I know for a fact that, when Barack Obama was running for president, some people bought guns because they thought that Obama and his thugs would come to their house and loot everything.
Now that fear has has not materialized, these crazy people have concocted another story of how Obama is going to take their "freedom" away. Excuse me, what kind of "freedom" are you talking about? If it was so easy to define what "freedom" was, philosophers would not have been talking about it for the last two millenia.
For crying out loud, stop the craziness and let's get things done!
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Pondering the Election Results from Last Night
Doug Hoffmann says the fight isn't over. The battle continues. I am wondering, "who is he fighting?" Surely, he doesn't mean fellow Americans! If he does, is he insinuating some sort of a civil war? That last time Americans fought Americans was a disaster.
Anyhow, the NY-23 election was a referendum on the GOP more than any other election in the country. It voted for the Democrat, something that it hadn't done in about 150 years. WOW.
In my hometown of Wilmington, NC, the municipal election was a clean Democratic sweep. The only thing that saddens me is that the lone woman on the council did not get reelected. I am sure that we will see more of her in the future.
Anyhow, the NY-23 election was a referendum on the GOP more than any other election in the country. It voted for the Democrat, something that it hadn't done in about 150 years. WOW.
In my hometown of Wilmington, NC, the municipal election was a clean Democratic sweep. The only thing that saddens me is that the lone woman on the council did not get reelected. I am sure that we will see more of her in the future.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Mere Mention of the Name Marx Gets People's Blood Boiling!
Wow.
The blog below is the blog that was posted on the Huffington Post.
I was merely proposing the use of that one specific concept of "alienation" to see if that it would work in understanding how we can actually insure our health only to have coverage denied when we need that insurance.
The conclusion I arrived at was that somehow we lose ownership of our health when we insure it. So that's when I saw Marx's "alienation" at work. It dawned on me, we use the term "health insurance industry" for a reason!
Das Kapital is too long, too convoluted, so I ended up using the Manuscripts of 1844. I thought the model worked pretty well in talking about how our health has become externalized to a degree that it can be insured like cars, boats, houses, etc. Then we begin to understand that using our health as capital, the insurance companies make money. Using our health as capital, they make more money. So the insurance companies are the owners of our health, and not us!
Would I propose any type of Marxism for any part of my government? Of course not! I don't even know what that would be! But can we use Marx's thinking, his earlier ones that are less tainted by his political vision, to illuminate on some of the things that are happening, especially health care? Absolutely!
However, some people can't get past the word, "Marx," and are writing almost by the book criticisms of what they call Marxism. However, if you read their comments, what they mean is not Marxism, but some sort of Stalinism or Leninism, that is the Soviet style dictatorship, which had really no semblance to Marx's ideas.
Hmmmm. Some people are coming to my defense. This has been just very, very interesting.
The blog below is the blog that was posted on the Huffington Post.
I was merely proposing the use of that one specific concept of "alienation" to see if that it would work in understanding how we can actually insure our health only to have coverage denied when we need that insurance.
The conclusion I arrived at was that somehow we lose ownership of our health when we insure it. So that's when I saw Marx's "alienation" at work. It dawned on me, we use the term "health insurance industry" for a reason!
Das Kapital is too long, too convoluted, so I ended up using the Manuscripts of 1844. I thought the model worked pretty well in talking about how our health has become externalized to a degree that it can be insured like cars, boats, houses, etc. Then we begin to understand that using our health as capital, the insurance companies make money. Using our health as capital, they make more money. So the insurance companies are the owners of our health, and not us!
Would I propose any type of Marxism for any part of my government? Of course not! I don't even know what that would be! But can we use Marx's thinking, his earlier ones that are less tainted by his political vision, to illuminate on some of the things that are happening, especially health care? Absolutely!
However, some people can't get past the word, "Marx," and are writing almost by the book criticisms of what they call Marxism. However, if you read their comments, what they mean is not Marxism, but some sort of Stalinism or Leninism, that is the Soviet style dictatorship, which had really no semblance to Marx's ideas.
Hmmmm. Some people are coming to my defense. This has been just very, very interesting.
Health Care Industry: How Karl Marx Can Help Us Understand the Health Care Crisis
In order to rethink fundamentally the debate surrounding health care reform, we need to first understand what exactly health insurance is and what it insures. With external objects, such as a home, a car, or a boat, we know exactly what a policy insures: a home, a car, a boat, respectively. We insure for the recovery, whether by repair or replacement, of the products that we buy in case of damage or loss.
How About Your Health Insurance?
With health insurance, if we are lucky to have it, we are able to secure funding for the necessary cost of recovering our health from a catastrophic disease. In this sense, there seems to be no difference between a car policy, for example, and a health policy. However, this does seem quite right.
In the case of a car, we understand without a doubt that it is an external object that is physically separate from us. The same with homes, boats, and other things. Unlike these objects, however, our health is not external. It is what makes us function, what enables us to lead productive, meaningful lives. It allows us to be who we are. It is inconceivable to even imagine that our health is somehow external to us. So then can we talk about the health insurance industry in the same ways as we talk about the property insurance industry?
How Then Is Health Insurance Even Possible? Enter Marx.
In order to understand this problem, I propose that we use the Marxian concept of "alienation." Karl Marx uses this concept to understand the relationship of labor to its product in his manuscripts from 1844, This concept is useful in helping us understand how our health undergoes the same process of "alienation" from ourselves in a dialectic process that makes health both ours, but at the same time not ours. Let me explain.
Let us agree first that to work is human nature. As humans we are defined by the work we do. In fact, we are our work, and our names often reveal that. We are Smiths, Masons, Coopers, Shoemakers, Millers, etc.
However, as soon as these products enter the cycle of being bought and sold for profit, the relationship we have with these products undergoes a fundamental change. They become something alien to us and take on a life of their own, complete separate from us. So as they accrue value, the workers who produced them see their ownership in them diminish while at the same time seeing their own value in proportion to the value of their products diminish. According to Marx, "[t]he greater his [worker's] activity, therefore, the less he possesses. What is embodied in the product of his labour is no longer his own. The greater this product is, therefore, the more he is diminished."
This is precisely how the process of "alienation" starts. The worker starts to be "related to the product of his labour as to an alien object." The "alienation" of the worker in his product means not only that "his labour becomes an object, assumes an external existence, but that it exists independently, outside himself, and alien to him, and that it stands opposed to him as an autonomous power."
So as the worker works, the more he produces through his work, the more alienated his activity becomes from himself. It becomes a "commodity as it enters a fundamentally different relationship, "a commercial relationship, a relationship of exchange, of buying and selling." Thus, our work, that which defines us, that which is our nature, becomes the source of profit, not for us, but for those who control it.
Our Health Has Become a Commodity For an Entire Industry.
This process of "alienation of labor" helps us understand just how the health insurance industry works today. Our health, that which enables us to work, becomes alienated from us. We insure our health as if it were an external object just like a car, a home, or a boat. The premiums we pay according to age, state of health, gender, family history are all components of this externalization of our health put in dollar value. The cost of each procedure that we receive, where the most life-saving interventions are the most costly to the less costly routine exams, is calculated according to how much it will cost to repair and/or replace that specific part of the body.
The way the health insurance industry is set up in today's America, the "industry" insures our health only as long as it is productive. Our health is wrested from us, made into an external object, with which to draw enormous profit, not for us, but for those who control the "industry." It is literally "alienated" from us having undergone the transformation from something intrinsic to us to an external product. The health that is insured , however, is not the whole of our health, from good to bad, but only that part that is productive. Only that part that makes profit. Only that part that generates profit.
The word "industry" itself is apt in describing our current insurance system. Under "industry" we assume that there is a concrete, external object produced through human labor that is insurable. The word itself propagates the idea that our health is capital, curiously not our own, but rather the capital with which the industry itself becomes wealthier and wealthier. The recent revelation of the outlandish salaries of the insurance companies' executives reflects that. Somehow, we feel deep down that this is not right. That our health is not a commodity. That is why there is a great outrage at these exorbitant salaries.
Hence, the problem with this model is that, as Marxian model of "alienation" points out, our health maybe insured, but we are not. As soon as we are not able to produce that desirable external object, our health, we are no longer insurable. And why not? Because we are no longer the owner of our health. The insurance companies are. Those that profit from owning our health are. Hence, the healthier we are, the less ownership we have of our health. This is the Marxian dialectic is at work.
Can You Really Be Alienated From Your Health?
In my opinion, it is absurd to think that our health is something that can be alienated from us, commodified by a whole industry for its profit. Commodities exist solely for the profit of the owners. However, insuring our health is not like insuring a car, a home, or a boat. There is no pretense about these objects being external. If we lose them, we do not die. On the other hand, if we lose our health and our insurance because we are no longer healthy, we die for the simple fact that we cannot afford the care necessary.
It is time to fundamentally rethink the structure of health care. First of all, we need to move away from the notion that our health is something to be insured by an "industry." The notion that it is any part of an industry is a fundamentally wrong. "Health insurance industry" itself is a misnomer. Health is not a commodity. It cannot and ought not to be commodified. Our health should not be used for profit.
We need to take back the ownership of our health. Let's bring the care into "health care" instead of giving it to an "industry." Our lives depend on it.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yuna-shin/health-insurance-industry_b_318340.html
How About Your Health Insurance?
With health insurance, if we are lucky to have it, we are able to secure funding for the necessary cost of recovering our health from a catastrophic disease. In this sense, there seems to be no difference between a car policy, for example, and a health policy. However, this does seem quite right.
In the case of a car, we understand without a doubt that it is an external object that is physically separate from us. The same with homes, boats, and other things. Unlike these objects, however, our health is not external. It is what makes us function, what enables us to lead productive, meaningful lives. It allows us to be who we are. It is inconceivable to even imagine that our health is somehow external to us. So then can we talk about the health insurance industry in the same ways as we talk about the property insurance industry?
How Then Is Health Insurance Even Possible? Enter Marx.
In order to understand this problem, I propose that we use the Marxian concept of "alienation." Karl Marx uses this concept to understand the relationship of labor to its product in his manuscripts from 1844, This concept is useful in helping us understand how our health undergoes the same process of "alienation" from ourselves in a dialectic process that makes health both ours, but at the same time not ours. Let me explain.
Let us agree first that to work is human nature. As humans we are defined by the work we do. In fact, we are our work, and our names often reveal that. We are Smiths, Masons, Coopers, Shoemakers, Millers, etc.
However, as soon as these products enter the cycle of being bought and sold for profit, the relationship we have with these products undergoes a fundamental change. They become something alien to us and take on a life of their own, complete separate from us. So as they accrue value, the workers who produced them see their ownership in them diminish while at the same time seeing their own value in proportion to the value of their products diminish. According to Marx, "[t]he greater his [worker's] activity, therefore, the less he possesses. What is embodied in the product of his labour is no longer his own. The greater this product is, therefore, the more he is diminished."
This is precisely how the process of "alienation" starts. The worker starts to be "related to the product of his labour as to an alien object." The "alienation" of the worker in his product means not only that "his labour becomes an object, assumes an external existence, but that it exists independently, outside himself, and alien to him, and that it stands opposed to him as an autonomous power."
So as the worker works, the more he produces through his work, the more alienated his activity becomes from himself. It becomes a "commodity as it enters a fundamentally different relationship, "a commercial relationship, a relationship of exchange, of buying and selling." Thus, our work, that which defines us, that which is our nature, becomes the source of profit, not for us, but for those who control it.
Our Health Has Become a Commodity For an Entire Industry.
