hoover, Coolidge and Carter, America has been on a war footing with every other American President for the last 100 years. Although it might appear that President Obama has been disinclined to use force, he has actually used force in a different way. He has bombed military targets in Libya, breached sovereign borders to conduct surgical drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan. He has threatened Syria with aerial bombing; and he has implied the same course of action with respect to Iran. As a result, Syria has agreed to rid itself of chemical weapons; and Iran is negotiating a settlement to forgo the development of nuclear weapons. But it isn’t the threat or use of force that seems to be the preferred instrument of coercion or persuasion for this President. Instead, it is the use of our diplomatic influence and economic power. He has used economic sanctions against North Korea, Iran, and now Russia. Whether his advocacy for international order and respect for borders will harbor a new century of conflict resolution without wars remains to be seen. Like H. W. Bush, he has used diplomacy to pull together a coalition of nations to support his foreign policy. Perhaps his dogged tendency to preserve peace in the world through international diplomacy and the support of the United Nations harbingers Woodrow Wilson more than any other president. Whether he will succeed without the use of force—where the first Bush could not–remains to be seen. Though he has expanded the use of drones and economic sanctions, his preference for diplomacy seems to me more like the first Bush and Wilson, that is, a conservative and a liberal President, respectively.
• Domestic policy – President Obama’s major domestic achievement is the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Although only liberal Democratic presidents have called for universal healthcare, the expansion of private health care insurance authorized by this President was notably a Republican construct. It was originally proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation as an alternative to the Clinton plan for a public health care expansion. Senator Bob Dole, a Republican nominee for President, advanced this proposal before his more liberal colleagues, including Senator Kennedy, rejected it. Former Governor Romney successfully implemented the very same mixture of private insurance exchanges and mandated coverage in Massachusetts, though he declined to advance it as a federal program during his presidential campaign. So President Obama has successfully moved the country closer to a very liberal objective of universal healthcare by means of a complicated, conservative mechanism that uses the private sector. Was his initiative liberal in intent, but a move to the right in form and execution? Well, if it was the President’s purpose to win support from all sides of the health care reform sector, his policy formulation seems to have persuaded less than he had desired. For conservatives, it was a disastrous policy failure for which they will continuously dissect every aspect to justify their position. For liberals, the ACA’s “reform” of a monstrously complex private insurance market failed to deliver fundamental and transformative change to the health care delivery system. For most people, regardless of their political persuasion, the new law is simply too complex to assess, especially in its long term impact. In principle, the ACA is reflective of healthcare reform either proposed or enacted by two recent Republican nominees for President. In practice, Democrats find its complicated provisions difficult to explain to a wary and confused liberal base.

What can we learn from these comparisons about our President’s political persuasions? He seems to disagree on substance with both the conservative Roosevelt and the progressive Bryan on how to deal with the excesses of capitalism. His philosophical position on campaign financing more closely aligns with the very conservative Taft, though his actions seem out of line with Taft’s (though Taft’s conservatism would hardly be recognizable in the current version of the Republican Party, as is the case with much of that Party’s contemporary platform). The emphasis of his foreign policy is aligned with H. W. Bush, a conservative Republican, and bears an ideological concurrence with Woodrow Wilson, a liberal Democrat. His most important legislative contribution utilizes a conservative, private industry inspired, solution to extend healthcare provisioning to more Americans. Though it achieves one aspect of a liberal agenda, many progressives find it difficult to lend the President their wholehearted support.

In all fairness, most Presidents fail to deliver on all aspects of their respective Party platform or ideology. Reaganomics led to burgeoning federal deficits AND higher taxes for wage earners. Clinton’s compromise on Glass-Seagull may have achieved health care for more American children, but it paved the way for Wall Street excess and near collapse. I can find enumerable examples in presidential history that illustrate my point: American Presidents might campaign on the basis of their Party’s platform, but they usually attempt to govern in the interest of all and at the behest and/or concurrence of Congress.

My conclusion: politics can become a virtual world that bears limited resemblance to reality. The problem we in the electorate have with political questions is our failure to realize that fact. We too often vote the “party line,” or accept campaign promises on ideological grounds, rather than on the formulation of actual policy. Therefore, the question in my title is purely rhetorical, as our most of the conservative/liberal bromides proffered in campaigns. In fact, as long as we continue to label political candidates, we will continue to be disappointed by their performance in office. The key problem, in my estimate, is the failure to recognize that politics exists to serve policy. The reverse situation condemns a democracy to a puerile parody of itself.

