More than five decades ago, my parents discovered a place in the Bartonsville, Pennsylvania area which offered housekeeping cottages, and a pool, surrounded by woods. Those first few years, we rented one of the smaller cabins, jamming three generations of family members into a two bedroom cottage. We did not visit every year, in the beginning, but as our enjoyment of the area grew, other family members visited us, planting the seeds for what was to develop.
Over the years, our visits expanded to multiple weeks, in bigger cabins, and included various cousins, aunts, and uncles. During those years, many new friendships were also born with families with multiple generations like ours. While in many ways, our family was unique in that my parents had six children over the course of 22 years, we were not unique in seeking a place to go each summer to relax, play with other kids, and just be together.
Back then, there were very few places to purchase food, or take a meal out, which meant that my mother began squirreling away the paper and dry goods we would need for weeks in anticipation of the trip. Then, in the early morning hours of the day of our departure, my dad would spend a considerable amount of time lashing the boxes and suitcases to the top of our station wagon. When he finally finished we jumped into the car for the endless trip up 611, the highways of today not having been carved into the land yet.
My participation was brief, being the oldest, and being a young man who sought enjoyment outside the family unit, but my younger brothers and sister, spent the vast majority of their childhood summers looking forward to the 1, then 2, and even 3 weeks at the Poconos.
As time passed, and I became a father, my wife and I began to bring our kids to visit my parents at this retreat, sometimes spending the week, sometimes only a weekend. The bug soon infected my children who found pleasure in visiting with their cousins and spending time with their grandparents and various aunts and uncle. Over time, they came to feel what my younger siblings felt, but which had eluded me as a teenager. Eventually, a week at the Poconos also became a yearly rite for us as well.
In the meantime, we slowly took over the string of cottages which compose Countryside Cottages, expanding our usage to roughly half of the cabins while establishing a hold on the same week(s) every year so that we were vacationing with the same people in those cabins not occupied by us. We had expanded our reach beyond blood lines to include members of other families who had continued their yearly trek, many of which had also begun in those years spanning the 70's and 80's.
Through the years, we drank endless quantities of alcoholic beverages by the pool, discussed the events of the day in voices that often became raised or excited, played games in and around the pool, and ate countless meals together, sometimes at the pool, sometimes in a huge gathering at one of the cabins, and sometimes in smaller groups at the local diners and restaurants. Then at night, despite, or perhaps because of the arguments which may have punctuated the daytime, we gathered at one of the cabins to slaughter some more brain cells, play all sorts of card, board, and verbal games, laugh, remember, and create the memories we would recount the following years.
This past year, which just ended today, included all 6 siblings, my dear mother, one aunt, 4 spouses of the 5 boys, 10 grandchildren, including the spouse and fiance of 2 of those, our cousin and her husband, various one day visitors, and even one ex-wife who came to participate in a baby shower for the wife of her son. Conspicuous in his absence, as he has been for the past 7 years, was my dad who passed in 2012, but as many people have commented, my middle brother looks more and more like him every year, reminding us of the patriarch of this event.
And the cakes?
Well, as is typical of my mother, she makes sure that she recognizes each of her family members, as they reach certain milestones of their lives. This year featured an 80th birthday cake, a 60th birthday cake, an engagement cake, the aforementioned baby shower cake plus an accompanying cheesecake, a 50th birthday cake, and in no small feat, a surprise 85th birthday cake for my mom, who handled it with her typical aplomb by saying it wasn't necessary, and then helping to serve each and every person a slice of what was the best chocolate cake of the week.
There was a time when I worried that when the day came and my mother no longer graced us with her presence, that this family event may break down, as we all know that mom is the glue that holds us all together. But, happily, my youngest brother and his family have embraced this area, making upwards of 10 visits a year. In addition, the young adults of the family who have not begun families, continue to share in the family joy, and the younger children of the six siblings have internalized their parents love of the Poconos, so I no longer worry about the longevity of the event.
There is much talk of the disintegration of the family unit. We scatter to the wind to find love, jobs, happiness, often limiting contact with our siblings and parents to weddings, and funerals. We too easily excuse why we can't see our relatives, using the pressures of our hectic lives, and the wedges that continued absence from one another creates as reasons. Even our extended family, despite this wonderful yearly get together, includes people whom I could pass on the street tomorrow and not recognize.
In the end, it takes effort and usually just one incredible person to make it their purpose to see a family stay in touch. For us, my mother is that person, someone who organized so many family events that I would not be able to calculate the number. But more importantly, someone who impressed on all those who know her, especially her direct family, the importance of family.
So often we bemoan the lack of heroes in our time. When you find yourself uttering such thoughts, think about the person in your family who has done the most to keep you in touch and in contact. That is your hero. And, should there not be one, take on the mantle yourself so that someday a niece or grandchild will be able to recount the story of your family's togetherness as reflected in your own particular version of our yearly vacation in the Poconos.
Friday, July 26, 2019
Monday, July 15, 2019
Winning At All Costs
One of the secrets of a happy life is continuous small treats. A quote from Iris Murdoch
"I have mentioned before that we tend to consider the times of our lives, the years between our birth and death, but most specifically those years when we are most conscious of the significance of events which surround us, as the most important years in history. Our egos insist on it. I imagine there has been a multitude of conversations about the historical nature of "today", whether those various debates occurred among Greeks unaware they lived at the beginning of the years we know as AD, peasants of the 9th century, tradesman of the 16th century, or World War 2 veterans who escaped death in Europe or the Pacific."
One might even argue that anyone born in the first 2 decades of the 20th century, and who survived for most of that century, was witness to the most diverse and dramatic changes which have occurred in human history. Should similarly seismic advances in technology, communication and travel occur in the next 70 years, how unrecognizable everyday life will be for those who walk the planet in 2095 as compared to today.
What draws me to Lapham's Quarterly, is that the topics explored, as often reflect the similarity of perception over the ages as the differences, despite the profound alterations of how life is conducted via technology, etc.
I began thinking about this post intent on discussing how winning at all costs seems to have infected the thinking of our culture, but perhaps that in itself is just another reflection of how we believe we live in the most (fill in the blank) time in history.
If continuous small treats can produce a happy life, then perhaps winning at all costs is one method of accomplishing that result, as long as we always look forward to the next "win" and not reflect on the cost of any particular win, such as winning by cheating. As flawed humans, we have all cheated at times, perhaps to gain a better grade, a better job, a better sexual experience. For some, this kind of shortcut to happiness eventually reveals itself as a mirage, producing less satisfying results over time. For those who never learn this lesson, more intense experiences are required, sometimes producing the kind of addictive behavior which we see manifested in our opioid crisis, our polarized politics, our seemingly endless dissatisfaction with what we have which leads us to crave things we don't need.
I have often heard people deride "participation" trophies as an indicator that we are getting soft, that we need constant reassurance and reward. If only winning matters, then trophies for 2nd, 3rd, even last, seem ridiculous. But what if competing, improving your skills, learning to function as a member of a team, and understanding that cooperation is the best formula for success is what playing is all about? Then perhaps participation trophies aren't rewarding mediocrity, but are rewarding and recognizing the importance of the intangible lessons of team activities. After all, the vast majority of our children who join local teams, will never be paid professionals, but will all (hopefully) contribute to society as parents, employees, coworkers, and perhaps even fellow volunteers, if they have truly learned the lessons of teamwork.
I have not read any of Iris Murdoch's works. I know she was a British novelist and philosopher, born in Ireland, educated in England. (Oddly, and I did not know this until I researched her a bit), Murdoch was influenced by Simone Weil, someone whose works I have commented upon in past posts. I would like to think that Murdoch would not have recommended constant winning as a source of continuous small treats, but might have touted a rearrangement of one's perception of the definition of small treats.
When I was hitchhiking in my youth, I used food as a source of small treats/rewards, setting my goal for each day's travels, then eating a small meal once I had arrived at that location. I still use food as a small treat, sometimes even a simple egg sandwich on the way to work. Of course, the best small treats are those that do not require money.
The silvery look of the tree branches after the first overnight snow.
The sun dipping just over the horizon, especially over water, and the colors of the sky which it leaves behind.
A lonely white cloud in an endless sky of blue.
A puppy bounding to the door when you arrive home.
The look of virtually any young child when you smile or wave at them.
A walk on a tree lined path, and the feeling of sun on your face when you emerge from its shade, then the coolness of the shade when you return to its protection from the glaring heat of the day.
Singing in the car, at full throat, as you drive, and seeing others do the same, especially when they stop in mid-song when they notice you hear them.
Winning at all costs is not just about the basketball player who looks to the sky every time he is called for a foul, but complains bitterly after every shot, claiming he has been fouled. It is not just about aligning your self with the politician who will make sure your bank account grows, even though that growth hurts those not in agreement, or who look, worship, or love differently from you. And it is not just about seeking dirt on your political opponent from foreign agents.
Winning at all costs is a mindset that subordinates everything else to achieve a result, regardless of consequences to anyone who might stand in your way, or become a victim as a result of your success.
And, with its cousin, "winning isn't everything, it is the only thing", they combine to create a society in which the strong are allowed to take advantage of the weak, the powerful are allowed to pervert the rule of law, and the advantaged are allowed to take even more from the less advantaged, even while they equate their fortune as divinely blessed while those with less must be less deserving, even less loved by the Creator.
And then there are those who claim victory even when they have lost, so tenuous is their grip on their self worth and self esteem.
My advice. Seek small treats, especially those that do not require money, and lose every once in a while, graciously.
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
The (Lost) Lessons of Scrooge
As I was reading more of the summer edition of Lapham's entitled Happiness, the thought of Scrooge from A Christmas Carol entered my mind, followed later by the concept of Christmas in July. I imagine the various articles in Happiness which express the perceptions of chasing and achieving happiness throughout history, inspired me to think disdainfully at the American tradition of equating the acquisition of money and material possessions with happiness.
I decided to Google Christmas in July and found some disturbing references to the Hallmark company in association with slow summer retail sales. Yes, there was a more innocent and even altruistic, origin story, but the popularity of the tradition is securely rooted in the advertising industry, and the need for endless consumerism.
Unlike the hidden agenda of those who create our need for the new and improved, at least Scrooge is honest in his dislike of charity in general, and Christmas in specific. His yardstick of what matters is clear, and anything that does not contribute to the advancement of his business and the fruits of his unwavering desire to accumulate money for its own sake, is hum bug. Disliking Scrooge for his poorly developed priorities, often passes through to feeling sorry for him, especially when we see his unbridled joy when he discovers what is really important in life.