This process of "alienation of labor" helps us understand just how the health insurance industry works today. Our health, that which enables us to work, becomes alienated from us. We insure our health as if it were an external object just like a car, a home, or a boat. The premiums we pay according to age, state of health, gender, family history are all components of this externalization of our health put in dollar value. The cost of each procedure that we receive, where the most life-saving interventions are the most costly to the less costly routine exams, is calculated according to how much it will cost to repair and/or replace that specific part of the body.
The way the health insurance industry is set up in today's America, the "industry" insures our health only as long as it is productive. Our health is wrested from us, made into an external object, with which to draw enormous profit, not for us, but for those who control the "industry." It is literally "alienated" from us having undergone the transformation from something intrinsic to us to an external product. The health that is insured , however, is not the whole of our health, from good to bad, but only that part that is productive. Only that part that makes profit. Only that part that generates profit.
The word "industry" itself is apt in describing our current insurance system. Under "industry" we assume that there is a concrete, external object produced through human labor that is insurable. The word itself propagates the idea that our health is capital, curiously not our own, but rather the capital with which the industry itself becomes wealthier and wealthier. The recent revelation of the outlandish salaries of the insurance companies' executives reflects that. Somehow, we feel deep down that this is not right. That our health is not a commodity. That is why there is a great outrage at these exorbitant salaries.
Hence, the problem with this model is that, as Marxian model of "alienation" points out, our health maybe insured, but we are not. As soon as we are not able to produce that desirable external object, our health, we are no longer insurable. And why not? Because we are no longer the owner of our health. The insurance companies are. Those that profit from owning our health are. Hence, the healthier we are, the less ownership we have of our health. This is the Marxian dialectic is at work.
Can You Really Be Alienated From Your Health?
In my opinion, it is absurd to think that our health is something that can be alienated from us, commodified by a whole industry for its profit. Commodities exist solely for the profit of the owners. However, insuring our health is not like insuring a car, a home, or a boat. There is no pretense about these objects being external. If we lose them, we do not die. On the other hand, if we lose our health and our insurance because we are no longer healthy, we die for the simple fact that we cannot afford the care necessary.
It is time to fundamentally rethink the structure of health care. First of all, we need to move away from the notion that our health is something to be insured by an "industry." The notion that it is any part of an industry is a fundamentally wrong. "Health insurance industry" itself is a misnomer. Health is not a commodity. It cannot and ought not to be commodified. Our health should not be used for profit.
We need to take back the ownership of our health. Let's bring the care into "health care" instead of giving it to an "industry." Our lives depend on it.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yuna-shin/health-insurance-industry_b_318340.html
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Health Insurance Industry: An Oxymoron
My thoughts lately:
In order for an industry to exist, there has to be some sort of a capitalist notion that there exist a capital in the form of a tradable commodity. As it is traded, it gains more and more capital and as it gains more and more capital, it becomes more and more desirable, etc. Wealth is created for those who trade in it. Hence, the CEOs and the stockholders are becoming rich. This is the typical capitalist theory, the theory based upon capital and the desirability of that capital.
I read somewhere in a blog about someone talking about the health insurance industry. Now that assumes that this industry deals with some sort of commodity that is tradable. I am beginning to wonder, if your and my health a commodity that can be bought and sold for someone else's profit?
The way the insurance industry is run right now it is. However, it is desirable only as long as your health is good. You are dropped as soon as your health starts to deteriorate. Therefore, in this capitalist model, your health is something that can become completely detached from your own self where your body becomes only the vessel of the abstract health that is traded by the insurance industry.
The question then is: can you be detached from your health? Are you a commodity to such a degree that you can be parceled into different parts, corporeal or not, and sold and traded as if they were commodities?
In my opinion, it is absurd to think that your health is something that can be traded, sold, commodified by other people for their profit, not yours. As soon as your health loses its status as a desirable capital, then you find yourself dropped by the industry. Your health, as long as you have it is commodified to the degree that when you do need the insurance, for which you pay, it loses its value as a commodity. You lose control of your commodity, it is at the hands of those whose sole interest is to make money any way possible.
It is time to fundamentally rethink about health insurance. First of all, we need to change our opinion that it is an industry. The notion that it is an industry is a fundamentally wrong. "Health insurance industry" itself is misnomer. Health is not a commodity. It cannot and ought not to be commodified.
Therefore, it seems to me that we need to come away from the thinking that health insurance is an industry. It is not an industry because health is not a commodity. Your health should not be used for profit.
In order for an industry to exist, there has to be some sort of a capitalist notion that there exist a capital in the form of a tradable commodity. As it is traded, it gains more and more capital and as it gains more and more capital, it becomes more and more desirable, etc. Wealth is created for those who trade in it. Hence, the CEOs and the stockholders are becoming rich. This is the typical capitalist theory, the theory based upon capital and the desirability of that capital.
I read somewhere in a blog about someone talking about the health insurance industry. Now that assumes that this industry deals with some sort of commodity that is tradable. I am beginning to wonder, if your and my health a commodity that can be bought and sold for someone else's profit?
The way the insurance industry is run right now it is. However, it is desirable only as long as your health is good. You are dropped as soon as your health starts to deteriorate. Therefore, in this capitalist model, your health is something that can become completely detached from your own self where your body becomes only the vessel of the abstract health that is traded by the insurance industry.
The question then is: can you be detached from your health? Are you a commodity to such a degree that you can be parceled into different parts, corporeal or not, and sold and traded as if they were commodities?
In my opinion, it is absurd to think that your health is something that can be traded, sold, commodified by other people for their profit, not yours. As soon as your health loses its status as a desirable capital, then you find yourself dropped by the industry. Your health, as long as you have it is commodified to the degree that when you do need the insurance, for which you pay, it loses its value as a commodity. You lose control of your commodity, it is at the hands of those whose sole interest is to make money any way possible.
It is time to fundamentally rethink about health insurance. First of all, we need to change our opinion that it is an industry. The notion that it is an industry is a fundamentally wrong. "Health insurance industry" itself is misnomer. Health is not a commodity. It cannot and ought not to be commodified.
Therefore, it seems to me that we need to come away from the thinking that health insurance is an industry. It is not an industry because health is not a commodity. Your health should not be used for profit.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
You'd Better Listen! It's Our President Talking!
My children came home yesterday with permission slips from their school that, when signed and returned, will allow students to opt out of listening to our president tell them stay in school and study hard.
I find it utterly incredible that there is even a controversy over this since it is a positive message that students need to hear again and again. And what better person to bring that message to them than the person who has so immensely benefited from education and who also happens to be the President of the United States?
So, listen to the president and watch the following video. Enjoy!
I find it utterly incredible that there is even a controversy over this since it is a positive message that students need to hear again and again. And what better person to bring that message to them than the person who has so immensely benefited from education and who also happens to be the President of the United States?
So, listen to the president and watch the following video. Enjoy!
Friday, August 28, 2009
Is Michael Steele's Position on Health Care Reform "Nuanced" or "Clear"? Answer: The New GOP Is the Old GOP.
I wrote an article on the Huffington Post in December of last year about the interview Steve Inskeep of NPR's All Things Considered conducted with Mike Duncan, the then chairman of GOP. In that article I observed the GOP was heralding Bobby Jindal and Ahn Cao as the saviors of the party because it was merely trying to repackage itself rather than to change fundamentally. When a caller called from Oregon to suggest the GOP needs to distance itself from the religious right, Duncan gave a typical talking point: "we are the party of the big tent." But everyone knew, including Mike Duncan through his silence, this was not just ignorance, but also a deep denial.
And on August 27th, a little over 9 months after the election and 7 months into the Obama administration, Inskeep conducted an interview with the new GOP chairman, Michael Steele, on the topic of health care reform. (Read the entire interview here or you can listen to the entire interview here.) The interview was precipitated by Steele's op-ed in the Washington Post on August 24th, in which he declared the "GOP Principles for Health Care" for seniors.
Steve Inskeep calls Steele out on his contradictory call for no cuts in Medicare while at the same time asserting that Medicare, like other government-run programs, needs to "run better and efficiently." How can this be consistent? How is it possible to call to protect Medicare while at the same time calling to oppose President Obama's plan for a government-run health care system? Steele answers as follows: "Well, people may like Medicare, and liking a program and having it run efficiently is sometimes two different things. . . So let's focus on fixing it." In a nutshell: Medicare is politically popular, so keep it and fix it. But government-run health care is bad like other government-run programs ("We have Amtrak. You have the Post Office"), so don't start it.
I am left scratching my head.
When pushed to defend private insurers against the government-run Medicare, Steele asserts: "And sure, there are issues in the insurance market that we can regulate a little bit better and that we can control better to maximize the benefits to the consumers." Inskeep is quick to catch Steele's inconsistency and responds, " Wait a minute, wait, wait. You would trust the government to look into that?"
Steele gets defensive and accuses Inskeep of "doing a wonderful little dance" and "trying to be cute." He insists that "the reality of this is very simple. I'm not saying the government doesn't have a role to play." What is then the role of the government?" Steele goes on, "The government does have a role to play. The government has a very limited role to play." Inskeep admits readily that he is "a little confused" by the positions Steele tates "because you're giving me a very nice nuanced position here."
Now it's Inskeep who is left scratching his head.
Steele answers with a declarative statement: "I'm being very clear." When Inskeep pushes him further Steele mounts a counter-offensive by asking Inskeep in return, "What's nuanced? What don't you understand?" And here comes the clincher: "I don't accept your premise" So far, Steele has accused Inskeep of doing a dance, being cute, and now of offering a view of Steele's contradictory, or "nuanced," position which he flatly doesn't "accept." What Steele implies here is this: he is "being very clear" and it is Inskeep who doesn't understand.
As I stated at the beginning , my December article on Mike Duncan dealt with Duncan's inability to accept the fact that the GOP needed a fundamental change. When suggested that it needed to disassociate itself from the religious right, Duncan responded with a mere declarative talking point: "we are the party of big tent." When Steele is asked if his positions perhaps needed to be explained, he responds with is another similar declarative statement: "I am being very clear." And by the way, "You are doing a wonderful little dance."
Never mind that the positions Steele takes are blatantly inconsistent. For example, the second principle: "we need to prohibit government from getting between seniors and their doctors." The seniors are already on Medicare, the reviled government-run health care, so it would follow from Steele's position then that the government is already standing between doctors and patients. However, Steele wants to assert at the same time that Medicare is not, but other government-run health care will. Protect Medicare, but other government-run health care is evil.
It seems to me that the GOP has not changed at all. The new Mike Duncan is the old Mike Duncan. The face and the color might have changed, but it is still the same. When pushed to clarify its position, Michael Steele as the face of the GOP answers, "you are doing a wonderful little dance." When asked to clarify the position, Steele gives the simple declarative answer as if it were self-evident, "I am being very clear." Steele may accuse Inskeep of dancing, but it is Steele who is doing the dance.
So is then Michael Steele's position on health care reform "nuanced" or "clear"? It is neither. It is circular. It is vacuous. It is nothing but talking points behind which there is no substance.
The new GOP is the old GOP all over again.
And on August 27th, a little over 9 months after the election and 7 months into the Obama administration, Inskeep conducted an interview with the new GOP chairman, Michael Steele, on the topic of health care reform. (Read the entire interview here or you can listen to the entire interview here.) The interview was precipitated by Steele's op-ed in the Washington Post on August 24th, in which he declared the "GOP Principles for Health Care" for seniors.
