Una Muses

Recent Vampire Musings

Unaspenser — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:19:22 GMT

Power and "Spirited Away"

Unaspenser — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:36:20 GMT

Last night I watched "Spirited Away" for the second time. (My 9 year old daughter is a little obsessed with it at the moment.) It's a masterfully done allegory where a little girl who, full of anxiety as she moves to a new home and school, enters an imaginary world of spirits and magic. The strangeness of the place is frightening and her parents are rendered helpless, so she must rely on her own inner resources to make her way. While there she activates her own powers of intuition, compassion, persistence and voice. It's a powerful tale.

It's a tale about power. A tale for our time, as we watch how those with inordinate power have impacted us all destructively. I woke up this morning, with thoughs of Spirited Away in my head and then found myself angry about this whole "bailout" of the financial industry and about the Obama DOJ's defense of Bush's Unitary Executive claims. I won't go into the details of these, because I'm thinking of it at a different level. If you want a clear explanation of the financial debacle read Matt Taibbi's piece in Rolling Stone (when did Rolling Stone become a source of such searing journalism?) Glenn Greenwald is a primary source for following constitutional issues and he's on top of the Unitary Executive question on his blog at Salon.com with a good opening look at the Obama administration here.

What I woke up thinking about this morning was the simple concept of the consolidation of power. In every good story of human drama, we find that the key to ratcheting up drama is an imbalance of power and the key to calming things down is re-balancing power. In Spirited Away, this is no different. Characters are used against their will when they give up their power. In this case, their identity. You lose your voice to speak truth to power when you sign away your name. In order to break the power imbalance you must take back your name, your idenitity.

In the U.S. we've given our power over to the concept of a "free and unfettered market". In selling this concept, there are those who have convinced us that The Marketplace will naturally regulate itself and will work out any imbalances that might come from misrepresentation of products, destructive aspects of management behaviors or production processes and inequities in resource distribution. This thing called Demand couple with Competition with assure that all goes well.

We've been mesmerized by this spell for over two centuries, ever since Adam Smith argued that The Marketplace, if allowed Compete free and unfettered, would advance broader social interests, even as all the activities were motivated by self-interest.

Really? How's that working out for us? What we've seen with our latest round of economic crisis is that self-interest really doesn't serve the broader social interests. Even as hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs the very people that set the financial collapse in motion believe they deserve exorbitant salaries. Our political leaders, even in the face of how much damage these people have wreaked, still believe that "we can't let them fail."

There is no such thing as a free and unfettered Market. That's because The Market is us. We are The Market and we are not unfettered. Built into this idealized concept of a Free Market Economy is the concept that we all act in our own best interests. Has there ever been a time in history when humans have proved to be so infallibly sensible?

Humans are a beautiful thing in all their flawed glory. Only, the beauty of it can only be capitalized on when we acknowledge and work with these flaws rather than deny them and act like they don't exist. We need to own the reality that we tend to be greedy and narcissistic. We all know the saying, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." And that's what happened with our financial systems. We allowed too much unchecked power to sit in the hands of a few. We know, deep down we all really know, that none of us will remain unadulterated if given too much power. Being the in position of power skews one's perspective and if we view the world from that perspective for too long, we convince ourselves that our view is the one true view and that only we know best.

What bothers me about this Big Bang Bailout thing that we've going isn't the massive national debt that it breeds, it's that instead of breaking up the power, we're consolidating it. We're declaring that "they're too big too fail" and watching smaller financial institutions fail in their wake, thereby increasing their fundamental power base. We're reinforcing the power position of the very people who abused that power. We're like the abused spouse who returns home after a trip to the hospital. We need an intervention. We need to regain the identity that we signed away when we fell under the Adam Smith spell.

This country was founded by revolutionaries who stood up to the abuse of the age-old monarchical powers of Great Britain. These rag-tag colonialists spoke truth to power and fought to get out from under. They told us that "all men are created equal" with the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." They didn't say that we had the right to pursue happiness no matter the cost to others. Yet, we celebrate those who have pursued inordinate amounts for themselves in the midst of the homeless and the starving and those without health care. We idolize those that hoard resources, especially when they share a token amount of it. We buy into the idea that all the other people are suffering because they just don't work hard enough or follow the rules or have enough self-control. Yet, we know that this is not true. We know that chance plays a larger role in anybody's success or demise than any other factor.

Chance doesn't respond to The Market and doesn't even notice Competition. That profound phrase, "There but for grace..." is profound for a reason. People are born into inequitable situations with inequitable interpersonal qualities and inequitable turns of fate can beset them. Some are more able to expound their sense of self worth than others, even when we all know that no one person is really worth more than another. Some can twist an arm harder than others and we don't band together to stop them even when we know that allowing them to get away with it means they will someday twist our own arms. We promote these people and when we do, we promote these qualities. We allow them to step into positions of power and when we do, we allow them to put us all at great risk.

What do we do when that risk is realized? Do we dissipate their power? Do we resolve ourselves to prevent such an aggregation of power again? No. We bail them out and tell them they're indispensable. We still haven't reclaimed our identity and broken the spell. I guess we, as a nation, all need to be spirited away before we can take back our names and do what it takes to enforce a just balance of powers.

I find these thoughts leading me to another piece of story in "Spirited Away". It has to do with how the girl is clear about what she really needs, what is most meaningful rather than being distracted by temptations that might make a particular moment feel good. There is a link between this clarity she has and her ability to reclaim her power. Perhaps next time...

About Those 'Bonuses'

Unaspenser — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:08:09 GMT

I'm as dismayed as everyone about the way that unchecked greed has brought down our economy and our financial systems. It's been painful to watch friends lose their jobs, businesses go under and households hanging on for dear life. If we really want to figure out how we got here and what we need to change if we're to prevent this level of catastrophe in the future, though, we need to have a reasonable dialog. The Media and everyone else who keep referring to the AIG payouts as 'bonuses' are not helping matters. (And the Obama Administration has not handled the whole thing well, either.)

