Lately Republicans are arguing that a government health care plan would lead to "rationing of health care." Never mind that the current system is largely based on companies whose profit depends on withholding health care.
Wouldn't it be great if those in government were interested in providing health care for their constituents instead of profits for their corporate donors?
Monday, June 15, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
"I hope he fails."
I know I'm a couple of months out of date on this, but I try to ignore Republican political rhetoric as much as possible. I hear that Rush Limbaugh has been saying "I hope he fails" about Obama. It's a nice insight into how Republicans think. Limbaugh apparently would rather have the US economy fail, have the US make major strategic military mistakes and generally have its government's plans fail than to give credit for a plan that works.
We can't defend Limbaugh by saying "well, he just doesn't believe Obama's policies could work." This is clearly not a question of whether Limbaugh doubts the efficacy of Obama's plans. It cannot be a question of Limbaugh believing that Obama's plans will be bad for America in the long run. "I hope he fails," Limbaugh said. This is not about Obama creating new problems.
The California Republicans who refused, for many months, to make any concessions on their points while California had no budget and was going to shut down many public projects (at a great cost to the state), are of the same ilk. It is not about cooperation; it is about them getting what they want at any cost.
I suppose they might argue it's about principle. But these are the same people who would vilify Democrats for not working on bipartisan efforts, and who would vilify the same Democrats for being wishy-washy and not having principles.
Although they are closely connected to the Christian religion, a religion that preaches love, I see little love in the Republicans.
Wouldn't it be great if the Republicans actually cared about people? Wouldn't it be great if they were actually interested in helping needy people? Wouldn't it be great if they actually wanted America and Americans to do well, instead of just their political cronies?
What would really be great is for a someone to actually convince me that the Republican voices--the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters--really do believe in charity, in loving one's neighbors and one's enemies--you know, some of the basic tenets of the Christian religion, on which they so often call. I'm open to being convinced, but there's a lot of explaining to be done to explain how Rush Limbaugh's "I hope [the president of the United States] fails," is actually a patriotic sentiment, and not a petty, selfish one.
We can't defend Limbaugh by saying "well, he just doesn't believe Obama's policies could work." This is clearly not a question of whether Limbaugh doubts the efficacy of Obama's plans. It cannot be a question of Limbaugh believing that Obama's plans will be bad for America in the long run. "I hope he fails," Limbaugh said. This is not about Obama creating new problems.
The California Republicans who refused, for many months, to make any concessions on their points while California had no budget and was going to shut down many public projects (at a great cost to the state), are of the same ilk. It is not about cooperation; it is about them getting what they want at any cost.
I suppose they might argue it's about principle. But these are the same people who would vilify Democrats for not working on bipartisan efforts, and who would vilify the same Democrats for being wishy-washy and not having principles.
Although they are closely connected to the Christian religion, a religion that preaches love, I see little love in the Republicans.
Wouldn't it be great if the Republicans actually cared about people? Wouldn't it be great if they were actually interested in helping needy people? Wouldn't it be great if they actually wanted America and Americans to do well, instead of just their political cronies?
What would really be great is for a someone to actually convince me that the Republican voices--the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters--really do believe in charity, in loving one's neighbors and one's enemies--you know, some of the basic tenets of the Christian religion, on which they so often call. I'm open to being convinced, but there's a lot of explaining to be done to explain how Rush Limbaugh's "I hope [the president of the United States] fails," is actually a patriotic sentiment, and not a petty, selfish one.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Standard of Living and Quality of Living
The other day I read some article about how Americans have to get used to a lower standard of living, because basically we're not as rich as we used to be (for many reasons, including having run up such a massive debt that paying interest on it is now a major portion of our income).
That's kind of a frightening idea, I guess. Until you think about the difference between quality of life and standard of living.
I don't think that the American standard of living, as high as it is, is anywhere close to maximizing the possibilities for quality of life. The wealth that we have is misused and abused. I'm not saying that wealth doesn't contribute to quality of life, but the two are definitely not locked hand in hand.