Steve Inskeep calls Steele out on his contradictory call for no cuts in Medicare while at the same time asserting that Medicare, like other government-run programs, needs to "run better and efficiently." How can this be consistent? How is it possible to call to protect Medicare while at the same time calling to oppose President Obama's plan for a government-run health care system? Steele answers as follows: "Well, people may like Medicare, and liking a program and having it run efficiently is sometimes two different things. . . So let's focus on fixing it." In a nutshell: Medicare is politically popular, so keep it and fix it. But government-run health care is bad like other government-run programs ("We have Amtrak. You have the Post Office"), so don't start it.
I am left scratching my head.
When pushed to defend private insurers against the government-run Medicare, Steele asserts: "And sure, there are issues in the insurance market that we can regulate a little bit better and that we can control better to maximize the benefits to the consumers." Inskeep is quick to catch Steele's inconsistency and responds, " Wait a minute, wait, wait. You would trust the government to look into that?"
Steele gets defensive and accuses Inskeep of "doing a wonderful little dance" and "trying to be cute." He insists that "the reality of this is very simple. I'm not saying the government doesn't have a role to play." What is then the role of the government?" Steele goes on, "The government does have a role to play. The government has a very limited role to play." Inskeep admits readily that he is "a little confused" by the positions Steele tates "because you're giving me a very nice nuanced position here."
Now it's Inskeep who is left scratching his head.
Steele answers with a declarative statement: "I'm being very clear." When Inskeep pushes him further Steele mounts a counter-offensive by asking Inskeep in return, "What's nuanced? What don't you understand?" And here comes the clincher: "I don't accept your premise" So far, Steele has accused Inskeep of doing a dance, being cute, and now of offering a view of Steele's contradictory, or "nuanced," position which he flatly doesn't "accept." What Steele implies here is this: he is "being very clear" and it is Inskeep who doesn't understand.
As I stated at the beginning , my December article on Mike Duncan dealt with Duncan's inability to accept the fact that the GOP needed a fundamental change. When suggested that it needed to disassociate itself from the religious right, Duncan responded with a mere declarative talking point: "we are the party of big tent." When Steele is asked if his positions perhaps needed to be explained, he responds with is another similar declarative statement: "I am being very clear." And by the way, "You are doing a wonderful little dance."
Never mind that the positions Steele takes are blatantly inconsistent. For example, the second principle: "we need to prohibit government from getting between seniors and their doctors." The seniors are already on Medicare, the reviled government-run health care, so it would follow from Steele's position then that the government is already standing between doctors and patients. However, Steele wants to assert at the same time that Medicare is not, but other government-run health care will. Protect Medicare, but other government-run health care is evil.
It seems to me that the GOP has not changed at all. The new Mike Duncan is the old Mike Duncan. The face and the color might have changed, but it is still the same. When pushed to clarify its position, Michael Steele as the face of the GOP answers, "you are doing a wonderful little dance." When asked to clarify the position, Steele gives the simple declarative answer as if it were self-evident, "I am being very clear." Steele may accuse Inskeep of dancing, but it is Steele who is doing the dance.
So is then Michael Steele's position on health care reform "nuanced" or "clear"? It is neither. It is circular. It is vacuous. It is nothing but talking points behind which there is no substance.
The new GOP is the old GOP all over again.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
How Can We Get Yogis To Be Activists?
In The Yoga Sutras of Pantajali, Sri Swami Satchidananda discusses cultivating attitudes toward four different kinds of people. As a practicing yogi, your utmost importance is placed in achieving peace. This peace is ultimately achieved by uniting with the Divine with the recognition that this Divine is within us as it is also within each and everyone of us.
Now the four different kinds of people: the "happy", the "unhappy," the "virtuous," and the "wicked." Swami Satchidananda urges friendliness and compassion to these respectively. In my mind, the first two have to do with with feelings. One feels happy or one feels unhappy. On the other hand, the virtuous and the wicked, in my opinion, have to do with morality. Unlike the ephemeral feelings of happiness or unhappiness, the virtuosity and wickedness seem to go beyond spontaneous human emotions. They seem to speak of human disposition, seated more deeply within human psyche. One cannot be virtuous one moment and not virtuous the next. Likewise, one cannot be wicked on moment and not wicked the next. For these last two Swami Satchidananda urges delight and disregard respectively. Regarding "wickedness," he writes that maybe if we leave them alone, they will come out of their wickedness. "Don't try to advise such people," he writes, "because wicked people seldom take advice. If you try to advise them you will lose your peace."
Because in trying to convert these people into good people, I will lose my peace, and my peace is of UTMOST important above all else, I am not to try to give them any help in how to stop being wicked. I understand Satchidananda to be saying this: if you find peace within yourself, and you radiate this peace, this peace will cause othersfollow your example and find their way to peace and, therefore, enlightenment. This is what it means to detach from the world, by detaching from the world, by this "involution," one sets a chain reaction of sorts. This is enlightenment. The more wickedness you see, the more inward you turn.
I have a problem with that. Since there will always be "wicked" people as these people are not to be advised, we also have to be willing to live with this fact. This seems to be extremely undemocratic and defeatist. Isn't democracy all about getting that majority to agree with you? How do you get someone to agree with you if you don't try to advise them?
I know lots of politically engaged people. I know lots of yogis. I also know that lots of yogis silently supported Barack Obama, but it was also a taboo to publicly acknowledge such favoritism. If, following Swami Satchidananda's words, yogis were to completely detach, to practice indifference toward the "wicked," where could yogis be activists? How could we even begin to convince people to turn to the yogic life style without trying to advise others? I know the standard answer would be to live by example, but what if some people just deliberately ignore forever?
Well, I guess Satchidananda is right. I am getting agitated and disturbed just by this mere thought. The question to ask yourself is, "what is more important? My own peace or the peace of others at the cost of my own?"
Now the four different kinds of people: the "happy", the "unhappy," the "virtuous," and the "wicked." Swami Satchidananda urges friendliness and compassion to these respectively. In my mind, the first two have to do with with feelings. One feels happy or one feels unhappy. On the other hand, the virtuous and the wicked, in my opinion, have to do with morality. Unlike the ephemeral feelings of happiness or unhappiness, the virtuosity and wickedness seem to go beyond spontaneous human emotions. They seem to speak of human disposition, seated more deeply within human psyche. One cannot be virtuous one moment and not virtuous the next. Likewise, one cannot be wicked on moment and not wicked the next. For these last two Swami Satchidananda urges delight and disregard respectively. Regarding "wickedness," he writes that maybe if we leave them alone, they will come out of their wickedness. "Don't try to advise such people," he writes, "because wicked people seldom take advice. If you try to advise them you will lose your peace."
Because in trying to convert these people into good people, I will lose my peace, and my peace is of UTMOST important above all else, I am not to try to give them any help in how to stop being wicked. I understand Satchidananda to be saying this: if you find peace within yourself, and you radiate this peace, this peace will cause othersfollow your example and find their way to peace and, therefore, enlightenment. This is what it means to detach from the world, by detaching from the world, by this "involution," one sets a chain reaction of sorts. This is enlightenment. The more wickedness you see, the more inward you turn.
I have a problem with that. Since there will always be "wicked" people as these people are not to be advised, we also have to be willing to live with this fact. This seems to be extremely undemocratic and defeatist. Isn't democracy all about getting that majority to agree with you? How do you get someone to agree with you if you don't try to advise them?
I know lots of politically engaged people. I know lots of yogis. I also know that lots of yogis silently supported Barack Obama, but it was also a taboo to publicly acknowledge such favoritism. If, following Swami Satchidananda's words, yogis were to completely detach, to practice indifference toward the "wicked," where could yogis be activists? How could we even begin to convince people to turn to the yogic life style without trying to advise others? I know the standard answer would be to live by example, but what if some people just deliberately ignore forever?
Well, I guess Satchidananda is right. I am getting agitated and disturbed just by this mere thought. The question to ask yourself is, "what is more important? My own peace or the peace of others at the cost of my own?"
Libertarians Will Never Be Free
After some time of observation and rumination over the different factions of political thought in this country, I have come to conclude this:
1) The Religious Right.
I vehemently disagree with them. However, I have respect for them because they believe in principles and act according to these principles. They have a strong moral compass and believe in a higher calling. That, in my opinion, though extremely naive and uninformed, is noble. I have to separate the religious fanatics from the religious right here. The religious fanatics, including those who kill in the name of God, or a god, or many gods, are crazy and belong in an institution.
2) The Liberals.
On the opposite end of the religious right, we have the liberals. I respect them for their compassion for fellow humans. They do see serving humanity as a higher calling not because it serves a greater god, but because it in itself is good. While the religious right draw their strength from a supposed higher authority, the liberals draw their strength in their faith in the progress of humanity. This, in my opinion, is noble.
3) The Libertarians.
Today's libertarians are in a league of their own and bear very little resemblance to the classic libertarianism of individual right. Today's libertarians have become all about money and taxes. These people pursue so-called liberty to such a degree that they will always be slave to this pursuit. Therefore, they will never be free. The young Ron Paul crowd is the good example of this kind of libertarians. These people have no higher calling other than the pursuit of so-called liberty, usually liberty from taxes, and have no compassion for others. The Libertarian Party's slogan: "Smaller Government, Less Taxes, More Freedom" -- as if one follow from the other? Hence, these people rank the lowest of all factions in my opinion in terms of moral rectitude (they have none), mental acuity (they really lack it), and compassion (only for themselves, which is, by definition, selfishness).
Thursday, August 20, 2009
We Have Placed Fellow Human Beings Below Dogs
When I was a teenager growing up Germany, we had a subscription to a magazine whose title I no longer remember. But I do remember one issue in particular, it was an issue on American white supremacy. Germans like to understand their own history through many different lenses, so an issue like this would not have been out of the ordinary.
This particular issue contained an interview with an unnamed white supremacist. The interviewer asked him if this professed white supremacist would stop to help a black man on the road who had been hit by a car. Sure, the white supremacist said, just like he would help a dog.
That answer stuck with me for years.
Now, during this health care reform debate, which has been about everything else but really health care reform, another issue has come up--that of illegal immigration. The congressmen and women and senators are being asked again and again if illegal immigrants would also receive health care. Some of these people are even saying unimaginable things like, "they should all be sent back with bullet holes in their heads." Under no circumstances should illegal immigrants receive health care. No visits to ER, no visits with doctors. Send them straight to their home country without any medical attention. Can my fellow Americans really be saying these things?
Alas, some Americans have placed fellow human beings below dogs. That is very, very sad.
This particular issue contained an interview with an unnamed white supremacist. The interviewer asked him if this professed white supremacist would stop to help a black man on the road who had been hit by a car. Sure, the white supremacist said, just like he would help a dog.
That answer stuck with me for years.
Now, during this health care reform debate, which has been about everything else but really health care reform, another issue has come up--that of illegal immigration. The congressmen and women and senators are being asked again and again if illegal immigrants would also receive health care. Some of these people are even saying unimaginable things like, "they should all be sent back with bullet holes in their heads." Under no circumstances should illegal immigrants receive health care. No visits to ER, no visits with doctors. Send them straight to their home country without any medical attention. Can my fellow Americans really be saying these things?
Alas, some Americans have placed fellow human beings below dogs. That is very, very sad.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Help Me Understand Why There Is Even a Debate on Healthcare Reform?
So, these are the typical arguments from those who oppose healthcare reform.
1. "The government is going to step between me and my doctor."
2. Or, "The government is going to kill my grandmother."
3. Or, "I don't want socialism." "What insurance do you have?" "I have Medicare." And if these people are on Medicare and know that it is a completely government run program, therefore socialistic, "Don't mess with Medicare. I don't want Medicare to run out of money because I need Medicare."
Here are my responses.
