I gave my Rep. Massa the benefit of a few days to explain what happened in the three days between his decision not to run for health reasons to his abrupt resignation from the house of representatives.
Now it's clear that the guy I thought was a harbinger of America's new wave of politicians just lost his bearings, to be nice. It's not just about the "groping", which he attempted to explain in a rather bizarre way. Then, he refused to answer directly Larry King's question "Are you gay?", putting off the answer to his Navy brothers, several of which then dumped on him. Or, was his demise simply the work of Rahm Emmanuel? I suppose it doesn't matter, because Massa has already become just a funny footnote in the craziness of this year's political circus.
I feel bad for him. He could have enjoyed his nice Navy retirement with honor. Now, he'll be a laughingstock everywhere his name is known. Politics can do that for you!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Is Eric Massa Nuts, Or?
Two years ago I walked many streets in Pittsford, my home town, volunteering for Eric Massa's congressional campaign on the democrat side. Massa, a retired Navy officer, seemed to have a lot of common sense and drive, and did not appear to be overly wedded to either the dreamy-eyed wing of his party or the unions. He won. Now he has abruptly resigned the seat, and it's likely a conservative republican will win the special election to replace him. My efforts seem to have backfired in a spectacular way!
The reasons for the resignation are unclear. Last week's news was that a Massa staffer had complained to the house ethics committee about alleged "sexual harassment" committed by Massa, but Massa claimed his resignation was due to concerns over possible recurrance of a cancer that had been in remission. However, this past weekend Massa claimed he was run out of Washington by the democratic leadership who were upset about his intention to vote against the health care bill. One thing is clear, though - Massa is out for revenge.
My ex-congressman is scheduled to appear on the Glen Beck and Larry King shows, where he will likely skewer the democrats with sharp criticisms. He's a good communicator, so I expect his comments will be carried in other media as well. His revenge will be sweet!
What is really going on here? My guess is that Massa, a man accustomed to military discipline and the military's way of accomplishing objectives, could not accomodate himself to the rough and tumble of both Washington and local politics. His fact-based approach clashed with the overt special-interest-based approach taken by "professional" politicians. He supported the public option for health care, and he likely found the union-dominated local democrat party to be unreasonable. He likely was worn out by the pressures he felt from all sides. So, another pragmatic idealist has bit the dust.
I'll be interested in hearing what he has to say on the talk shows, and I'll expect a lot of bitterness to color his explanations. The house democrats probably will regret what they've done to him. Whether or not his comments will be helpful is anyone's guess. I'll wait until the dust settles before I decide whether or not my many hours walking the streets for him were a colossal waste of time. Stay tuned...
The reasons for the resignation are unclear. Last week's news was that a Massa staffer had complained to the house ethics committee about alleged "sexual harassment" committed by Massa, but Massa claimed his resignation was due to concerns over possible recurrance of a cancer that had been in remission. However, this past weekend Massa claimed he was run out of Washington by the democratic leadership who were upset about his intention to vote against the health care bill. One thing is clear, though - Massa is out for revenge.
My ex-congressman is scheduled to appear on the Glen Beck and Larry King shows, where he will likely skewer the democrats with sharp criticisms. He's a good communicator, so I expect his comments will be carried in other media as well. His revenge will be sweet!
What is really going on here? My guess is that Massa, a man accustomed to military discipline and the military's way of accomplishing objectives, could not accomodate himself to the rough and tumble of both Washington and local politics. His fact-based approach clashed with the overt special-interest-based approach taken by "professional" politicians. He supported the public option for health care, and he likely found the union-dominated local democrat party to be unreasonable. He likely was worn out by the pressures he felt from all sides. So, another pragmatic idealist has bit the dust.
I'll be interested in hearing what he has to say on the talk shows, and I'll expect a lot of bitterness to color his explanations. The house democrats probably will regret what they've done to him. Whether or not his comments will be helpful is anyone's guess. I'll wait until the dust settles before I decide whether or not my many hours walking the streets for him were a colossal waste of time. Stay tuned...
Sunday, March 07, 2010
"My thoughts are not your thoughts"
The title of this blog is a quote from Isaiah 55, a part of which was read in church this morning. It's a concept that I've really come to internalize during the past few years, since it allows me to embrace both religion and science and also come to terms with human tragedy.
Being religious is a choice, of course. Nobody forces me to choose it, and there is precious little hard evidence that would make this choice a logical one. Nevertheless, I choose to acknowledge a God, even a God that would make itself known to sentient creatures like us. But this God's thoughts are not my thoughts, and I don't presume to have any idea about the ultimate purpose of creation. What I do presume is that God would like to see us creatures make as much "progress" as we can, both scientifically and socially. So, I think that when man landed on the moon God said, "That's pretty good", and when women got the vote God said "It's about time!" But these thoughts are nothing like our thoughts, since we cannot comprehend all there is to know about the universe in a moment, as I believe God can.
Perhaps my most significant personal belief is that God can be "good" and still not often intervene to shield individuals, humanity or the earth from natural events that we would regard as tragedies. We know that good people and bad people get cancer; humanity could be wiped out by a rogue asteroid; and, the earth will burn up sooner or later. Could "goodness" only relate to creating the conditions where progress can occur on an individual or societal basis, with the rest pretty much left up to us? This idea seems likely to me, especially since we are able to contemplate the creator and develop theories about how to achieve human progress. But I don't rule out the possibility that God might give humanity a nudge from time to time, which leaves some room for a divine Jesus or perhaps other divine visitations - we sure do need a little help from time to time!
Someday my end will come, and I will follow all my human predecessors back into the dust. I'm not overly concerned about this natural event, since it can hardly be deemed a tragedy if everyone does it. What does intrigue me is whether or not I'll ever get some insight into what God had in mind when God set in motion all of this stuff we now experience. If my "spirit" does survive, I doubt it will ever begin to comprehend the mind of God. "My thoughts are not your thoughts" likely pertains forever. But it would be nice to get a little taste of what this was all about, wouldn't it?
Being religious is a choice, of course. Nobody forces me to choose it, and there is precious little hard evidence that would make this choice a logical one. Nevertheless, I choose to acknowledge a God, even a God that would make itself known to sentient creatures like us. But this God's thoughts are not my thoughts, and I don't presume to have any idea about the ultimate purpose of creation. What I do presume is that God would like to see us creatures make as much "progress" as we can, both scientifically and socially. So, I think that when man landed on the moon God said, "That's pretty good", and when women got the vote God said "It's about time!" But these thoughts are nothing like our thoughts, since we cannot comprehend all there is to know about the universe in a moment, as I believe God can.
