While I and millions of DC residents are cleaning up after a huge snow storm, I look out my window this morning and notice strangers giving aid and assistance to drivers of cars stuck out in the wintry mix. Stodgy, suspicious, ponderous Washington has momentarily set aside its default setting to lend a hand. It is only when events this big and massive disrupt the status quo that this city shrinks in size and shared humanity begins to creep into the proceedings. DC is a city full of cross-currents and diversity, so it is rare that anyone is truly on the same page with another for very long. A Type A city ruled by Type A people means that often everyone is in a hurry going nowhere for no good reason, utterly consumed with their work to the detriment of every other facet of their lives. Though retailers will undoubtedly even lose money here in these crucial days leading up to Christmas, I can’t say that I am entirely saddened by the development.
Had this been any average year, the media would have run half a dozen stories (or more) gently chiding us for again, yet another year, completely destroying the meaning of the Christmas season. Many of us would assume our time-honored roles, mournfully nodding our heads up in down to signify that we agreed, but could find no solution to stop the orgiastic aspects of capitalism from overrunning the most important of holidays. A recession ought not only provide purely negative consequences. If we can learn from it, then all is not lost. If we are to face discomfort and pain, my hope is that we can understand that simplicity is a virtue, not a hindrance, and that accumulating possessions is a bit like accumulating inches of snow. In the beginning, it’s fun, but after a while, it begin to pose a serious problem. Not only that, others who believe in the grass is greener principle have a tendency to envy accumulation without understanding its notable drawbacks.
I personally am enjoying fewer crowds, less traffic, and less panicked looks. That it took a weakened economy and with it the loss of buying power surprises me not a bit. If the free market promised freedom from producing more problems than it fixes, I would be wholeheartedly in its corner. Some of the strongest people I ever met were those of my grandparents’ generation, who had faced a Great Depression and a World War, and whose iron resolve and stoic attitude showed the results of having gone fifteen rounds with hardship and tragedy and emerged stronger than steel. No shrinking violets were they.
As for these times, the only time I saw anything remotely similar to the traditional Christmas insanity was Friday of this past week, shortly before the snow fell, when thousands upon thousands of residents in our nation’s capital rushed madly to scoop up enough provisions and finish up their seasonal shopping. Everyone seems to be cutting back this year and I certainly am as well. Some have mentioned that the tinsel and electric excitement that requires a robust pocketbook is lacking, making this a bummer of a Season’s Greetings, at which point I suppose I have to note that I have grown so cynical about Christmas reality that I have embraced a kind of deliberately sparse rendering. All that twinkles is not gold. Some might assume that less money in the bank is the true War on Christmas™, though I believe that to be the overwhelming opinion of bankers.
The generation of my parents’ parents have been romanticized as “The Greatest Generation” but while the moniker is fitting, I saw nothing particularly superhuman about them. They were indebted to the same flaws as humanity has displayed ever since humans began to walk upright. If we faced the same challenges and abject perils as they, I am firmly convinced that we too would respond the identical way they did. The human body and the human mind have a way of being incredibly adaptive to adversity. It is fashionable in some circles to take pot shots at Baby Boomers or their children out of some desire to shame us all into acting properly or that we might better appreciate that which has fallen into our lap, but I will refrain from that line here. We have been incredibly fortunate, certainly, but neither do I think beating us over the head with our privilege is much of a solution. My hope is that we will retain the memory of what it felt like to not revel in excess and that we will apply those examples to our own lives and to the lives of those who we directly influence.
If this were truly some pitched battle against all that is sacred and holy against Christmas, then the true enemies would not be a secular society gone wildly astray, having embraced the confusion of political correctness. Instead, the enemies would be those people and things which fool us into thinking that we are the center of the universe and that there is no need to take into account the lives and struggles of our fellow beings. As I said before, 364 days out of the year, this city runs on the twin forces of preoccupation and workaholicism, but it has only been now when the roads are still largely impassible, many businesses and places are still unreachable or closed, and public transportation is barely functional that we recognize the folly of our ways. Still, I imagine a thousand nervous fingers madly punching keys on their Blackberries, expecting a fresh batch of places to go, people to see, and things to do.