1. No conscionable doctor will divulge personal information about you. If you can't trust your doctor, and you don't trust the government, well, you can't trust anyone. If you are on a private health insurance policy, do you trust that insurance company, whose sole purpose is to make money, more than the government?
2. Now where did this come from? End of life counseling is not a death panel. If there is one, that would be the insurance companies that operate now who decide what procedures are covered and which one are not. I trust these people less than my government. The government is there if I need protection. Private companies, only if they are paid.
3. Medicare is a completely government run program that is there for those who would otherwise be rejected by ALL private health insurance companies. How would they ever get health insurance? If you are past 65, chances are that you have chronic ailments. Drugs to take everyday. You may supplement with private health insurance, but Medicare becomes your primary health insurance policy. So, don't be selfish and let others have that option too.
Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times that illustrates why we need healthcare reform in this country. And why there has to be a safety net for those who, for reasons beyond their control, cannot get healthcare. I don't see the difference in the need for medical attention between these people and those over 65.
A country trying to take care of its citizens who cannot take care of themselves is not socialism. It is good government.
1. "The government is going to step between me and my doctor."
2. Or, "The government is going to kill my grandmother."
3. Or, "I don't want socialism." "What insurance do you have?" "I have Medicare." And if these people are on Medicare and know that it is a completely government run program, therefore socialistic, "Don't mess with Medicare. I don't want Medicare to run out of money because I need Medicare."
Here are my responses.
1. No conscionable doctor will divulge personal information about you. If you can't trust your doctor, and you don't trust the government, well, you can't trust anyone. If you are on a private health insurance policy, do you trust that insurance company, whose sole purpose is to make money, more than the government?
2. Now where did this come from? End of life counseling is not a death panel. If there is one, that would be the insurance companies that operate now who decide what procedures are covered and which one are not. I trust these people less than my government. The government is there if I need protection. Private companies, only if they are paid.
3. Medicare is a completely government run program that is there for those who would otherwise be rejected by ALL private health insurance companies. How would they ever get health insurance? If you are past 65, chances are that you have chronic ailments. Drugs to take everyday. You may supplement with private health insurance, but Medicare becomes your primary health insurance policy. So, don't be selfish and let others have that option too.
Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times that illustrates why we need healthcare reform in this country. And why there has to be a safety net for those who, for reasons beyond their control, cannot get healthcare. I don't see the difference in the need for medical attention between these people and those over 65.
A country trying to take care of its citizens who cannot take care of themselves is not socialism. It is good government.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Palin Made Hatred Pretty
Where do I begin?
I hate the fact that a woman with a pretty face and an attractive figure made it pretty and attractive to hate. She gave hatred a pretty face, lent credence to hatred and made hatred acceptable, even attractive.
That is Palin's legacy. She brought hatred and ignorance to a whole new level.
There is no other way to describe her legacy than this simple fact.
Health Care Deja Vu: The Craziness and Ugliness of the Election Are Back
When the election was over, I thought, phew, the worst has passed. We have finally someone of a sane mind in the White House, someone who can inspire us to do good.
It seems that the election season has returned. I am seeing all the ugliness that I saw during the election all over again. Though I like to forget, I still remember being shaken on many occasions, one of them in particular.
I went to an address looking for a person on the list of registered voters. A woman in a small SUV drove up as I walked onto her driveway. I identified myself as a volunteer for Obama, and her demeanor changed. Her facial expression turned diabolical and full of fury. She shouted at me, "I HATE THAT MAN!" I wondered then how anyone would be so hateful of someone that they personally don't know. I started to walk away without saying much, I was just shaken, having lost another little piece of faith in the humanity. She jumped back in the car, looking intently at me out of the rolled down window, all while giving gas as she was looking. Vroom. Vroom. I feared for life and left as quickly as I could.
I looked at my list. I was not about to have someone like that shake me so badly, so I went to the next address on the list. And who I do see driving up to that address? The hate-filled woman with her young child in the back of the car. I saw an Obama sign in the yard, and I was glad to have that sign as the woman and I converged on the driveway of this particular address. A man was working on a boat, and I asked may I talk to so-and-so. He said that was his wife who is a big Obama supporter. I asked him if he too was a supporter. He said he didn't know.
Now the woman, with a big smile on her face, chimed in. She said cheerfully that her mother was a Catholic and that as a Catholic her mother would never vote for Obama. As for her, she said she didn't know. Then she added that the co-owner of the house, on whose driveway we had all congregated, was her sister-in-law and that her sister-in-law lets her live in the house across the street for free. She looked at me as if to say, and with as much hatred and menace as before reserved just for me, "you'd better not tell her what I just said to you."
This two-faced woman really shook me up. I was shaken more by how she was so casually lying through her teeth, with a kind of platitude even as if it were the most normal thing to do, than by the fact that I had thought my life was in danger just minutes earlier. How can humans behave this way?
What I am seeing during these town hall meetings reminds of these incidents that I encoutered during the election. There was so much ugliness. There was so much hatred. The same ugliness is coming back.
Those who oppose health care reform at these town hall meetings are not opposing health care reform. Many of them are fighting it as if they were still fighting the election.
All of the issues of the election are coming back with all the same incendiary rhetoric, hearsay, untruths. They oppose health care because Obama's administration is pushing for it. It could be a bill to give them free socks for life, they would oppose it. They oppose the cap and trade and all green initiatives because the Obama administration sponsors them. It is as if they want the whole country to fail because they refuse to believe that Barack Obama is our 44th president and the majority of this nation voted for him.
There is no doubt that the nation's health care needs a reform. The system can't go on. Those who have insurance are afraid to go because of the sky-rocketing co-pays and out-of-pocket costs. Those who do not have insurance, just hope that they do not get sick. This is a country where the citizens seem to get into financial trouble whether or not they have health insurance. If that is not crazy, I don't know what is. What is paid for and what is not is decided completely by the insurance companies whose sole purpose of existence is to make money. They are the "death panels" and the opponents of health care reform want to keep the operation the way they are now?
The simple fact is that the cost of health care is bankrupting the whole nation and its citizens, and this important issue is the one that Obama-haters latch on. They are hijacking an all-important issue that will sink or save the nation. It seems not just crazy to me, but also completely against self-interest if these so-called opponents were to even think clearly.
I want civility back. I want civil public discourse so that we may all fix what is wrong. No doubt about it.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Michael Jackson: the Post-Racial King of Pop.
I am sitting in a movie theater with my two children to watch Space Chimps, an animated children's movie about chimpanzees who travel through space, through a wormhole to an alien planet, and then back to the Earth safely. The human controllers on the ground sport all the telltale signs of the super-geek: foreign accents, pocket protectors, glasses, etc. etc. And then there came a very funny moment. The chimps started to play the techno version of Axel F from Beverly Hills Cops, and the uber-geek with glasses, a pocket protector, and the foreign accent (vaguely Indian) broke out in a dance. All the telltale Michael Jackson moves. The moonwalk, the waves of his arms. Wow. And I see my children grooving to the music, attempting the dance moves first with their arms and then their feet.
Michael Jackson's memorial happened just yesterday. I was moved, shedding a tear or two in secret. I am of the generation that grew up with Michael Jackson's music. I was an Asian kid growing up in Germany when Michael Jackson became a huge star. He was such a huge star that his videos were shown only on the big screen in movie theaters. There was no such thing as MTV in Germany then. We were all in awe. We were speechless. This man was out of this world. In a league of his own. In his own world. He was not just a super star, he seemed to be a super human. He transcended everything. He was so cool. Beyond cool. Beyond words. Everyone dreamed of being like him. Everyone wanted to be like him.
Of all the years I spent in Germany when I was young, I only remember Michael Jackson as being the only African American singer who found such unfathomable fame, not just all over Europe, but all over the world. One cannot imagine the current pop culture without Jackson. Would we have hip hop without him? Would we still have the same dance moves? Can you imagine a show like So You Think You Can Dance? Without Michael Jackson's influence?
His music and dancing inspired a whole generation of people and continue to inspire the future generations. Even my children, who don't know the name Michael Jackson, were grooving to his music. Watch this cool video from 2008 by Far East Movement :
Michael Jackson transcended race. He was truly the first post-racial star. He symbolized America and personified all of her possibilities. I would dare say that he even made Obama's presidency imaginable.
People like Peter King, a Representative from New York who can't see past the court drama that unfolded in Jackson's personal life, do not understand Jackson's cultural importance, one of the true gifts that America gave to the whole world. Is it a wonder then that there is now an effort to fund-raise against Peter King? Inmates in a Filipino jail paying dancing in a tribute, people in the streets of Europe and Africa break-dancing, people in Asia singing, clad in military style jackets and hats and the signature sequined single glove. Not everyone inspires so many people all over the world.
And Michael Jackson was an American. How cool is that? When was the last time a single American united people all over the world like that? The likes of Peter King do not understand, not only what makes the world go around, but also how great America can be, what greatness America holds in every single one her citizens, and how America can unite the world along a common thread.
Michael Jackson was a true American star. Don't ever forget that. He deserves a tribute fit for a king. LONG LIVE THE KING.
Michael Jackson's memorial happened just yesterday. I was moved, shedding a tear or two in secret. I am of the generation that grew up with Michael Jackson's music. I was an Asian kid growing up in Germany when Michael Jackson became a huge star. He was such a huge star that his videos were shown only on the big screen in movie theaters. There was no such thing as MTV in Germany then. We were all in awe. We were speechless. This man was out of this world. In a league of his own. In his own world. He was not just a super star, he seemed to be a super human. He transcended everything. He was so cool. Beyond cool. Beyond words. Everyone dreamed of being like him. Everyone wanted to be like him.
Of all the years I spent in Germany when I was young, I only remember Michael Jackson as being the only African American singer who found such unfathomable fame, not just all over Europe, but all over the world. One cannot imagine the current pop culture without Jackson. Would we have hip hop without him? Would we still have the same dance moves? Can you imagine a show like So You Think You Can Dance? Without Michael Jackson's influence?
His music and dancing inspired a whole generation of people and continue to inspire the future generations. Even my children, who don't know the name Michael Jackson, were grooving to his music. Watch this cool video from 2008 by Far East Movement :
Michael Jackson transcended race. He was truly the first post-racial star. He symbolized America and personified all of her possibilities. I would dare say that he even made Obama's presidency imaginable.
People like Peter King, a Representative from New York who can't see past the court drama that unfolded in Jackson's personal life, do not understand Jackson's cultural importance, one of the true gifts that America gave to the whole world. Is it a wonder then that there is now an effort to fund-raise against Peter King? Inmates in a Filipino jail paying dancing in a tribute, people in the streets of Europe and Africa break-dancing, people in Asia singing, clad in military style jackets and hats and the signature sequined single glove. Not everyone inspires so many people all over the world.
And Michael Jackson was an American. How cool is that? When was the last time a single American united people all over the world like that? The likes of Peter King do not understand, not only what makes the world go around, but also how great America can be, what greatness America holds in every single one her citizens, and how America can unite the world along a common thread.
Michael Jackson was a true American star. Don't ever forget that. He deserves a tribute fit for a king. LONG LIVE THE KING.
Monday, July 6, 2009
LOVE LIVE THE KING!
What is it that I hear? Too much Michael Jackson coverage? Well, this is what I think.
I was a teenager in Germany when Michael Jackson became a huge star. His videos played in movie theaters, something that had never been done before. I do not remember a black American entertainer ever being that huge in Germany. Jackson broke the racial barrier, not just in America but the world over. When people all over the world mourn his death, when friends and foes alike are crying in the streets for him, when people moonwalk in the streets of Havana, now that is someone of importance who has passed away.