So, what were these big checks? They were retention payments. Retention payments are delayed paychecks. That is, you negotiate an annual salary and then you agree to postpone the reciept of a portion of the paycheck until the end of the year. When you get the balance of you paycheck, you agree to stay on for another year. These were contracts regarding their unqualified annual salaries, not bonuses based on performance or any other indicators. It's important to be clear about that, as we're all screaming about who gets a bonus when they've done such a bad job. It is likely true that the legal costs around breaching those contracts might have outweighed the cost of honoring the contracts. And we all know that every tax has a loophole. We're talking about people who master and manipulate the financial system for their own gain. By 2010, when these tax dollars are due, each and every one of them is likely to have used the retention money to earn more than enough to cover the tax liability and/or will have found some way to offset the tax by hiding income and assets. At this point, the damage is done.

That said, these weren't people who negotiated a deal for a $50,000 salary and lived most of the year on a $30,000 paycheck. These were people making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. It's not as if they are going to starve or lack resources for housing if they don't get the remaining balance of their pay. Once the company had to take public money, the responsible thing to do would have been to require that every person making over a certain amount of money come forward for a renegotiation of their entire benefits package before public monies could be received. There should have been a forced conscientiousness. When you're on the dole, you can't justify lavish lifestyles while those who are doling are losing jobs and homes and health care. Congress should have written language in to require that when they wrote the Big Bailout Bill last year. But I can't think of a time when our government has ever pushed conscientiousness and accountability onto the power class.

So, they didn't. They operated from panic. The Bush Administration pushed the panic buttons, too. All of our dear leaders were telling us at the time that this unprecedented bailout of private companies who had ruined the public economy had to have all this money immediately, with no requirements or accountability on their part, or life as we knew it was going to fall into oblivion.

All of of this is so flawed in so many ways. So, of course, the Big Bailout has not resulted in fixing anything and now we're seeing the continued selfish, greediness of the privileged class and now we're going to focus all of our anxieties and anger at this one definable group.

Tragic. It saddens me deeply to realize that this how we're going to process the massive failure of a social ethos - one of 'individualism' and a 'free market' that does not attempt in any way to curb the human pathos of greed and ego in order to protect the vulnerable and ensure a sustainable economy for all.

I'm bothered by this red-herring of outrage about these non-bonuses. We're at a critical time in our culture. A time when we could be looking deeply at a new way forward. If we were really interested in that, we would be talking about why anyone thinks it's okay for any single person to earn millions of dollars, representing the hoarding of the Earth's resources, when others are starving, homeless and without health care.

Take Oprah, for example. Why do we revere her? She's one of the wealthiest people in the country. And, yes, she's done some philanthropic work. She's always sure to promote her philanthropic work and she's never given up a single creature comfort in order to help others. She throws herself a multi-million dollar birthday party, requiring that each guest come prepared to praise her. She launches a magazine with her own picture on every cover. She's narcissitic and greedy. With her resources, she could probably make sure that an entire town ended hunger, educated everyone and built a bevy of small businesses for long-term sustainability. She might not have as much expendable money afterwards as she's used to, but I'm sure she'd still be comfortable.

So, what does it say about us that, as a culture, we reinforce her pursuit of wealth for herself while our neighbors choose between paying the heating bill and having health insurance? Why are we so comfortable with individuals hoarding resources at the expense of others. And don't tell me that it's not at the expense of others. Money is only useful if it has the power of purchasing goods and services. All of which require energy or material resources from the planet. The planet is a finite object. There is only so much food that can be grown, for instance. So, if you're eating more than your share, you're denying food to someone else. (We may not be a the limit of food production, yet, but you get the gist.) Why isn't that concern high on our moral checklist?

So, what bothers me about the AIG mess, isn't that these people are getting their retention pay. It's that we don't bat an eye at how much the paychecks are in the first place. I mean think about it. Is any one person really worth that much more than another? Why do some people think they deserve a $1million paycheck while the guy two floors down only deserves a $75thousand salary and the guy working from the basement keeping the the building in tact and making sure you have a clean, safe place to work only deservies a $30 thousand salary. If I work 40 hours and you work 40 hours and we both have families to feed and house and educate and insure, what makes you think you and your family "deserve" a more lavish lifestyle while my family worries about whether they can get more than beans at the grocery store?

I've heard people argue that managers and executives are taking on more responsibility and, therefore, deserve more money. I'm not convinced that this is a meaningful debate point in and of itself, but it certainly isn't when there is not accountability to go with the responsibility. If you're getting all that money and you fail and you cost everybody else their livelihoods, maybe you should get stuck with a bill to cover their costs of living. On a human level, how can one person look another one in the eyes, especially someone working side by side in the same endeavor, and feel good about their multi-house, jet-setting life when their co-worker can't afford a home?

It's the cold, selfishness of it all that gets to me. More than that, it's the celebration of this cold selfishness that gets to me. The willingess to call self-serving people heroes or proffer up some status of higher being is a testament to how far away from the ideal of "all men are created equal" and the mission to create a place where "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is equally accessible to all. These things can never be true when we encourage people and celebrate them for accumulating so much for themselves. Until we face that truth and have a deeply, profound shift in our cultural values, we will continue to have cycles of false economic prosperity (where, really only a few people are truly prospering) and "shocking" crashes. Watching the shallow public discussion about AIG suggest that we want it that way.

Pride and Expansion

Unaspenser — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:04:11 GMT

I have just returned from the JFK Presidential Library where I watched the inauguration with a couple of friends and several hundred other Bostonians, including a few groups of inner-city high school students. I can't begin to describe how emotional it was. Let me say this: for the first times since I can remember, I sang the National Anthem. I wanted to sing it. I sang it out loud. I shed a lot of tears. Of joy and a sense of a cohesive vision for our people and our planet.

