topic: I should write a book

Well…now Time Magazine has decided to promote my book on their cover.  But…why the hell are we called “twixters?” because we’re betwixed and between?  If you haven’t read the article, it basically fills in anyone 45+ (or around those ages) what it means to be a twentysomething today.  They even had “School Daze” as a heading for part of the article, discussing how more and more kids are going to college, and college is so very far removed from providing anything resembling the skills necessary in real life.  Anyways…will be posting more on that shorty.  Thanks to all for the ongoing debates.  One idea I had to make politics more peaceful, was to have politicians go on an Outward Bound course together…seriously.  Make the Democrats and Republicans go camping, and rely on each other to carry the gear, the poop shovel, the toilet paper, the trail mix, the tents.  Maybe that experience would help people find some common ground.  When we do not have any personal connection to people, we can quickly grow hostile, which has shown itself in some of the debates on this site. 

In that spirit, I hope to encourage those who wish to debate certain points on my site to refrain from ad hominem attacks.  First of all, it lowers the entire level of debate.  Second of all, it distracts from the issues, and third of all, when we feel hostile to one another, we become intolerant to ideas different than our own.  Our goal should be to educate one another, for if we believe strongly enough that someone is misguided, we should be concered with enlightening them, and in the process, enlighten ourselves.

Topic: late night web surfing

my last post led me some important discoveries.  My views on life have not changed much, but my views on politics and society have.  Limited by resources, I’ve been forced to choose from a limited number of options.  Thus…i’ve seen just two camps, the left and the right.  Being a lefty (politically and in hand-writing), I’ve had to acknowledge that I don’t know enough to buy 100% into the left, nor should I be so close-minded as to discredit the right’s critique’s of the left. 

I’ve been yearning for a middle, a self-reflective ideology that could look at both sides, and keep its values of fighting for justice, equality, etc.  And, I rediscovered the views of the Social Democrats, but, now with new meaning.  I found several speeches given by SD’s, and the theory behind a mixed socialist-capitalist society, as well as the context of their views, put things a lot more in focus for me.

Without altering facts, they provide an alternative story.  Socialism…good in theory, but easily manipulated for evil.  Also, socialism is opposed to capitalism, and clearly capitalism has its benefits, although it’s not perfect.  So…we gotta mix the two.  It’s the way things have been, and it’s a natural middle ground. 

What struck me though, especially today, is thinking about the use of violence for a cause.  I need to read more about the Cold War…I’ve been shocked to learn that the US overthrew democratically elected governments that were social democracies.  But…if the heart of Communism was a revolution to overthrow capitalist democracies, then the US had to fight.

One thing that has bugged me that I haven’t questioned out loud, is left’s criticism of America for violently suppressing other violent “good name” causes.  Reading Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States,” I never fully grasped how he painted a bad picture of the American gov’t for arresting violent socialist groups.  Was the cause of socialism so just, that America could not protect itself from violence? 

Chomsky paints US “national security” as a joke, because it really stands for opposing socialist policies.  In the cases where the US did overthrow socialist democracies because their economic interests threatened our own, I believe the US to be immoral.  But…to fight against a government that is a true physical threat to our security, is legitimate.  Since the spread of Communism was not simply the spread of an economic ideal, but was the spread of an economic ideal tied to a violent revolution to overthrow capitalist democracy, then we have a different picture of the Cold War than the one Chomsky paints.

My roommate also opened my eyes to Chomsky’s anti-Israel stance.  He brought up the question, why is there so much focus on Israel, but not on the totalitarian regimes in the Middle East.  Reading some words from the Socialist Democracy website  showed me how much they appreciate American democracy.  This is something I spoke about in my last post, how the left, in its criticisms of American government, tends to see only the bad, and none of the good.  Rather than spread some of the good, they are focussed solely on preventing the spread of the bad parts.  The result of this, is a focus on people who they feel are exploited by capitalists, but a failure to some degree to focus on people who are exploited by dictators. 

Here is where I’ve picked up the split between full-pledged socialists, and social democrats.  The latter recognize that America’s capitalist shortcomings do not undermine America’s relatively progressive human rights record at home.  The SD’s, therefore, are opposed to non-democratice regimes and the human rights violations they commit. 

So, without feeling like I have been wrong about my beliefs on the Iraq war up until now, I can at least be more open to thinking that Saddam had to go.  The important thing, however, is consistancy.  I think SD’s believe in political freedom first, and economic freedom will follow.  America’s foreign policy has put economic freedom (neoliberal policy) at its forefront.