Michael Jackson deserves a tribute fit for a king. LONG LIVE THE KING.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Practice Letting Go. It's Liberating.
My faith in humanity was shaken to the core by the events of the last few weeks: the murder of Dr. Tiller, shootings at the Holocaust Museum, and well before that the gunman who killed 13 at an immigrants' resource center, etc. etc.
In all of these instances, it seems to me, these horrible deeds were perpetrated by people who simply could not let go of the past. It is especially the case with Von Brunn. He was a master at holding grudges, going back to his college years. That is almost 70 years of holding grudges for the 88-year old man. How tormented in mind must he be that he simply cannot get over the events over his whole life?
As Frank Rich writes in his column, there has been an increased volume of hatred coming out that is bordering upon some sort of eschatological "purgation and annihilation." These people are so incapable of grasping the events of the recent past that all they see is the end of the world as they know it. It is as if they are so pathologically obsessed with the past that all they see is the culmination of all of their past fears in some sort of an armagedon. What is neglected, of course, is the present. They can't wrap their heads around the fact that Obama is now the president, their anger fueled by Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, all they are able to say is "kill, kill, kill." Limbaugh, and other were around even before Palin, but Palin really made hatred fashionable, gave it a pretty face. I really, really resent her for giving hatred a pretty face.
I think that what we need to do as a nation is to focus on the present. And the present looks bleak. 1 in 10 out of work, possibly more. People are hurting. Children are not being fed. How can we possibly miss that?
I read somewhere that when debris is burned, it is the rats and cockroaches that come out first. Our nation is undergoing a transformation with a black president. We are changing, but it is not just us. The whole world is changing. So we are symbolically burning our past in order for us to be free of it. So that we may now forge a new future. We don't know what the future holds, and to guess would to drive ourselves crazy. So while I realize that it is necessary for these crazies to come out, I hate to see lives lost at the hands of these crazies. Why is some of humanity this way?
So those of us feeling shaken just as I am, let's practice letting go. It's liberating. It helps us deal with the present, and helps us get ready for what is coming.
In all of these instances, it seems to me, these horrible deeds were perpetrated by people who simply could not let go of the past. It is especially the case with Von Brunn. He was a master at holding grudges, going back to his college years. That is almost 70 years of holding grudges for the 88-year old man. How tormented in mind must he be that he simply cannot get over the events over his whole life?
As Frank Rich writes in his column, there has been an increased volume of hatred coming out that is bordering upon some sort of eschatological "purgation and annihilation." These people are so incapable of grasping the events of the recent past that all they see is the end of the world as they know it. It is as if they are so pathologically obsessed with the past that all they see is the culmination of all of their past fears in some sort of an armagedon. What is neglected, of course, is the present. They can't wrap their heads around the fact that Obama is now the president, their anger fueled by Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, all they are able to say is "kill, kill, kill." Limbaugh, and other were around even before Palin, but Palin really made hatred fashionable, gave it a pretty face. I really, really resent her for giving hatred a pretty face.
I think that what we need to do as a nation is to focus on the present. And the present looks bleak. 1 in 10 out of work, possibly more. People are hurting. Children are not being fed. How can we possibly miss that?
I read somewhere that when debris is burned, it is the rats and cockroaches that come out first. Our nation is undergoing a transformation with a black president. We are changing, but it is not just us. The whole world is changing. So we are symbolically burning our past in order for us to be free of it. So that we may now forge a new future. We don't know what the future holds, and to guess would to drive ourselves crazy. So while I realize that it is necessary for these crazies to come out, I hate to see lives lost at the hands of these crazies. Why is some of humanity this way?
So those of us feeling shaken just as I am, let's practice letting go. It's liberating. It helps us deal with the present, and helps us get ready for what is coming.
Summer Is Here! How You Can Avoid the Sun and Still Have Fun
As I wrote in a previous blog, I am Korean-American. Although I have lived in this country for many, many years and consider myself "well-assimilated," some cultural lessons I have taken from my very Korean parents will never be forgotten.
One of these lessons is that I still do not like to be out in the sun. It has been rather difficult to reconcile this culture of sun avoidance with the American lifestyle of sun worship. It was hard living in sunny Southern California as a teenager, and it has been hard living in the coastal region of North Carolina as an adult where the sun is superabundant and it is searingly hot during the summer months. You just cannot avoid being out in the sun in these parts of the country unless you just didn't go out at all during the day.
My dislike of the sun is actually the result of a combination of both the Korean cultural upbringing and the photosensitivity I suffered as a child. When I spent any time in the sun, my skin would get raw and scaly and stay that way for the entire summer. Sunscreens had not been invented yet, and I was forced to wear hats and use umbrellas. They didn't invite glares from other people, however, since fair complexion is prized in Korea and women often use them in the sun. When we wanted to swim, we would start in the morning, then take a break during midday over watermelon, and then swim again in the late afternoon. I can't remember swimming when the sun was beating down on us.
Now the American sun culture is completely different. When we go to the beach, for example, it is impossible to find parking during the day. The local pools are filled with children at mid-day and clear out at about 4:00pm. I routinely see children playing and splashing around in the water in the searing sun. The only thought in my mind is, "what's wrong with these fair-skinned people? They are baking in the sun!"
My American husband has had to learn to adapt to my attitude toward the sun, so my family always goes to the beach or the pool after 4:00pm. But this decision was not hard to make for both me and my husband, for my younger child was born with the same photosensitivity as I was. My child seems to have built up more immunity now, but from about when he was 2 until just this year, we did not dare take him outside on a sunny day without a thick coat of sunscreen of at least SPF 60 on him. Starting in March and until September, we would religiously apply sunscreen on him.
When I found out how sensitive my child was to the sun, I researched about the dangers of sun exposure. Here are the facts about the sun and skin cancer according to Skin Cancer Foundation:
* Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. More than one million skin cancers are diagnosed annually. Even one childhood sunburn doubles the risk of skin cancer later in life.
* Each year there are more new cases of skin cancer than the combined incidence of cancers of the breast, prostate, lung and colon.
* One in five Americans will develop skin cancer in the course of a lifetime.
* Basal cell carcinoma is the most common form of skin cancer; about one million of the cases diagnosed annually are basal cell carcinomas. Basal cell carcinomas are rarely fatal, but can be highly disfiguring.
* Squamous cell carcinoma is the second most common form of skin cancer. More than 250,000 cases are diagnosed each year, resulting in approximately 2,500 deaths.
* Basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma are the two major forms of non-melanoma skin cancer. Between 40 and 50 percent of Americans who live to age 65 will have either skin cancer at least once.
* In 2004, the total direct cost associated with the treatment for non-melanoma skin cancers was more than $1 billion.
* About 90 percent of non-melanoma skin cancers are associated with exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun.
* Up to 90 percent of the visible changes commonly attributed to aging are caused by the sun.
* Contrary to popular belief, 80 percent of a person's lifetime sun exposure is not acquired before age 18; only about 23 percent of lifetime exposure occurs by age 18.
Both Skin Cancer Foundation and American Cancer Society have produced clear guidelines for preventing sunburns and sun damage that lead to skin cancer. Some are just simple commonsense.
* Avoid the sun between 10:00am and 4:00pm when the UV index is the highest.
* Seek shade.
* Use Sunscreen with SPF of at least 15 everyday and higher during the summer.
* Do not burn.
* Cover up with clothing.
* Wear hats.
These are just about all the things that I learned as a Korean child growing up in a Korean household. Except for the sunscreen. We didn't have it.
The way I feel about the sun exposure is like the way I feel about smoking. There is no safe amount of exposure, so any exposure ought to be treated as bad. Needless to say, both my husband and I are now very careful around the sun when it comes to our children. My husband, who has a lot of Italian in him and does not burn, grew up playing in the sun in sunny California and remembers having just lots of fun playing in the sun. I am determined that this idea of baking in the sun will not be a part of my children's childhood memories.
My children will remember their childhood slightly differently: going to the beach after 4:00pm wearing swim shirts, going swimming always well after the sun is no longer hot. But they will still remember having fun. After all, what can be more fun than swimming in the pool and going to the beach? No one says that it has to be at mid day. Children can have lots of water fun any time of the day. My children have come to prefer swimming in the evening, for they always come home refreshed and seem to sleep comfortably throughout the night. I sincerely hope that my children will be thankful to me when they are older and they cannot remember getting sunburned. They will hopefully say, "my mother did all right protecting us from the sun."
Unfortunately, for the librarian at my children's elementary school, a middle-aged redhead, it is too late. She remembers how her mother always took her children outside to play in the water in the summer. She remembers spending all her time in the sun during the summer. Now every few months she goes in for a check-up. Every few years she has surgery to remove a cancerous growth from her body. She told me one time, "my deceased mother would be sad if she knew that making us play outside has caused us so much harm." I decided that that is not what my children would say about me after I am gone.
As much as I love to consider myself well-assimilated, when it comes to sun safety, it is the one cultural divide that I am happy not to bridge.
One of these lessons is that I still do not like to be out in the sun. It has been rather difficult to reconcile this culture of sun avoidance with the American lifestyle of sun worship. It was hard living in sunny Southern California as a teenager, and it has been hard living in the coastal region of North Carolina as an adult where the sun is superabundant and it is searingly hot during the summer months. You just cannot avoid being out in the sun in these parts of the country unless you just didn't go out at all during the day.
My dislike of the sun is actually the result of a combination of both the Korean cultural upbringing and the photosensitivity I suffered as a child. When I spent any time in the sun, my skin would get raw and scaly and stay that way for the entire summer. Sunscreens had not been invented yet, and I was forced to wear hats and use umbrellas. They didn't invite glares from other people, however, since fair complexion is prized in Korea and women often use them in the sun. When we wanted to swim, we would start in the morning, then take a break during midday over watermelon, and then swim again in the late afternoon. I can't remember swimming when the sun was beating down on us.
Now the American sun culture is completely different. When we go to the beach, for example, it is impossible to find parking during the day. The local pools are filled with children at mid-day and clear out at about 4:00pm. I routinely see children playing and splashing around in the water in the searing sun. The only thought in my mind is, "what's wrong with these fair-skinned people? They are baking in the sun!"
My American husband has had to learn to adapt to my attitude toward the sun, so my family always goes to the beach or the pool after 4:00pm. But this decision was not hard to make for both me and my husband, for my younger child was born with the same photosensitivity as I was. My child seems to have built up more immunity now, but from about when he was 2 until just this year, we did not dare take him outside on a sunny day without a thick coat of sunscreen of at least SPF 60 on him. Starting in March and until September, we would religiously apply sunscreen on him.
When I found out how sensitive my child was to the sun, I researched about the dangers of sun exposure. Here are the facts about the sun and skin cancer according to Skin Cancer Foundation:
* Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. More than one million skin cancers are diagnosed annually. Even one childhood sunburn doubles the risk of skin cancer later in life.
* Each year there are more new cases of skin cancer than the combined incidence of cancers of the breast, prostate, lung and colon.
* One in five Americans will develop skin cancer in the course of a lifetime.
* Basal cell carcinoma is the most common form of skin cancer; about one million of the cases diagnosed annually are basal cell carcinomas. Basal cell carcinomas are rarely fatal, but can be highly disfiguring.
* Squamous cell carcinoma is the second most common form of skin cancer. More than 250,000 cases are diagnosed each year, resulting in approximately 2,500 deaths.
* Basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma are the two major forms of non-melanoma skin cancer. Between 40 and 50 percent of Americans who live to age 65 will have either skin cancer at least once.