Perhaps my most significant personal belief is that God can be "good" and still not often intervene to shield individuals, humanity or the earth from natural events that we would regard as tragedies. We know that good people and bad people get cancer; humanity could be wiped out by a rogue asteroid; and, the earth will burn up sooner or later. Could "goodness" only relate to creating the conditions where progress can occur on an individual or societal basis, with the rest pretty much left up to us? This idea seems likely to me, especially since we are able to contemplate the creator and develop theories about how to achieve human progress. But I don't rule out the possibility that God might give humanity a nudge from time to time, which leaves some room for a divine Jesus or perhaps other divine visitations - we sure do need a little help from time to time!
Someday my end will come, and I will follow all my human predecessors back into the dust. I'm not overly concerned about this natural event, since it can hardly be deemed a tragedy if everyone does it. What does intrigue me is whether or not I'll ever get some insight into what God had in mind when God set in motion all of this stuff we now experience. If my "spirit" does survive, I doubt it will ever begin to comprehend the mind of God. "My thoughts are not your thoughts" likely pertains forever. But it would be nice to get a little taste of what this was all about, wouldn't it?
Friday, March 05, 2010
Paying for Government Action?
I keep getting these emails from Obama's non-governmental support group, asking for money to combat those nasty republicans. "Help us get health care passed", they cry, "send us $5 or whatever you can". No, thank you very much.
Don't get me wrong. I want to see health care legislation passed, even though I'd prefer a public option. I just don't want to fund non-governmental groups. I thought the way to get policies that you favor enacted is to elect those who favor those policies. I did that, and they won. Now I just want them to do what they promised. They don't need my money to do that.
The democratic congress has been a major failure, in my opinion. If they don't have the will to pass health care legislation through "reconciliation", then they have blown their final opportunity. This should have passed it last year when they had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, but they frittered that away as only democrats can do.
The democrats don't need my money to make their point. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can get all the media attention they could ever want. So, just get on with it, folks, and stop begging!
Don't get me wrong. I want to see health care legislation passed, even though I'd prefer a public option. I just don't want to fund non-governmental groups. I thought the way to get policies that you favor enacted is to elect those who favor those policies. I did that, and they won. Now I just want them to do what they promised. They don't need my money to do that.
The democratic congress has been a major failure, in my opinion. If they don't have the will to pass health care legislation through "reconciliation", then they have blown their final opportunity. This should have passed it last year when they had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, but they frittered that away as only democrats can do.
The democrats don't need my money to make their point. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can get all the media attention they could ever want. So, just get on with it, folks, and stop begging!
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Sad Truth About Health Care
There's an old rule that roughly applies in so many situations - the "80-20 rule". It means that 20% of a population accounts for 80% of a certain result. For example, as a church treasurer I know that 20% of contributing families account for 80% of the total contributions in many churches. Or, as I look out my window this morning, I consider that 20% of the times it snows account for 80% of the total annual snowfall in Rochester. Well, the same concept likely applies to health care - 20% of us probably account for at least 80% of total health care costs.
My ten years of work on an ambulance have given me a new outlook on health care. Prior to this work, I thought that people got sick randomly and that health care costs were distributed rather widely across the entire population. Now I know that this is not true; health care costs are concentrated in a few sub-groups of our population. If we are to get these costs under control, the areas of concentration are the primary places to look for savings. Yet these areas don't seem to be discussed at all in the "great health care debate" now taking place in Washington. This lack of candor represents a failure of our governmental process.
So, where are the costs concentrated? As you might guess, we spend a lot for health care of aged people with serious chronic health problems - heart disease, respiratory disease, circulation problems, and cancer. More than 25% of total health care costs are incurred for people who are in their last year of life, and much of this is spent in the last month of life. I've met many of these people - people whose quality of life is questionable at best due to pain, invasive medical treatment, and altered mental status due to the drugs they have been administered. I have serious doubts about the value of costly medical interventions for many of these patients, and some countries have established protocols that limit such interventions. Republicans have characterized these protocols as "death panels", and perhaps they are correct. However, in my view such panels are necessary and humane. Significant cost savings would be a by-product of letting these people die with dignity.
A second area of health care cost concentration relates to people with chronic diseases; diabetes and coronary/respiratory issues are likely the major ones, although other conditions like lupus and Crohn's Disease are also common. These are diseases that require constant attention and patient compliance with treatment regimens. In my experience, patient non-compliance is often an issue that results in frequent hospitalizations and increasingly costly interventions. At some point, non-compliance should result in the categorization of the patient as not interested in being stabilized, and costly interventions should be curtailed. It seems strange, but I've often felt that non-compliance is aimed at getting attention...but should society pay a high price to deal with conditions that patients knowingly create?
Health care costs are also concentrated for older persons with very severe mental illnesses. A large number of citizens are now permanently hospitalized for severe dementia or Alsheimers - conditions where many of them do not know where they are or who their relatives or caretakers are. When these people are afflicted with life-threatening medical conditions, is it right to employ costly procedures to continue a life they often cannot comprehend? I think not. Their families should have the authority to let them pass on with dignity and without pain, and at some point should be held accountable for costs that a "panel" feels go beyond reasonability given the overall condition of the patient.
Lastly, chronic drug use causes a host of severe health problems. These persons often cycle in and out of hospitals regularly, each time incurring very large bills that they cannot pay. One might wonder if there should be a limit on the cost any person can put onto society due to voluntary behavior. This is a very difficult issue, but also one that is much larger than most people would ever guess.
The issues discussed above are relatively new. During the past 50 years, medical science has developed the ability to keep many people alive who in previous times would have expired from natural causes. I'd be the first to agree that in many cases these life-saving procedures have added years of productive life to many, and particularly to those with cancer or heart disease. I am thankful that we live in an age when terrible diseases can be cured or arrested. However, it may be that technology has now forced us to come to grips with the reality of resource allocations to health care.
When the total cost of prolonging certain lives becomes great, one must consider the benefits of employing these resources elsewhere. For a fraction of the avoidable costs I've identified above, for example, every child could receive a college education or technical training, or the infrastructure of Haiti could be rebuilt. What other great needs might be met? Or, for you, does maximizing physical life for every person outweigh all other considerations? Something to think about...
My ten years of work on an ambulance have given me a new outlook on health care. Prior to this work, I thought that people got sick randomly and that health care costs were distributed rather widely across the entire population. Now I know that this is not true; health care costs are concentrated in a few sub-groups of our population. If we are to get these costs under control, the areas of concentration are the primary places to look for savings. Yet these areas don't seem to be discussed at all in the "great health care debate" now taking place in Washington. This lack of candor represents a failure of our governmental process.
So, where are the costs concentrated? As you might guess, we spend a lot for health care of aged people with serious chronic health problems - heart disease, respiratory disease, circulation problems, and cancer. More than 25% of total health care costs are incurred for people who are in their last year of life, and much of this is spent in the last month of life. I've met many of these people - people whose quality of life is questionable at best due to pain, invasive medical treatment, and altered mental status due to the drugs they have been administered. I have serious doubts about the value of costly medical interventions for many of these patients, and some countries have established protocols that limit such interventions. Republicans have characterized these protocols as "death panels", and perhaps they are correct. However, in my view such panels are necessary and humane. Significant cost savings would be a by-product of letting these people die with dignity.