A few things I was struck by: Our room was very quiet, and not in reverent prayer, during the prayer of invocation. The man from Saddleback was not appreciated. There was a surge of excitement at seeing Aretha Franklin enter the inaugural stage. I was impressed at how people in the room were able to identify all the people who walked through the doors. Even people in more obscure offices. This was an engaged and informed audience. There was a palpable sense of relief that Obama was actually human when he struggled with the oath. People were glad to see that he showed a sign of being nervous. At the beginning of his speech we were all taken aback by the serious nature of it. There was a sense of being snapped back to reality in the midst of this fantastic experience. But by the end, the near-shock was transformed. People were energized. And proud.

The sense of pride may have been the overwhelming emotion of the day. I was proud to hear him speak of Muslims as part of the American fabric. And so much more so when he mentioned "non-believers". It's the first time I've ever felt included in our political rhetoric. The pride continued to emerge as he spoke about re-instating our values and how they cannot be compromised in the name of expedient safety. The pride surged as he mentioned our need to be aware of how our consumption of resources impacts other people. Overall, we all felt that our nation's consciousness is being expanded. That this expansiveness is where our hope in humanity lies. There were many tears and hugs shared by strangers. Though I rarely like public events and big crowds, I did not want to experience this moment at home alone. I will always remember the feeling of being in that room with my fellow Bostonians. We stood when the ceremony called for it. We even talked to each other about whether we should stand and, as a crowd, we decided that we would because then we would feel connected to the moment. Connected to our government. Connected to our fellow Americans around the nation. The thought that kept coming to me was that we are so ready for this. We have been a nation waiting and something transformational, that has been cocooned for over 40 years, is finally being released. May we now soar on the most beautiful wings.

Away

Unaspenser — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:43:36 GMT

I want to write, "Sorry, I've been away." It's a euphemism. I suppose it would apply here, since I have to "come" here to write and participate. I guess I'm "away" when I don't log in. But I haven't been traveling. I've been unable to muster the energy and string the thoughts together that are required for this kind of writing. it's called living with a chronic condition. Sometimes it's not just a 'bad day', it's a 'bad cycle' (however long a cycle turns out to be.)

I've had lots of vampiric thoughts on my mind. The first season of True Blood ended and there are so many aspects of that story to explore. I've read two other vampire books. Yep, more fodder there. I especially don't like leaving the thread of vampire thinking where it was, because I wouldn't want anyone to assume that I was endorsing the vampiric state in any way. That was meant to be the begining of a train of thought. The train stopped in the first station and apparently couldn't get enough coal to make it any further along the track. It will, eventually.

Perhaps, though, I should write a little bit about Lyme disease first. I'm coming out of a rough patch (I hope I am, anyway.) Trying an endeavor like this, where steady input is the best way to keep an audience, was a risk for me. What will happen if I can't produce? This project doesn't have a lot of impact on my life. I'm not earning income from it. (Though, I see it as a practice. A development of a discipline and a honing of a skill, so that later I might earn an income from writing.) But the concern I have about my ability to meet any expectations is a microcosm of what I experience as I face a life with a disability. I might need to process that a bit. Doing so might be just the thing that produces the coal for that train. (We mine for coal, don'e we?)

Tomorrow evening I'll give that a try. Until then.....

Ugh. When Will We Learn?

Unaspenser — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:10:50 GMT

Today I was directed to two Salon.com articles about Michelle Obama. The first is about her rear end. Yes, a woman wrote and took up space on a news site about the First Lady-Elect's butt. The second is a lament that she is being pushed to sublimate her strong, professional self for the less threatening role of mother.

I was asked my opinion. Well, such mixed feelings.

On the first one: sheesh, we haven't been talking about the details of Laura Bush's body for the past eight years. And it's not like she was a waif. So, what the hell? This article was specifically about celebrating a black woman's butt. Will we be celebrating the black Mr.'s you-know-what next? I get that women feel dehumanized and oppressed via objectification. Black women have been at the very bottom of the social ladder and definitely get the worst of it. But you don't crawl up by celebrating another woman's body part. Celebrate the person. Obama ran as the best person for the job, not the best black person for the job. Michelle supported his campaign. Not to forward the acceptance of a big butt, but because she thought her husband was a gift to this country. People really need to rise above their neuroses.

On the second, I couldn't even read it. Again, women have to rise above if they are to rise at all. The fact is that the Obamas are a team. Obama has just been elected to the single most demanding job in the country and they have two young daughters. Of course, as a loving partner and mother, she will scale back her work outside of the home to steer her family safely through one hell of a transition. If she were president, he would do the same. It's not about gender, it's about family. As a team, they decided to support him going for and executing this job. I don't get the sense that for one moment, she considers herself having given up anything. Nor is it likely that she couldn't resume any level of work that she chooses. They are to be commended as a model for a healthy family.

As for the idea that her role as an advisor is being played down for gender reasons, that's also patently absurd. It's not that she's a woman. It's that she wasn't the one elected. We've been through this. When Hillary was running everyone was concerned about the 2-fer that seemed inherent. It was a drag on her chances. Not for gender reasons, but because the spouse didn't campaign on his agenda and we didn't elect him. The highly influential relationship of a spouse makes it much more difficult for the electorate to put aside suspicions about what kind of damage can be done by an overly-aggressive spouse. (can we talk Health Care Reform setback?) A spouse is so different than other staff members that are hired for the administration. You can't really fire them. That said, they always have some sort of influential role and it's up to the couple to find the balance. Everyone needs to just accept that and get on with things. But I definitely don't see it as a gender issue.

Are those that complain about Michelle Obama's decision to focus on her children during this overwhelming experience of being thrown into the world spotlight is a bad one? Are they suggesting that she should ignore the family needs? We're talking two young girls who will find that play dates come with Secret Service units and every move they make comes with a swarm of Papparazzi. I'd be disappointed in them as parents if they didn't decide that Michelle should focus on them for a while.

I'm certainly sensitive to the oppression of women, and particularly black women who really do have it worse than anyone in this country. Still, I'm always disappointed at how successes are celebrated. We think it's some kind of movement forward that a woman with a big butt is First Lady. But the very thing that indicates that we haven't moved forward is that we're focusing on her butt. We scream for gender equality, but we don't actually celebrate feminine qualities. We want empowwerment, unless it's the power to choose something we derisively call 'traditional'. Tradition isn't necessarily bad. Not valuing all the roles played to carry out the needs of society is what we need to fight against.