Scrooge may represent the worst in us when we place possessions above people, but he also represents the idea that no matter how far down the path of materialism we might drift, there is a way back.
This does not seem to be the case for those who make conscious decisions to deceive the public for personal gain, whether that gain increases their purse or influence. Is there a special place in hell for the wealthy individual who steals from the elderly by pretending to be a young relative in need of some money? I would expect that most of us would condemn such a strategy, but when we don't generally ask how the rich became rich, when we don't seek a mechanism for evaluating wealth attained through hard work or stealth, or worse, then we condone all forms of wealth accumulation which are legal but immoral, or illegal but hidden from view by measures which great wealth can employ, or just plain horrific.
Today I received one of my 401K statements, the first half of the year now passed. It is doing well, which should make me happy. And, if I were to say that I was not happy, that would be disingenuous. Hypocrisy is so easy to see in others but can hide behind many areas of our own lives. Surging retirement accounts, a record breaking DOW Jones average, and low unemployment are the main arguments for the success of the current Administration. Being economically comfortable is by no means a small thing, as those who have suffered through past economic hardships will attest.
Scrooge did not seem a happy person despite his wealth. The scene in the restaurant where he declined a second piece of bread (I think), as it would add to the cost of his meal, demonstrates that he did not understand that money is a tool, not an ends. Stories of rich people who have it all yet live unhappy lives are replete in our entertainment based media outlets. Scores of studies have determined that happiness does increase with economic gain, but only to the level of what we might call upper middle class, incomes in the $80-120,000 range. After that diminishing returns.
Happiness is full of excerpts and articles which tell us over and over again that accumulating wealth does not lead to contentment. Yet, we buy lottery tickets in proportion to the size of the jackpot. We excuse the immoral behavior of our leaders as long as our 401K is doing well. We support the elimination of regulations that protect our air and water as long as there are job opportunities. We deny the science of climate change because it might cause us to sacrifice a bit of comfort for the future of our species.
They call them economic cycles because they include boom and bust. We are experiencing a boom of historic length, 7 years under Obama, 3 under Trump. We allowed our national debt to explode when the economy imploded in 2008, yet are ignoring the basic economic premise that we should reduce our debt in good times. We tear up every year when Scrooge visits his nephew, sends the big turkey to the Cratchit's, and becomes the best man ever in the good old town.
The good news is that, like Scrooge, there is time to reject the soullessness of overt consumerism and rampant materialism, and realize that the business of people is the most important business of all. Whether that realization will only occur from a visit from the ghosts of Christmas or the next economic downturn, or whether we can prioritize money and possessions somewhat lower than it is currently through a cultural shift in attitude about what is real and what is fantasy, is the question.
I decided to Google Christmas in July and found some disturbing references to the Hallmark company in association with slow summer retail sales. Yes, there was a more innocent and even altruistic, origin story, but the popularity of the tradition is securely rooted in the advertising industry, and the need for endless consumerism.
Unlike the hidden agenda of those who create our need for the new and improved, at least Scrooge is honest in his dislike of charity in general, and Christmas in specific. His yardstick of what matters is clear, and anything that does not contribute to the advancement of his business and the fruits of his unwavering desire to accumulate money for its own sake, is hum bug. Disliking Scrooge for his poorly developed priorities, often passes through to feeling sorry for him, especially when we see his unbridled joy when he discovers what is really important in life.
Scrooge may represent the worst in us when we place possessions above people, but he also represents the idea that no matter how far down the path of materialism we might drift, there is a way back.
This does not seem to be the case for those who make conscious decisions to deceive the public for personal gain, whether that gain increases their purse or influence. Is there a special place in hell for the wealthy individual who steals from the elderly by pretending to be a young relative in need of some money? I would expect that most of us would condemn such a strategy, but when we don't generally ask how the rich became rich, when we don't seek a mechanism for evaluating wealth attained through hard work or stealth, or worse, then we condone all forms of wealth accumulation which are legal but immoral, or illegal but hidden from view by measures which great wealth can employ, or just plain horrific.
Today I received one of my 401K statements, the first half of the year now passed. It is doing well, which should make me happy. And, if I were to say that I was not happy, that would be disingenuous. Hypocrisy is so easy to see in others but can hide behind many areas of our own lives. Surging retirement accounts, a record breaking DOW Jones average, and low unemployment are the main arguments for the success of the current Administration. Being economically comfortable is by no means a small thing, as those who have suffered through past economic hardships will attest.
Scrooge did not seem a happy person despite his wealth. The scene in the restaurant where he declined a second piece of bread (I think), as it would add to the cost of his meal, demonstrates that he did not understand that money is a tool, not an ends. Stories of rich people who have it all yet live unhappy lives are replete in our entertainment based media outlets. Scores of studies have determined that happiness does increase with economic gain, but only to the level of what we might call upper middle class, incomes in the $80-120,000 range. After that diminishing returns.
Happiness is full of excerpts and articles which tell us over and over again that accumulating wealth does not lead to contentment. Yet, we buy lottery tickets in proportion to the size of the jackpot. We excuse the immoral behavior of our leaders as long as our 401K is doing well. We support the elimination of regulations that protect our air and water as long as there are job opportunities. We deny the science of climate change because it might cause us to sacrifice a bit of comfort for the future of our species.
They call them economic cycles because they include boom and bust. We are experiencing a boom of historic length, 7 years under Obama, 3 under Trump. We allowed our national debt to explode when the economy imploded in 2008, yet are ignoring the basic economic premise that we should reduce our debt in good times. We tear up every year when Scrooge visits his nephew, sends the big turkey to the Cratchit's, and becomes the best man ever in the good old town.
The good news is that, like Scrooge, there is time to reject the soullessness of overt consumerism and rampant materialism, and realize that the business of people is the most important business of all. Whether that realization will only occur from a visit from the ghosts of Christmas or the next economic downturn, or whether we can prioritize money and possessions somewhat lower than it is currently through a cultural shift in attitude about what is real and what is fantasy, is the question.
Monday, June 24, 2019
Happiness
Received the Summer Edition of Lapham's Quarterly called Happiness. Nor sure what I was expecting, but am already drawn into the essays and excerpts.
A couple of interesting quotes:
A society devoted to self-gratification may, in the end, destroy the conditions of its own existence.
Avoid the pursuit of happiness. Seek to define your mission and pursue that.
Happy people do not look at their watches.
She didn't want to know how a thing was done, but why. That can be embarrassing. You ask Why to a lot of things and you wind up very unhappy indeed if you keep at it.
And one which has often entered my mind when thinking about happiness, from a Cheryl Crow song:
It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you have.
One might say that before the Declaration of Independence extolled the virtues of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, common men did not value happiness as a goal in itself, but rather thought that attaining certain goals would bring happiness as a byproduct. Certainly, women and children were not actively in pursuit of happiness and they generally excepted what was prescribed by their elders as the path to a happy life. For a women it meant motherhood, perhaps marriage to a successful man to accentuate their duty to bear children, but only in the recent past has love or happiness been a luxury they might pursue. As for children, far too often their childhoods were marked by home labor on the farm, or slave wage labor when the industrialization of the modern world first occurred.
How things have changed in the past hundred years!.
Happiness is as much a marketing tool as a state of mind. We allow our happiness to be defined for us, not by our parents, or husbands as before, but by the most clever ad men and con men.
I have commented in past posts how the cost of living has changed so dramatically. Where once we had party lines, then one phone per home, now anyone without their personal cell phone by the age of seven considers themselves ill used. And at a cost of hundreds of dollars per month for the average family.
Where once we felt pride in being a two car family, perhaps the 2nd one being for local use only, probably high mileage and well used by another before us, now each driving age adult requires their own vehicle, in new or like new condition with comforts that many of us did not have in our homes when children.
Yet, for all these and so many other possessions, and items which have been sold to us as necessary for a happy life, the United States contains a seemingly unhappy population.
Suicide rates are on the increase, claiming over 45,000 people per year since 2016. Not to mention those people who are unsuccessful at suicide, or who are leading lives marked by alcohol and drug abuse. The use of tranquilizers and other drugs meant to help us "cope" is off the charts. Gun violence claims over 40,000 Americans per year, (there is an overlap between gun deaths and suicides), placing America #1 in this dubious statistic among high income countries of the world.
So, while America continues to be a land of opportunity, a country with as many freedoms as most, a place where the melting pot of diversity in people and culture is as successful as any in history, in very many measurable areas, we are happy at a less than sterling percentage.
I have maintained very often that I would never want to win a big lottery payoff. I imagine that winning $300 million would ruin my life although I must admit that perhaps $1 million would be nice. Accumulating large sums of wealth, to me, seems to be a prescription for unhappiness, yet for so many people, a boatload of money is one of their dreams. It seems so obvious that money cannot buy happiness, and I would imagine that a majority of Americans would agree with that notion, yet we act to the contrary in virtually everything we do.
We stay in jobs that we hate to maintain the paycheck.
We buy the newest and greatest products, thereby discarding those products which had previously replaced the old for the new, oblivious to the wheel we run that results in basements and attics and garages filled with the newest and greatest products of previous marketing campaigns.
We look in our overflowing closets and find nothing to wear, in our bursting pantries and refrigerators and find nothing to eat, on our TV channel guide and find nothing to watch, through our google inspired searches which lists dozens of activities and find nothing to do.
We are unhappy with the vast experiences which life offers us because we are unhappy with ourselves, and so we press on and buy more clothes and different foods, seek new stimulants and stimulations, but so often fail to enjoy them, as if by being able to possess or experience them, they lose their luster, become ordinary, because they were attainable in the first place.
Stop and smell the roses, isn't just about taking time out from the hectic pace of our lives, but about rejoicing in the mere presence of a rose, whether it be the first or thousandth we have seen and smelled.
I generally consider myself a happy person, despite the crying jags I experience from certain memories, certain feelings, certain emotions. I don't believe that crying indicates unhappiness, merely the recognition of a sad or tearful event. I sometimes wonder if the happiest people I know, those easy to laugh, who seem positive and less prone to sadness, also cry easily. Perhaps, when all is said and done, those who laugh and cry the most are the happiest people because they can discern happy and sad experiences for what they are, and then allow themselves to feel the appropriate emotion when it is applicable to the situation, without fearing the vulnerability that can result from displaying emotions.
Perhaps, as darkness is the absence of light, yet without each the other cannot exist, sadness and happiness are linked in that both must exist for either one to be real. That happiness and crying are not on opposite poles as are not sadness and laughing.