A second area of health care cost concentration relates to people with chronic diseases; diabetes and coronary/respiratory issues are likely the major ones, although other conditions like lupus and Crohn's Disease are also common. These are diseases that require constant attention and patient compliance with treatment regimens. In my experience, patient non-compliance is often an issue that results in frequent hospitalizations and increasingly costly interventions. At some point, non-compliance should result in the categorization of the patient as not interested in being stabilized, and costly interventions should be curtailed. It seems strange, but I've often felt that non-compliance is aimed at getting attention...but should society pay a high price to deal with conditions that patients knowingly create?
Health care costs are also concentrated for older persons with very severe mental illnesses. A large number of citizens are now permanently hospitalized for severe dementia or Alsheimers - conditions where many of them do not know where they are or who their relatives or caretakers are. When these people are afflicted with life-threatening medical conditions, is it right to employ costly procedures to continue a life they often cannot comprehend? I think not. Their families should have the authority to let them pass on with dignity and without pain, and at some point should be held accountable for costs that a "panel" feels go beyond reasonability given the overall condition of the patient.
Lastly, chronic drug use causes a host of severe health problems. These persons often cycle in and out of hospitals regularly, each time incurring very large bills that they cannot pay. One might wonder if there should be a limit on the cost any person can put onto society due to voluntary behavior. This is a very difficult issue, but also one that is much larger than most people would ever guess.
The issues discussed above are relatively new. During the past 50 years, medical science has developed the ability to keep many people alive who in previous times would have expired from natural causes. I'd be the first to agree that in many cases these life-saving procedures have added years of productive life to many, and particularly to those with cancer or heart disease. I am thankful that we live in an age when terrible diseases can be cured or arrested. However, it may be that technology has now forced us to come to grips with the reality of resource allocations to health care.
When the total cost of prolonging certain lives becomes great, one must consider the benefits of employing these resources elsewhere. For a fraction of the avoidable costs I've identified above, for example, every child could receive a college education or technical training, or the infrastructure of Haiti could be rebuilt. What other great needs might be met? Or, for you, does maximizing physical life for every person outweigh all other considerations? Something to think about...
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Tiger...
It's not funny how so many people love to jump to negative conclusions, including those who discount Tiger Wood's contrition and subsequent vow to change his ways. Some say the apology was not sincere because he read from a script; some say it was all driven by the need to repair his commercial value; some say he left out too many details. They are all wrong, and I condemn them for disparaging someone who is trying to do the right thing. Sometimes you just can't win...
They forget that Tiger Woods had many other options, since he's rich almost beyond measure. He could have said that, for him, marriage was a mistake. He could have walked away from the limelight and tended to whatever else he fancied. He could have come back to golf right away and endured some derision until it faded; every topic wears out, you know. Instead, he said all the right things and committed himself to becoming a better man. He stated the true but simple reason for his philandering and what he had to internalize in order to stop it. I give him a lot of credit for saying exactly what needed to be said and no more. Now it's just a question of the doing.
Few of us can identify with a young man who achieved world-class fame and fortune before he was 30. How can we not understand that he had many role models - other athletes and celebrities - who cross the line every day and get away with it because that is their persona? And, of course, there were uncountable women who would do anything to get his attention. How easy it would be to fall! I believe that very few men would have been capable of withstanding that level of sexual pressure at his age, and I would not have been one of them.
I am giving Tiger my full support in his effort to come back in every way. Based on his history of incredible accomplishment, perhaps he will again set the example for making a beautiful sculpture from the trash of life. Go get'em, Tiger.
They forget that Tiger Woods had many other options, since he's rich almost beyond measure. He could have said that, for him, marriage was a mistake. He could have walked away from the limelight and tended to whatever else he fancied. He could have come back to golf right away and endured some derision until it faded; every topic wears out, you know. Instead, he said all the right things and committed himself to becoming a better man. He stated the true but simple reason for his philandering and what he had to internalize in order to stop it. I give him a lot of credit for saying exactly what needed to be said and no more. Now it's just a question of the doing.
Few of us can identify with a young man who achieved world-class fame and fortune before he was 30. How can we not understand that he had many role models - other athletes and celebrities - who cross the line every day and get away with it because that is their persona? And, of course, there were uncountable women who would do anything to get his attention. How easy it would be to fall! I believe that very few men would have been capable of withstanding that level of sexual pressure at his age, and I would not have been one of them.
I am giving Tiger my full support in his effort to come back in every way. Based on his history of incredible accomplishment, perhaps he will again set the example for making a beautiful sculpture from the trash of life. Go get'em, Tiger.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Earning Your Life's Prospects
Black leaders visited President Obama today and harped on the 16.5% unemployment rate for black Americans, which is much higher than the 9% rate for whites and 12.5% rate for Hispanics. The NPR news report mentioned their focus on the chronically unemployed base in the black community. I'm also aware that a high percentage of young black men are unemployed. It's a shame, but it's also their problem in far too many cases. We've got to have a little more personal accountability here.
The high schools in Rochester are open for business every day, and there are no state troopers keeping black youth out. If the students are from low income families they qualify for free breakfast and lunch at the school. Free transportation is provided to and from school. In other words, there are no institutional impediments to getting a good education in the city of Rochester. Yet only about 50% of Rochester's high school students graduate. It's not a discrimination problem; it's a social problem.
Nothing would make me happier than to see every black youth graduate from high school, then college, and then enter the work force prepared to compete on the basis of equal preparation. If the unemployment rate of high school or college-educated blacks stayed much higher than that of other races, then I'd complain about this apparent discrimination and try to do something about it. But I have little sympathy for those who don't take advantage of the opportunity to become educated and able to contribute to the U.S. economy.
I've heard all the rationalizations about kids growing up in poor, disfunctional families. I know it's tough to grow up in those conditions. At the same time, it's a matter of community pride and intent - if there isn't any, then nothing will change. Just giving money to poor, disfunctional families does not change attitudes. There has got to be an intent to succeed for success to occur.
I've been working with a group of Burmese refugees for several months. They've recently come the U.S. with only the clothes on their backs, and many come from tribal societies. Most have no English when they arrive. I'm amazed at how they have strived to adjust to American society, learn English, and get jobs. Their upward mobility from the absolute bottom is a sight to behold! The difference between them and many who surround them in poor neighborhoods is that they have decided to get with the program. There's no secret about what it takes to achieve some upward mobility in this country.