Is war against evil justified?  Only as long as that’s your true aim, and this is where other US activities come into play.

The question is, for those of us who oppose war and support peace, what is our view to assist those who suffer at the hands of oppressive rulers?

Topic: time for patriotism!!!

I am mine, you are yours, you are what you are, you make it haaaaard…………

I don’t want to compare myself to others…but, society has taught me to do so.  Last night, I celbrated some guys 27th b-day from ESPN Zone, a really cool guy, but I use the fact the he’s 4 years older than me to justify the fact that I’m on pace to be “farther ahead in life,” when I’m 27.  This is what I told my roommate anyways, he quickly called me out, especially since I’ve been arguing to him that we can’t simply compare the standard of living in America to that of the 3rd world, we need to hold America to its own standards.  Therefore, I shouldn’t be comparing my life to others.

I realize I’ve been turned into a competitive machine.  Deep down, I believe we can look around us to see how we’re doing, but, at the end, the only race is with ourselves.  My crass comparison of “how I’m doing” compared to other people, is a comparison that has been instilled in me by society.  Actually…it’s more a comparison that’s been instilled in me by family, and probably instilled in them by family as well, but it all comes from society.

For example, the fact that I am trying to find my own way in life, to not follow the crowd, and to do something “good,” with my life, hasn’t been received well by many close to me.  What would have been received well is simple. “Hey…i’m going to law school to be a lawyer,” or, “Hey…I’m going to work on Wall Street.”  So, in order to appease those who have been more interested in the job title that labels who I am, than who I actually am and what I actually do, I have been forced to compare myself.  “Hey…remember so and so, he’s in law school and miserable,” or “Hey…remember so and so, they still haven’t found a job.”  In other words, while I am not pursuing a life of competition with anyone other than myself and by my own standards of what I should be pushing myself to accomplish, I am forced to use comparative methods to justify myself to others. (however, I have my own standard on how people of similar background to me should live life, mainly, that they should live life to its fullest, to push themselves, to follow their passions, and when I see people following money or security at the expense of them developing more of themselves, then I hold those people to the same standard I hold to myself, and try to push those people.  While I cannot help but think about what others are doing w/ their lives, I am extremely hard on myself, and I compare myself to people like Lance Armstrong, who live every day as if it were their last, or Kurt Hahn who founded Outward Bound w/ the belief that we should find the moral equivalant of war, turn our disabilities into opportunities, and constantly improve ourselves.)

As far as politics is concerned, I believe we can look around, and see ways in which America is ahead of other countries, and ways in which we are behind.  At the end of the day, we have a very simple scale to measure how well America is doing.  How well are we living up to the “American dream,” for everyone to be able to enjoy a little life, a little liberty, and a little pursuit of happiness.  By that standard, America is doing poorly.  Whatever politics you believe in, that’s the standard we go by.  Things are improving though.  And, I believe, things are improving because we are a democracy and because we have capitalism.  But, if Lance Armstrong and Kurt Hahn were countries, pushing their physical limits after facing near death and making compassion as noble as war has become, than America would have a long way to go to matching those countries.

Still…I feel the need to be pro-American, because it is easy to become extreme and come off as anti-American in an attempt to promote American values.  So…I’ll state it here.  I’m happy for baseball, apple pie, the internet, Seinfeld.  I’m happy that there is a growing independent media to give the news not shown in corporate media.  I’m happy that we have some of the most amazing geography in the world, from beaches to mountains to desert.  I’m happy that there are so many organizations where people work to help those less fortunate.  I’m happy that there are people monitoring and debating what our government does, and I’m happy that when people organize, they can create positive change in society.

And I love how bad we are too.  Not that I want the bad to stay, I just love these things in a way that I love how I took a bunch of chocolate home from work and I think it melted in my pocket.  You just throw your hands up sometimes, and say, “what the fuck”  So…I love that our president choked on a pretzle, I love that Jon Stewart got Tucker what’s his face from CNN fired, I love that 4 years and $120,000 at an elite university means I have a worthless piece of paper in my room, I love that I’m supposed to marry a Jewish girl, but my real destiny is simply to marry a girl with an accent and if they eat bacon…well, I won’t eat it, but it won’t stop me from shaggin’ her if she’s shaggable, and I love that ABC showed Austin Powers tonight and they actually edited the audio and visual when they’re talking about the Sweditsh penis pump, and I love that Time magazine has a cover article about young adults who “just won’t grow up,” and I love that I’ve finally been recognized on the cover of Time magazine, and I love that I had this dream where I was a teacher but everyone knew everything and it just made me realize how little I know about the world and how what you know really doesn’t matter all that much sometimes, and I love how there’s a Family Guy episode when Peter, the father, says, “that’s not the first time my stomach has gotten me into trouble,” and then it shows him hiding w/ Anne Frank and slowly crunching on a potato chip as the Nazis enter the house, and I love sharing my life w/ total strangers (and the Craiger!!!)