I will check back in as I continue to read "Happiness".
A couple of interesting quotes:
A society devoted to self-gratification may, in the end, destroy the conditions of its own existence.
Avoid the pursuit of happiness. Seek to define your mission and pursue that.
Happy people do not look at their watches.
She didn't want to know how a thing was done, but why. That can be embarrassing. You ask Why to a lot of things and you wind up very unhappy indeed if you keep at it.
And one which has often entered my mind when thinking about happiness, from a Cheryl Crow song:
It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you have.
One might say that before the Declaration of Independence extolled the virtues of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, common men did not value happiness as a goal in itself, but rather thought that attaining certain goals would bring happiness as a byproduct. Certainly, women and children were not actively in pursuit of happiness and they generally excepted what was prescribed by their elders as the path to a happy life. For a women it meant motherhood, perhaps marriage to a successful man to accentuate their duty to bear children, but only in the recent past has love or happiness been a luxury they might pursue. As for children, far too often their childhoods were marked by home labor on the farm, or slave wage labor when the industrialization of the modern world first occurred.
How things have changed in the past hundred years!.
Happiness is as much a marketing tool as a state of mind. We allow our happiness to be defined for us, not by our parents, or husbands as before, but by the most clever ad men and con men.
I have commented in past posts how the cost of living has changed so dramatically. Where once we had party lines, then one phone per home, now anyone without their personal cell phone by the age of seven considers themselves ill used. And at a cost of hundreds of dollars per month for the average family.
Where once we felt pride in being a two car family, perhaps the 2nd one being for local use only, probably high mileage and well used by another before us, now each driving age adult requires their own vehicle, in new or like new condition with comforts that many of us did not have in our homes when children.
Yet, for all these and so many other possessions, and items which have been sold to us as necessary for a happy life, the United States contains a seemingly unhappy population.
Suicide rates are on the increase, claiming over 45,000 people per year since 2016. Not to mention those people who are unsuccessful at suicide, or who are leading lives marked by alcohol and drug abuse. The use of tranquilizers and other drugs meant to help us "cope" is off the charts. Gun violence claims over 40,000 Americans per year, (there is an overlap between gun deaths and suicides), placing America #1 in this dubious statistic among high income countries of the world.
So, while America continues to be a land of opportunity, a country with as many freedoms as most, a place where the melting pot of diversity in people and culture is as successful as any in history, in very many measurable areas, we are happy at a less than sterling percentage.
I have maintained very often that I would never want to win a big lottery payoff. I imagine that winning $300 million would ruin my life although I must admit that perhaps $1 million would be nice. Accumulating large sums of wealth, to me, seems to be a prescription for unhappiness, yet for so many people, a boatload of money is one of their dreams. It seems so obvious that money cannot buy happiness, and I would imagine that a majority of Americans would agree with that notion, yet we act to the contrary in virtually everything we do.
We stay in jobs that we hate to maintain the paycheck.
We buy the newest and greatest products, thereby discarding those products which had previously replaced the old for the new, oblivious to the wheel we run that results in basements and attics and garages filled with the newest and greatest products of previous marketing campaigns.
We look in our overflowing closets and find nothing to wear, in our bursting pantries and refrigerators and find nothing to eat, on our TV channel guide and find nothing to watch, through our google inspired searches which lists dozens of activities and find nothing to do.
We are unhappy with the vast experiences which life offers us because we are unhappy with ourselves, and so we press on and buy more clothes and different foods, seek new stimulants and stimulations, but so often fail to enjoy them, as if by being able to possess or experience them, they lose their luster, become ordinary, because they were attainable in the first place.
Stop and smell the roses, isn't just about taking time out from the hectic pace of our lives, but about rejoicing in the mere presence of a rose, whether it be the first or thousandth we have seen and smelled.
I generally consider myself a happy person, despite the crying jags I experience from certain memories, certain feelings, certain emotions. I don't believe that crying indicates unhappiness, merely the recognition of a sad or tearful event. I sometimes wonder if the happiest people I know, those easy to laugh, who seem positive and less prone to sadness, also cry easily. Perhaps, when all is said and done, those who laugh and cry the most are the happiest people because they can discern happy and sad experiences for what they are, and then allow themselves to feel the appropriate emotion when it is applicable to the situation, without fearing the vulnerability that can result from displaying emotions.
Perhaps, as darkness is the absence of light, yet without each the other cannot exist, sadness and happiness are linked in that both must exist for either one to be real. That happiness and crying are not on opposite poles as are not sadness and laughing.
I will check back in as I continue to read "Happiness".
Monday, June 3, 2019
More on Galileo's Daughter
I finished reading Galileo's Daughter over the weekend. It is interesting to realize that we come to understand through Suor Marie Celeste's letters that she possessed a strong intellect and an ability to improve the lives of those around her, just as her father did, yet did not have a very strong self-image. One can easily imagine that had she been born a male, she may have made a mark for herself in history, perhaps continuing some of his work. Of course, it is impossible to accurately predict outcomes based on conjecture, but in reading her letters, and knowing the sad history of male assumptions that women were inferior in all areas, one could only wonder at the loss of insight, inventions, and social and technological progress that we have missed by putting all our eggs in the basket of white male privilege.
Certainly, Suor Marie Celeste could not have dreamed that her letters would be treasured 400 years after she composed them. Of course, a mere letter from a daughter to a father, in itself, is not historical, and hers would never have been saved if not for her birth lottery victory of being Galileo's daughter, but he had other children, other progeny, and, even if we assume that it was Galileo's deep love for his daughter that compelled him to save her letters, it still reflects positively on her that he loved her so much, when one understands how valued male children were in that time as compared to female children.
It can also be rather humbling to realize that of the millions of people born in those days, very few have been remembered. We are experiencing an increase in understanding our heredity, whether through family trees or DNA testing, but knowing the names of our ancestors who lived 3,4,5 or more generations before us, and knowing them as people are two very different things. The reality is that very few of us, perhaps none of you who may be reading these words, will be more than part of the group of people who lived in the early 21st century. We remember those whom we know who have passed through our memories, and perhaps communications. But most people are eventually lost in the passage of time, when there are no longer anyone alive to recount what they looked like, what they liked to do, their smile, their mannerisms. Their essence. That is what is so unique about this book and the letters quoted within it. Galileo is presented as more than just a famous inventor and astronomer, but as a man with faults and ailments, as a father, as a fellow citizen, as a man who understood the obstacles he faced in his quest for undiscovered truths, but persisted anyway, perhaps hoping for the best in a naive way, but accepting the consequences whatever they may be, all the while continuing his training of young minds, continuing his experimentation, and continuing his support of his children, especially his daughter, Suor Celeste Marie.
I had remembered poorly, some of the history of Galileo's fate after being convicted of heretical beliefs. At first, he was merely "kept" at the home of a supporter, in Siena, where he continued to have visitors, and discuss his theories. But, as time passed, the details of the sentence emerged, and all his books were banned from further publishing, not just "Dialogue". Also, he was forbidden from teaching, and even of discussing his theories related to earth being in motion. It would be over 100 years until a publisher was granted permission to include "Dialogue" in a posthumous collection of Galileo's works, but even then, certain disclaimers needed to be included as "Dialogue" remained officially banned.
Amazingly, it took about 200 years for "Dialogue of Galileo Galilei" was dropped from this list, when the Congregation of the Holy Office finally allowed books about modern astronomy which described the movement of the Earth. Can you even imagine knowing something to be true, today, but having to wait until 2219 before it is officially recognized as true?
The biggest omission I had of Galileo's life, by far, was never being taught of his daughter. Her sufferings along with Galileo as they awaited, first the verdict, then the details of the sentence, might be considered as big a part of his ultimate punishment as the banning itself, for Suor Marie Celeste dies soon after this travesty of judgment. Her removal from his life, both emotional and physical as she spent a considerable amount of her time preparing various medicines, balms, and treatments for his various physical complaints, surely led to a reduced life expectancy for Galileo.
A final bit of information that I did not know, was that one of Galileo's last students, Vincenzio Viviani, spent the remainder of his life trying to have Galileo's remains buried in a place of honor. And, while he did not succeed, (it wasn't until 1737 that Galileo's remains were moved to a more honorable location), he secretly obtained the remains of Suor Celeste Marie and had her buried with her father. There she lay, without inscription, until Vincenzio's tomb project was finally brought to fruition. And there she lay today, without acknowledgement, buried with her father's remains, perhaps the most precious gift humanity could have provided for Galileo and his daughter.
As a side note, the book also included some interesting facts to help the reader place Galileo in history. For instance, there has been some speculations regarding the fact that Michelangelo died February 18, 1564, 3 days after Galileo was born.
Other interesting bits of information
Shakespeare was also born in 1564 (again, imagine if his writings remained banned for 200 years!).
Galileo published The Starry Messenger in 1610 after, by using his improved telescope, he discovers the moons of Jupiter.
Galileo's Sunspot Letters is published in 1613, revealing more details which disprove the idea that the stars in the sky are fixed.
Galileo dies in early 1642; Isaac Newton is born on December 25th of that same year.
Newton publishes Principia in 1687 in which he proposed his laws of motion and universal gravitation, thereby justifying Galileo's discoveries for which he was condemned.
The University of Pisa, where Galileo studied but never earned his degree, grants him an honorary degree, in 1892, upon the celebration of the 250th anniversary of his death.
In 1979, over 400 years after his death, Pope John Paul II calls for theologians, scholars and historians to reexamine Galileo's case.
In 1989, NASA launches the Galileo spacecraft to study the moons of Jupiter at close range.
In 1992, Pope John Paul II publicly endorses Galileo's philosophy. In his declaration, Pope John reiterates the belief that, given the premise that we can not know God's plan, nor fully understand the reasons or meanings of Her creations, it might be best to withhold judgments by pretending to be the sole arbiter of the meaning of the bible, and perhaps seek truth by using all our gifts, intellect, reason, and deduction included.
OK, you caught me. The pope didn't say that. It is my interpretation of Galileo's overriding ability to not only not see religion and science as in competition, but that each compliments the other by combining truth in the physical as well as the spiritual realms.
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Galileo's Daughter
Last week, I started reading Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel. It is not a new book, originally published in 1999, but presents an interesting perspective concerning religion and science, especially considering the continued presence of people who, almost 400 years after Galileo's encounter with the vagaries of religious dominion over scientific thought, still espouse beliefs that emanate from faith as opposed to facts.