So, black leaders, go home to your communities and ask the hard questions. Tell the truth. You get what you give, and if you give no effort you can expect nothing. Chronic unemployment is not just about lack of opportunity; it is mostly about lack of preparation.
In this month of Martin Luther King day, I mourn his passing partly because he held up great expectations for the people he led. His successors seem to focus mostly on handouts. It's a darn shame!
The high schools in Rochester are open for business every day, and there are no state troopers keeping black youth out. If the students are from low income families they qualify for free breakfast and lunch at the school. Free transportation is provided to and from school. In other words, there are no institutional impediments to getting a good education in the city of Rochester. Yet only about 50% of Rochester's high school students graduate. It's not a discrimination problem; it's a social problem.
Nothing would make me happier than to see every black youth graduate from high school, then college, and then enter the work force prepared to compete on the basis of equal preparation. If the unemployment rate of high school or college-educated blacks stayed much higher than that of other races, then I'd complain about this apparent discrimination and try to do something about it. But I have little sympathy for those who don't take advantage of the opportunity to become educated and able to contribute to the U.S. economy.
I've heard all the rationalizations about kids growing up in poor, disfunctional families. I know it's tough to grow up in those conditions. At the same time, it's a matter of community pride and intent - if there isn't any, then nothing will change. Just giving money to poor, disfunctional families does not change attitudes. There has got to be an intent to succeed for success to occur.
I've been working with a group of Burmese refugees for several months. They've recently come the U.S. with only the clothes on their backs, and many come from tribal societies. Most have no English when they arrive. I'm amazed at how they have strived to adjust to American society, learn English, and get jobs. Their upward mobility from the absolute bottom is a sight to behold! The difference between them and many who surround them in poor neighborhoods is that they have decided to get with the program. There's no secret about what it takes to achieve some upward mobility in this country.
So, black leaders, go home to your communities and ask the hard questions. Tell the truth. You get what you give, and if you give no effort you can expect nothing. Chronic unemployment is not just about lack of opportunity; it is mostly about lack of preparation.
In this month of Martin Luther King day, I mourn his passing partly because he held up great expectations for the people he led. His successors seem to focus mostly on handouts. It's a darn shame!
Monday, February 08, 2010
Tim Tebow and Abortion
I'm really glad that Tim Tebow's mother did not have the abortion that doctors recommended she have. She made a great decison for herself, her family, Tim and many thousands of Florida Gator fans. She was right, they were wrong. But, she could have been wrong and she could have died as a result. You win some, you lose some. It's wrong to generalize from the results of an individual case, but that's what Focus on the Family did with their Super Bowl commercial.
I'm "pro-choice", primarily because I support the individual freedom that people are supposed to have in America. Even before being pro-choice, I'm "pro-contraception" - I don't want any babies conceived by accident or against the will of the mother. That's why we have only three children; we wanted to stop at three, and we made sure we did. But I digress...
"Freedom" means just that. If it's your body, you should be able to do what you want with it - what could be more personal than that. Not allowing a life to begin, or being able to end your own life, is the most personal expression of freedom that I can think of. I may disapprove of the decisions that some people might make in these areas, but I would never consider taking away their right to make those decisions. That's why I am perplexed by the "get government out of my life" crowd who are also vehemently anti-abortion. Huh?
Secondarily, I'm "pro-choice" because I believe families should make decisions about their future by considering all the likely outcomes of their decision to have, or not have, a baby. Many families, for example, cannot stand the strain of caring for a special needs child on top of the other major challenges they may be facing; many divorces result. Other families might have a structure that would accomodate, or even thrive with, the challenge of raising a special needs child. In short, every family is different; a "one size fits all" prescription on abortion makes no sense in the real world.
Some folks think this issue hinges on the crucial question of "when does life begin"? I don't feel that way at all, even though I'd say I have a very high respect for life. I just believe that life is full of hard choices and tragedies; any of us could be dead tomorrow, for example, from some unforseen cause either man-made or natural. There is no certainty in life, the uncertainty increases as one moves down the economic ladder, and God does not step in to save those who happen to be unlucky - including those who are not born due to someone else's choice.
Good for you, Tim Tebow. Your mother won the pregnancy lottery and you won the Heisman. It's a great story of pluck and luck. Now, let's hear the story of the child born with some terrible defect who died after enduring several years of agony, during which time its family went bankrupt and fell apart. After all, one conclusion based on anecdotal evidence deserves another, don't you think?
I'm "pro-choice", primarily because I support the individual freedom that people are supposed to have in America. Even before being pro-choice, I'm "pro-contraception" - I don't want any babies conceived by accident or against the will of the mother. That's why we have only three children; we wanted to stop at three, and we made sure we did. But I digress...
"Freedom" means just that. If it's your body, you should be able to do what you want with it - what could be more personal than that. Not allowing a life to begin, or being able to end your own life, is the most personal expression of freedom that I can think of. I may disapprove of the decisions that some people might make in these areas, but I would never consider taking away their right to make those decisions. That's why I am perplexed by the "get government out of my life" crowd who are also vehemently anti-abortion. Huh?
Secondarily, I'm "pro-choice" because I believe families should make decisions about their future by considering all the likely outcomes of their decision to have, or not have, a baby. Many families, for example, cannot stand the strain of caring for a special needs child on top of the other major challenges they may be facing; many divorces result. Other families might have a structure that would accomodate, or even thrive with, the challenge of raising a special needs child. In short, every family is different; a "one size fits all" prescription on abortion makes no sense in the real world.
Some folks think this issue hinges on the crucial question of "when does life begin"? I don't feel that way at all, even though I'd say I have a very high respect for life. I just believe that life is full of hard choices and tragedies; any of us could be dead tomorrow, for example, from some unforseen cause either man-made or natural. There is no certainty in life, the uncertainty increases as one moves down the economic ladder, and God does not step in to save those who happen to be unlucky - including those who are not born due to someone else's choice.
Good for you, Tim Tebow. Your mother won the pregnancy lottery and you won the Heisman. It's a great story of pluck and luck. Now, let's hear the story of the child born with some terrible defect who died after enduring several years of agony, during which time its family went bankrupt and fell apart. After all, one conclusion based on anecdotal evidence deserves another, don't you think?
Saturday, February 06, 2010
An Easy Winter, Except South of Here
I've been following the news stories about the "great storm" that's hit the eastern seaboard and areas west of it during the past two days. People who never have had to contend with 20-30 inches of snow have no idea of the impact such a storm makes. Transportation is basically halted; power goes out in many areas; and, emergency services are taxed to the limit.
How would you like to experience heart attack symptoms when ambulances cannot make it through the streets, or be a weak 90 year old person who loses power and cannot keep her home warm? Those who can cope think a storm like this is fun, but there are others for whom it results in tragedy. During the three years when I managed our local ambulance corps I saw the unusual problems that a storm can bring; how about an otherwise smart person who runs a generator in a closed garage and almost kills himself, for example?