What would happen if Americans suddenly had much less money to spend? What would go first? Well, we know that people are going to eat, regardless, and they still need clothes and shelter and warmth. People will still need to be creative--so they will still need tools that they can use. What's left? Luxury toys and expenses. If there's less gas/electrical power available, what gets turned off first: the heat, the stove, the computer or the plasma TV? (Side note: the plasma TV is an energy-sucking beast: from http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-friendly/tv-energy-star-47020520: "The Wall Street Journal recently published this amazing fact: 'A 42-inch plasma set can consume more electricity than a full-size refrigerator – even when that TV is used only a few hours a day.' For those keeping score at home, the refrigerator is (or was) the appliance that demands the most electricity.")
And, back to appliances to turn on or off: which of them would improve our quality of life by being turned off (or at least turned off more)? TV, surely.
A lower standard of living would mean that people would not look to answer all their problems by buying something new. I don't even know how many times I've heard someone say "my life would be complete if I could just buy X, or visit Y, but I don't have the money." When I hear that kind of logic, I think, first, of Social Distortion's line in "Ball and Chain:" "Wherever I have gone, I was sure to find myself there; You can run all your life and never go anywhere." And then I think that it's not about the life being "complete" anyway: it's about living well, about a process that engages one and helps one grow and be healthy and happy.
Anyway, it seems to me that there is an opportunity present to us, even in times of scarcity (or, really, scarcity relative to the incredible wealth to which we are accustomed): we have an opportunity to think about what is really important and focus on that.
For the most part, Americans are unfamiliar with living in real scarcity--where there is real difficulty feeding yourself or your children. And I pray that the reduction in the American standard of living will not be so severe that there is not enough food to feed the people. But as we know, there's plenty of food grown--and much of it gets thrown away in the name of profit.
Wouldn't it be great if Americans learned that there was something more important than our standard of living and how much money we have made? If you don't know how to appreciate what you have, then there is little value in wealth; it will just make you fat and unhappy instead of thin and unhappy.
That's kind of a frightening idea, I guess. Until you think about the difference between quality of life and standard of living.
I don't think that the American standard of living, as high as it is, is anywhere close to maximizing the possibilities for quality of life. The wealth that we have is misused and abused. I'm not saying that wealth doesn't contribute to quality of life, but the two are definitely not locked hand in hand.
What would happen if Americans suddenly had much less money to spend? What would go first? Well, we know that people are going to eat, regardless, and they still need clothes and shelter and warmth. People will still need to be creative--so they will still need tools that they can use. What's left? Luxury toys and expenses. If there's less gas/electrical power available, what gets turned off first: the heat, the stove, the computer or the plasma TV? (Side note: the plasma TV is an energy-sucking beast: from http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-friendly/tv-energy-star-47020520: "The Wall Street Journal recently published this amazing fact: 'A 42-inch plasma set can consume more electricity than a full-size refrigerator – even when that TV is used only a few hours a day.' For those keeping score at home, the refrigerator is (or was) the appliance that demands the most electricity.")
And, back to appliances to turn on or off: which of them would improve our quality of life by being turned off (or at least turned off more)? TV, surely.
A lower standard of living would mean that people would not look to answer all their problems by buying something new. I don't even know how many times I've heard someone say "my life would be complete if I could just buy X, or visit Y, but I don't have the money." When I hear that kind of logic, I think, first, of Social Distortion's line in "Ball and Chain:" "Wherever I have gone, I was sure to find myself there; You can run all your life and never go anywhere." And then I think that it's not about the life being "complete" anyway: it's about living well, about a process that engages one and helps one grow and be healthy and happy.
Anyway, it seems to me that there is an opportunity present to us, even in times of scarcity (or, really, scarcity relative to the incredible wealth to which we are accustomed): we have an opportunity to think about what is really important and focus on that.