 

Topic: just blabbing

So…my good Israeli friend asks me if I’m going back to work at summer camp this coming summer.  We made a pact, if one of us goes, the other goes too.  Last summer, we both bonded, became best friends, and had 100′s of ideas for how to improve the camp, make it more rugged, outdoorsy, adventury, educational.  Now, the time has come, do we want to work to improve the camp as we see it needs improving, or, move on to other adventures in our lives.

The directors met w/ my friend in Israel, and are trying to convince him to come back.  Like myself, he went from not even considering it, to still preferring to do something else, but now considering it.  He asked my advice and said, “before making any big decision, have a beer.”

Well…I’m sipping back a Copper Ale, described as a medium-bodied amber ale, and I’ve decided, no camp this year.  Although it’s a guaranteed 2months of fun, and meeting amazing people from all over the world, there’s other things driving us.  My friend may be working in South Africa, and I expect to have several possible work opportunities w/ Outward Bound.  So, onward to the future.

Also…saw Meet the Faulkers today.  Laughed my heart out.  Go see the damn movie ok, and put on a smily face and laugh, because I said so.

Ok…off to the ESPN Zone, to bring some people their food, so they can give me money, so I can buy myself food, alcohol, and put some cash away to travel next year!!!

holla at your boy!!!

Topic: utopia?

The socialism/liberalism vs. capitalism/conservatism debate, is at the heart of politics, the media, and education.  It is the root of wars past and present, and the cause of so much confusion and anger between people.  The depth and breadth of the debate is just now shining light on me, as well as the underlying content, which I am beginning to embrace.

Here’s a quote from Frontpagemag.com

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Daniel J. Flynn, the author of Why the Left Hates America and of the new book Intellectual Morons : How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas.

FP: I hope you are right. But overall, as long as humans remain who they are — fallen and flawed — I think the socialist impulse will never go away, and will remain the easiest thing for people to cling to. Indeed, as long as inequality exists, so will the impulse toward equality, and so millions more humans will be tortured, starved and exterminated.

 

We can’t make things “right” and “perfect” in this world, because only God is perfect. And because of original sin and free will, imperfection and tragedy must be constant realities of human life. For many humans, however, the easiest thing intellectually is to believe that this can be fixed and that heaven can be built on earth – an experiment that always leads to hell on earth. And so the Left will remain powerful and continue to build more human hells in its utopian experiments, which now involves the glorification of the suicide bomber.

 

What do you think?

 

Flynn: The idea that man can be perfected is the most dangerous delusion. Whether it’s an Islamic terrorist attempting to establish Allah’s earthly kingdom, a Nazi believing that a perfect race of men can be created, or a Communist looking to make Heaven on Earth, the motivation of these fanatics is the same. They are all utopians.

 

The road to heaven on earth always seems to detour to hell on earth. If you really believe that your ideology will bring salvation to humanity, what would you be willing to do to impose this world-saving idea? Would you be willing to lie? To kill? Looking back on the last hundred years, the answer too often is yes. When you’re building utopia, all is permitted. No end is greater, so no means can be too base to get there.”

 

Dan’s thoughts:  I’ve just picked up some pretty thick irony here.  First of all, by criticizing the left in its attempts to bring about utopia on earth, the right must be arguing:

capitalism is not going to bring about utopia, but it’s more desirable than thinking about utopia, since that always ends bad.  But, it’s hard to argue against utopia w/ non-utopia.  All idologies are based on a belief of what would create the BEST world.  The right supports capitalism not because the utopia of socialism has led to bad things, but because they believe capitalism is the only utopia available.  For the right, just like the left, “no end is greater, so no means can be too base to get there.”

 

But…the irony is that the right is blind to the injustices committed in the name of capitalism.  They can point to Russia, to China, to North Korea, and say, “here’s Communism for ya,” but, they deflect the wrong-doings of capitalist democracies, as explained here…

 

This is from an interview in the Washington Witness, my own universities conservative newspaper:

 

WITNESS: You finish your book with: “Americans love their country not only because America is their country. Our country is loved because she is lovely.” You give many reasons throughout your book about why America is lovely, but is their one thing that sticks out in your mind that is exemplary of America’s beauty?