I know personally of many people who believe that bringing their work home with them aids and assists those in need. Worthy causes exist, of course, and the belief among many is working themselves to death provides help to those who would otherwise not have it. I know others who have built their entire self-esteem, self-image, and self in their vocation, at the expense of any other facet in their life. This is tragedy to the extreme. We lose our humanity when we become robotic and monolithic. DC needs a snow day like this to re-think its priorities and my hope is that it doesn’t take a series of blizzards, both literal and figurative, to change the conventional wisdom.
Is there such a thing as a ‘just war’? The problem with that question is that when we answer ‘yes’, we end up in a world where there is ‘just war’–just war as an ultimate solution to every problem, whether it be terrorists, international diplomacy, drugs in our streets or bugs in our gardens. War becomes the default setting for all of our responses. War becomes the measure of manhood and the definer of strength. War constrains our imaginations and limits our intelligence.
A chemical farmer sees a bug in his field, and declares war. Out come the poisons and the sprays, the herbicides and the neurotoxins, dangerous and costly.. Kill the enemy! The result–poison on the vegetables, beneficial insects die, some pests always survive, making the problem worse.
An organic farmer sees a pest, and says, “Hmmn, here’s an interesting piece of information. Something in the system is out of balance. Perhaps some mineral is lacking in the soil, that’s weakening the plants. What can I do to shift the balance, to create conditions that will favor the beneficial bugs that will keep the pests in check?” Result–increased fertility, clean and nutritious vegetables, bright flowers growing among the fields, reduced damage to crops and increased health for farmworkers and consumers.
Our policy in the Middle East and Afghanistan, for decades, has been that of the chemical farmer–kill the enemy, and anything else that might happen to be in the vicinity, including civilians and potential allies, and when resistance develops, apply more of the same, regardless of cost. Then call it a ‘just war’.
Imagine what our policy might be if, instead, we were guided by the maxim of the clever politician Harry Seldon from Isaac Asimov’s classic science fiction novel, Foundation. “Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.”
We might develop a policy more like that of the organic farmer–looking for the underlying forces that create the imbalance, that favor the development of terrorism and anti-U.S. sentiments. We might look for ways to support and favor the elements within Afghani or Iraqi or Iranian society that make for health, resilience, and liberty instead of employing the force that creates a perfect habitat for resentment, hatred, repression and terror. We might have supported and protected our Kurdish and Shiite allies after the first Gulf War instead of abandoning and betraying them. We might support the women’s organizations in Afghanistan who, even under the Taliban, struggled heroically for women’s rights. We might look at the model of Otpor, a student group who successfully overthrew the dictator Miloscevic using nonviolent resistance–with some strategic help and funding from outside. We might support the nonviolent resistance among the Palestinians, pressure the Israelis to lift the stranglehold siege on Gaza, to restrain their use of disproportionate force and to recognize that their true security can only be gained when Palestinians also have peace, security, and a just recognition of their human rights.
I’m deeply disappointed in Obama, because he is intelligent enough to forge such a policy. However, he operates in a country still controlled by a deep assumption–that strength equals force and violence, that a man who is reluctant to use force is less than a man, that a nation who refrains from wholesale slaughter is ‘weak’. I can’t help but think that his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan has less to do with the ‘justness’ of the conflict and more to do with the politics back home–an attempt to placate his right wing detractors and to look strong in their eyes.
In my futuristic novel, “The Fifth Sacred Thing,” my character Maya says, “For five thousand years, men have been goading each other into acts of brutality and stupidity by calling each other cowards.”
Until we confront that assumption, until we challenge our ‘real men’ and real women to embody a different sort of strength–the strength that nurtures, that heals, that uses intelligence and thoughtfulness and diplomacy to solve problems instead of brute force, until the thought of violence becomes abhorrent to us all, we will have no clear yardstick by which to measure any sort of justice.