For the most part, Americans are unfamiliar with living in real scarcity--where there is real difficulty feeding yourself or your children. And I pray that the reduction in the American standard of living will not be so severe that there is not enough food to feed the people. But as we know, there's plenty of food grown--and much of it gets thrown away in the name of profit.
Wouldn't it be great if Americans learned that there was something more important than our standard of living and how much money we have made? If you don't know how to appreciate what you have, then there is little value in wealth; it will just make you fat and unhappy instead of thin and unhappy.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Are these people crazy?
I just saw a headline about oil prices falling "on nagging energy demand worries."
Are they kidding me? Maybe if your vision of the future includes about the next three months, because I have a lot of trouble imagining how the ten billion people on this planet aren't going to want a bunch of energy over the coming years. There's plenty of demand for energy.
As far as I'm concerned, a slight reduction in the sense of entitlement to luxury would serve the American public well.
Wouldn't it be great if people were able to learn to live with a bit less luxury, and the corresponding reduction in environment-changing waste?
Are they kidding me? Maybe if your vision of the future includes about the next three months, because I have a lot of trouble imagining how the ten billion people on this planet aren't going to want a bunch of energy over the coming years. There's plenty of demand for energy.
As far as I'm concerned, a slight reduction in the sense of entitlement to luxury would serve the American public well.
Wouldn't it be great if people were able to learn to live with a bit less luxury, and the corresponding reduction in environment-changing waste?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Peace
Wouldn't it be great if we could find other ways to solve problems than to kill each other?
Of course many who are motivated to kill, do so precisely because they feel there is no other choice. But wouldn't it be great if we could find other options?
Israel is invading Gaza and warning of escalation. Hamas retaliates the only way they know how. And in the middle are people dying. Wouldn't it be great if there were another way?
I am not debating the practical efficacy of violence--but there are many who do. There are many who would say that violence does solve problems; there are also many, though fewer, I imagine, who would say that violence breeds problems.
We can view problems in many different ways. Is the problem the immediate threat of one individual or one nation? Or is the problem the pattern that creates a new problem in the course of resolving the old pattern?
There is no abstract logical foundation for either choice of framing--to some extent both framings have validity and one chooses between them on the basis of assessments of probability. Such decisions are tied into the most fundamental ways we see the world.
If we can see that, then we can also see that we have to make a choice: what values do we wish to espouse? What outcomes would we most like?
The choice to focus on paths to peace is centered on the desire for an alternative to violence--only by believing beforehand that violence is not an acceptable or efficacious solution--does it make sense to seek alternatives. We have to believe that peace is really important to provide the foundation for actions that will promote peace.
Of course many who are motivated to kill, do so precisely because they feel there is no other choice. But wouldn't it be great if we could find other options?
Israel is invading Gaza and warning of escalation. Hamas retaliates the only way they know how. And in the middle are people dying. Wouldn't it be great if there were another way?
I am not debating the practical efficacy of violence--but there are many who do. There are many who would say that violence does solve problems; there are also many, though fewer, I imagine, who would say that violence breeds problems.
We can view problems in many different ways. Is the problem the immediate threat of one individual or one nation? Or is the problem the pattern that creates a new problem in the course of resolving the old pattern?
There is no abstract logical foundation for either choice of framing--to some extent both framings have validity and one chooses between them on the basis of assessments of probability. Such decisions are tied into the most fundamental ways we see the world.
If we can see that, then we can also see that we have to make a choice: what values do we wish to espouse? What outcomes would we most like?
The choice to focus on paths to peace is centered on the desire for an alternative to violence--only by believing beforehand that violence is not an acceptable or efficacious solution--does it make sense to seek alternatives. We have to believe that peace is really important to provide the foundation for actions that will promote peace.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Building Dreams
It would be great if I could always keep my eye on a positive future. There are difficulties ahead, without doubt--that is the nature of life. But to look forward towards the positive moments is one of he most valuable pleasures that we can have. The difference between the optimistic mindset and the pessimistic one has profound emotional impact--at least for me. By thinking about the good things that might happen, my mood goes up; by thinking about the bad things that could happen my mood goes down.