Flynn: I think the thing that sticks out most is that this really is a land of freedom. If you look at the world today, most people living outside of western civilization have no say in who their rulers are. Even today our government is the exception, not the rule. When you go back 225 years or so, it was certainly unique at that point. But when you discuss these matters with Leftists the stock response that you encounter is that free blacks were excluded from voting, women were excluded in most places, if you didn’t have a certain amount of land you were excluded. It’s true, that was the case at that time. What bothers me about that argument, though, is it implies it was somehow unique to America, that we were the only country that had such specifications for voting. What was unique about America in 1776 and 1787 was that we allowed anyone the ability to vote….The extent of democracy that we had at that time was more expansive than any other country at that time in the world, and yet the Left still finds a way to make us look bad. It’s grasping at straws. That’s the part of America that I like the best – the idea that we stand as a beacon of freedom in an un-free world.”

 

This is the testimony of one of what is a large number of people who would call Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn idiots as quickly as I would put that lable on Bush.  So…what makes these guys tick???

 

First of all, there’s the view that morality is relative.  If slavery was the norm, than slavery was moral.  They say: “Do poor Americans have it better than poor Africans?  Of course they do.  So, why is there all this complaining about American poverty?”  I go back to my simplified model for understanding the left/right divide.  The left is concerned with a glass that is only half full, and is focussed on addressing the empty half, while the right is content that our glass is half full, in fact, it’s more full than any other country. 

 

There’s no question that socialism is a form of idealism.  It wants a full glass, so none are left behind.  It’s a belief that people should not grow up in poverty, w/out food, a decent home, or education.  That people should get paid a decent wage.  That some sense of community should exist.  I’ve hardly given a solid account of socialism, but it’s the general ideas that attract myself and many others.  The idea that there is misery in the world now, and we should work to end that misery. 

 

One common theme I’ve noticed from the right, is that failure of utopian movements in the past, proves utopian movements are inherant failures.  Islamic terrorists, Hitler, Stalin, are examples of how pursuit of utopia can be distorted, but they are not proofs that we cannot, and that we should not, create a better world. 

 

I have taken for granted that Zinn and Chomsky have been honest in their writings, and their efforts to improve the lives of many.  It is my duty to examine them w/ the same skepticism I should have of any source…and to truly be open-minded and a critical thinking student (we’re all students, even after school), requires reading those on the right, and their criticisms of the left.

 

However, I cannot hold back, nor should I, skepticism of conservatives…especially as they’re leading campaigns to document the liberal nature of higher education, which I will not dispute.  But it shows further how the idea of looking at both sides can hardly exist in this country.  Conservatives are no more interested in creating a balance of ideas on campus as creating conservative colleges.  Daniel Flynn is just one of a 100% conservative cast behind “accuracy in academia.”  Too fishy for my taste, but won’t stop me from hearing what they have to say.

Topic: perhaps the most important questions

Are social programs a drain on the economy?

Is a strong economy a drain on society?

How does the perceived strenth of the US dollar affect the world?

basic econ question: The US gov’t and US businesses borrow money from foreign banks.  The US gov’t and US businesses invest that money in various things.  While in a deficit, the gov’t and businesses are able to pay off the interest payments on their loans, as long as they’re bringing in revenue.  The bottom line for the US gov’t and businesses is to generate revenue to pay off those loans.  Besides taxes, where does the US gov’t get its revenue?  What is the relationship between the strenghth of the US gov’t financially, and the strength of US businesses financially?

Why is the English pound the strongest currency in the world?  Can we draw any conclusions between the strength of their currency and the fact that they spend more on public programs like healthcare and higher education than America?

What are some ways in which government is too big, and should get off our backs?

What are some ways in which we should be thankful for the size of the gov’t, and call for more involvement?

Besides education, medicare, medicaid, and social security, what industries are largely socialized/subsidized/publicly own?  (water, power, food…)

In many countries, there is controversy surrounding the privatization of water.  Anyone know much about this issue?

 

Topic: books

If you could recommend one or more books, what would they be (and why?)

Topic: musings on work and activism

Life is constantly changing.  Every single second, of every single day, of every single living organism, is constantly changing.  For the most part, people live within a spectrum of “normal,” where the constantly changing world does not really affect that person.  This is our comfort zone.  It’s not until a person experiences something monumental, say a death of a loved one, does their reality change.  The unease you would feel bungy jumping, or changing jobs, is caused by leaving your comfort zone. 