What Follows Obamacare

Leave a reply

Let’s begin with an admission: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590, is very complicated and its costs and savings are depended upon future actions that the CBO could not estimate. Since all of the on-budget costs are implemented under the “pay-as-you-go” policy, they cannot affect future deficits should the costs increase. In other words, our taxes could go up, but not our deficits. Nevertheless, the final CBO estimate in March of 2010 concludes that 355 billion of net outlays are more than offset by 473 billion of new revenues over ten years. (My earlier blog, “Subtlety versus Bombast,” debunks the numbers loosely quoted by partisan factions.) However, it should be obvious that the CBO is not a guarantor of the future. By its own admission the “CBO has not completed an estimate of all the discretionary costs that would be associated with H.R. 3590.” In their summary to Congress, it indicates many areas where the numbers could fluctuate up or down. But the CBO is the only impartial accounting organization we seem to have. In the past, the political party that has disagreed with them is the one who voted in the minority for a specific legislation, whether Democrat or Republican. Whatever the predictive number of future costs may be, it is clear that health care costs will continue to rise, though perhaps below the double digit rate experienced before the new law was enacted. Health care cost inflation remains as the underlying problem that will affect everyone, especially State and Federal Government Medicaid expenditures under the new law.

So what should we do next to improve our health care infrastructure? According to the CBO estimate the new law could save nearly a half trillion dollars in non-coverage savings. So Congress’ next step should be to (1) first, assure these non-coverage savings are realized and (2) relook at the structure of our health care delivery system to identify cost effective reforms that Congress might incentivize the health care industry to initiate. There are significant systems’ analyses of various segments of the industry that would benefit from reform. Some improvements, spurred by initiatives in the new law, have already been undertaken. Though I am far from an expert in this field, it is easy to list a number of possible initiatives:
• Make doctors salaried employees who are rewarded for positive outcomes rather than for treatment instances (the decline in private practices is already underway as hospitals and various medical associations fill the industry landscape);
• Remove the “charge master” bureaucracy used by hospitals to peg billing many times more than actual costs (as determined and used by Medicare in its billing). This practice was instituted to cover no-charge emergency services in compliance with the law signed by Reagan in the 80s. The unforeseen consequence of this law is the unseemly overcharging of the non-insured and unfair leveraging of negotiated billing settlements with insurance companies;
• Provide financial incentives for the digitizing of health records and for secure and shared access to these records by patients and authorized medical professionals both within and between regional and/or state specified jurisdictions;
• Enable collaborative treatment programs across disciplines, probably along the lines already pioneered by organizations like the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic;
• Provide financial incentives for the education and development of primary care physicians;
• Identify best standards of treatment as determined by scientific and statistical evidence of effectiveness;
• Require hospitals to report to HHS on their effectiveness in reducing admission recidivism and in eliminating hospital incurred illnesses;
• Reevaluate depreciation incentives for the purchase of hospital equipment to eliminate purchases based strictly on financial grounds rather than on sound treatment options;
• Make preventive care even more ubiquitous, including not only health care providers but prospective care recipients.

Though these are initiatives enumerated by a layman, they at least illustrate that there is a way forward. More encouraging is the fact that I lifted them from health care professionals. Congress should listen to them for they are in the best position to not only reduce costs, but improve health care for our citizens. The Affordable Care Act has changed the foundation of health care in America: it is no longer mainly a business, but a service to its consumers. Insurance companies now have service targets as well as financial goals. If we continue on this path, providing health care will become a service in which we all participate and take responsibility. What follows “Obamacare” has to be a better health care system, not just a more available a/o affordable one.

Lessons of Babel and Nonsense

Leave a reply

The story of the tower of Babel presents a conundrum that has ever shadowed human history. In Genesis, God seemed wary of what Babylonians might accomplish since they all spoke the same language: “And the Lord said, ‘Truly, they are one people and they all have the same language. This is the beginning of what they will do. Hereafter they will not be restrained from anything which they determine to do’ (Genesis, 11:6).” And so He “confused” their speech and scattered them all over the earth. As a consequence, that tower designed to reach to the very heavens would never be completed. What was true in Genesis is still true today: little can be accomplished without communication and cooperation.