I remember taking the Xerox corporate jet into White Plains airport, just as a big storm like this hit Connecticut. Somehow I made it to the hotel where I spent the next three days as the city dug out from over 20 inches of snow. Another time, I was at a church retreat in the southern tier of New York when over 20 inches of snow hit; we enjoyed an extra day there and upon arrival at home found our 19 year old son exhausted from shoveling our long driveway. Big snows are truly paralyzing!
It seems strange to be sitting here in upstate New York watching a few snowflakes fall onto the 2-3 inches that have been on the ground for a few days, while people far south of me are trying to cope with a blizzard. We are used to the big snows and we are equipped to deal with them; we've had 62 inches already and hardly noticed it. But, how many people in D.C. own a snowblower? Good luck, you guys! I can at least imagine your pain.
How would you like to experience heart attack symptoms when ambulances cannot make it through the streets, or be a weak 90 year old person who loses power and cannot keep her home warm? Those who can cope think a storm like this is fun, but there are others for whom it results in tragedy. During the three years when I managed our local ambulance corps I saw the unusual problems that a storm can bring; how about an otherwise smart person who runs a generator in a closed garage and almost kills himself, for example?
I remember taking the Xerox corporate jet into White Plains airport, just as a big storm like this hit Connecticut. Somehow I made it to the hotel where I spent the next three days as the city dug out from over 20 inches of snow. Another time, I was at a church retreat in the southern tier of New York when over 20 inches of snow hit; we enjoyed an extra day there and upon arrival at home found our 19 year old son exhausted from shoveling our long driveway. Big snows are truly paralyzing!
It seems strange to be sitting here in upstate New York watching a few snowflakes fall onto the 2-3 inches that have been on the ground for a few days, while people far south of me are trying to cope with a blizzard. We are used to the big snows and we are equipped to deal with them; we've had 62 inches already and hardly noticed it. But, how many people in D.C. own a snowblower? Good luck, you guys! I can at least imagine your pain.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
More on Haiti
This past Sunday evening a group from my church met at our home. Late in the meeting the subject of Haiti came up. Four of us had been to Haiti, two of us twice, but none had gone together. The common opinion of us all was that Haitian culture was intractably corrupt and the Haitian mode of education and governance would not change regardless of what the "rescuing" countries did.
One of the men mentioned a conversation he'd had with a young man who'd spent 18 months in Haiti with the Peace Corps. This fellow was totally disillusioned after his stint there, and he believed that the country had little hope to become even a second world country. Americans who work in Haiti are involved, generally, in tiny projects that improve the lives of people in the countryside by providing clean water, for example. There seems to be no government interest in or capability to perform major projects that would restructure the country.
I keep hearing diplomats and other high ranking people drone on about giving the Haitians control over the rebuilding projects, but they are mistaken. There are far fewer qualified Haitians than there are projects to manage, and I'd guess that many of those Haitians are well-schooled in the art of corruption. My view is that outsiders should, with Haitian consultation, manage all the projects and employ as many Haitians as possible in responsible positions at good pay. Good training should be given to as many Haitians as possible. However, if a Haitian employee gets involved in corruption on a project, they should be fired.
If and when competent Haitian managers emerge, they should be given more responsibility. It would be wonderful to see a Haitian professional class emerge. But, until that happens, I feel the governmental and non-governmental relief and rebuilding organizations should stay in firm control of where their money goes and how things are done. Otherwise, they are likely to be pouring their resources down the drain.
One of the men mentioned a conversation he'd had with a young man who'd spent 18 months in Haiti with the Peace Corps. This fellow was totally disillusioned after his stint there, and he believed that the country had little hope to become even a second world country. Americans who work in Haiti are involved, generally, in tiny projects that improve the lives of people in the countryside by providing clean water, for example. There seems to be no government interest in or capability to perform major projects that would restructure the country.
I keep hearing diplomats and other high ranking people drone on about giving the Haitians control over the rebuilding projects, but they are mistaken. There are far fewer qualified Haitians than there are projects to manage, and I'd guess that many of those Haitians are well-schooled in the art of corruption. My view is that outsiders should, with Haitian consultation, manage all the projects and employ as many Haitians as possible in responsible positions at good pay. Good training should be given to as many Haitians as possible. However, if a Haitian employee gets involved in corruption on a project, they should be fired.
If and when competent Haitian managers emerge, they should be given more responsibility. It would be wonderful to see a Haitian professional class emerge. But, until that happens, I feel the governmental and non-governmental relief and rebuilding organizations should stay in firm control of where their money goes and how things are done. Otherwise, they are likely to be pouring their resources down the drain.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Frustration
We'd like to believe that people are rewarded for being good and punished for being bad. It's a foundational element of our American culture, even if in reality it has often not been true. Consequently, the idea that those responsible for many of America's current problems have not got their just desserts is grating on the rank and file. I share main street's angst.
I'm outraged that so many of those who enabled and operated the sub-prime mortgage industry are living well on their profits while the rest of us suffer, either without jobs or getting no interest on our savings.
I'm incredulous that George W. Bush and his cronies got off scot-free after starting a very expensive war for no good reason.
I don't understand why my tax dollars bailed out GM and its retirees, both of which lived large for many years on extravagant wages and benefits as the company's products deteriorated and its market dried up.
It irks me that some of America's largest institutions, including the fossil fuel consortium and the teacher/public employee unions, are successfully lobbying to head off progress toward 21st century paradymes in their sectors of the economy.
And, maybe most of all, I'm sick of the U.S. congress - both parties - for standing around bickering when so many national issues need attention. The situation makes me wonder if our form of government makes sense anymore.
What to do? Beats me! That's why it's so frustrating. Perhaps widespread public anger will result in some positive change. That's our only good hope.
I'm outraged that so many of those who enabled and operated the sub-prime mortgage industry are living well on their profits while the rest of us suffer, either without jobs or getting no interest on our savings.
I'm incredulous that George W. Bush and his cronies got off scot-free after starting a very expensive war for no good reason.
I don't understand why my tax dollars bailed out GM and its retirees, both of which lived large for many years on extravagant wages and benefits as the company's products deteriorated and its market dried up.
It irks me that some of America's largest institutions, including the fossil fuel consortium and the teacher/public employee unions, are successfully lobbying to head off progress toward 21st century paradymes in their sectors of the economy.
And, maybe most of all, I'm sick of the U.S. congress - both parties - for standing around bickering when so many national issues need attention. The situation makes me wonder if our form of government makes sense anymore.
What to do? Beats me! That's why it's so frustrating. Perhaps widespread public anger will result in some positive change. That's our only good hope.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Haiti Update
I told you so. Haiti is a total mess, not only from the earthquake but because there are no Haitians in charge. Over the past 20 years, most people with any competency and integrity have left the country, leaving those without it to manage the place. Oh, and "manage" means manage the corruption. There is no national or local government with any standing as far as the people are concerned. As a beleagured Haitian said it on NPR yesterday, "We need aid, but don't give it to the government because we'll never see it." It's true.