We need to see the Obamas as role models. Will we learn from them? They have risen to prominence because they ignored all the things that people tried to use as weapons of oppression. We need to keep on ignoring it. Note when the weapons are successful and work to neutralize them. But when they aren't, leave those weapons in the decaying battlefield to be buried in the sands of time. Otherwise we're only pointing them at ourselves.

Upon Some Reflection

Unaspenser — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:20:18 GMT

I've done some resting and reflecting and not a whole lot of writing. What is it I want to write about now? As the tabs above make obvious, I'm interested in the topics of politics (which covers a lot of ground from civil rights to economic theories to governance styles and foreign relations....), vampires (as a symbolic study), Lyme Disease (as a public service) and parenting (well, just because I am one and it's a wild ride.)

During the election, my writings were heavy on the politics and that balance is likely to change now. Two political topics that are currently still on my mind though, are economic theory and constitutional law. Of course, the economy is on everyone's mind. I've done some studies of it while getting my MBA and it's been of interest to me for a while. Particularly because two of the premises on which economic theories have been built have always seemed absurd to me. In recent years, though, there has been a new school of though that has challenged these theories. I'd like to see a transformation of how we treat economics at the governmental policy level, so I'll try writing about that from time to time.

Constitutional law is not something I've had more than a fleeting interest in before. Certainly, we've seen a lot of constitutional issues come to the fore with the Bush Administration. Bush's actions have defnitely spurred me to read parts of our founding document again, specifically the Bill of Rights. But what has really motivated me to write and explore and learn about this revered piece of work is Sarah Palin's gross misinterpretation of it.

I'm not saying she's willfully misinterpreting or she's cognitively impaired. But, I can imagine she's never actually studied it. I went to schools all over the country while growing up. My father was in the Air Force. He retired as I entered my sophomore year in high school and we moved into his mother's house while he went back to college. My grandmother lived in New Canaan, Ct., a very wealthy town with a well-endowed school system. We had a planetarium in the high school and a fully operation television studio, along with a course catalog larger than some colleges. By all accounts, I lucked into a top-tier education. Still, I barely remember studying the constitution. Certainly, we read it, but I don't recall debates about interpretation or teachings about different schools of thought or competing governance philosophies of the founders. As an adult, I could vaguely tell you about the Bill of Rights, but couldn't have listed all of them. For all of Palin's charisma and eagerness, she didn't come off as an intellectual. So, I'm guessing she never went beyond what she was told in school and may have absorbed in her political sphere. Never applied her own critical thinking. (Let's hope so anyway, because for all the interpretation there might be, no one would agree with her characterization of the 1st Amendment.)

So, on the politics front these are the topics I'll continue writing about. I'm sure there may be other things that crop up based on current events. But I hope you'll join me in re-reading and studying the Constitution of the United States of America. This way, we're intellectually armed the next time a candidate makes her own claims about what it says or an administration violates it.

I'll have to a little studying up first, so expect to some vampire voyeurism in the meantime....

Rest and Reflection

Unaspenser — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:47:57 GMT

Again today, I feel this is not a partisan time. The votes have been cast. In some cases they are still being counted, but the political statement has been made. As a country, we opted for someone with a different nature, more of an advocate than a monolithic warrior.

Yesterday, I made a few hours of Get Out The Vote phone calls. I went to the polls with my 9 year old daughter and her father (he wins the award for phone-calling stamina. He's been a GOTV Beast in the past couple of weeks.) She proudly helped me cast my vote and put the ballot in the scanner. We came home and relaxed for a while before I went out and watched the returns with a small group of women friends. I was up until about 3 am. This is a lot of stimulation for me. Today, I am exhausted. I need to rest. Yet, I can't help but reflect.

That was a long presidential campaign. We're in the midst of huge crises. It has been emotional and ground-breaking. The election of Barack Hussein Obama is historic, of course. It is cathartic. We pride ourselves on the principle in one of our founding documents that "all men are created equal" while not mentioning that in the same document some men were considered less than human. Were being bought and sold and treated worse than animals. It has been a shameful hypocrisy we have not come to terms with fully. By lifting up someone from within that oppressed class to the highest office in our land, we begin, yes begin, to transform. It's a beautiful thing, though the process can be painful.

We didn't elect this man because of the color of his skin, though. We elected him because of the color of his mind. His way of being. It's not simply his extraordinary accomplishments. it's the lens through which he sees the world. He doesn't define someone with an opposing point of view as an enemy. He sees that person as someone to hear out and keep talking to. Someone from whom he might grow. He doesn't define our country's richness by the measure of it's monetary wealth. He defines it by how we treat the least amongst us and what we do for each other. In short, he is not fear-based and he doesn't incite us to act based upon fears. He is faith-based and he inspires us to step forward from faith. He is willing to express his grandest self and he encourages us to do the same.

I see this election as one reflecting a new generation, not necessarily one about race relations. At 45, I was technically born in the last of the Baby Boomer years. I straddle two generations. I can hear the different ways the people on either side of the generational divide speak and how they visualize human relations. McCain and Obama epitomized those differences. Obama talks about working while McCain talks about fighting. It is the difference between seeing everything, even conflicts, as a challenge to be faced together rather than another battle to be fought. People die in battles. People achieve through work. Battles are wearying, work is rewarding.

This has nothing to do with partisanship. Someone who believes in Trickle Down Economics, for instance, can readily employ a rhetoric of working together rather than a "fight, fight, fight" mantra. A strong leader can speak with those that threaten us without condoning or encouraging the threat. I would implore all of us, from all points on the political spectrum, to sit back and consider the tone of the campaigns. Recall the language that was used. Look at the body language of the two candidates - particularly with their families - and reflect upon the fact that The People came out in record numbers to choose the Advocate, not the Warrior. (I can't even count the number of people who are excited to have such an obviously fucntional and loving family in the White House. How long has it been?)

