Fatalism vs Optimism--the battle wages on

Health care - it’s certainly difficult to talk about health care reform in the United States these days, and it happens to be only a symptom of our larger challenges. Many of those who have insurance (like some members of Congress) apparently think that everyone can pay the outrageous prices insurance companies charge. We have had to let our insurance lapse due to premium prices. It’s frightening at any age not to have insurance, but more frightening I feel, as we are aging.

The government we expect to fix our insurance woes is sadly broken and the division of severe partisan politics is hurting us terribly. It does look like the sixty votes are now in the Senate for health care “reform” but what is proposed is more a give-away to insurance companies than true reform.

Our two-hundred year plus experiment in a democratic republic seems to be unable to break the deadlock of partisan politics and corporate lobbyist control. The corporations have taken over and individuals are paying the price. Can capitalism be fixed? Is there such a thing as sustainable capitalism? I have my doubts.

We cannot continue to count on growth and consumerism to keep us going. We’re fast running out of the natural resources that have sustained our grotesque consumerism of the last 20-30 years. It certainly isn’t to say that I am not guilty - I am, and I don’t know how to get completely out of the system. I do reduce, reuse, recycle and rethink. My husband and I are not heavy consumers, and we do grow many of our own fruits and vegetables. We produce far less garbage than our neighbors and we take composting and recycling very seriously. But, we eat too much meat, we use too much water, we depend upon cars (although we have reduced our miles driven) and have a multitude of other consumer traits.

I ponder whether a fatalistic approach is more appropriate, since we can't seem to agree on fixing the challenges we clearly face. If perhaps, all humanity were to die off, it might not be such a bad thing? We are the biggest consumers and exploiters of the world’s resources. We outsource our pollution and our jobs. We don’t share well. We’re greedy. We’re violent. Homo sapiens, as the most innovative and adaptable species, has become, too, the most invasive pest. An yet, we do love life and want to explore, learn, love, and live.

In all seriousness, we need to work on reducing the global population just as much as we are working on global climate change (not that Copenhagen proved to give us any serious change with an appropriate timeline). I know it is going to be hugely difficult to get nations (and individuals) to agree, but I know our single largest battle ahead is population control.

Of course, if we let that go, too, the tipping point will eventually cause our population to crash due to lack of food or through disease in the form of virulent global pandemics. (How's that for fatalism?) Sigh.

Questions such as these cause a deep-seated battle to rage within me - as my natural optimism vies with the fatalism such great challenges offer. It is quite daunting to grasp that there are no quick fixes; these tribulations have begun during our lifespan.

Peace and blessings (practice the first; count the second).

Ranting renders null the point of any argument.

I read an interesting comment, today, on a progressive website. The writer had a good argument backing a valid point; however, the writer rendered null and void his perspicacious comment by using capital letters and hateful language. In other words, while he could easily be part of the global solution conversation, his voice was lost in the abyss of flaming reactionary rhetoric.

I, too, am outraged by much of what is happening in the world; however, we cannot have positive discourse without issuing an invitation.

Had he modulated his response by removing the anger—his voice could have been heard. It is sad to see good ideas go to waste.

Peace and blessings (practice the first; count the second).

Working on Self

I took part in a local climate action, yesterday, sponsored by 350.org. A small group of like-minded people got together to take a visible stand in regard to climate change and to educate the general public about the need to lower carbon dioxide emissions to less than 350 ppm from the current 387 ppm. Writer/Activist Bill McKibben did a splendid job uniting groups in more than one-hundred eighty nations to create more than fifty-two hundred actions.

I have to confess that staying positive about the action was easy compared to staying positive about the individuals involved and their foibles. From a bossy micromanager, to a snapping irritated extrovert, to a strident angry sign carrier, we were certainly not using inclusive language or standing united for our cause.

What makes us so testy when we interact? I don’t have the answer—only speculations about stress (both physical and mental), about trying to stay within a certain timeframe while awaiting those who were tardy, about pleasing people who refuse to be pleased, and about how chronic physical pain can wreak havoc on attitude.

Do we need to learn to be kind, to be polite, and to have a cheery attitude toward minor irritations at a young age for them to be a first response to irritation? I know I was disappointed in my reactions (I was the snappy one) and I so desperately want to do better than this.

If I strongly believe in peace, compromise, common ground, and positive behavior—and I do—what takes over those beliefs and makes me a snappish boor? What made the others act as they did?

I search for equanimity and work on patience.

Peace and blessings (practice the first; count the second).

Lessons well learned.

Sometimes we think we know a lot about an individual, and we react using that knowledge. Perhaps that knowledge has been received from an entity with which we have something in common—one that we trust. Next, we stand in judgment of the person by the definition we have been given for him or her by the trusted entity. We could so easily find ourselves to be misinformed, or perhaps, under-informed.

Individuals are complex integrations of positive and negative traits, and unless we have had personal contact with that person, we really should take care to find out more before we judge. (I was re-taught this lesson, today—thank you, Sis!) The Internet offers us a great (albeit not only) resource to find out more about the complex actions of famous and not-so-famous individuals—we just might find out we have more in common than we originally thought.

I’ve had my comeuppance, today, and I humbly eat crow. I also ask that everyone else take time to check just one assumption you hold on the basis of what you have learned from a trusted, but potentially biased, source. You’ll be glad you did.

Peace and blessings (practice the first; count the second).