MITCHELL: Palin calls it “junk science.” She says, “The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worst.”
Apparently many workers in China would — for how much longer though is not entirely clear. You see the Chinese, want to make more, improve the Standard of Living for their families — just like Americans and Europeans do.
8-12% Raises in Minimum Wages across China, in 2005!?
Apparently, Workers around the World, AREN’T Working just for the Fun of it!
This new trend toward leveling the the Global playing field, doesn’t bode well for the Wal-Marts of the world, who rely on such “captured cheap labor markets” —
to remain quiet, dutiful, and
happy with a pittance.
Afterall Billions of Dollars (and Euros) are at stake — those Foreign Workers must not upset that Apple cart.
As Americans ponder the Thanksgiving Day holiday expectations are high. Young children look forward to all the activities loved ones plan. School age individuals are told tales of the Pilgrims and the Indians that befriended early settlers. Most imagine that on this November day, people come together peaceably. That, for the little ones is a welcome thought. Too often, tension exists in the parent child relationship. Some say angst increases as the offspring age. Whilst many wish to believe the strain occurs over time, as a child becomes more autonomous, indeed, recent research shows early interactions give rise to the relationship that will be.
Toddlers and tots rarely have opportunities to quietly, calmly, and genuinely converse with parents or the caregivers they are fond of. Hence, lads and lasses feel a sense of loss. By the teen years, the thought of another Thanksgiving celebration with relatives evokes an almost automatic response, “No thanks.”
Dissatisfaction in Progressive circles with President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress continues to swell and grow. Indeed, I myself am deeply disappointed that the same old legislative and partisan stalemates seem to be so firmly entrenched that even a phenomenon promising optimism and significant reform could not break old habits. Still, rather than resort to the Howard Fineman/Maureen Dowd approach and play a game of “I-told-you-so”, I’d much rather avoid pettiness altogether and attempt to understand why we are faced with politics-as-usual when we are at a point in our nation’s history when we can least afford it. Answers exist beyond the usual discourse though they are rarely raised when many would rather exchange philosophy for wonkery. Wonkery has its place, but what we seek now are solutions and ideas, not process and jargon.
Regarding our current crisis of several reform measures that have bogged down or are in danger of being passed or scuttled depending on the hours, much of the problem arrives when one considers that we are frequently confused by different allegiances to often incompatible schools of information dispersal and guidance. Either we are in a stage in between two different paradigms or we have tried to blend together two absolutely contradictory styles, wondering why we can’t get any results afterward. Conservatives frequently use purely linear leadership to achieve their ends and we on the left often use an uneasy mash up between linear leadership and its asymmetric counterpart.
Linear leadership is the sort that was brought to this country by European colonists. A small continent in land mass contained an enormous variety of different cultures, different languages, and different ways of looking at life. With so much variance and so little likelihood of reaching consensus or finding common purpose, a forceful style of conducting affairs developed that quickly grew highly stratified and regimented. In it, hierarchies, pecking orders, and ranking systems became of paramount importance, as did the underlying assumptions that leaders were few, followers were many, and a passive kind of obedience was to be practiced. In all areas of Western life, this style dominated. Speaking from a purely Christian perspective, most Christian denominations, sects, and faith groups even to this day follow this same model, whereby a leader (called by a variety of different names depending on which group one ascribes) frequently instructs fellow believers in the form of a sermon and holds much power to direct church policy. A linear system is a passive manner of conveying a message. I talk, you listen. Placing power in the hands of a structured system frequently disenfranchises people and glosses over distinctions, but it is deliberate, effective, and highly successful in dividing and conquering as well as hammering home a singular message.