The Advocate works to resolve conflicts through a process which seeks truth and reconciliation via an impartial jury. The Warrior resolves conflicts by killing those he perceives to be his enemies. In a Warrior Campaign, the candidate assumes the moral authority to destroy his opponent through character assassination. The ends justify the means. In an Advocate Campaign, the candidate assumes that he must present his case, let all voices about it be heard, and leave the judgment to the jury/electorate. The advocate works against actions and behaviors not against people. In my estimation, the new generation (exit polls showed that support for McCain increased with age) just told us that they are tired of the Warrior Way. They don't think it's serving us well. They see the world through a different lens than the previous generation. They know we're part of a global community. They know that the struggles facing the human race must be worked on as a unified whole. We must all stop and listen to each person and each country make their case. We must stand up to objectionable behaviors whilst pushing for people to work together, which can only happen if you don't vilify them. We have chosen Advocacy.

Advocacy is not easy. In comparison, war is an simpler construct. More lives are lost, but defining the path of action is straightforward. By choosing Advocacy we've chosen a much harder piece of work. So, today, let's get some rest. Let's reflect on what this election has meant. Let's prepare ourselves for the work ahead. Before we can even begin the work of problem resolution, we have to learn a new process. A new way of engaging. Gather your energy. New ways require a lot of will. It's no longer a matter of "Yes, We Can", now it has to be "Yes, We Will." Let's all get ready for it......

Vote, Nudge, Assist, Celebrate

Unaspenser — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:01:14 GMT

Today is not a partisan day. Today is an American day. A day to celebrate small 'd' democracy. Today, the people of the United States of America get to decided who will occupy the highest office of our land. It is an assertion that we are not a monarchy or dictatorship. That our leaders are accountable to us and we are responsible for enforcing that accountability.

What to do today? Vote! There are many ways to be a civic participant in our democracy but the most fundamental, the "without which not", is voting. It is imperative that we vote. So, first and foremost, vote.

Then you can begin nudging all your family members, friends, co-workers, people you see in stores and at the post office. Remind them all joyfully to vote. Encourage them to make the time. Remind them that in countries where people are not allowed to vote they live in far more fear and destitution than we can imagine. We must vote and keep a dynamic democracy alive as an example for others to aspire to. We also need to remind our leaders that we'll never give up this power.

Next, offer to drive people to the polls if you can. Assist folks who need a hand so that as many people as possible can feel be a part of this. It is the bonding glue of our national identity. If there is one thing we all can do, it is vote.

Finally, I highly recommend that you watch the election results in public. Again, this a communal experience. It is a time to feel you are a part of something larger than yourself. It is a time to break out of the isolation of the insular living room and share the moment with your fellow Americans*. I imagine there will be tears tonight. This has been a long campaign and historic in nature. For me, whether my candidate wins or loses, I will be gushing. This is not something I do often and certainly not in public. But for this, I want my tears shared. Whether I am elated at the results or dejected, I won't be alone. And I will be celebrating. Celebrating the beauty of democracy and the commitment to it of my fellow citizens.

I highly recommend that today you vote, nudge, assist and celebrate. I'd love to hear how it goes for you.

*(For those in the Boston area, there is a gathering at Robyn's Bar and Grill on Washington Street in Roslindale beginning 8pm. See you there!)

Vote In Her Honor

Unaspenser — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 06:01:25 GMT

Barack Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, passed away today. As it is very likely that he will be elected our next president tomorrow, it is profoundly sad that she did not get to witness that event. He has credited so much of who he is to her.

So, today, let's all take a moment of silence to thank her for shaping such a wonderful gift of a person, from whom we will all benefit. What she, her husband and her daughter did to raise a child who would work hard and rise above the expectations of his environs is the epitome of the American Dream. Tomorrow, regardless of whom you support, get out and cast your vote in her honor.

Obama, As A Parent, I Thank You

Unaspenser — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:31:08 GMT

My daughter will be 9 years old on Friday. Tonight she wanted to hear Mr. Obama speak. So, she sat with her father and I and listened raptly to the entire 1/2 hour campaign ad. With Tivo, we could pause when she asked questions such as, "what's an investment?" or "what's a foreclosure?" I knew it was great teaching opportunity and was happy to use the occasion this way. What I didn't expect was how Obama would raise her respect for her parents along the way.

To put tonight's experience in context, please let me reminisce a bit:

Nine Halloweens ago I frightened all the neighborhood children as I was in labor while giving out candy. Okay, actually everybody was excited, but I did hand out treats when contractions were just two minutes apart. It was a very lucky and relatively easy labor and birth at home. She was a week early and none of the names we had been considering seemed to fit. So, we didn't name her for three weeks. It was only natural that her grandmother suggest we call her Pumpkin, in the meantime. That, of course, morphed into all kinds of derivative pet names such as Punkin, and just Punk. One that I had for her was Punkerdoodle.

Even as an infant, she had a strong sense of her own will. She like for me to sing to her and would make me sing for what seemed like hours sometimes. I began to make up songs such as, "She's a Punkerdoodle Noodle, who doesn't have a poodle, but she's still oodles of fun!" Part of me will always look at her and see that little infant who could so clearly let you know what she wanted.

That didn't change of course. And one thing she has been clear about wanting is to be home-schooled. She has consistently stated that she likes her school, likes her friends in school, likes her teachers. That she likes to learn, but she doesn't like people to tell her when to learn. She could articulate this in just that way since she was 6 years old. For four years, I have explained to her why we have in her school. Yes, she can learn things at home, but she needs to learn how to be with other people, how to work with other people and the value of teamwork. We talk about it all the time. She resists homework every day and she is grumpy with her dad every morning as he tries to get her to school on time.

Tonight, though, while listening to Barack Obama, she gave our perspective some fresh consideration. She admires him. She loves to hear him speak. He is inspirational to her. She feels with great certainty that he will be a great president. So, when he called on parents to do their part, to be responsible, by making sure that kids got to school on time and did their homework, she look at each of us turn with a renewed respect and appreciation for our efforts. If Barack Obama says this is an important role for parents to do, that seals the deal for her. She said, "You do that for me. You're good parents." I was brought to tears.