Galileo's Daughter presents the renowned Italian philosopher and astronomer with a mixture of history as well as via the letters which were sent by his eldest daughter Virginia, who took the name Suor Maria Celeste when she took her vows in 1616. We only have her letters, as his were apparently destroyed upon her death by the mother abbess of the convent where Sour Maria Celeste lived the bulk of her life, presumably as a result of the fear of harboring the writings of a "vehemently suspected" heretic. Fortunately, one side of the decades long correspondence are lovingly preserved, revealing a doting father, a devoted daughter, and a glimpse into everyday life in 17th century Europe.
I am about half way through, but left slips of paper in two spots so far.
The first reminds the reader that Galileo was a staunch Roman Catholic, not a renegade who scoffed at the Bible and its scientific teachings. For, while Galileo's fate is often touted as the ultimate religions vs science schism, the reality is that Galileo went out of his way to court the favor of the various popes who reigned during his adult life, and in fact, submitted the book which resulted in his ultimate fate, for Church approval and alterations, waiting quite some time for that approval and corrections to be completed, before ultimately publishing his book, with papal blessing, the Dialogue.
Frankly, more than once I found his actions a bit obsequious, as he clearly valued the good graces of those in power, whether it be those of the Medici family, or of papal authority. Of course, the Church was far more powerful in those days, having its own army, and wielding influence far beyond just the spiritual. Whether it be from powerful families or from Rome, those who preferred to study, experiment, or merely observe the workings of Nature and the Universe, sought special titles (and the pensions they provided) so they could concentrate on their work. Playing the game to provide a certain freedom and easier way of life, while different from today's rules and players, could nevertheless be a twisted path as a means to an end.
The other area which I noted, also speaks volumes about Galileo's love of his religion, and his country. At this point in his life, he knows that Copernicus is correct in his theories that the earth is not the center of the universe but that it revolves around the sun, and Galileo's own observations with his invention, the telescope, further casts doubts on the Aristotelian view that seems more in line with the bible. Further, Galileo expects that with time, better telescopes and other inventions not yet created will prove with certainty that Copernicus was correct, and yet he fears, not for his own reputation, but that it will reflect poorly on the edicts of his religion and the reputation of his fellow Italian scientists, who will face future ridicule for holding fast to outdated theories when the proof was clear. So, while he was willing to present his theories as just that, theories that still needed further proof, he was not willing to remain silent so as to provide future historians grist for possible condemnation of Galileo's faith and country of birth.
Pretty remarkable priorities, when you think about it. And perhaps a good lesson for us all in this age when personal desires seem to be the only motivation for so many of our leaders, and ourselves.
Knowing Galileo's fate, yet still looking forward to reading of it through his daughter's letters, and her perception of his mental and physical health through the coming ordeal, it struck me, today, at how life is not always fair. I mean, here is a historic figure, certainly as brilliant and curious a mind of his time, who seeks truth above all, yet pays for his discoveries with his freedom, and ultimately, his life. Makes one rethink the tiny everyday slights that happen, yet about which we whine and complain endlessly. Not to mention, his daughter who lives an extremely hard, monotonous life, in service of her God and her religion, only to have the seemingly only person in her life whom she loves and respects, become persona-non-grata by the very religion and religious doctrine to which she has sacrificed her life.
Yikes!!
Certainly as one reads this kind of book, sprinkled with the letters of a real person who lived 400 years ago, it is easy to ridicule the actions of those in power at that time, as if we are immune to such activities today. The real question is, should we be evaluated 400 years from now, which of our actions, edicts, laws, traditions, will be considered with similar ridicule? What science that we deny today, will be as obvious as the motion of the earth around the sun is to us now? And whose daughter's letters will be read for a glimpse into life in the 21st century?
Monday, May 20, 2019
Abolish Political Parties?
I purchased "On the Abolition of All Political Parties", written by Simone Weil, translated by Simon Leys, for my wife for Christmas. In light of the seemingly dangerous partisan politics that is everywhere today, I decided to read it last week.
First, a bit of background. Simone Weil was a philosopher and political activist who lived from 1909 to 1943, teaching, assisting in the trade union movement, siding with the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War, and also spending time working as a common laborer so she could better understand the working class. Her writings were not recognized for their importance until after her death. One of her most well known supporters was Albert Camus. Here is the Wikipedia link of you wish to read about her; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Weil
As is so often the case, it is sometimes hard not to imagine that whatever crisis that we are experiencing today, whether local, national or global, is not somehow more critical than any other in history. Our egos won't readily allow us to consider that we are living in anything less than an historic time, even though it is obvious that some times are more historic than others, and that only after many years have passed, can we truly know if we lived in a watershed time or not.
That being the case, it is not far-fetched to imagine that Weil's time on Earth was indeed an historic time to be alive. WWI, the Russian revolution, the global economic collapse, the rise of nationalism in Europe, and WW2 all occurred during her brief lifetime, and certainly helped shape her political views.
"On the Abolition..." is her logical argument that very little good has come from the tribalism that infects political parties, while much bad results in their existence. But Weil's explanation of why political parties are not productive, focuses more on the individuals who comprise the party than the party itself. She acknowledges that the party, as a whole, might have ideas that serve their nation well, might promote policies that uplift the everyday worker. Her problem with political parties is best illustrated by the following quote from the book.
"If a man were to say, as he applied for his party membership card, "I agree with the party on this and that question; I have not yet studied its other positions and thus I entirely reserve my opinion, pending further information," he would probably be advised to come back at a later date.
In fact - and with very few exceptions - when a man joins a party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as . "As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that..." It is so comfortable! I amounts to having no thought at all. Nothing is more comfortable that not having to think."
Of course, in today's language, we might say "As a conservative, or as a liberal, as a Democrat or as a Republican," but the intent is the same. The party affiliation helps us identify ourselves for the listeners (and voters), but more importantly creates boundaries for our opinions. For instance, a Democrat who is pro-abortion, may have a hard time campaigning with that platform, while a Republican who readily acknowledges that climate change is real and that we must embrace the new Green Deal, may find it difficult to gain votes.
This doesn't mean that pro-choice candidates tend to become Democrats, or that climate change deniers Republican simply because the party leans that way, but it does indicate that when a candidate disagrees with a basic party tenet, even if it is only 25% of the time, he/she may not find the party support necessary to win election. Weil just takes it a step further than some, indicating her belief that the party member stops thinking, and merely adopts the party opinion on all topics, regardless of their personal opinion.
Weil notes the "free" or "conscious" vote as proof of her logic. As defined,
A conscience vote or free vote is a type of vote in a legislative body where legislators are allowed to vote according to their own personal conscience rather than according to an official line set down by their political party.
The fact that this is a real thing should alarm us while her point, obviously, is that all votes should be one in which the elected leader considers his/her conscious, not the exception.
In the US Congress, we see this type of vote exercised by each party when they allow a certain member to vote against the party's preference, knowing that they have enough votes to pass the legislation anyway. In this way, members with constituents who might be against a particular proposal can be mollified with the knowledge that their representative stood up to the party and respected their viewpoint. The bill still passes, but the representative saves face, and, most likely, adheres to the party line the next vote so someone else can appear independent. And, even worse, it doesn't even mean that a "conscious" vote was cast, just that a vote which acknowledges that public opinion, was cast. The representative may, in fact, be more worried about re-election than their conscience, and by getting a pass from the party, they get to retain their seat in government.
It all adds up to party loyalty above the nation, and, again, even when a particular party may have good intentions, there will eventually be capitulation by the party members to the party's will, rather than a considered vote which places the nation above all else.
Once you read this book, you may conclude that Weil was right, and that nothing short of the abolition of all political parties is the only answer. Certainly, some of the founding fathers were worried about this very issue. But how could this be accomplished, and an even more critical consideration, is the American electorate ready for such a change?
Perhaps addressing the second question first, will provide an answer to the first.
Can our electorate enter the voting booth on a consistent basis with a general understanding of the candidates and their opinions, vote for the person who best represents their own viewpoints, but also accept when another candidate wins with the knowledge that at least some of their concerns and opinions will be considered when new laws are created?
I ask this because it seems very clear to me that we frequently put our elected officials into 2 all-or- nothing boxes; agree with me all the time, or, at the very least, agree with my party all the time. This is a very elementary position, and in and or itself, discourages "conscious votes".
I have severe misgivings that we are ready for such responsibility, as voters, considering that only just above 60% of us vote in presidential elections, barely 40% in midterms, and that a far too big percentage of voters select all of one party or the other, not necessarily knowing anything about the candidates other than their party affiliation. In other words, we need to shake off our complacency about our democracy, and invest time and energy when exercising our right to vote, or no solution will be successful.
Enter the educated voter.
I recently commented to a friend of mine that the educated voter was not the friend of any political parties because an educated voter knows that no party will be in agreement with their personal views, but that the best choice is one where there is the most agreement. An educated voter understands the importance of compromise, because their neighbor's ideas of what is fair and right are just as important as their own, even when they are polar opposites, and that common ground should be the starting point for all discussions and debates. An educated voter does not take the word of the candidate, whether that candidate is the incumbent or in their first campaign, but fact checks what is said. (Also good advice for Facebook posts and Twitter retweets).
Perhaps a starting point would be to eliminate all reference to a candidate's party on the ballot. Make the voter research the candidates rather than handing them an easy tool, the party vote, so they at least know the names of those they are choosing. Removing all the restrictions to voting might also be a good idea, especially when it comes to primaries that are only open to party affiliated registered voters, expanding the rules on absentee ballots, expanding the actual voting day to a weekend with a federal holiday on that Monday, establishing an online voting system that allows people with handicaps or difficult work schedules to vote, and who knows, maybe even a fine for not voting.
I say this last thing, because it seems that money is our great yardstick, so perhaps, rather than pretending that our right to vote is "priceless" we should put a price on that right, and extract its cost for those who choose not to participate. At least we can then use it to fund election campaigns, which, knowing what we now know, also means reversing the Citizens United ruling which allows even more money to flow into our elections. If failing to stand at attention before a symbol made of cloth is such an unpatriotic expression, how is failing to vote any less egregious?
I guess, at this point, I am saying that we cannot abolish political parties, yet. Yes, we might see some progress in the partisanship fiasco that we are experiencing today, but without a governor on the money being spent in our elections, without less voter restrictions than our current trend towards more, without an educated voter who can talk as fluently about the candidates and the pros and cons of their positions as they can about the latest GOT episode or the hottest sports stars' stats, then our votes will still add up to a dysfunctional government that answers to big money, party loyalties, and special interests rather than we the people.