So, where does that leave things? Well, there are lots (10-15 thousand) of international relief workers and American soldiers doing rescue and immediate relief activities right now. The dead will be buried before long, the injured will get some sort of treatment, and food/water distribution will be figured out. When that's over, about 3 million Haitians will be left standing around the rubble wondering what to do next. That's when the next big problem becomes apparent.
If you recall, General Colin Powell said before the Iraq War, "You break it, you own it." Well, it could also be said that, "You relieve it, you own it." At this point, the U.S. government and private agencies have committed to about $250 million in relief spending in Haiti. If 3.5 million Haitians were affected, that works out to about $71 per Haitian, many of whom lost whatever home they had. In other words, even if this aid number doubles, it's a spit in the ocean.
There is already talk of making Haiti a U.N. Protectorate - in other words, the U.N. would take over the governing role for Haiti until a competent Haitian authority could be put together. This means years, not months. The U.S., of course, would be the primary muscle and money behind the Protectorate, since no other countries really care about Haiti despite words to the contrary. We are in this for the long haul, it appears, and it's a bad thing.
Why is it bad? Did you know that there were 45,000 Americans in Haiti when earthquake struck? That's one American for every 200 Haitians, and most Amercans were doing humanitarian work. Despite this level of involvement, which has been going on for many years, Haiti remained a poor, unsuccessful, backward country. Part of the problem is its unique "Creole" language, a blend of French and native tongues; it's hard to modernize when you can't talk to anyone. Another part is the level of pride Haitians exhibit; they may be poor, but they don't like listening to foreigners. These issues will haunt us, because we have excessive expectations and the Haitians now have a claim on us - we must keep them alive indefinitely.
We are stuck. In order for Haiti to manage itself, it must change. If we try to force change, we will be accused of killing their culture. It's a recipe for unending stagnation and unending support of that population. If Obama was smart, he'd announce right now that we'll give our best efforts for three years and we're out of there, governmentally speaking. If the NGO's want to stay and help out, fine; they've been there forever, anyway.
The U.S. could do amazing things in three years, infrastructure-wise. Reliable power, good and accessible drinking water, some sort of sewage collection and treatment, for example. We could build cement plants to convert the rubble into new concrete blocks, and we could try to organize some sort of workable government process at all levels. In the end, though, the country belongs to the Haitians, and we should give it back to them. We didn't cause the earthquake, and we have no obligation to attempt a huge "nation-building" project there. President Obama, the time to say "goodbye" is now.
So, where does that leave things? Well, there are lots (10-15 thousand) of international relief workers and American soldiers doing rescue and immediate relief activities right now. The dead will be buried before long, the injured will get some sort of treatment, and food/water distribution will be figured out. When that's over, about 3 million Haitians will be left standing around the rubble wondering what to do next. That's when the next big problem becomes apparent.
If you recall, General Colin Powell said before the Iraq War, "You break it, you own it." Well, it could also be said that, "You relieve it, you own it." At this point, the U.S. government and private agencies have committed to about $250 million in relief spending in Haiti. If 3.5 million Haitians were affected, that works out to about $71 per Haitian, many of whom lost whatever home they had. In other words, even if this aid number doubles, it's a spit in the ocean.
There is already talk of making Haiti a U.N. Protectorate - in other words, the U.N. would take over the governing role for Haiti until a competent Haitian authority could be put together. This means years, not months. The U.S., of course, would be the primary muscle and money behind the Protectorate, since no other countries really care about Haiti despite words to the contrary. We are in this for the long haul, it appears, and it's a bad thing.
Why is it bad? Did you know that there were 45,000 Americans in Haiti when earthquake struck? That's one American for every 200 Haitians, and most Amercans were doing humanitarian work. Despite this level of involvement, which has been going on for many years, Haiti remained a poor, unsuccessful, backward country. Part of the problem is its unique "Creole" language, a blend of French and native tongues; it's hard to modernize when you can't talk to anyone. Another part is the level of pride Haitians exhibit; they may be poor, but they don't like listening to foreigners. These issues will haunt us, because we have excessive expectations and the Haitians now have a claim on us - we must keep them alive indefinitely.
We are stuck. In order for Haiti to manage itself, it must change. If we try to force change, we will be accused of killing their culture. It's a recipe for unending stagnation and unending support of that population. If Obama was smart, he'd announce right now that we'll give our best efforts for three years and we're out of there, governmentally speaking. If the NGO's want to stay and help out, fine; they've been there forever, anyway.
The U.S. could do amazing things in three years, infrastructure-wise. Reliable power, good and accessible drinking water, some sort of sewage collection and treatment, for example. We could build cement plants to convert the rubble into new concrete blocks, and we could try to organize some sort of workable government process at all levels. In the end, though, the country belongs to the Haitians, and we should give it back to them. We didn't cause the earthquake, and we have no obligation to attempt a huge "nation-building" project there. President Obama, the time to say "goodbye" is now.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Hopeless Haiti
The big earthquake that hit Port au Prince has caused casualties in the hundreds of thousands, but Haiti has hardly any hospitals and some of those likely have collapsed. Even with the best relief efforts of other countries, only a small fraction of injured Haitians will be able to access professional health care during the next few weeks. It's going to be really ugly over there.
Having been in Haiti on two occasions in the early 1990's, I can easily envision the chaos that has ensued following the earthquake. Almost all buildings were constructed of substandard concrete block with little or no reinforcement, so they fell down when the first big shake occurred. The sharp, heavy blocks were perfect for killing or maiming people. And even in the best of times, injured people relied on friends to get them to the hospital because the few ambulances served only the very rich. Today, most of the injured have no place to go and no way to get there, anyway. The unmitigated agony must be surreal.
Haiti's warm climate and the inputs of cheap food and clothing from outside has allowed its millions of poor citizens to live at a very low standard. Developed counties send used clothing to Haiti, so even the poorest have something to wear. Shelter from heat and rain can provided by a corrugated metal panel supported by whatever will hold it up, with concrete blocks being the upscale solution. Typical food for the poor is basic, such as rice and beans with a tasty flavoring; meat is available for those who have money, as are tropical fruits such as plantains. Water is often provided by communal supplies that people access with bottles and buckets. In normal times, therefore, millions of Haitians live on the edge but survive because they have what they need to stay alive. However, nobody wants to get sick or injured because medical care is spotty at best.