* In 2004, the total direct cost associated with the treatment for non-melanoma skin cancers was more than $1 billion.
* About 90 percent of non-melanoma skin cancers are associated with exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun.
* Up to 90 percent of the visible changes commonly attributed to aging are caused by the sun.
* Contrary to popular belief, 80 percent of a person's lifetime sun exposure is not acquired before age 18; only about 23 percent of lifetime exposure occurs by age 18.
Both Skin Cancer Foundation and American Cancer Society have produced clear guidelines for preventing sunburns and sun damage that lead to skin cancer. Some are just simple commonsense.
* Avoid the sun between 10:00am and 4:00pm when the UV index is the highest.
* Seek shade.
* Use Sunscreen with SPF of at least 15 everyday and higher during the summer.
* Do not burn.
* Cover up with clothing.
* Wear hats.
These are just about all the things that I learned as a Korean child growing up in a Korean household. Except for the sunscreen. We didn't have it.
The way I feel about the sun exposure is like the way I feel about smoking. There is no safe amount of exposure, so any exposure ought to be treated as bad. Needless to say, both my husband and I are now very careful around the sun when it comes to our children. My husband, who has a lot of Italian in him and does not burn, grew up playing in the sun in sunny California and remembers having just lots of fun playing in the sun. I am determined that this idea of baking in the sun will not be a part of my children's childhood memories.
My children will remember their childhood slightly differently: going to the beach after 4:00pm wearing swim shirts, going swimming always well after the sun is no longer hot. But they will still remember having fun. After all, what can be more fun than swimming in the pool and going to the beach? No one says that it has to be at mid day. Children can have lots of water fun any time of the day. My children have come to prefer swimming in the evening, for they always come home refreshed and seem to sleep comfortably throughout the night. I sincerely hope that my children will be thankful to me when they are older and they cannot remember getting sunburned. They will hopefully say, "my mother did all right protecting us from the sun."
Unfortunately, for the librarian at my children's elementary school, a middle-aged redhead, it is too late. She remembers how her mother always took her children outside to play in the water in the summer. She remembers spending all her time in the sun during the summer. Now every few months she goes in for a check-up. Every few years she has surgery to remove a cancerous growth from her body. She told me one time, "my deceased mother would be sad if she knew that making us play outside has caused us so much harm." I decided that that is not what my children would say about me after I am gone.
As much as I love to consider myself well-assimilated, when it comes to sun safety, it is the one cultural divide that I am happy not to bridge.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
I squat, do you?
I come from a family of squatters. In fact, my family comes from a land of squatters. I don't mean anything figuratively by it, as in, I like to go into empty houses and occupy it illegally. I mean literally that I like to squat. I like to squat with my knees apart, with the backs of my ankles against my sitting bones and my elbows gently pressing on the insides of my knees. My brother likes to squat with knees together wrapping his arms around them with a graceful curve to his back that looks completely natural.
I am of Korean heritage, and believe you me, it is not an uncommon sight to see people of all ages and both sexes squat, especially on the countryside. My husband, who is a white American, does not like this sight. It unsettles him to see people in this position because he thinks that it exposes some kind of vulnerability. It is as if humanity is now so beyond this way of sitting that to squat would mean some sort of recidivism.
When I incorporate squatting, or malasana, into my yoga classes, I see all kinds of responses from people. There are those who proceed to squat with ease with all points of their feet touching the floor, gently rocking side to side until they find a comfortable position to settle in. Then there are those who have their heels way up off the floor that they are barely balancing on the balls of their feet. They try to rest their elbows or hands on the knees, but struggle to keep the equilibrium. They don't look particularly graceful, but they try. And there are those that just don't try. It hurts their back, it hurts their feet, it hurts everything.
In many exercise routines, repetitious squatting is touted as one of the best and most effective ways to tone all muscles in your legs, in the core, and the back and the butt. One simply cannot squat without engaging all these muscles especially when weights are involved. Can you imagine a weightlifter who can't squat? Weightlifters always start from a squat because, when performed correctly, it is one of the most optimal ways to engage the whole body in lifting that weight.
In many Chi Kung books some form of squat with knees pulled in close to the body is invariably recommended for stomach troubles. The position of legs puts gentle pressure on the abdomen and helps alleviate any pains that may be caused by poor digestion. Squatting is also touted as the nature's best way to eliminate waste. There are many websites that will describe exactly and vividly how that is, although we can imagine that how pressure on your lower abdomen would promote elimination, I will not get into detail. (You can follow the link here to find out if you are so inclined.)
But it is not just my American husband who finds squatting so primitive that it is almost repulsive. The history of this intense Western dislike of squatting goes even as far back as the 19th century when the British Empire ruled India as
Galen Cranz describes in his book, Rethinking the Chair: Rethinking the Culture, Body, and Design. Squatting was seen as a sign of primitiveness while sitting on chairs was seen as a sign of civilization. Squatting became one of the compasses with which the progress of civilization was measured while the chair, and all variants thereof including the infamous couch, became the measure by which to gauge a society's civilized status.
So then we finally come to the culture of the supreme civilized being by this measure, the couch potato. The couch potato has completely abandoned squatting (egad!) and thoroughly embraced the art of sitting on the most comfortable chair one can think of. Moreover, as the term "couch potato" implies we completely abandon the involvement of a single muscle in the body when we sit now. We are left wondering, is this what civilization means?
Besides the benefits of squats in terms of modern-day fitness, the simple act of everyday squatting instead of sitting can be beneficial. Yogis do it now as yogis have done it for thousands of years. Denise Kaufman explains it well in the following video:
In yoga, malasana, or the garland pose, is used to invite openness in the hips and in the groin area. The benefits of open hips is obvious. When runners come to my class and complain that their hips are really tight, I invite them to follow a hip-opening routine. I see this tightness in runners all the time. Their muscles are so tight that they almost pop out of the skin in a neat line from the top of their upper leg down to the top of their knee. This muscular tension keeps their hips from opening, and the leads to tightness in the area, leading to injuries.
Squatting is one of the easiest ways of opening the hips. It has nothing to do with the impoverished Third World, primitiveness, or recidivism. Rather, it has everything to do with what we have given up in the name of civilization.
So let's get off the couches and squat. After all, what do we have to gain here? Stronger muscles in the back? Sure! Flexibility in the hips? Absolutely! Stronger core? Of course! Wider range of motion for the feet? You bet!
I would like to think we also gain openness, which we as "civilized" beings unfortunately interpret as vulnerability, through squatting, not just literally, but also figuratively, in our bodies and mind.
I am of Korean heritage, and believe you me, it is not an uncommon sight to see people of all ages and both sexes squat, especially on the countryside. My husband, who is a white American, does not like this sight. It unsettles him to see people in this position because he thinks that it exposes some kind of vulnerability. It is as if humanity is now so beyond this way of sitting that to squat would mean some sort of recidivism.
When I incorporate squatting, or malasana, into my yoga classes, I see all kinds of responses from people. There are those who proceed to squat with ease with all points of their feet touching the floor, gently rocking side to side until they find a comfortable position to settle in. Then there are those who have their heels way up off the floor that they are barely balancing on the balls of their feet. They try to rest their elbows or hands on the knees, but struggle to keep the equilibrium. They don't look particularly graceful, but they try. And there are those that just don't try. It hurts their back, it hurts their feet, it hurts everything.
In many exercise routines, repetitious squatting is touted as one of the best and most effective ways to tone all muscles in your legs, in the core, and the back and the butt. One simply cannot squat without engaging all these muscles especially when weights are involved. Can you imagine a weightlifter who can't squat? Weightlifters always start from a squat because, when performed correctly, it is one of the most optimal ways to engage the whole body in lifting that weight.
In many Chi Kung books some form of squat with knees pulled in close to the body is invariably recommended for stomach troubles. The position of legs puts gentle pressure on the abdomen and helps alleviate any pains that may be caused by poor digestion. Squatting is also touted as the nature's best way to eliminate waste. There are many websites that will describe exactly and vividly how that is, although we can imagine that how pressure on your lower abdomen would promote elimination, I will not get into detail. (You can follow the link here to find out if you are so inclined.)
But it is not just my American husband who finds squatting so primitive that it is almost repulsive. The history of this intense Western dislike of squatting goes even as far back as the 19th century when the British Empire ruled India as
Galen Cranz describes in his book, Rethinking the Chair: Rethinking the Culture, Body, and Design. Squatting was seen as a sign of primitiveness while sitting on chairs was seen as a sign of civilization. Squatting became one of the compasses with which the progress of civilization was measured while the chair, and all variants thereof including the infamous couch, became the measure by which to gauge a society's civilized status.
So then we finally come to the culture of the supreme civilized being by this measure, the couch potato. The couch potato has completely abandoned squatting (egad!) and thoroughly embraced the art of sitting on the most comfortable chair one can think of. Moreover, as the term "couch potato" implies we completely abandon the involvement of a single muscle in the body when we sit now. We are left wondering, is this what civilization means?
Besides the benefits of squats in terms of modern-day fitness, the simple act of everyday squatting instead of sitting can be beneficial. Yogis do it now as yogis have done it for thousands of years. Denise Kaufman explains it well in the following video:
In yoga, malasana, or the garland pose, is used to invite openness in the hips and in the groin area. The benefits of open hips is obvious. When runners come to my class and complain that their hips are really tight, I invite them to follow a hip-opening routine. I see this tightness in runners all the time. Their muscles are so tight that they almost pop out of the skin in a neat line from the top of their upper leg down to the top of their knee. This muscular tension keeps their hips from opening, and the leads to tightness in the area, leading to injuries.
Squatting is one of the easiest ways of opening the hips. It has nothing to do with the impoverished Third World, primitiveness, or recidivism. Rather, it has everything to do with what we have given up in the name of civilization.
So let's get off the couches and squat. After all, what do we have to gain here? Stronger muscles in the back? Sure! Flexibility in the hips? Absolutely! Stronger core? Of course! Wider range of motion for the feet? You bet!
I would like to think we also gain openness, which we as "civilized" beings unfortunately interpret as vulnerability, through squatting, not just literally, but also figuratively, in our bodies and mind.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Morals on High Ground
There's been this talk of torture lately. The release of the torture memos from the Bush administration has been the fuel for it, and I want to make sure that I put my two cents worth.
We have to, as all of us belonging to this planet, believe in universal human rights. One of these should be the right to be treated humanely, and to be treated as a fellow human being before we are enemies, foes, friends, and others. If we forget that, then we subdivide humanity, and that is no good. Then we start splitting people into groups ad infinitum.
Therefore, we have to hold at least some values as universal values. One of them has to be that we treat them as we would like to be treated. If you ask around, it will be clear that no one wants to be tortured. It is inhumane, is it illegal by international standards, and it is morally repulsive. No political justification suffices here. We have, as fellow humans, the moral obligation to treat others with respect. That is how we get respect. We teach our children that. We need to remind ourselves of that.
Torture is repulsive. It is inhumane. It is below morality. If we were to be a moral species, we cannot, simply cannot torture.
We have to, as all of us belonging to this planet, believe in universal human rights. One of these should be the right to be treated humanely, and to be treated as a fellow human being before we are enemies, foes, friends, and others. If we forget that, then we subdivide humanity, and that is no good. Then we start splitting people into groups ad infinitum.
Therefore, we have to hold at least some values as universal values. One of them has to be that we treat them as we would like to be treated. If you ask around, it will be clear that no one wants to be tortured. It is inhumane, is it illegal by international standards, and it is morally repulsive. No political justification suffices here. We have, as fellow humans, the moral obligation to treat others with respect. That is how we get respect. We teach our children that. We need to remind ourselves of that.