Sadly, it is up to we the people, and I am finding it difficult to see us demanding the changes that will help us preserve our democracy, with or without political parties.
First, a bit of background. Simone Weil was a philosopher and political activist who lived from 1909 to 1943, teaching, assisting in the trade union movement, siding with the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War, and also spending time working as a common laborer so she could better understand the working class. Her writings were not recognized for their importance until after her death. One of her most well known supporters was Albert Camus. Here is the Wikipedia link of you wish to read about her; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Weil
As is so often the case, it is sometimes hard not to imagine that whatever crisis that we are experiencing today, whether local, national or global, is not somehow more critical than any other in history. Our egos won't readily allow us to consider that we are living in anything less than an historic time, even though it is obvious that some times are more historic than others, and that only after many years have passed, can we truly know if we lived in a watershed time or not.
That being the case, it is not far-fetched to imagine that Weil's time on Earth was indeed an historic time to be alive. WWI, the Russian revolution, the global economic collapse, the rise of nationalism in Europe, and WW2 all occurred during her brief lifetime, and certainly helped shape her political views.
"On the Abolition..." is her logical argument that very little good has come from the tribalism that infects political parties, while much bad results in their existence. But Weil's explanation of why political parties are not productive, focuses more on the individuals who comprise the party than the party itself. She acknowledges that the party, as a whole, might have ideas that serve their nation well, might promote policies that uplift the everyday worker. Her problem with political parties is best illustrated by the following quote from the book.
"If a man were to say, as he applied for his party membership card, "I agree with the party on this and that question; I have not yet studied its other positions and thus I entirely reserve my opinion, pending further information," he would probably be advised to come back at a later date.
In fact - and with very few exceptions - when a man joins a party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as . "As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that..." It is so comfortable! I amounts to having no thought at all. Nothing is more comfortable that not having to think."
Of course, in today's language, we might say "As a conservative, or as a liberal, as a Democrat or as a Republican," but the intent is the same. The party affiliation helps us identify ourselves for the listeners (and voters), but more importantly creates boundaries for our opinions. For instance, a Democrat who is pro-abortion, may have a hard time campaigning with that platform, while a Republican who readily acknowledges that climate change is real and that we must embrace the new Green Deal, may find it difficult to gain votes.
This doesn't mean that pro-choice candidates tend to become Democrats, or that climate change deniers Republican simply because the party leans that way, but it does indicate that when a candidate disagrees with a basic party tenet, even if it is only 25% of the time, he/she may not find the party support necessary to win election. Weil just takes it a step further than some, indicating her belief that the party member stops thinking, and merely adopts the party opinion on all topics, regardless of their personal opinion.
Weil notes the "free" or "conscious" vote as proof of her logic. As defined,
A conscience vote or free vote is a type of vote in a legislative body where legislators are allowed to vote according to their own personal conscience rather than according to an official line set down by their political party.
The fact that this is a real thing should alarm us while her point, obviously, is that all votes should be one in which the elected leader considers his/her conscious, not the exception.
In the US Congress, we see this type of vote exercised by each party when they allow a certain member to vote against the party's preference, knowing that they have enough votes to pass the legislation anyway. In this way, members with constituents who might be against a particular proposal can be mollified with the knowledge that their representative stood up to the party and respected their viewpoint. The bill still passes, but the representative saves face, and, most likely, adheres to the party line the next vote so someone else can appear independent. And, even worse, it doesn't even mean that a "conscious" vote was cast, just that a vote which acknowledges that public opinion, was cast. The representative may, in fact, be more worried about re-election than their conscience, and by getting a pass from the party, they get to retain their seat in government.
It all adds up to party loyalty above the nation, and, again, even when a particular party may have good intentions, there will eventually be capitulation by the party members to the party's will, rather than a considered vote which places the nation above all else.
Once you read this book, you may conclude that Weil was right, and that nothing short of the abolition of all political parties is the only answer. Certainly, some of the founding fathers were worried about this very issue. But how could this be accomplished, and an even more critical consideration, is the American electorate ready for such a change?
Perhaps addressing the second question first, will provide an answer to the first.
Can our electorate enter the voting booth on a consistent basis with a general understanding of the candidates and their opinions, vote for the person who best represents their own viewpoints, but also accept when another candidate wins with the knowledge that at least some of their concerns and opinions will be considered when new laws are created?
I ask this because it seems very clear to me that we frequently put our elected officials into 2 all-or- nothing boxes; agree with me all the time, or, at the very least, agree with my party all the time. This is a very elementary position, and in and or itself, discourages "conscious votes".
I have severe misgivings that we are ready for such responsibility, as voters, considering that only just above 60% of us vote in presidential elections, barely 40% in midterms, and that a far too big percentage of voters select all of one party or the other, not necessarily knowing anything about the candidates other than their party affiliation. In other words, we need to shake off our complacency about our democracy, and invest time and energy when exercising our right to vote, or no solution will be successful.
Enter the educated voter.
I recently commented to a friend of mine that the educated voter was not the friend of any political parties because an educated voter knows that no party will be in agreement with their personal views, but that the best choice is one where there is the most agreement. An educated voter understands the importance of compromise, because their neighbor's ideas of what is fair and right are just as important as their own, even when they are polar opposites, and that common ground should be the starting point for all discussions and debates. An educated voter does not take the word of the candidate, whether that candidate is the incumbent or in their first campaign, but fact checks what is said. (Also good advice for Facebook posts and Twitter retweets).
Perhaps a starting point would be to eliminate all reference to a candidate's party on the ballot. Make the voter research the candidates rather than handing them an easy tool, the party vote, so they at least know the names of those they are choosing. Removing all the restrictions to voting might also be a good idea, especially when it comes to primaries that are only open to party affiliated registered voters, expanding the rules on absentee ballots, expanding the actual voting day to a weekend with a federal holiday on that Monday, establishing an online voting system that allows people with handicaps or difficult work schedules to vote, and who knows, maybe even a fine for not voting.
I say this last thing, because it seems that money is our great yardstick, so perhaps, rather than pretending that our right to vote is "priceless" we should put a price on that right, and extract its cost for those who choose not to participate. At least we can then use it to fund election campaigns, which, knowing what we now know, also means reversing the Citizens United ruling which allows even more money to flow into our elections. If failing to stand at attention before a symbol made of cloth is such an unpatriotic expression, how is failing to vote any less egregious?
I guess, at this point, I am saying that we cannot abolish political parties, yet. Yes, we might see some progress in the partisanship fiasco that we are experiencing today, but without a governor on the money being spent in our elections, without less voter restrictions than our current trend towards more, without an educated voter who can talk as fluently about the candidates and the pros and cons of their positions as they can about the latest GOT episode or the hottest sports stars' stats, then our votes will still add up to a dysfunctional government that answers to big money, party loyalties, and special interests rather than we the people.
Sadly, it is up to we the people, and I am finding it difficult to see us demanding the changes that will help us preserve our democracy, with or without political parties.
Wednesday, May 8, 2019
Dear President Trump
Dear President Trump,
I suspect that your time as president has not been what you might have expected. The open antagonism by many representatives of the press, the betrayal by some of your former employees and appointees, the less than 50% approval rating by your constituents to date, and the seemingly pointless Mueller investigation, not to mention the lack of credit you have received for the booming economy, might all add up to a low job satisfaction score. While you may have expected this different response when compared to the rarefied air of the CEO boardroom, and the sets of your various entertainment shows where the Boss is respected, never questioned, always obeyed, you most likely associated more obedience towards the president and his words when you took the oath of office, than what you have experienced so far.
When I accept that you ran for President out of concern for America and its future, I truly feel sorry for you and for the obstacles that you perceive. In many ways, being President is a no-win job, where a large percentage of citizens will disagree with every one of your decisions, and where reverence and/or
historical glory is very rarely realized until well after your time has passed. I don't believe there is any job on Earth which includes such a high degree of outside criticism than President of the Untied States, yet I don't see that understanding exhibited in your reactions. In that regard, I think you held incorrectly conceived presumptions, despite the love and adoration you experience at your rallies.
America is not run by the words and good feelings of a rally, but by digging deep into the problems that we face, gleaning information from multiple viewpoints, and arriving at solutions that provide the best course of action, then explaining those actions to the people who might need to understand their share in any one particular solution may be limited, but will be accounted for in a future solution. That we all take steps forward together, even when some steps are smaller than others.
I know that sacrifice is not one of your favorite words and is certainly not consistent with your Make America Great Again message, but it is nonetheless an important aspect to all major initiatives. It is why it is critical for those of us who believe in a more environmentally conscious direction for America, need also to assuage the fears of those who feed their families via work in the fossil fuel industries. Coal, in particular, is not our future, but that does not mean we should ignore the real pain that some Americans will suffer as the coal industry fades away.
At this point, after reading the redacted version of the Mueller investigation, after 28 months of your relentless attacks on our environment via cabinet appointments, regulation rollbacks and treaty withdrawals, after the thousands of tweets which belittle your political rivals, and those Americans who support their viewpoints, after the insidious results of your scapegoat tactics which dehumanize those born south of our border, and have done irreparable harm to countless families through the child separation policies that you initiated, and yes, even after the continued strength of our economy, I respectfully request that you resign as President of the United States.
Resign, Mr. President, not because you are a quitter or might be perceived as running from a fight, not because you admit to any wrong doing, and certainly not because you might be impeached. Resign because it would be good for America.
Resign so we can avoid 18 more months of congressional hearings into the mistakes of your 2016 presidential campaign.
Resign so we can avoid another year and a half of hearing about Russian interference in our elections, and spend that time creating a firewall in our social media industry to prevent future incursions.
Resign so we can join the rest of the world in addressing the real emergency of climate change rather than avoiding the cost and sacrifice that we need to face.
Resign so that there is no excuse for those in Washington to address our crumbling infrastructure, especially our outdated electricity grid.
Resign so we can look our burgeoning national deficit fully in the face and make the hard choices which will protect our most vulnerable citizens, while continuing to provide entrepreneurial opportunity to regrow the middle class, even if that means asking the super wealthy to care more about America than their personal wealth.
Resign so that the American electorate might pause in its love affair with party affiliation, might realize that America is greater than the sum of its parties but only when they work to advance the country, not just their tribe.
Resign so the Republican Party can turn fully away from the selfish populism that has convinced almost half of Americans that immigrants are evil, money is all that matters, and that cooperation is a sign of weakness.