The Haitian economy is primitive. When I was there, it was a cash or barter economy for most people. However, a few oligarchs controlled the few industries that can operate in Haiti - rum production and small factories, mostly, and the oligarchs lived well. In addition, many people received payments from funds transferred in by family members living in the U.S. or elsewhere outside the country. Small businesses such as corner stores and bars were common, all protected by iron bars on windows and doors to ward off theft. People got around by walking or paying to ride on brightly painted trucks of all sizes that had large platforms with wooden seats built into their beds. The population was very resourceful, however, and most people found ways to earn the small amounts of money they needed to survive. Charities often provided a buffer for the destitute.
One would be amazed at the lack of infrastructure in Haiti. Few areas had running water or sewers, and electricity was often not available due to the rationing of power from generating stations. Food was usually cooked on charcoal stoves, the charcoal coming from what few trees were left in a country once 97% forested. Most roads were hard-packed gravel, and major highways were two lanes wide. Rainstorms in the rainy season often created wash-outs, and I remember seeing a major stream running down the main street of the town where I worked; one walked across the street by stepping from large stone to large stone amidst the running water. This was normal.
From the above description, you may better understand the impact of the earthquake. In a subsistence economy there are no resources for dealing with emergencies. Damaged water supplies and roads prevent people from accessing the basics needed for life, so even those who were not harmed by the earthquake will be desperate. With millions needing assistance, the relief efforts must be massive to deal with immediate needs. Who knows how long it will take to get the country back to "normal"? It will be a long time.
I found the Haitian people to be friendly, very nice looking, and generally happy despite their deprivation. Many, including the poor, were quite intelligent and creative. Their problems were mostly related to living in a country that had little to offer in terms of output; where there is no production and no valuable natural resources, there is no money. Yet the availability of basics made it possible for Haitians to grow the population, thereby limiting the resources available to each individual. Under these conditions, I saw little that would give the average person any hope for getting ahead. Now, the earthquake has crushed whatever hope there was. The "failed state" of Haiti has descended into a state of hell.
What can be done? In my view, only a benevolent dictator regime can pull Haiti out of its mess over a long period. With no internal resources, foreign aid is the only hope - but endemic corruption will result in the looting of this aid unless extremely tough standards are applied. Because the society has ingrained corruption and few who are trained managers, outsiders would need to provide most of the leadership during the recovery period. However, I doubt Haitians would accept such an approach unless it was maintained by a level of force that would make liberals cringe. Even concepts such as enforced birth control would have to be considered in this dire situation. Who would impose such a regime? Probably nobody. So, don't pay much attention to those who predict Haiti will recover. The best outcome will likely be a return to a client state supported by international aid and living on the edge - until the next crisis again brings chaos.
Having been in Haiti on two occasions in the early 1990's, I can easily envision the chaos that has ensued following the earthquake. Almost all buildings were constructed of substandard concrete block with little or no reinforcement, so they fell down when the first big shake occurred. The sharp, heavy blocks were perfect for killing or maiming people. And even in the best of times, injured people relied on friends to get them to the hospital because the few ambulances served only the very rich. Today, most of the injured have no place to go and no way to get there, anyway. The unmitigated agony must be surreal.
Haiti's warm climate and the inputs of cheap food and clothing from outside has allowed its millions of poor citizens to live at a very low standard. Developed counties send used clothing to Haiti, so even the poorest have something to wear. Shelter from heat and rain can provided by a corrugated metal panel supported by whatever will hold it up, with concrete blocks being the upscale solution. Typical food for the poor is basic, such as rice and beans with a tasty flavoring; meat is available for those who have money, as are tropical fruits such as plantains. Water is often provided by communal supplies that people access with bottles and buckets. In normal times, therefore, millions of Haitians live on the edge but survive because they have what they need to stay alive. However, nobody wants to get sick or injured because medical care is spotty at best.
The Haitian economy is primitive. When I was there, it was a cash or barter economy for most people. However, a few oligarchs controlled the few industries that can operate in Haiti - rum production and small factories, mostly, and the oligarchs lived well. In addition, many people received payments from funds transferred in by family members living in the U.S. or elsewhere outside the country. Small businesses such as corner stores and bars were common, all protected by iron bars on windows and doors to ward off theft. People got around by walking or paying to ride on brightly painted trucks of all sizes that had large platforms with wooden seats built into their beds. The population was very resourceful, however, and most people found ways to earn the small amounts of money they needed to survive. Charities often provided a buffer for the destitute.
One would be amazed at the lack of infrastructure in Haiti. Few areas had running water or sewers, and electricity was often not available due to the rationing of power from generating stations. Food was usually cooked on charcoal stoves, the charcoal coming from what few trees were left in a country once 97% forested. Most roads were hard-packed gravel, and major highways were two lanes wide. Rainstorms in the rainy season often created wash-outs, and I remember seeing a major stream running down the main street of the town where I worked; one walked across the street by stepping from large stone to large stone amidst the running water. This was normal.
From the above description, you may better understand the impact of the earthquake. In a subsistence economy there are no resources for dealing with emergencies. Damaged water supplies and roads prevent people from accessing the basics needed for life, so even those who were not harmed by the earthquake will be desperate. With millions needing assistance, the relief efforts must be massive to deal with immediate needs. Who knows how long it will take to get the country back to "normal"? It will be a long time.
I found the Haitian people to be friendly, very nice looking, and generally happy despite their deprivation. Many, including the poor, were quite intelligent and creative. Their problems were mostly related to living in a country that had little to offer in terms of output; where there is no production and no valuable natural resources, there is no money. Yet the availability of basics made it possible for Haitians to grow the population, thereby limiting the resources available to each individual. Under these conditions, I saw little that would give the average person any hope for getting ahead. Now, the earthquake has crushed whatever hope there was. The "failed state" of Haiti has descended into a state of hell.
What can be done? In my view, only a benevolent dictator regime can pull Haiti out of its mess over a long period. With no internal resources, foreign aid is the only hope - but endemic corruption will result in the looting of this aid unless extremely tough standards are applied. Because the society has ingrained corruption and few who are trained managers, outsiders would need to provide most of the leadership during the recovery period. However, I doubt Haitians would accept such an approach unless it was maintained by a level of force that would make liberals cringe. Even concepts such as enforced birth control would have to be considered in this dire situation. Who would impose such a regime? Probably nobody. So, don't pay much attention to those who predict Haiti will recover. The best outcome will likely be a return to a client state supported by international aid and living on the edge - until the next crisis again brings chaos.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Working Together
It's a new year, normally a time when one is optimistic about the future. I can be optimistic about my own life, since I'm relatively secure, pretty healthy, have a good support system of wife and friends around me, and have interesting work and play opportunities. However, my psyche is always affected by what is going on outside my little cocoon, that that stuff does not engender much optimism for 2010. The problem is that we humans seem to have a lot of difficulty working together, and that is the source of most of our problems.