Torture is repulsive. It is inhumane. It is below morality. If we were to be a moral species, we cannot, simply cannot torture.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Loving Thy Neighbor
What an ugly day it has been. Time to put all of that behind.
I need to send love to friends as well as enemies, and that includes Sarah Palin who lends prettiness to ugliness, who is so inexplicably capable of saying ugly things with a pretty mouth. Pretty face, ugly soul. I do really fault her for making divisive rhetoric attractive.
But that is beside the point. Time for a peace chant: "Om shanti, shanti, shanti."
Breath in. Breath out. OM.
I need to send love to friends as well as enemies, and that includes Sarah Palin who lends prettiness to ugliness, who is so inexplicably capable of saying ugly things with a pretty mouth. Pretty face, ugly soul. I do really fault her for making divisive rhetoric attractive.
But that is beside the point. Time for a peace chant: "Om shanti, shanti, shanti."
Breath in. Breath out. OM.
Tea Parties and Other Hypocrisies
The date of April 15th could not have been more fortuitous to those opposed to taxes in Wilmington, NC, to hold a "tea party." There had been another "tea party" a few days earlier on April 7th on the steps of the Federal Court House over the issue of annexation of a tract of land within New Hanover County by the City of Wilmington, the county seat.
Hundreds of protesters gathered both inside and outside the City Hall to voice their opinion that annexation is taxation without representation. Those in favor of annexation, including the City Council members, see annexation as the mechanism by which Wilmington, and other cities throughout the State of North Carolina, is able continue to grow and to draw income to stay viable.
The right to annex by cities is guaranteed by law in the State of North Carolina, and it has played a great role in preventing urban decay and prevented cities from dying by allowing them to continually grow its tax base. Without such right, one can easily imagine a city like Detroit that, as the citizens and their businesses flee from the city into the suburbs and elsewhere, is left without a tax base. In North Carolina, however, because the cities are permitted to annex, they have been able to continually grow their tax base, stay viable, and provide services to their citizens.
The latest attempt by the City of Wilmington has been marred by protests. As it turns out, most of the protesters were not even from the area to be annexed. They were those who came to the steps of the City Hall to protest taxes in general. These protests continued on April 15th, on tax day, and the word "tax" continue to be the anathema to them.
But what exactly are they protesting? This report from the local newspaper Wilmington Start News
says it all:
" 'Bail me Out!' That was the message written on Paul Mason's blue poster board that he held up to cars passing through the intersection of College Road and Oleander Drive at rush hour Wednesday evening.
'Bail me out instead of bailing everybody else out,' Mason said. 'I'm a hard-working, tax-paying citizen. Bail me out.;"
This is a curious statement by someone who joined the protesters to oppose to taxes, bail-outs, and other government spending. However, the above statement reveals a curious and hypocritical thinking in many of those who are opposed to taxes: "It is ok to bail me out, but it is not ok to bail others out. Money spent on me is not a waste, only the money spent on others."
This is the kind of ill logic that Keith Olberman exposed in Sarah Palin back in March when she refused the stimulus money for education.
It is that kind of weird logic:" taxes are bad if I have to pay them, they are good if others pay to help me out; stimulus is bad is it happens to others, it is good if it happens to me."
As the drama of these "tea parties" unfolds, some things remain certain. Some Americans just don't like to pay taxes. No matter how the taxes are used, even the word "taxes" is an anathema to some.
It is a critical time for politicians to be responsible. Those politicians who are fueling this fire of anger over taxes are not doing the nation any good. At a time when we need to all come together as a nation and see through the economic crisis, this is not the kind of rhetoric that we need. Rick Perry's insinuation at a secession, Michele Bachmann's charges of anti-American activities within the Congress, all of those who are jumping on the bandwagon, need to seriously look at what is happening and stop fomenting civil unrest.
I suggest that Sarah Palin, who so divided America during the election between pro- and anti-Americas, would be a person to start the process.
Hundreds of protesters gathered both inside and outside the City Hall to voice their opinion that annexation is taxation without representation. Those in favor of annexation, including the City Council members, see annexation as the mechanism by which Wilmington, and other cities throughout the State of North Carolina, is able continue to grow and to draw income to stay viable.
The right to annex by cities is guaranteed by law in the State of North Carolina, and it has played a great role in preventing urban decay and prevented cities from dying by allowing them to continually grow its tax base. Without such right, one can easily imagine a city like Detroit that, as the citizens and their businesses flee from the city into the suburbs and elsewhere, is left without a tax base. In North Carolina, however, because the cities are permitted to annex, they have been able to continually grow their tax base, stay viable, and provide services to their citizens.
The latest attempt by the City of Wilmington has been marred by protests. As it turns out, most of the protesters were not even from the area to be annexed. They were those who came to the steps of the City Hall to protest taxes in general. These protests continued on April 15th, on tax day, and the word "tax" continue to be the anathema to them.
But what exactly are they protesting? This report from the local newspaper Wilmington Start News
says it all:
" 'Bail me Out!' That was the message written on Paul Mason's blue poster board that he held up to cars passing through the intersection of College Road and Oleander Drive at rush hour Wednesday evening.
'Bail me out instead of bailing everybody else out,' Mason said. 'I'm a hard-working, tax-paying citizen. Bail me out.;"
This is a curious statement by someone who joined the protesters to oppose to taxes, bail-outs, and other government spending. However, the above statement reveals a curious and hypocritical thinking in many of those who are opposed to taxes: "It is ok to bail me out, but it is not ok to bail others out. Money spent on me is not a waste, only the money spent on others."
This is the kind of ill logic that Keith Olberman exposed in Sarah Palin back in March when she refused the stimulus money for education.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
It is that kind of weird logic:" taxes are bad if I have to pay them, they are good if others pay to help me out; stimulus is bad is it happens to others, it is good if it happens to me."
As the drama of these "tea parties" unfolds, some things remain certain. Some Americans just don't like to pay taxes. No matter how the taxes are used, even the word "taxes" is an anathema to some.
It is a critical time for politicians to be responsible. Those politicians who are fueling this fire of anger over taxes are not doing the nation any good. At a time when we need to all come together as a nation and see through the economic crisis, this is not the kind of rhetoric that we need. Rick Perry's insinuation at a secession, Michele Bachmann's charges of anti-American activities within the Congress, all of those who are jumping on the bandwagon, need to seriously look at what is happening and stop fomenting civil unrest.
I suggest that Sarah Palin, who so divided America during the election between pro- and anti-Americas, would be a person to start the process.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Dreaming While Awake
I had an interesting experience during savasana at the end of my vinyasa practice today.
It is said that savasana is the most important part of your practice because it is the time during which you ruse over your practice to rejuvenate mind and body and to bring them together to find stillness. Until today, whenever I thought I was entering a deep relaxed state, I always fell asleep. Today, I was able to stave off sleep and dream while I was awake. Wow, that's some weird stuff.
As I lay there, I was thinking about the things that still lay ahead. My body felt really heavy after an hour and a half while still curiously feeling pretty energetic still. My mind started to wander, and I started to think about my department chair and the topic that I would like to talk to him about tomorrow. And then it happened. I went into a kind of a trance, I was really talking to him as if he were there in front of me, and then the whole room came alive. I remember thinking, wow, this is something. This light shone throughout the whole room, and then I was gazing upon myself.
I am not sure if this is something that is supposed to happen. The purpose of meditation is to clear your mind of all thoughts so that you have nothing but that very moment to focus. That is why there is such a huge emphasis on concentrating on breathing, on audible breathing so that that becomes the only thing on which to focus your attention on.
However, today, I definitely went somewhere where I hadn't been before. It was funky, it was bright, and it was surreal. And I liked it.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Can You Believe This Sticker?
It really didn't take long. Some people know where there is money to be made.
Just today, I saw a bumper sticker on a car that read, "Don't blame me. I voted for Palin." Now that is seriously disturbed. It didn't reveal anything about what is going on, it only revealed the ignorance of the owner of the car, who, by the way, was a woman in her 50's.
I object to this bumper sticker on many fronts. The first is that you don't vote for vice-president. That is, unless you secretly wish for the president to die, in which case the vice president would step up. So she had a death wish for McCain because she really wanted Sarah Palin to be the president. Unless, of course, she thought that Palin would have McCain wrapped around her finger? Perhaps. She seems to have an effect on older men, but really, really?
The second is that the bumper sticker assumes that things are getting worse. Don't make a mistake about it. Obama inherited this mess. Things were already going downhill when Obama took over. In fact, the stock market has rallied since the inauguration. Doesn't that at least indicate that Obama brought hope?
The third is, what does Palin really stand for? I am an educator, and whenever Palin speaks, I am just dumbfounded. She leaves dangling modifiers, she leaves out entire main clauses, she uses words wrongly, her speech is just a mess. So, let's say she is a fiscal conservative. Shows fiscal restraint. Well, what about the bridge to nowhere? How about her refusal to take the stimulus money for education? Remember, she said she would a friend to all with special needs children? And the seditious speeches she gave! The brawl at these events! That was not someone that needs to be on a national stage. That just is not someone I would be proud to present as representing us. No way. No how.
I am just wondering how much money the sticker maker is making. Probably some. Like I said, some people just know where there is money to be made. Even if it is at the cost of civility.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
My Thoughts on This And After Life
When I was reading a blog online, I came across an interesting question. If you are on a torpedoing airplane, what would you do? The irresolutely evangelical Christian blogger's answer was that everyone would pray to Jesus. She just could not see how anyone, again anyone, would do otherwise. I was not surprised at her answer and her inability to see how anyone would think differently.
What would I do? I would probably take stock of how my life has been. Whether I am leaving this world with regrets or without. I am striving toward no regrets everyday, and that is how I choose to live. I would also probably make a mental list of all those that I love and make sure that I say for one last time "I love you" before I depart.
I attended a Catholic funeral a few weeks ago. It was a real ritual: the songs, the ceremony, the whole thing. A woman from the choir sang, "Jesus is my shepherd, and there is nothing more that I want." Here we were, gathered to pay respect to a young man whose life was tragically cut short. And that is what this woman is singing. He is returning to God as will we all return to God. That is what ultimately what everyone wants, including him and all of us. He is going to a better place, so we shan't be sorry or sad for him. But what if you were? The whole ceremony, it seemed to me, was designed, not to celebrate the life that this young man had led, but rather assuage our fears of mortality because the afterlife is better than this life.
This is when I, between the sobbing and the crying, began to think about the role of religion in this life. And then it occurred to me that all religions is really about the afterlife. Because we know nothing about it, whether it really exists or not, we are divided in our thoughts. On the one hand, we would like to continue this life in the afterlife (in which case we try to take as much of this life as we can as the mummies did). On the other hand, we think that there is a better life afterward (as Christians, Muslims do), and we do what we can to earn it. Or you reap what you sow, and you are reincarnated accordingly (Buddhists).
I have a more empirical attitude toward it. I cannot possibly know anything about it, so I am going to live life so that whenever I am departing, I do so without regrets. I do not mean it in a hedonistic way. I do believe that humans, no matter what religion or no religion, have a moral compass. Therefore, we strive toward having our positive mark by striving toward being good because being good is a goal in and of itself. Not because it holds the promise of heaven in the afterlife, but rather because it is good.
Christians fail to see that. They use God and Jesus as crutches, as that external force that tells them to be good or to do this or that. How about we turn that inward? Can we be innately good? Don't we believe in the goodness of the heart? I think that is a better to improve oneself because the motivation is truly from within rather than without.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Bobby Jindal, the folksy hero?