Resign so that the next election is about the future of America, and ideas that catapult us into that future, as opposed to a ideas that represent a last gasp attempt to relive the past, despite the false narrative that nostalgia provides when the bad times and injustices are ignored.
Resign because it will confirm to your devotees that you were a great man, and help convince some of your critics that you were able to put America First, even above yourself.
Regards and respect,
Joe Pugnetti
I suspect that your time as president has not been what you might have expected. The open antagonism by many representatives of the press, the betrayal by some of your former employees and appointees, the less than 50% approval rating by your constituents to date, and the seemingly pointless Mueller investigation, not to mention the lack of credit you have received for the booming economy, might all add up to a low job satisfaction score. While you may have expected this different response when compared to the rarefied air of the CEO boardroom, and the sets of your various entertainment shows where the Boss is respected, never questioned, always obeyed, you most likely associated more obedience towards the president and his words when you took the oath of office, than what you have experienced so far.
When I accept that you ran for President out of concern for America and its future, I truly feel sorry for you and for the obstacles that you perceive. In many ways, being President is a no-win job, where a large percentage of citizens will disagree with every one of your decisions, and where reverence and/or
historical glory is very rarely realized until well after your time has passed. I don't believe there is any job on Earth which includes such a high degree of outside criticism than President of the Untied States, yet I don't see that understanding exhibited in your reactions. In that regard, I think you held incorrectly conceived presumptions, despite the love and adoration you experience at your rallies.
America is not run by the words and good feelings of a rally, but by digging deep into the problems that we face, gleaning information from multiple viewpoints, and arriving at solutions that provide the best course of action, then explaining those actions to the people who might need to understand their share in any one particular solution may be limited, but will be accounted for in a future solution. That we all take steps forward together, even when some steps are smaller than others.
I know that sacrifice is not one of your favorite words and is certainly not consistent with your Make America Great Again message, but it is nonetheless an important aspect to all major initiatives. It is why it is critical for those of us who believe in a more environmentally conscious direction for America, need also to assuage the fears of those who feed their families via work in the fossil fuel industries. Coal, in particular, is not our future, but that does not mean we should ignore the real pain that some Americans will suffer as the coal industry fades away.
At this point, after reading the redacted version of the Mueller investigation, after 28 months of your relentless attacks on our environment via cabinet appointments, regulation rollbacks and treaty withdrawals, after the thousands of tweets which belittle your political rivals, and those Americans who support their viewpoints, after the insidious results of your scapegoat tactics which dehumanize those born south of our border, and have done irreparable harm to countless families through the child separation policies that you initiated, and yes, even after the continued strength of our economy, I respectfully request that you resign as President of the United States.
Resign, Mr. President, not because you are a quitter or might be perceived as running from a fight, not because you admit to any wrong doing, and certainly not because you might be impeached. Resign because it would be good for America.
Resign so we can avoid 18 more months of congressional hearings into the mistakes of your 2016 presidential campaign.
Resign so we can avoid another year and a half of hearing about Russian interference in our elections, and spend that time creating a firewall in our social media industry to prevent future incursions.
Resign so we can join the rest of the world in addressing the real emergency of climate change rather than avoiding the cost and sacrifice that we need to face.
Resign so that there is no excuse for those in Washington to address our crumbling infrastructure, especially our outdated electricity grid.
Resign so we can look our burgeoning national deficit fully in the face and make the hard choices which will protect our most vulnerable citizens, while continuing to provide entrepreneurial opportunity to regrow the middle class, even if that means asking the super wealthy to care more about America than their personal wealth.
Resign so that the American electorate might pause in its love affair with party affiliation, might realize that America is greater than the sum of its parties but only when they work to advance the country, not just their tribe.
Resign so the Republican Party can turn fully away from the selfish populism that has convinced almost half of Americans that immigrants are evil, money is all that matters, and that cooperation is a sign of weakness.
Resign so that the next election is about the future of America, and ideas that catapult us into that future, as opposed to a ideas that represent a last gasp attempt to relive the past, despite the false narrative that nostalgia provides when the bad times and injustices are ignored.
Resign because it will confirm to your devotees that you were a great man, and help convince some of your critics that you were able to put America First, even above yourself.
Regards and respect,
Joe Pugnetti
Monday, April 29, 2019
Our Endangered Values
As I mentioned in my previous post, last week I began reading Our Endangered Values by Jimmy Carter. In addition to completing this book, I read through some of the Mueller report.
First, ex-President Carter's book, was released in 2005. It is one of many books written by Carter, many of them with a religious and/or spiritual message. I find it quite fascinating that, as I read Carter's words, there is much overlap between his sentiments and my own, despite the huge disparity in our thinking when it comes to religious affiliation. Carter was raised a Baptist, in the traditional sense of the word, and has actively practiced his religion during his entire adult life, through ministry and service. As an adult, I have eschewed organized religion, seeing the hypocrisy rather than the positive. Yet, as I read his book, I was agreeing much more frequently with his perspective, even when his opinion on topics such as abortion and war, were not shared by me.
I was also surprised by how much politics Carter injected into his book. He is not flattering in his opinions of the Republican party, no surprise in itself since he was a Democrat, but his criticisms are often values based, even morally and ethically based, something that might affront the life-long Republican who was always taught that the GOP was the party of family values, religion and God. And, Carter names names in his rebukes, detailing specific instances where GOP hypocrisy in the area of values, seemed most flagrant.
The subtitle of Our Endangered Values, is America's Moral Crisis. It is through a multitude of pointed examples that Carter identifies his belief that the source of our shared moral crisis is somewhat linked with the recent merger of far right Christian groups with the GOP, in that while their focus on family values is correct, their policies and solutions to addressing the decline of the middle class family, is far off the mark. Carter pulls no punches in his description of his belief that this merger has created a dangerous path to America becoming a theocracy as opposed to a democracy, and in light of the evangelical community's boast that they helped elect President Trump, Carter's concern is not far off the mark.
In the area of abortion, his perspective sums up the problem best. While Jimmy Carter does not condone abortion, as President he was compelled to honor the rulings of the Supreme Court in cases such as Roe v Wade. This did not mean that he did not do everything in his power to prevent abortions, it just means that he took his oath of office seriously, to uphold the rule of law. His concern with the pro-life movement, again, one in which he agreed with in its belief that we should reduce the rate of abortions in America, was in their active role in preventing sex education for our young people, in fighting against the use of condoms and other preventive measures, and, once a young woman might choose to have her baby rather than aborting it, supporting the fight against "socialist" policies which give government support for these young mothers to attain inexpensive day care, access to health services, education training, adequate wages. Carter rightfully points out the numerous ways that the GOP loves the fetus but despises the baby, and its mother, once the fetus emerges from the womb.
There are a number of other areas where Carter details how the evangelical community has worked with the GOP, under the auspices of fighting socialism, to damage our collective soul. Towards the end of the book he discusses how the national debt ballooned under Reagan and Bush which he believed to be the foundation for future cut backs to "entitlements" like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social/humanitarian programs like Head Start, all the while reducing taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Now, of course, since 2005 when Carter wrote his book, deficits continued to spike under President Obama, and was one of the major causes for the rise in the Tea Party Movement. Curiously, if one were to measure deficit increases by percentage of the overall debt, after the huge increases of our national debt during the World Wars which were astounding, but generally considered acceptable, the following list indicates that President Reagan was the leader, by percentage, in his increase of our national debt. And, in fact, of the most recent presidents in history, only one, a Democrat, reduced our national debt, President Clinton. And that Carter, and this table is not from his book but from another source, a president who most people might consider a failure, was bested in the area of increasing our national debt, by percentage, by only Nixon, not either Bush, or Ford, or Reagan.
Considering that under President Trump, the 2018 budget deficit was $789 billion, and is on pace to be $1 trillion, per year, in the next few years, and that already submitted budgets by the president and the GOP are targeting the "entitlements" of social security and medicare, and that one of the primary movers of this increase in the deficit is the recent tax cuts which saw the bulk of the savings go to the top wage earners in the country, it all seems to indicate that Carter hit a few home runs in his 2005 book when he lamented the course of America should the marriage between the evangelical community and the GOP continue. Add to that, the populism which Trump succeeded in tapping with his the anti-immigrant, anti-government, rhetoric, and we see how Carter's fears that America would continue suffering from a moral crisis seem prescient. Not to mention the opioid crisis, which seems even more appalling, if we are to believe how insidious the pharmaceutical industry was in its behavior in regards to pushing pain killers which they knew to be addictive, all for the sake of higher profits.
In not so many words, Carter checks all the boxes when it comes to chiding Americans for our worship of money above all else, and our ability to choose bedfellows, not based on shared moral values, but based on the Machiavellian precept of the ends justifies the means, whether its a marriage which supports a serial philanderer to make abortion illegal, or one which dehumanizes those with darker skin while altering the rules so as to allow them to accumulate more and more obscene amounts of wealth.
Which bring me to the Mueller report. For those of you who haven't read it, and, based on its shear length and dry material in general, and the comments I see on facebook, and in the halls of Congress, I expect that is most of you, I heartily recommend downloading it and, at the very least, glancing through it. I would imagine that Carter, should he be inclined, might comment that its content conveys everything he worried about in 2005, and much, much more.
The Mueller report itself, is two parts. The first is about 200 pages of proof that the Russians actively interfered in the 2016 election, in hopes of electing Donald Trump. It documents multiple examples of their efforts on social media, in the hacking of emails of those in the Clinton campaign, of contacting a host of members of the Trump campaign, including his son, and in the ways that these tactics attacked Hillary Clinton and praised Donald Trump. What it does not conclusively prove is that the Trump campaign traded favored treatment for this assistance, although the actions by Michael Flynn in particular, were disturbing. Not to mention the president's almost daily assertions that the Russians did not interfere because he asked Vladimir Putin and he said "Nyet".
The second part details the lengths to which the President attempted to interfere with or scuttle the Mueller investigation. His attempts to get Attorney General Sessions to un-recuse himself so he could fire Mueller, his attempts to bribe witnesses through pardons and promotions to either lie or bend the truth to protect him, and his multiple tweets which attacked the investigation as a witch hunt, in an overt attempt to render any possible conclusion as political rather than factual. Plus the numerous attempts to have Mueller's investigation be restricted to the future, not the past, and his firing of various people who would not break the law to do his bidding. The report painstakingly paints a picture of a man who tried everything in his power to interfere with the investigation, but who failed in this endeavor only because some of his staff preferred to quit rather than go to jail.