This kind of difference--between two different perspectives of the world--has been shown to affect human reasoning. Two different descriptions of the same situation will evoke different responses. From my personal introspection, I see this as being related to the emotional component that is being activated when I look at the world in one way or another.
In fact, it is recognized that gratitude for things can have a positive impact on mood. Gratitude is backward looking (for the most part), but it still carries a positive emotional valence because it is a focus on things that are good.
My habit is to look for problems. It's a habit that I want to change, because it's emotionally painful. But at the same time, we don't want to go through life oblivious to the problems that might beset us: we do want to be able to see the possible negative impact of our choices.
So we want to be able to strike a balance--to be aware of potential problems, and to create a foundation from which those problems can be addressed, and at the same time to focus our energy and intention on the creation of a positive future.
I guess that this was the basic idea behind this blog in the first place: to build dreams; to build the habit of focusing on a positive future. And that is something that has been something I've been working on, but most often I have been working on that habit in personal dimensions that I don't really want to write about. It's one thing to write about possible utopias; it's another, altogether, to write about the personal issues that I'm working on. Sometimes those issues have a universal character--the great religious leaders through history have addressed issues of self-control, of pessimism, of over-optimism, and many others. But my personal take on these things is not necessarily something that I want to write about.
This kind of difference--between two different perspectives of the world--has been shown to affect human reasoning. Two different descriptions of the same situation will evoke different responses. From my personal introspection, I see this as being related to the emotional component that is being activated when I look at the world in one way or another.
In fact, it is recognized that gratitude for things can have a positive impact on mood. Gratitude is backward looking (for the most part), but it still carries a positive emotional valence because it is a focus on things that are good.
My habit is to look for problems. It's a habit that I want to change, because it's emotionally painful. But at the same time, we don't want to go through life oblivious to the problems that might beset us: we do want to be able to see the possible negative impact of our choices.
So we want to be able to strike a balance--to be aware of potential problems, and to create a foundation from which those problems can be addressed, and at the same time to focus our energy and intention on the creation of a positive future.
I guess that this was the basic idea behind this blog in the first place: to build dreams; to build the habit of focusing on a positive future. And that is something that has been something I've been working on, but most often I have been working on that habit in personal dimensions that I don't really want to write about. It's one thing to write about possible utopias; it's another, altogether, to write about the personal issues that I'm working on. Sometimes those issues have a universal character--the great religious leaders through history have addressed issues of self-control, of pessimism, of over-optimism, and many others. But my personal take on these things is not necessarily something that I want to write about.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Would it be great?
It's easy to say "wouldn't it be great if life were always easy?"
It's a question, but not a rhetorical one: the answer does not appear to be simple. There are obvious advantages to life always being easy, but there are some drawbacks, too.
One must question what really leads to happiness. This is a question that has occupied philosophers for millennia. One answer, given by writers like Abrham Maslow, suggests that we are made happy through growth and learning.
If this is true, then adversity is the necessary concomitant of growth: without adversity, without a challenge, there is no possible growth to accomplish that which you could not have accomplished earlier.
So it doesn't seem to make sense to wish for a life of constant ease.
Instead, wouldn't it be great if life provided just enough challenge that we continue to grow, without so much challenge that our lives fall apart.
It's a question, but not a rhetorical one: the answer does not appear to be simple. There are obvious advantages to life always being easy, but there are some drawbacks, too.
One must question what really leads to happiness. This is a question that has occupied philosophers for millennia. One answer, given by writers like Abrham Maslow, suggests that we are made happy through growth and learning.
If this is true, then adversity is the necessary concomitant of growth: without adversity, without a challenge, there is no possible growth to accomplish that which you could not have accomplished earlier.
So it doesn't seem to make sense to wish for a life of constant ease.
Instead, wouldn't it be great if life provided just enough challenge that we continue to grow, without so much challenge that our lives fall apart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