Grassroots groups, however, are run on an asymmetric brand of leadership. The idea is often not about top-down leadership, but on a more egalitarian approach where each individual voice is as important as anyone else’s. Frequently, however, this creates problems when it comes down to agreeing on any uniform statement or platform that the entire group endorses as a whole. What is frequently advanced is a notion that everyone has to find his or her own path towards understanding the challenges and issues the group seeks to influence and reform while simultaneously pressing the notion that no one’s path or interpretation should be ranked as more or less important by the organization as a whole. The problem with grassroots groups is that they seek to affect policy by using one particular strategy that is not found within politics itself. Politics is structured from top-to-bottom and rarely are those at the bottom granted the ability to speak with any degree of authority. They are expected instead to be good foot soldiers, never question party line, with the hopes that they might rise up through the ranks and achieve greater distinction and a greater ability to be taken seriously and to contribute to the group dynamic.
Many Native American groups were based upon an asymmetric model when it came down to making tribal decisions and stating individual opinions. Though it was certainly more uniformly fair, its key failing was that it did not foster group unity, unintentionally creating factionalism in the process. Native Americans never had the same sense of common purpose and common unity that Europeans did, which was why they were so easily defeated in battle and by court action. Different tribes rarely felt any sense of collective solidarity with each other and there was often dissent and schism within tribes. Some faith traditions, of which unprogrammed Quakers are one, have their worship services more aligned with this philosophy. Unprogrammed Quakers have no minister and conduct worship without any element, aside, of course, from the start and the finish, planned out beforehand. However, they often have difficulty reaching uniformity on a large scale basis and particularly from region to region, yearly meeting to yearly meeting. As a result, different subsets and regional groups have very different priorities and very different ideas about what ought to be important and advanced.
The 9/12 and Tea Party groups have faced this same problem and are in danger of breaking apart. Motivated only by their opposition to what they perceive as a common threat, they have frequently broken apart when unable to achieve anything resembling one coherent message. We might gloat at their self-destructive behavior, but learning from their mistakes and not repeating them within ourselves might be the best lesson of all. We will need to ask ourselves, individually and collectively, what school do we want to set forth? Top-down or spread-around? Whatever we choose will need to be soberly contemplated, because each method has pros and cons, and so long as our opposition continues to use tactics that can, as we have seen, divide us easily in the hopes of conquering us, we cannot take this matter lightly. We might have to acknowledge that a House divided against itself cannot stand. It will become all one thing or all the other.
When reality sucks and attempts to change that reality are met with derision and/or apathy, what is a person to do? Sometimes the realm of fiction is a good escape.
I’ve had this piece in production since before I decided to give up the fight and stop working to improve that reality. Let someone else take up the fight and put their heart on the line, to be stomped on and shredded time and again. And I thought I should probably finish it and share it with those who desire some closure.
The fact that it is connected to the Transgender Day of Remembrance may give it some relevance.
_ # ^ & _ # ^ & _ # ^ & _
The Engineer noted the curve in the happentracks ahead. Sie pulled the cord which let loose a trumpetful of sound. The Passenger awoke suddenly. The Storyteller and the Listener looked outward.
Suddenly the train began to slow. In the cab the Engineer cast a worried look at the Brakeman. The Brakeman had a bony countenance…
In case you missed it, Texas has now banned gay marriages. Oh wait, that isn’t all — they have now banned ALL marriages in Texas!
AUSTIN – Texans: Are you really married?
Maybe not.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.
Here is the money quote from the legislation:
The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.“
In one of my diaries, a comment was posted. Whether it was meant to be sarcastic or not is unknown. It did, however, bring up a point that, like other points brought up about me in the past, I feel needs to be addressed and responded to, maybe in this case needlessly.
The comment was:
I hope you’re able to deal with that burden effectively, Michael. Trying to curve corners at a resolutely square place will do weird things to one’s sense of self-righteousness. It almost obscures the sharp points of one’s own corners that refuse to curve.
I understand that, in the overall comment, it was more about DK than it was about me. But, asking if I can deal “with the burden” was, to me, more a comment on being right…
When reality sucks and attempts to change that reality are met with derision and/or apathy, what is a person to do? Sometimes the realm of fiction is a good escape.