Now, my daughter loves us. There is no doubt. She's very expressive and affectionate and she tells me all the time that she thinks I'm a good mother. It's a different quality of appreciation, though, when someone she sees as a leader of this country - a job that she probably can't imagine having any superiors - affirms something about her parents that she hadn't previously appreciate. Her eyes were full of sparkle and her breathing was deep. She was taking it in. I'm not sure anyone else could have evoked this response. There hasn't been a leader on the scene since her birth who was even trying.

So, tonight, as a parent, I sit with a profound debt of gratitude to Barack Obama. Thank you. I look forward to at least four more years of your influence on my daughter and all the children of our nation.

May We See More Of This

Unaspenser — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:50:49 GMT

I just learned of one of the most inspirational stories I've heard in a while. Tracy Orr was about to lose her house to foreclosure. She lost her job after buying the home. Though she had made all the efforts she could to catch up with the payments she missed while unemployed - she sold property and sent $12,000 to the mortgage company, for instance - she wasn't able to get out of the hole and the bank wouldn't renegotiate the terms. On Saturday, she drove the 3 hours to the auction site where she sat in the back anxiously waiting to see how much her home would be sold for. While there, Marilyn Mock sat next to her and asked if she was ready to buy a home. Unexpectedly, Tracy broke into tears and disclosed that her house was being sold.

There were many houses being auctioned that day. When the bidding began on Tracy's house, she moved a bit forward in the crowed and didn't see that Marilyn was participating. Marilyn ending up paying $30,000 for the house that had been originally sold to Tracy for $80,000.

In the next few moments Tracy would get the shock of a lifetime. Marilyn, who didn't even know Tracy's name, bought the house to give back to Tracy. It wasn't something Marilyn came to the auction to do. She came to help her son buy his first home. But she was so moved by Tracy's sense of loss that she decided on the spot to help. She can't afford to just give $30,000 away. Instead, she is prepared to make whatever payment arrangements Tracy can afford.

Tracy gets to keep her home and has gained a new friend. Marilyn is apparently pleased that she now has permission to go fishing on the property.

What struck me about this story is that Marilyn was touched by the sadness and trauma that Tracy was experiencing. The huge, impersonal face of a national economic crisis was given a very human face with visceral feelings. Marilyn felt compelled to do what she could.

As we face this national financial metldown, I hope we hear more stories of people reaching out to one another in this way. This tragedy has millions of human faces. They're right in our neighborhoods. It would would be quite just for all those banks that played the system, made their fortune and then left us with the tab for their irresponsible, even criminal, lending practices, to sell foreclosed homes at a loss while a caring citizen bought that home and re-packaged an affordable payment plan for the owner.

There may have been some people out there who bought houses as investments. But the vast majority bought houses with the intent of living out their lives there. Celebrating birthdays and anniversaries and graduations and births and storing up all the memories of a lifetime in the walls of what would otherwise be simply a building, but is now a home. May we all have the compassion do what we can for others in need. May Marilyn Mock be a harbinger of things to come.

Emotional - Is It Just Me?

Unaspenser — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:34:44 GMT

More than any other election, I find myself very emotional this season. Now, my life circumstances might have something to do with that. I'm living with an intractable, debilitating illness that has ravaged my life. Given that, I guess it's understandable that I might be emotional. But, as low-spirited as I get, I don't get into a place where my feelings are trapped inside and I'm dysfunctionally channeling them through unrelated circumstances. So, what is it about this election?

The first election I paid attention to was in 1980. I didn't turn 18 until December and couldn't vote. I was in college and there was a lot of election buzz. I was a bystander. I was flabbergasted. "They elected an actor!", I thought to myself. "We certainly don't take this stuff seriously." Of course, I later realized that this actor had been a political agent for some time before that. But, I also couldn't believe people were buying this 'Trickle Down' theory. My family lived in one of the wealthiest towns in the nation at the time. I could tell you in no uncertain terms, these wealthy people were not concerned about the well-being of anybody else. They barely cared about the well-being of those in their own social set. They were going to buy more houses, more cars, more boats, more vacations, more jewels, more furs. They weren't going to make sure that their maids and drivers and carpenters had adequate health insurance or were making enough money to save for retirement. The foundation of the free market economy is Darwinian, survival of the fittest. Every man for himself.

I've been apathetic about politics since then. We've put an ex-CIA head into office. That felt too close to the KGB's Kremlin running the USSR. I mean, after all, he was involved in the Iran-Contra escapade. Then we had the philanderer. How nationally embarrassing to spend a presidential campaign talking about his pecadilloes. Of course, that didn't stop. Plus he sold out our workers in his free trade deals. With an opposition congress he signed away banking regulation. Next, we go and hire a "CEO" for America. One that failed at every previous attempt to be a CEO. His VP Search Committee Chair searched so hard he found himself. And the lying, war-mongering, power-unifying, civil rights destroying rest is history. I guess you could say I've never been inspired.

Then comes Obama. I resisted. When he spoke in 2004 and everybody fawned, I said, "So, he can give a good speech." Delivering a prepared speech does not a great man (or woman for VP) make. I didn't give him another thought until the presidential primaries. You can read about some of what I learned here. The bottom line for me was how consistent his vision has been. I've seen the transcript of a speech he gave to a high school in 1992 and in it he talks about finding common ground when we have differences and building from there rather than focusing on the differences. He talks about the power of all Americans working together. In all of his work he has demonstrated the effectiveness of this. He has also demonstrated an understanding of the systemic obstacles in place for those who are not in power. He encourages everyone to stand up to the challenges they face while also understanding that some challenges are too big and society needs to transform those. The more I read about his accomplishments and what the people who have actually worked with him had to say about their experience of him, the more I felt something. Something. What was it? Dare I say, hope?