Biblical scholars would deftly point out that the story of Babel tells us that God wanted Hebrew to be the primary language reserved for the use of His people in their promised land. Gentiles would never be as united as the Jews since they spoke dissimilar languages and were broadly dispersed. But even today Hebrew is not the universal language of all Jews, not even in Israel. Moreover, however true it may be that language unites and identifies a people, it does not always result in effective communication and cooperation. Several European countries, for example, tried to make language the unifying element in the establishment of empires. But the colonial system eventually crumbled. Likewise, Russian was always the “official” language of the Soviet Confederation, but it did not hold that empire together either. Although Genesis tells us how the building of a ziggurat can be stopped, it also implies that, unrestrained, the Babylonians might have accomplished “anything they determine to do.” After all, they were “one people,” implying that they were of one mind. Even though there are those who have argued that a universal language and shared values might lead to a new world order where peace and justice would reign, I think history tells us the path to this utopia is filled with potholes and detours. Countries may conquer their neighbors and reengineer their linguistic and cultural forms, but they cannot compel cooperation. Something else, much more subtle, is required.

The difference in language and culture is not the main obstacle to a stable world order where peace and justice are secured for all. In fact, that difference is merely a feature of an underlying reality. We perceive things after our own individual fashion, even to the extent of disagreeing on the facts. We build a meaningful framework for ourselves where all the puzzle pieces can be neatly fit. That framework is based upon our personal life experiences to include not only our familial, social, and cultural context, but also our freely chosen path through life’s maze of options. In a very real sense, we create the milieu of our personal lives: it could be said that we traverse our lifespans in an ambient allusion. Truly, the Babylonians had no more difficulty in building their tower than we do today, navigating amidst all the “isms,” self-interests, and biases that intersect in our contemporary media storm. Nevertheless, progress is somehow made, but how? Take the American political system as an example. It is built around a check and balance system where compromise is required. But compromise too often leads to mediocre or half-baked solutions: when all self-interests are served, sometimes the best solution is bypassed. In our diverse society, various group moral codes can conflict over issues of life, death, and the very foundation of social organization (e.g., abortion, contraception, torture, the social safety net, the justification for preemptive force, the role of government in the lives of private citizens, and so on). And yet, over time, this dissonance in our society is often overcome or banished with the dissolution of a failed social structure, like slavery. Whether it is the fall of Rome, the end of feudalism, or democratically inspired revolutions, history provides many examples where tipping points are reached and humanity leaps forward. What inspires such change? And how can we grapple with our problems today to bring about the next leap forward?

Well, I believe we need to change the context. My myopic perspective, honed from my life’s experience, will not likely provide the answer; and nor will yours. We need a broader perspective that bridges the individual to the collective. Art, for example, lives in the creative world of imagination where inspiration is collective. Observing a work of art is the act of participating in that initial inspiration. That participation needs no common language, for it is a priori the basis of subsequent expression. The indefinable emotions that arrest our mind before nature’s power, the source of human suffering, or our mortality are transcendent of our ego psyche. These experiences are not only shared by all of us, but are expansive of the individual perspective. It is in this manner that the collective will can take a discontinuous leap forward and overcome moral boundaries that justify the suppression of women and minorities, the exercise of preemptive force over a non-threatening people, the accumulation of power and resources to the exclusion of the vast majority, and so on. Framing a new context means being open to intuition, that receptivity to the light that shines universally in each one of us. The founders of our constitutional government, for example, shared a common vision that breached individual differences. They were equally inspired to recognize a fundamental truth: any social structure must secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. As a result, America is now the oldest democracy in the world. What new vision can unite a world where language barriers will no longer inhibit the spread of ideas? Could we face a future energy crisis or the specter of a polluted planet with diminished resources if we viewed our context more universally than corporate, national, or regional perspectives? Would not what inspired the Dutch to build dykes motivate every sea-level city from New York to San Francisco to Hong Kong to take similar measures? Or, because a rising sea has no impact on Dallas, Seattle, Berlin or Beijing, would we fail to act as one people? In other words, would we simply fail to see the broader context?

Of course, that broader vision alone will not in itself breach the boundaries I reference. We need compassion for each other—for all races and gender—beyond the restrictions of language, culture, religious beliefs, and physical distance. But before compassion can even be fired in our hearts, we need the light of a collective awareness. Each of us exists within and depends upon the life support systems of a tiny planet, revolving around an inconsequential star in one of many galaxies. We are, in fact, “one people,” alike in nature AND in circumstance. “This is the beginning of what they will do,” else we (“they”), scattered and confused, will accomplish nothing.

It is true that we humans are wired to make sense of our lives. But when that sense is focused on ego and personal context, humanity as a whole makes no sense at all.

Walking in a Sunlit Drizzle

10 Replies

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?

Leave a reply

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

Leave a reply

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!