The mission to debunk erroneous semantics

Let’s touch on a touchy issue raging across our nation—race. Now, let’s debunk it. There is only one race—the human race—so we’re all living this huge earth-experiment together. There are cultural differences, there is a continuum of pigmentation shades—from nearly clear to shining black—and these differences do not constitute “race.” One race = human race. Enough said.

By changing semantics (and recognizing we are all together living on one planet) we can begin to change the nature of bias; we can begin to accept, even embrace, diversity. Our mission in life is to listen to the variety of voices, to challenge assumptions, and to recognize our own intolerances (and we ALL have them).

Be kind. Play nice. Share. Smile. These positive actions feel good and are good for our health (endorphins are excellent). We DID learn these things early in life—let’s practice them daily and frequently throughout the day.

Peace and blessings (practice the first; count the second).

Positive political discourse starts with you.

When did it become politically correct to preach hatred, to foment violence, to praise assassins? I’m seriously troubled by the tone of the voices rising from the extremes of our country. Where are the peers of these highly inflamed and inflammatory individuals—the people who would have, in the past, given them no sanction? We can but call upon civilized people to turn away from provocative speech, to refuse to listen to the vituperations, to chastise those who generate hate.

If every individual who understands that the current tone of discourse is inappropriate were to turn away and give no credence to those that foment hate and intolerance, if each person were to shun those who speak unbecomingly and distastefully, the discourse would change over time. Reaction is what the reactionaries seek.

If one were at a town hall meeting where the perverse start spewing hatred, the group could sit quietly offering no response to the childish outburst. The speaker, too, could choose to seat him- or herself, turn away, and wait for the tirade to end. One could simply disassociate from the ill-considered behavior and cause the climate of the gathering to change. Children learn to change their behavior when misbehavior no longer works—adults can learn the same lessons.

We must speak out. We must refuse to react to the reactionaries. Count to ten. Walk away. Say, “That is an inappropriate remark.” “Excuse me. I cannot understand you when you talk hate, when you spout bigotry, when you tell lies.”

Be willing to change the conversation. It starts with you and it starts at home.

Peace and blessings (practice the first; count the second).

No one's perfect, but let's try listening (and let's talk in our nice voices)

I know my stance about positive political discourse might be surprising for some who know me for having a flashing temper. However, I am trying to improve, and I practice civility, though I might slip at times. Things I do try to avoid are categorizing and generalizations about political parties or people. I believe there are fundamental differences between acting in a deplorable manner while under great duress and behaving deplorably as a method of force, without rational thought—while defending one’s right bray while denying another that same right.

Shouting down differing opinions does not change the opinion, nor does it lead to anything constructive in the way of compromise or of brainstorming new, inventive ways to approach the challenges we have. If we can refrain from personalities and hate generation, we might be able to find common ground—or even new grounds on which to agree. It isn’t going to happen, though, without a willingness to listen to differing opinions. Obviously, we all favor our own opinions, but a willingness to consider change opens doors, instead of closing them.

One of the biggest looming political problems is the relationship between the United States and the Middle East. In order to solve these problems, we must listen to Iran, we must listen to Palestine, and we must truly hear what they have to say, and what they believe can be done to find positive solutions to their challenges.

In a thoughtful interview, peace activist and compassionate listener, Gene Knudsen Hoffman was asked, “You frequently say that ‘An enemy is one who story we have not yet heard.’ What do you mean by that? Do you contend that terrorists have resorted to violence because their stories have not been heard?”

She wrote, “Yes, I do contend. I think a terrorist is someone who thinks his/her grievances will never be heard and never addressed, and I think that causes deep pain and anger which is an invitation to violence. I believe violence is caused by our unhealed wounds. I think not being heard and not being listened to is a grave wound.” (From, Which Way Should We Go Now? [page 53] Anthology: Sustainability, Radical Solutions Inspiring Hope, Ed. Bob Banner, HopeDance: San Luis Obispo, CA).

She writes the truth. Fear and unheard grievances prevent us from positive political discourse. Let’s listen, today.

Peace and blessings (practice the first; count the second).

Musing about positive discourse

We, in the United States, are in the midst of intense societal change akin to the changes of the 1960s and 1970s. We have become so divided that we are not moving through these difficult times with grace, kindness, and higher good at the forefront of national discourse. Perhaps it is time to back up and consider civility and intelligent discourse the means by which to achieve positive compromise, and to further the general social objectives and civil rights we hold so dear.

Last November, we saw the fulfillment of a promise made in America beginning with Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, furthered by Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted in 1865, and strengthened by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These were acts of a higher good and recognition of what is best within the people of the United States.

However, we remain a nation of slow progress, irrational ideas, and repeated, thus far unlearned lessons—often because we allow fear entrance to our conversations, and we become “entranced” by that fear. We are also a nation of stubborn individuals that hold firm convictions against the rational thought and valid argumentation that could allow us to see the issues more clearly. That tendency enables us to believe the stories told to us by the extremes of each political party—and it is divisive and unproductive to allow this to happen any more. It is not too late to invite courtesy and rational discourse to the public conversation.

Current trends of vituperative shouting, personal attacks, and inflammatory speech must be replaced by quiet discourse, a focus on challenges not personalities, and a willingness to listen to the concerns of the “other side.”

Let’s take time to look into the eyes of the individuals who differ with us, see and feel their humanity, listen to their concerns, and be willing to seek higher good through compromise.

Peace and blessings (practice the first; count the second).