In regards to collusion, Mueller states emphatically at the outset that there is no such term in federal penal code, but he does amply detail how willing the Trump campaign was to accept aid from the Russians. In regards to obstruction, Mueller leaves a trail of breadcrumbs for Congress to follow should they believe that impeachment is justified, but he bows to the precedent established in the DOJ guidelines that a sitting president should not be indicted, because he values the office of the presidency and its possible inability to function in the face of such a decision, and values the founders belief in the three branches of government, believing that his job was to present the facts, while it is Congress's job to pursue a political solution.
I have heard some compelling arguments against this viewpoint, and understand them, especially the argument which says that in extraordinary times, extraordinary men must sometimes take extraordinary measures, and that Mueller may have proven himself to be less than able in this regard. In many ways, he seems to be a Constitutional purist, and a believer in the basic tenets of our democracy. Perhaps open to criticism for such ivory tower beliefs, but certainly not deserving of the rhetoric emanating from the White House.
In the end, it seems to be a perfect justification why the American electorate should never elect a powerful, successful business person to run our government, because to be in that position, one has to be comfortable with skirting, changing, or ignoring the law. One might even conclude, that while politics is a dirty business, filled with questionable ethics, double talk, and subterfuge, big business is far worse because it is far easier for people to sell out for the higher private sector salaries, than the lower compensation package of the public sector. I imagine that President Trump is continually disappointed with his governmental staff when they do not "do what we knew he wanted us to do" as Cohen described it.
What really strikes me about the report, is that it reaffirms my belief that President Trump is the consummate politician, able to bend the truth in whatever way is required, able to attack his opponents for the very thing he is most guilty of, able to convince people to vote against their own interests by presenting his policies as ones which will punish those he knows his listeners most despise.
In the end, I guess that is the challenge; being able to differentiate policies and rhetoric that uphold values above all else, or disguise selfishness with words that link to values, but are without substance.
Or worse, to acknowledge that as long as we have a few bucks in our pockets and our IRA's , we can excuse any behavior.
My next post will be directed specifically towards President Donald Trump.
First, ex-President Carter's book, was released in 2005. It is one of many books written by Carter, many of them with a religious and/or spiritual message. I find it quite fascinating that, as I read Carter's words, there is much overlap between his sentiments and my own, despite the huge disparity in our thinking when it comes to religious affiliation. Carter was raised a Baptist, in the traditional sense of the word, and has actively practiced his religion during his entire adult life, through ministry and service. As an adult, I have eschewed organized religion, seeing the hypocrisy rather than the positive. Yet, as I read his book, I was agreeing much more frequently with his perspective, even when his opinion on topics such as abortion and war, were not shared by me.
I was also surprised by how much politics Carter injected into his book. He is not flattering in his opinions of the Republican party, no surprise in itself since he was a Democrat, but his criticisms are often values based, even morally and ethically based, something that might affront the life-long Republican who was always taught that the GOP was the party of family values, religion and God. And, Carter names names in his rebukes, detailing specific instances where GOP hypocrisy in the area of values, seemed most flagrant.
The subtitle of Our Endangered Values, is America's Moral Crisis. It is through a multitude of pointed examples that Carter identifies his belief that the source of our shared moral crisis is somewhat linked with the recent merger of far right Christian groups with the GOP, in that while their focus on family values is correct, their policies and solutions to addressing the decline of the middle class family, is far off the mark. Carter pulls no punches in his description of his belief that this merger has created a dangerous path to America becoming a theocracy as opposed to a democracy, and in light of the evangelical community's boast that they helped elect President Trump, Carter's concern is not far off the mark.
In the area of abortion, his perspective sums up the problem best. While Jimmy Carter does not condone abortion, as President he was compelled to honor the rulings of the Supreme Court in cases such as Roe v Wade. This did not mean that he did not do everything in his power to prevent abortions, it just means that he took his oath of office seriously, to uphold the rule of law. His concern with the pro-life movement, again, one in which he agreed with in its belief that we should reduce the rate of abortions in America, was in their active role in preventing sex education for our young people, in fighting against the use of condoms and other preventive measures, and, once a young woman might choose to have her baby rather than aborting it, supporting the fight against "socialist" policies which give government support for these young mothers to attain inexpensive day care, access to health services, education training, adequate wages. Carter rightfully points out the numerous ways that the GOP loves the fetus but despises the baby, and its mother, once the fetus emerges from the womb.
There are a number of other areas where Carter details how the evangelical community has worked with the GOP, under the auspices of fighting socialism, to damage our collective soul. Towards the end of the book he discusses how the national debt ballooned under Reagan and Bush which he believed to be the foundation for future cut backs to "entitlements" like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social/humanitarian programs like Head Start, all the while reducing taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Now, of course, since 2005 when Carter wrote his book, deficits continued to spike under President Obama, and was one of the major causes for the rise in the Tea Party Movement. Curiously, if one were to measure deficit increases by percentage of the overall debt, after the huge increases of our national debt during the World Wars which were astounding, but generally considered acceptable, the following list indicates that President Reagan was the leader, by percentage, in his increase of our national debt. And, in fact, of the most recent presidents in history, only one, a Democrat, reduced our national debt, President Clinton. And that Carter, and this table is not from his book but from another source, a president who most people might consider a failure, was bested in the area of increasing our national debt, by percentage, by only Nixon, not either Bush, or Ford, or Reagan.
President Barack Obama: Total = $6.785 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
- FY 2017 - $666 billion. Although Trump requested additional spending, Congress did not approve it.
- FY 2016 - $585 billion.
- FY 2015 - $438 billion.
- FY 2014 - $485 billion.
- FY 2013 - $679 billion.
- FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
- FY 2011 - $1.300 trillion.
- FY 2010 - $1.547 trillion. This is the sum of $1.294 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget.
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.293 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
President Bill Clinton: Total = $63 billion surplus, a 1 percent decrease.
- FY 2001 - $128 billion surplus.
- FY 2000 - $236 billion surplus.
- FY 1999 - $126 billion surplus.
- FY 1998 - $69 billion surplus.
- FY 1997 - $22 billion.
- FY 1996 - $107 billion.
- FY 1995 - $164 billion.
- FY 1994 - $203 billion.
President George H.W. Bush: Total = $1.036 trillion, a 36 percent increase.
- FY 1993 - $255 billion.
- FY 1992 - $290 billion.
- FY 1991 - $269 billion.
- FY 1990 - $221 billion.
President Ronald Reagan: Total = $1.412 trillion, a 142 percent increase.
- FY 1989 - $153 billion.
- FY 1988 - $155 billion.
- FY 1987 - $150 billion.
- FY 1986 - $221 billion.
- FY 1985 - $212 billion.
- FY 1984 - $185 billion.
- FY 1983 - $208 billion.
- FY 1982 - $128 billion.
President Jimmy Carter: Total = $253 billion, a 36 percent increase.
- FY 1981 - $79 billion.
- FY 1980 - $74 billion.
- FY 1979 - $41 billion.
- FY 1978 - $59 billion.
President Gerald Ford: Total = $181 billion, a 38 percent increase.
- FY 1977 - $54 billion.
- FY 1976 - $74 billion.
- FY 1975 - $53 billion.
President Richard Nixon: Total = $70 billion, a 20 percent increase.
- FY 1974 - $6 billion.
- FY 1973 - $15 billion.
- FY 1972 - $23 billion.
- FY 1971 - $23 billion.
- FY 1970 - $3 billion.
President Lyndon B. Johnson: Total = $36 billion, an 11 percent increase.
- FY 1969 - $3 billion surplus.
- FY 1968 - $25 billion.
- FY 1967 - $9 billion.
- FY 1966 - $4 billion.
- FY 1965 - $1 billion.
Considering that under President Trump, the 2018 budget deficit was $789 billion, and is on pace to be $1 trillion, per year, in the next few years, and that already submitted budgets by the president and the GOP are targeting the "entitlements" of social security and medicare, and that one of the primary movers of this increase in the deficit is the recent tax cuts which saw the bulk of the savings go to the top wage earners in the country, it all seems to indicate that Carter hit a few home runs in his 2005 book when he lamented the course of America should the marriage between the evangelical community and the GOP continue. Add to that, the populism which Trump succeeded in tapping with his the anti-immigrant, anti-government, rhetoric, and we see how Carter's fears that America would continue suffering from a moral crisis seem prescient. Not to mention the opioid crisis, which seems even more appalling, if we are to believe how insidious the pharmaceutical industry was in its behavior in regards to pushing pain killers which they knew to be addictive, all for the sake of higher profits.
In not so many words, Carter checks all the boxes when it comes to chiding Americans for our worship of money above all else, and our ability to choose bedfellows, not based on shared moral values, but based on the Machiavellian precept of the ends justifies the means, whether its a marriage which supports a serial philanderer to make abortion illegal, or one which dehumanizes those with darker skin while altering the rules so as to allow them to accumulate more and more obscene amounts of wealth.
Which bring me to the Mueller report. For those of you who haven't read it, and, based on its shear length and dry material in general, and the comments I see on facebook, and in the halls of Congress, I expect that is most of you, I heartily recommend downloading it and, at the very least, glancing through it. I would imagine that Carter, should he be inclined, might comment that its content conveys everything he worried about in 2005, and much, much more.
The Mueller report itself, is two parts. The first is about 200 pages of proof that the Russians actively interfered in the 2016 election, in hopes of electing Donald Trump. It documents multiple examples of their efforts on social media, in the hacking of emails of those in the Clinton campaign, of contacting a host of members of the Trump campaign, including his son, and in the ways that these tactics attacked Hillary Clinton and praised Donald Trump. What it does not conclusively prove is that the Trump campaign traded favored treatment for this assistance, although the actions by Michael Flynn in particular, were disturbing. Not to mention the president's almost daily assertions that the Russians did not interfere because he asked Vladimir Putin and he said "Nyet".
The second part details the lengths to which the President attempted to interfere with or scuttle the Mueller investigation. His attempts to get Attorney General Sessions to un-recuse himself so he could fire Mueller, his attempts to bribe witnesses through pardons and promotions to either lie or bend the truth to protect him, and his multiple tweets which attacked the investigation as a witch hunt, in an overt attempt to render any possible conclusion as political rather than factual. Plus the numerous attempts to have Mueller's investigation be restricted to the future, not the past, and his firing of various people who would not break the law to do his bidding. The report painstakingly paints a picture of a man who tried everything in his power to interfere with the investigation, but who failed in this endeavor only because some of his staff preferred to quit rather than go to jail.