It sounds ridiculous to me. I don't "fall in love" with famous people. (Never will understand the fainting Beetles fans.) I certainly have a healthy dose of cynicism when it comes to politics. With the complexities of the bills they create and sign, it's so hard to sort out what they've been for and against. When pandering to constituencies they are masterful at double speak, making it impossible to know what they really mean. And I'm sure that Obama has mastered these skills like any politician. Still, unlike any other politican he doesn't leave a trail of angry people behind him. Republican and Democrats alike say they can work with him. Almost all of the bills he's sponsored in the U.S. Senate have had a co-sponsor from across the aisle. What surprised people about him is that he's able to empathize with an opposite point of view without caving into it. The most common mistake made about him is that he's so nice he must be weak. They're caught off guard when he tells them to their face how he disagrees with them or calls them on their untoward behavior. They expect him to cower, but he doesn't. He's a differnt kind of lion than the one in the Wizard of Oz. He's smart, he's compassionate, he's steady, he's strong. He's everything we always say we want in a leader. Shit. He helps you believe that we could move towards a different way of being.

That's frightening. First, since my hope has been buried under decades of cynicism, it almost hurts to let it see the light of day. Second, for this transformation stuff to work I have to stand up and do my part. No sitting back apathetically waiting for the Earth to tilt on its axis and slough off the grime of human experience. Gotta put a little elbow grease into it. Third, I then become afraid that it won't happen. A new kind of anxiety creeps in. What if the majority of my fellow citizens don't opt for this? What if they want to continue on the path of meanness, lack of self-critique and seeing everything as a war? Will I ever experience this hope again or will that be it for my lifetime? It's fear. Fear that I've allowed my voice to speak out for what I'd like us to be and my voice will be shouted down with hate. If there's one thing I hate, it's hate.

It's been a long campaign. I started canvassing and making calls last December. I'm weary. I'm wary. I'm anxious. I think I read the news every day just hoping that someone will tell me it's over, that we don't have to wait until November 4th. Knowing all the while that we have to push through. Can't let up. When I hear cries at rallies of "terrorist" and "kill him" and accusations that he's a socialist or a 'commie' or anti-American, I lose faith in us as a nation. He has some policy ideas that are different from his opponent. How does that make him any of those things? Why do we go there? Can't we disagree without turning the other person into an 'enemy'? People who call others anti-American, who hang effigies with Obama's name, who slash tires at a campaign event, who fire bomb campaign signs, these people scare me. I don't want them around my daughter. I want them to get help. To learn more constructive ways of expressing themselves. I certainly don't want leaders who fan the flames.

In the meantime, I have to find the energy to do what I can to stand up to it. We all have to . So, when I feel weary and wary I seek inspiration. Such as this clip I saw today on the Washington Post site. And here's where I surprise myself. It's a humorous clip pointing out the absurdity of calling some parts of the country "pro-America". When I see the parts where Millbank is talking to attendees at the Obama rally and then the short clip of Obama speaking and the tremendously positive energy coming out of the crowd, I realize I'm in tears. Why am I crying? These people are in Virginia. I'm in Massachusetts. Being a Progressive in Massachusetts is no big deal. But we've felt pretty disconnected from much of the country as we've watched this strange form of political rhetoric that is simply about attacking character and not about debating solutions catapult the likes of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld into the halls of power, selling our future to the military industrial complex. The Haliburton's of the world. And now the AIG's of the world. There was a huge disconnect from what they were claiming about "family values" and how much they actually protected families. We're a nation declining in stature and we haven't been able to have a respectful dialog with one another about how to stop the free fall. For many years, I've felt that no one really wanted to talk. But when I see that video, and so many others, of the huge crowds of people responding to Obama's call for us all to see each other as fellow Americans, I don't feel so alone anymore. I can see that there are millions out there who are hungry for the same thing I'm hungry for: an inspiring leader who calls us all out to work together and to stop thinking only of ourselves. He's asking us to consider looking out for the more vulnerable among us as a way of strengthening us all. He embodies the concept of servant leadership. I think my tears are the release of pent up angst and fear for what my daughter will experience as an American. The tears are washing away the cynicism and unearthing a little faith. For the first time in my life, I want to be out amongst a lot of people on election night. Win or lose, this is an historical American experience. Whether I'm elated or dejected, I know that I'm not alone in what I saw as our potential. I want the support of sharing either emotion with a whole community. I don't want to be compartmentalized in my living room. Who knows, I'll probably even cry in public! How about you?

Can We Talk? (about community dialog)

Unaspenser — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:03:57 GMT

Yesterday, I critiqued an article that was full of character assassination as a form of political opinion writing. Later that day, the author posted a final article claiming that she was subject to discrimination here. She believes that PNN is not willing to pay her for her writing because of her conservative viewpoints. I have nothing to do with PNN and know nothing of their interactions, so I can make no assessment of her claim. I'm assuming it's just an odd coincidence that her final communications with them happened as I wrote my article. I did however, comment on her post that offensive character assassination is unacceptable in a public forum and that this may be why she was not hired, rather than the fact that she is politically conservative. I posted an example of something written that I found offensive.

What ensued was interesting. I was accused of discriminating against her or supporting PNN's discrimination. I was accused of being "bitter". Of having a "vendetta". I'm not even sure what the source of my need to have a vendetta would be. What I am sure of is that people don't understand why I would take the offensive writing so seriously and why I would stand up against it so fervently. So, let's talk about that.

Demonizing people is a danger to democracy. The key to a functioning democracy is the ability to freely express dissent. What we have seen in the past 8 years is how the bullying tactic of accusing people of being un-American caused a relative silence of dissent and allowed Bush and Cheney and Rove and others to lie us into an illegal invasion of a country that we were not prepared to handle, to trample on our civil rights and to allow deregulated financial institutions swindle us out of a functioning economy. We've lost the right to habeus corpus. We've lost the right to keep weapons. (Yes, Bush's directive #51 states that he can determine at any time that you are a threat and he can take away your right to bear arms.) All because, just in the McCarthy era, if you dared to speak out against them they would publicly denigrate your character. They cherry pick information out of context, knowing that most people won't bother to check for misrepresentation and unfairly destroy your credibility. This is a tactic we must be vigilant about. Peace is achieved very differently.