In one of his most profound statements, Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Reciprocity...it's such a simple concept, but hard to implement. Selfishness stands in the way, prompting us to see life as a zero sum game where we each must fight to keep what we have. We fail to see that, working together, we can create far more for everyone.
I'm astonished that obvious communal efforts are so often neglected, since the evidence that it works is all around us. In fact, our entire "modern world" is a result of groups of people working together to achieve common goals. Why is it, then, that we resist dealing in concert to solve so many issues that threaten our country and the world? As a pragmatist, I'm perplexed. Can we start to turn this around in 2010? It seems unlikely.
I heard yesterday that in many parts of the undeveloped world pregnant women suffer from an iodine shortage that robs their offspring of 10-15 IQ points due to iodine-deficient brain development. Providing iodized salt to these people would seem so easy to do, yet it is not being done. What a tragedy! Would I be writing this blog if my IQ was 15 points less? Why are countries that suffer from this problem not making it easy for other countries to provide this simple solution? Beats me! We just don't seem to be able to work together.
Nowhere is this problem of conflict more obvious than in American politics. Working together requires a common set of facts, to begin with, but our politicians seem allergic to facts but addicted to partisanship and special (read "selfish") interests. Both parties are smoking dope instead of identifying the core problems that American must deal with, gathering pertinent facts, and working together to find solutions in the common interest.
If it was up to me, I'd fire every sitting member of congress and replace them all with people who've shown little interest in politics and lots of ability to accomplish difficult tasks. In six months we could have a new congress that would remake America in ten years and leave few people unhappy with the outcome. That's because solving difficult problems makes everyone optimistic for the future. We really do have people who could lead us up this road.
So, I am very concerned about our ability to work together. For the moment, though, my attention is focused on "Abel". Abel is a 23 year old refugee from Burma who's been in the U.S. for eight months. Starting with no English, he now reads easily (pronounced and understood the word "idiomatic"), and speaks English pretty well. Perhaps this fluency results from his prior knowledge of two Chin dialects, Burmese, and some Chinese and Malay. He's taken his GED already, and likely will pass it. If he does, he will enter a good college in Rochester - for free.
Abel has been through hell in his young life (just believe me), but he wants to become a civil engineer. I'm making it my project to get him there, and enjoying the hell out of it. It helps that he's a hard working (two jobs) guy with a great smile. I love helping those who are willing to help themselves! Perhaps that's why I admire my own three sons, all of whom stand on their own two feet while helping others. Abel is a surrogate, perhaps, since the boys are all grown up.
Selfishness may kill America. Seniors complain about any reduction in their benefits, even if they are comfortable. Wealthy folks complain about higher taxes, even though taxes are relatively low. Kids complain about increases in state college tuitions, even though those tuitions are an incredible bargain. Union members complain about efforts to bring their job requirements and overall compensation in line with their abilities and their industry counterparts. Inner city parents and students have no clue and violence rules their streets; their future is bleak, but they seem indifferent to whatever they might do to change this. All of us seem to acknowledge that progress requires sacrifice, concerted efforts, and hard work - but few seem interested in becoming part of the solution.
Many say this century will belong to the countries of the far east, and they are probably right. I hope those countries do well, but I also wish that America would do well. Sadly, I'm not optimistic. We've lost our ability to work together, so we will decline together. In the meantime, though, I can help Abel achieve the kind of life he always deserved. I can be optimistic about that, at least. Call me if you know about any other, more promising, options for how I should spend my spare time. And, Happy New Year!
In one of his most profound statements, Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Reciprocity...it's such a simple concept, but hard to implement. Selfishness stands in the way, prompting us to see life as a zero sum game where we each must fight to keep what we have. We fail to see that, working together, we can create far more for everyone.
I'm astonished that obvious communal efforts are so often neglected, since the evidence that it works is all around us. In fact, our entire "modern world" is a result of groups of people working together to achieve common goals. Why is it, then, that we resist dealing in concert to solve so many issues that threaten our country and the world? As a pragmatist, I'm perplexed. Can we start to turn this around in 2010? It seems unlikely.
I heard yesterday that in many parts of the undeveloped world pregnant women suffer from an iodine shortage that robs their offspring of 10-15 IQ points due to iodine-deficient brain development. Providing iodized salt to these people would seem so easy to do, yet it is not being done. What a tragedy! Would I be writing this blog if my IQ was 15 points less? Why are countries that suffer from this problem not making it easy for other countries to provide this simple solution? Beats me! We just don't seem to be able to work together.
Nowhere is this problem of conflict more obvious than in American politics. Working together requires a common set of facts, to begin with, but our politicians seem allergic to facts but addicted to partisanship and special (read "selfish") interests. Both parties are smoking dope instead of identifying the core problems that American must deal with, gathering pertinent facts, and working together to find solutions in the common interest.
If it was up to me, I'd fire every sitting member of congress and replace them all with people who've shown little interest in politics and lots of ability to accomplish difficult tasks. In six months we could have a new congress that would remake America in ten years and leave few people unhappy with the outcome. That's because solving difficult problems makes everyone optimistic for the future. We really do have people who could lead us up this road.
So, I am very concerned about our ability to work together. For the moment, though, my attention is focused on "Abel". Abel is a 23 year old refugee from Burma who's been in the U.S. for eight months. Starting with no English, he now reads easily (pronounced and understood the word "idiomatic"), and speaks English pretty well. Perhaps this fluency results from his prior knowledge of two Chin dialects, Burmese, and some Chinese and Malay. He's taken his GED already, and likely will pass it. If he does, he will enter a good college in Rochester - for free.
Abel has been through hell in his young life (just believe me), but he wants to become a civil engineer. I'm making it my project to get him there, and enjoying the hell out of it. It helps that he's a hard working (two jobs) guy with a great smile. I love helping those who are willing to help themselves! Perhaps that's why I admire my own three sons, all of whom stand on their own two feet while helping others. Abel is a surrogate, perhaps, since the boys are all grown up.
Selfishness may kill America. Seniors complain about any reduction in their benefits, even if they are comfortable. Wealthy folks complain about higher taxes, even though taxes are relatively low. Kids complain about increases in state college tuitions, even though those tuitions are an incredible bargain. Union members complain about efforts to bring their job requirements and overall compensation in line with their abilities and their industry counterparts. Inner city parents and students have no clue and violence rules their streets; their future is bleak, but they seem indifferent to whatever they might do to change this. All of us seem to acknowledge that progress requires sacrifice, concerted efforts, and hard work - but few seem interested in becoming part of the solution.
Many say this century will belong to the countries of the far east, and they are probably right. I hope those countries do well, but I also wish that America would do well. Sadly, I'm not optimistic. We've lost our ability to work together, so we will decline together. In the meantime, though, I can help Abel achieve the kind of life he always deserved. I can be optimistic about that, at least. Call me if you know about any other, more promising, options for how I should spend my spare time. And, Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