In regards to collusion, Mueller states emphatically at the outset that there is no such term in federal penal code, but he does amply detail how willing the Trump campaign was to accept aid from the Russians. In regards to obstruction, Mueller leaves a trail of breadcrumbs for Congress to follow should they believe that impeachment is justified, but he bows to the precedent established in the DOJ guidelines that a sitting president should not be indicted, because he values the office of the presidency and its possible inability to function in the face of such a decision, and values the founders belief in the three branches of government, believing that his job was to present the facts, while it is Congress's job to pursue a political solution.
I have heard some compelling arguments against this viewpoint, and understand them, especially the argument which says that in extraordinary times, extraordinary men must sometimes take extraordinary measures, and that Mueller may have proven himself to be less than able in this regard. In many ways, he seems to be a Constitutional purist, and a believer in the basic tenets of our democracy. Perhaps open to criticism for such ivory tower beliefs, but certainly not deserving of the rhetoric emanating from the White House.
In the end, it seems to be a perfect justification why the American electorate should never elect a powerful, successful business person to run our government, because to be in that position, one has to be comfortable with skirting, changing, or ignoring the law. One might even conclude, that while politics is a dirty business, filled with questionable ethics, double talk, and subterfuge, big business is far worse because it is far easier for people to sell out for the higher private sector salaries, than the lower compensation package of the public sector. I imagine that President Trump is continually disappointed with his governmental staff when they do not "do what we knew he wanted us to do" as Cohen described it.
What really strikes me about the report, is that it reaffirms my belief that President Trump is the consummate politician, able to bend the truth in whatever way is required, able to attack his opponents for the very thing he is most guilty of, able to convince people to vote against their own interests by presenting his policies as ones which will punish those he knows his listeners most despise.
In the end, I guess that is the challenge; being able to differentiate policies and rhetoric that uphold values above all else, or disguise selfishness with words that link to values, but are without substance.
Or worse, to acknowledge that as long as we have a few bucks in our pockets and our IRA's , we can excuse any behavior.
My next post will be directed specifically towards President Donald Trump.
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Endurance
After finishing New York, 2140, I began reading Endurance,A Year in Space, a Lifetime of Discovery by Scott Kelly. For those of you unfamiliar with Kelly, he spent a year on the International Space Station (ISS) as part of a joint American-Russian experiment to study the effects of long term space travel on the human body. This information is critical, if we are to seriously expect to travel to Mars.
I finished Endurance yesterday, and began reading Jimmy Carter's Our Endangered Values today. Also, over the weekend, I spent some time reading the Mueller report. My plan is to comment on Endurance in this post, then link my impressions of ex-President Carter's book with my interpretation of the Mueller report for my next post. If all goes according to plan, I am composing a letter to President Trump which I hope to post sometime next week.
Endurance is a remarkable example of what humans are capable of, both individually and communally. While Kelly clearly possesses an above average intelligence, sense of purpose and ambition, he also comes from an ordinary background in which he was not blessed with the automatic access to the best opportunities. He is very honest in his descriptions of an early academic career marked by less than stellar performance. His recollection of floating through school without purpose is indicative of so many of us. There is no indication to his parents or teachers that he had the internal strength and discipline to embark on a career of such remarkable achievement.
What is special about Kelly's story is that he knows precisely when his life turned on a dime. He can recall the exact moment when he was inspired to be more than he was, when his goal became clear, his life purposeful. That in itself makes Kelly an unusual person, let alone the fact that despite some setbacks and obstacles, he achieved his goal, and then, surpassed it.
Just from that standpoint alone, the book is worth reading.
I also enjoyed Kelly's forays into philosophy and reflection. There is a point during the end of his year-long stay on the ISS, that he allows himself to begin thinking about returning to earth, He had made a pointed effort to not look forward too much to that day, in fact, counting up from the day he arrived, as opposed to counting down to the day he would return to Earth. But when asked by his partner to make a list of the things he wanted on his first days back, Kelly allows himself to mentally wander beyond the physical things he misses to the more emotional, social, even spiritual feelings and thoughts that are connected to those things.
And then, surprisingly, to the things he would miss about his year in space. I say surprisingly, not because he was unhappy in space, but because much of the book was about all the things that are different in space as compared to our gravity driven lives on Earth, and these differences are what is so challenging about our contemplation of traveling to Mars, or beyond. He appreciates the moments he has spent on ISS, and not just because of the historical nature of them, but because they now have become a part of who he is, and that those moments, in combination of everything else he experienced beforehand, will become part and parcel to his future life. He reminds us that our own lives are an accumulation of experiences, good and bad, challenging and mundane, ecstatic and tearful, but that the key is to acknowledge that they all combine to create the person we see in the mirror each day. And to embrace them all with the thought that at some future time, one of those experiences will be our last.
As elementary as the whole be-here-now philosophy can seem, the simple fact is that everyday, thousands of people wake up for the last time, experience their last meal, last laugh, last kiss, last words to their loved ones. We shouldn't need a year in space, where the least little thing could morph into a life-threatening, or life-ending event, to realize how important it is to live our days with meaning.
My last takeaway from Endurance was Kelly's emphasis on cooperation. He is quite generous with his acknowledgement that his personal success was assisted in countless ways by the various people in his life and that his success in many ways is a testament to this assistance. There are far too many successful people who seem to have forgotten such assistance in their own lives.
He also repeatedly extols the virtues of international cooperation, labeling the ISS as the greatest cooperative achievement in the history of mankind. At one point he reminds us that the various modules that make up the space station, were created independently by the engineers and scientists of various countries, and yet they fit together perfectly once assembled in space. Think of it as a puzzle with pieces manufactured in different plants throughout the world to create an object greater than its parts, flying at 17500 miles per hour around the globe with humans within, their lives depending on each part being created in exact harmony with the others to assure their survival. That kind of cooperation needed to be flawless!
Now imagine such cooperation in the effort to eliminate world wide poverty, or to address climate change, or to seek peace rather than conflict.
The good news is that we know it can be done. The bad news is that we can't seem to set aside our differences, and lust for power, and fear of the other, to make a concerted, unified effort.
If nothing else, Endurance is a book of hope. Hope that we can learn from such an example of cooperation with and understanding of people different from ourselves, hope that we can create a world which allows all those born upon it to have such opportunities, and hope that by seeing planet Earth from space, a simple blue marble in the vastness of the universe, we might realize how precious all life is, and how critical it is for us to work together to appreciate, sustain and enhance this fragile existence.
I finished Endurance yesterday, and began reading Jimmy Carter's Our Endangered Values today. Also, over the weekend, I spent some time reading the Mueller report. My plan is to comment on Endurance in this post, then link my impressions of ex-President Carter's book with my interpretation of the Mueller report for my next post. If all goes according to plan, I am composing a letter to President Trump which I hope to post sometime next week.
Endurance is a remarkable example of what humans are capable of, both individually and communally. While Kelly clearly possesses an above average intelligence, sense of purpose and ambition, he also comes from an ordinary background in which he was not blessed with the automatic access to the best opportunities. He is very honest in his descriptions of an early academic career marked by less than stellar performance. His recollection of floating through school without purpose is indicative of so many of us. There is no indication to his parents or teachers that he had the internal strength and discipline to embark on a career of such remarkable achievement.
What is special about Kelly's story is that he knows precisely when his life turned on a dime. He can recall the exact moment when he was inspired to be more than he was, when his goal became clear, his life purposeful. That in itself makes Kelly an unusual person, let alone the fact that despite some setbacks and obstacles, he achieved his goal, and then, surpassed it.
Just from that standpoint alone, the book is worth reading.
I also enjoyed Kelly's forays into philosophy and reflection. There is a point during the end of his year-long stay on the ISS, that he allows himself to begin thinking about returning to earth, He had made a pointed effort to not look forward too much to that day, in fact, counting up from the day he arrived, as opposed to counting down to the day he would return to Earth. But when asked by his partner to make a list of the things he wanted on his first days back, Kelly allows himself to mentally wander beyond the physical things he misses to the more emotional, social, even spiritual feelings and thoughts that are connected to those things.
And then, surprisingly, to the things he would miss about his year in space. I say surprisingly, not because he was unhappy in space, but because much of the book was about all the things that are different in space as compared to our gravity driven lives on Earth, and these differences are what is so challenging about our contemplation of traveling to Mars, or beyond. He appreciates the moments he has spent on ISS, and not just because of the historical nature of them, but because they now have become a part of who he is, and that those moments, in combination of everything else he experienced beforehand, will become part and parcel to his future life. He reminds us that our own lives are an accumulation of experiences, good and bad, challenging and mundane, ecstatic and tearful, but that the key is to acknowledge that they all combine to create the person we see in the mirror each day. And to embrace them all with the thought that at some future time, one of those experiences will be our last.
As elementary as the whole be-here-now philosophy can seem, the simple fact is that everyday, thousands of people wake up for the last time, experience their last meal, last laugh, last kiss, last words to their loved ones. We shouldn't need a year in space, where the least little thing could morph into a life-threatening, or life-ending event, to realize how important it is to live our days with meaning.
My last takeaway from Endurance was Kelly's emphasis on cooperation. He is quite generous with his acknowledgement that his personal success was assisted in countless ways by the various people in his life and that his success in many ways is a testament to this assistance. There are far too many successful people who seem to have forgotten such assistance in their own lives.
He also repeatedly extols the virtues of international cooperation, labeling the ISS as the greatest cooperative achievement in the history of mankind. At one point he reminds us that the various modules that make up the space station, were created independently by the engineers and scientists of various countries, and yet they fit together perfectly once assembled in space. Think of it as a puzzle with pieces manufactured in different plants throughout the world to create an object greater than its parts, flying at 17500 miles per hour around the globe with humans within, their lives depending on each part being created in exact harmony with the others to assure their survival. That kind of cooperation needed to be flawless!
Now imagine such cooperation in the effort to eliminate world wide poverty, or to address climate change, or to seek peace rather than conflict.
The good news is that we know it can be done. The bad news is that we can't seem to set aside our differences, and lust for power, and fear of the other, to make a concerted, unified effort.
If nothing else, Endurance is a book of hope. Hope that we can learn from such an example of cooperation with and understanding of people different from ourselves, hope that we can create a world which allows all those born upon it to have such opportunities, and hope that by seeing planet Earth from space, a simple blue marble in the vastness of the universe, we might realize how precious all life is, and how critical it is for us to work together to appreciate, sustain and enhance this fragile existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