PNN is a public community forum. People from many walks of life and with many different worldviews will be writing their experiences, thoughts and opinions. We each know we aren't going to agree with them all. We might even furiously disagree. You are writing in a open environment, so it is reasonable to expect that people might express their opposing views. Or submit that some of your facts are false. How do we express these without insulting one another, and, moreover with any chance of actually engaging one another for better understanding or the possibility of finding common ground?

I submit that first and foremost we have to understand that disagreeing with an opinion or disputing a fact is not an attack on the person. We must be able to differentiate criticizing an idea, an act or an expression from criticizing, or judging, the human being behind them. We know this when we are raising a child. When that child "steals" a toy from a friend, we correct the behavior, we teach them why it is not acceptable. We don't then define them as theives unworthy of their place in the household. We know that the lesson may need to be repeated and we lovingly stick with it. We need to do this with each other as adults, too. I'm not saying to treat each other like children, I'm saying we need to remember to embrace the person even when we reject actions or expressions. What's the alternative? We turn our backs on one another? What kind of society is that?

I am suggesting that in order to communicate with someone you need to assume the best about them rather than the worst. Assume there is misunderstanding or something you haven't considered. You aren't giving up your perspective or your point by doing this. You are simply staying open to the idea that the other person's point may be valid, too. None of us is privy to the whole, absolute truth of anything. As Gandhi put it, the truth is a many-faceted diamond and no-one can see into all the facets at one time. If you are to work together to build peaceful society, you must assume that the other person is looking into a facet you can't see into right now. It is a gift.

This may all seem impossible when discussing something that seems important to you and you feel frustrated that others aren't seeing things your way. Again, it's only human to be limited and to have emotions. If you can continue to remind yourself that the other person is just looking into another facet of the diamond, you can at least keep talking. Not necessarily to come to agreement, but to at least come to mutual respect.

So, how do we distinguish a dissent from an attack:

Dissent: I disagree about the color blue, I find it unattractive.
Attack: You're stupid for liking the color blue, it's an unattractive color.

Which is more likely to encourage you to remain amicable? The response to the dissent might be, "hey, then you can wear all the blue shirts." The response to the attack might be, "Don't call me stupid, asshole."

This is a learned technique for most of us. It certainly wasn't modeled for me in my childhood. It has to become a practice. (which means you'll make mistakes and have to ask for do-overs and keep on practicing) You have to make a commitment to it. It is a commitment to peaceful communication. Peaceful communications are the only chance for a peaceful society. You really can't fight your way to peace.

To tie this to the dialog where I was accused of discrimination, I will point out that I was not criticzing the woman who wrote the offensive words. Nor was I claiming that she should not be allowed to express her conservative political view. I do object strenuosly to her labeling anyone who disagreed with her assessment of Sarah Palin as anti-American, faithless or rotten. How does one defend this as civil dialog? I see no place for that kind of vitriol in a public forum. It is destructive and hurtful and disrespectful. I am not saying that the author is destructive and hurtful. Her words are. If she can express her opinion about Sarah Palin without insulting others, or inquire as to why others don't support Sarah Palin without insulting them, I might disagree but I wouldn't object to her stating them.

I also accept that she can write whatever information she wants about, say, Barack Obama. If I know that information to be false, particularly when multiple fact-checking sources have confirmed it to be false, I will exercise my right to dispute her facts. Again, i am disputing the facts. Not her as a person. I would expect that I not be insulted or accused of dark motivations for having done so. Research it yourself and find references that contradict me, that's fine. But don't call me an idiot. Because then I'll object to your personal attack on top of disputing the erroneous information. All without having a single bad thought about you as a person. All in the spirit of peaceful communication.

At some point, we can agree to disagree. Or we can keep on talking and see where it goes. Persistence is often necessary to bring disputes to resolution. Who knows, somewhere down the line, we might find the formula for world peace, or maybe just the recipe for the most awesome chocolate cake on Earth. Either way, no one gets attacked and we're all safe to express ourselves.

Debates: Who Was Tuned In?

Unaspenser — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:34:25 GMT

Political debates are a fascinating phenomena. In the abstract we say we want to hear issues discussed. In reality, our determination of who won is usually more visceral.

I think that if more time were given for a detailed discussion we might actually benefit and be able to make decisions based on the substantive matter of a debate. But only if fact-checkers were on hand to dial back the misrepresentations. As this doesn't happen, we're left with our gut feelings about who the candidates are and what they would represent for our country.

Given this, it is vital for the candidates to tune into the general mood of the electorate and what they are looking for in their leaders. In 2000, we were in some fairly good economic times and were feeling fairly comfortable with ourselves. As relaxed voters, we relaxed our concerns about whether the candidates were well-versed on the issues. How often have we heard it said that Bush was elected (well, that is disputable, of course, but he garnered nearly 1/2 of the votes, so we'll go on) because people thought that he'd be more fun to have a beer with? Personally, I was baffled. Regardless of the relative peace and prosperity, the job of President is a very serious one, requiring very serious diplomacy skills, wise jugment, integrity and the intellectual ability to process a lot of complex information. Still, we got W.

Things are different today. We're in two wars, neither of which is going well. Our prosecution of said wars and our treatment of detainees has really lowered our moral standing in the world. Our economy is in shambles with no end of the crash in site.

If you're a candidate, what do you think the electorate is looking for? This is what I saw with Obama and McCain:

Obama seemed to have determined that voters are worried and looking for a leader who will provide them direct assistance. I would say his goal was to appear concerned, but calm and to offer a sense that he was here to advocate for us.

McCain seemed to have determined that voters are angry. He even said so at one point. I would say that his goal was to express that anger for voters and convicne us that anger motivates him to fight. He was offering himself as our warrior.

Who was more tuned in to what the voters want to see from their leaders?