Everyone agrees. Bobby Jindal had a tough act to follow. He had to rebut a popular American president, one of the most gifted orators since perhaps Lincoln himself. The president had just given an impassioned speech, had the Congress swooning and, gasp, its members hugging him. Now, since when do men hug each other like that?
And here comes Jindal. He is not a presence, nor does he have the gift of oratory, that much we knew. We knew, however, that he was a smart man, perhaps of intellect to equal the president's. Jindal's voice is not thunderous, his speech lacks the cadence that the president so skillfully employs, we knew that too. To expect him to match the president would have been impossible. But we expected Jindal to at least give us something different than what so many of us were used to as coming from the GOP. After all, he is supposed to be the standard bearer of the new GOP. And what happened? He came across as "amateurish," uncomfortable, and not genuine. Hmmmm, how did that happen?
I am a Korean-American woman who lives in the South. I live on the coast of North Carolina, and I stick out. There is simply no getting around it. I go to PTA meetings. I am the only Asian. I go to school board meetings. I am the only Asian. In fact, I make frequent appearance on the news, not as a reporter, but as someone that the camera zooms on. Call me a token. That is just the way it is where I live.
I have lived in North Carolina now going on 10 years. I have picked up a little bit of the Southern drawl, and I can sometimes imitate it pretty well. My musical training has helped me with that. However, I may talk like that all I want, but I make no mistake about the fact that, in the locals' eyes, I am never one of them. I know that. I simply don't look the part. So I don't try to be. I find that I get more respect for knowing what I am talking about rather than sounding like one of them.
So, here is what Bobby Jindal did wrong. He tried too hard to sound like everyone. He tried to be the folksy hero that the Republicans have tried to serve up every election. Therein lies the first of his two mistakes. He forgot that folksy did not work during this election. Sarah Palin had the folksiness all locked up, and she didn't help the party any. In fact, she made folksiness popular at the cost of being intelligent. So instead of being folksy, he should have been himself, arguing and making valid points.
Much more than that, however, is the second mistake that he made. In trying to be folksy, Bobby Jindal forgot who he was. The reason that he has been hailed as the savior of the Republican party is because he is so unlike the Republicans of the recent past. He is the child of immigrants, he is young, he is not Wonder Bread white, and he is patently intelligent. But he tried so hard to be one of them, to be folksy. I know, and I bet he knows that he will never, ever be folksy in so many folksy people's eyes. He simply does not look the part just like I will never be a Southerner.
Perhaps Jindal's cluelessness is just indicative of the implosion within the GOP itself. As David Brooks argues, it doesn't know where it wants to go, what it wants to be. While personifying the kind of transformation that the GOP needs by simply being what he is, Bobby Jindal does not know how to convince the GOP any other way than the good old folksy way. The new GOP and the old GOP are mutually exclusive. And that is the logical conclusion that he should have drawn before he appeared before the camera.
So, here is to more implosions with the GOP. The drama continues.Sunday, January 18, 2009
New Era
In just two days Bush will no longer be the POTUS. Hurray to that! And Barack Obama will be the next POTUS. Double HURRAY to that!
I was offered an inauguration ticket. I don't know whether that was because I volunteered so much during the campaign or because I gave whatever I could of my money so that Obama could pay his people.
I loved all the field organizers that worked out of my town's field office. They were all young, idealistic people, people who had put their own lives on hold to take part in something greater than themselves. They felt a calling, and they literally dropped everything to help out in the movement that they saw as their generation's duty. Most of them were college students who had taken a year off. Now what did I do when I was in college? Hmmm. Some were already successful in their careers, but were besieged by doubts as to whatever they were doing was at all meaningful.
Now we are about to swear in Obama as our new president. I believe that this is a moment that I will not forget the rest of my life. I wish I could have gone to the inauguration. I had to give up the ticket because I was offered only one ticket. But I can't possibly go without my family. They helped me volunteer. My husband by babysitting countless hours, my children by helping me decorate the office, sort papers, make meals for the staff members. It was an effort that really took the whole family.
As Tuesday nears, I am going to sit back with my family and watch the inauguration. And I will be beaming with joy.
I was offered an inauguration ticket. I don't know whether that was because I volunteered so much during the campaign or because I gave whatever I could of my money so that Obama could pay his people.
I loved all the field organizers that worked out of my town's field office. They were all young, idealistic people, people who had put their own lives on hold to take part in something greater than themselves. They felt a calling, and they literally dropped everything to help out in the movement that they saw as their generation's duty. Most of them were college students who had taken a year off. Now what did I do when I was in college? Hmmm. Some were already successful in their careers, but were besieged by doubts as to whatever they were doing was at all meaningful.
Now we are about to swear in Obama as our new president. I believe that this is a moment that I will not forget the rest of my life. I wish I could have gone to the inauguration. I had to give up the ticket because I was offered only one ticket. But I can't possibly go without my family. They helped me volunteer. My husband by babysitting countless hours, my children by helping me decorate the office, sort papers, make meals for the staff members. It was an effort that really took the whole family.
As Tuesday nears, I am going to sit back with my family and watch the inauguration. And I will be beaming with joy.
Help and Love Those Near You
Ok, I am not a conservative. Never will be. There is just so much about this world to love.
Conservatives believe that this world is imperfect. Conservatives believe that human nature is imperfect. We need to always be on guard so as not to fall to temptations, not to give into impulses, not to live as sinners. The whole world is one big temptation, and we need to be constantly vigilant because you never know where the next danger lies. We are just one split second away from falling.
Wow. How can you live like that? I would much rather believe that, though we are not perfect, we are within ourselves the Divine. Why would the Supreme Being create us in her image and not lend us divinity? Only if you recognize your own divinity, we empower ourselves. We can in our own way affect. That is what I would like to believe. Together we can march toward perfection. We may never get there, but it sure is a powerful incentive.
Conservatives believe that this world is imperfect. Conservatives believe that human nature is imperfect. We need to always be on guard so as not to fall to temptations, not to give into impulses, not to live as sinners. The whole world is one big temptation, and we need to be constantly vigilant because you never know where the next danger lies. We are just one split second away from falling.
Wow. How can you live like that? I would much rather believe that, though we are not perfect, we are within ourselves the Divine. Why would the Supreme Being create us in her image and not lend us divinity? Only if you recognize your own divinity, we empower ourselves. We can in our own way affect. That is what I would like to believe. Together we can march toward perfection. We may never get there, but it sure is a powerful incentive.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Can Yogis Be Conservative?
When I volunteered for Obama during the summer, I had a curious encounter with an undecided voter. I walked up his driveway, and I noticed a sticker from a local yoga studio on his car. When I finally talked to him, he said he wasn't too sure who he was going to vote for. Having been immersed in yoga for a few years now and training to become a teacher, I just can't see how someone who practices yoga can have a conservative mind.
Let's see. First it is necessary to define "conservative." Though there is no facile, universal definition of "conservative," I believe it is safe to say that "conservatives" believe in looking for answers in the past. They believe in "good, old" values and tradition and are, therefore, resistant to change. They also tend to look outside themselves for guidance, most notably from religion. That seems to be true especially of conservatives of today.
Yoga, on the other hand, teaches enlightenment within yourself. You look inward to find peace and practice to live in the moment, for anything other than the present moment is not within our ability to fully enjoy. If you look too much into future, you may be fearful of the unknowables happening. If you look too much in the past, you may be fearful of the bad things repeating. Therefore, you may live in the grip of fear if you are not able to focus on the present.
I refuse to live in fear. I would much rather live for the moment, focusing on making each moment more beautiful than the last. Isn't that what progress is?
Let's see. First it is necessary to define "conservative." Though there is no facile, universal definition of "conservative," I believe it is safe to say that "conservatives" believe in looking for answers in the past. They believe in "good, old" values and tradition and are, therefore, resistant to change. They also tend to look outside themselves for guidance, most notably from religion. That seems to be true especially of conservatives of today.
Yoga, on the other hand, teaches enlightenment within yourself. You look inward to find peace and practice to live in the moment, for anything other than the present moment is not within our ability to fully enjoy. If you look too much into future, you may be fearful of the unknowables happening. If you look too much in the past, you may be fearful of the bad things repeating. Therefore, you may live in the grip of fear if you are not able to focus on the present.
I refuse to live in fear. I would much rather live for the moment, focusing on making each moment more beautiful than the last. Isn't that what progress is?
Democracy vs. Republic
This from a letter to the editor in Star News: "The United States is a republic and not a democracy and the majority does not rule."
I have to agree with that. If democracy were synonymous only with the majority rule, then everything would be relative. The majority rule trivializes inalienable human rights. In other words, there would be no inherent rights, only those that the majority would vote for. Imagine the struggle for Civil Rights in the 60's. Can we imagine voting for Civil Rights? And are we sure that the majority would have voted for the Act?
For example, prop 8 in California. It put gay marriage, which was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court of California, to a vote. The scant majority (even that is questionable as many people did not even vote on the proposition) voted for the proposition in banning gay marriage. The majority ruled here that gay people do not have a right to marry when the state Supreme Court, in interpreting the state law, said they did. Hmm. I think that this majority rule is dangerous. Another case in point: I like to point out to my students that Nazis were also voted into office.
It truly is important for citizens to be educated so that the vocal majority does not rule and the true majority does not remain silent.
I have to agree with that. If democracy were synonymous only with the majority rule, then everything would be relative. The majority rule trivializes inalienable human rights. In other words, there would be no inherent rights, only those that the majority would vote for. Imagine the struggle for Civil Rights in the 60's. Can we imagine voting for Civil Rights? And are we sure that the majority would have voted for the Act?
For example, prop 8 in California. It put gay marriage, which was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court of California, to a vote. The scant majority (even that is questionable as many people did not even vote on the proposition) voted for the proposition in banning gay marriage. The majority ruled here that gay people do not have a right to marry when the state Supreme Court, in interpreting the state law, said they did. Hmm. I think that this majority rule is dangerous. Another case in point: I like to point out to my students that Nazis were also voted into office.
It truly is important for citizens to be educated so that the vocal majority does not rule and the true majority does not remain silent.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Bush's Contribution to American Culture, Finally.
I see on blogs and on facebook that a lot of people are getting ready to send and/or throw shoes (sadly, only symbolically) at Bush. We are truly taking cue from our Iraqi friend.
And then it dawned on me; this could be Bush's unique contribution to American culture. We didn't know before we invaded Iraq that being hit with shoes is a supreme insults in that part of the world. And how symbolic it is!
Being Korean-American, I can tell you that, at least in Korean culture, feet are considered the dirtiest part of your body. Why? I can only guess, but I will try. Just the little bit of Korean culture that I know tells me that, again at least in Korean culture, there is no romantic notion of Mother Earth. Earth is dirt, and dirt is dirty. And so being hit with shoes that amble on this dirt, I can see why being hit with shoes in that part of the world is also an insult.
So, here we are. Bush might have inadvertently introduced the shoe as the agent of insult to American culture.
And then it dawned on me; this could be Bush's unique contribution to American culture. We didn't know before we invaded Iraq that being hit with shoes is a supreme insults in that part of the world. And how symbolic it is!
Being Korean-American, I can tell you that, at least in Korean culture, feet are considered the dirtiest part of your body. Why? I can only guess, but I will try. Just the little bit of Korean culture that I know tells me that, again at least in Korean culture, there is no romantic notion of Mother Earth. Earth is dirt, and dirt is dirty. And so being hit with shoes that amble on this dirt, I can see why being hit with shoes in that part of the world is also an insult.
So, here we are. Bush might have inadvertently introduced the shoe as the agent of insult to American culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