Political life, I think, follows a similar pattern.  For the most part, people view the world within a spectrum of “normal,” where daily events are constantly changing, but for the most part, everything is going as planned.  This is our political comfort zone.  An event like 9/11 shook things for America, but even that was temporary.  As the last article I posted demonstrates, the way we expect certain events to affect us is not always consistant with how we feel.

The “truth” about politics, as far as I’ve come to understand it, and certainly I need to read the opposing view-points, is that US gov’t policy is anti-child, anti-family, anti-workers, anti-poor, anti-peace, anti-”democracy,” anti-environment, pro-rich.  Learning this truth, has required leaving my political, and personal, comfort zones.  For most Americans, those truths do not fit within their political spectrum.  Until a few weeks ago, it didn’t fit within my own spectrum.

As this truth has come into my spectrum of politics, it has also come to affect my views on life.  My understanding of history and politics has changed me as a person.  In addition to enjoying life and helping people, I now am critically thinking what it means to help people. 

There’s a story I was recently told of a child who helps out at a soup kitchen.  He has a great experience, and says, “I really hope this soup kitchen is still around so my kids can also do this.”

Point being…service to other human beings is laudable, but, we should aim to fix those conditions which send people to soup kitchens in the first place.

So…the changing of my historic and political realities, has changed my reality of the type of work, and the type of life, I should live.  I want to help people live lives of happiness, personal satisfaction, achieving more than they believe they can achieve.  That’s what I get to do at Outward Bound.  But, what I also need to work for is changing the conditions that make people depressed, that make people pursue jobs of money and little joy, jobs that stifle the potential of people.

More importantly, I must address one of the core componants of Outward Bound.  “Service.”  Every Outward Bound course has a service componant, which highlights the value of “compassion,” which is at the core philosophy of Outward Bound.  But, doing service to others is very much an act of staying with our personal and political comfort zones.  Outward Bound should really be concerned with eliminating the conditions that require service (both to humans and to the earth) which requires leaving our personal and political comfort zones, and addressing the “truth” that US government, influenced by the greed of individuals who run private (though publicly subsidized) corporations, is the root cause of harm done to people and the environment.  

I’ve had to re-think a bit the idea of “doing good.”  Imagine a utopian society.  Classless.  All are equal.  Everyone shares.  Everyone gets along.  In that world, what would be considered meaningful work?  I previously limited my definition of meaningful work to “helping people,” but in a world where there are no soup kitchens, we can re-define meaningful work as any work you find enjoyable, and that someone will pay for.   

In this world, it’s ok to take on mundane jobs, from being a bartender, to tending sheep.  Meaning does not come from helping others.  There are no “noble” jobs to change the world, since the world does not need changing.  There would be no Peace Corps, Teach for America, Outward Bound, investigative journalism, social justice organizations, environmental groups, etc.  

I think I’m beginning to root out my own prejudices against certain types of work.  If a person who grew up in wealth and attended a prestigious school, decides they want to spend their life running a bar, isn’t that more than justified?

It’s the Matt Damon theory, when he says he wants to be a shepherd.  Just because he had an intellectual gift, in no way demanded that he do anything with that gift. 

Here’s some questions:

How important is it to contribute to changing the world?
Since we do not live in a utopian world, is it our duty to work towards that goal?
What affect does knowledge and experience have on this equation?  For example, not all human beings are in a position to eliminate the conditions that require soup kitchens.  What are the people who require soup kitchens supposed to do?
Are some people (people of privilage?) in more of a position (more obligated?) to work towards eliminating the conditions that require soup kitchens?
What role do people play who pursue lives that interest them, whether running a bar, being a shepherd, whatever, but do not work to address social injustice?
Is US culture “set-up” to encourage pursuing work that does not address social injustice?
Is US culture “set-up” to encourage not having the knowledge or experience that there are social injustices, and to not know how to address them?

Four More Years of Happiness

By DANIEL GILBERT

Published: January 20, 2005

Peter Hoey ARTICLE TOOLS E-Mail This Article Printer-Friendly Format Most E-Mailed Articles READERS’ OPINIONS Forum: Join a Discussion on Op-Ed Contributors 1. Op-Ed Columnist: Don’t Know Much About Algebra 2. Conservatives Pick Soft Target: A Cartoon Sponge 3. Op-Ed Columnist: An American in Paris 4. State of the Art: New Ways to Manage Your Photos 5. Op-Ed Contributor: Four More Years of Happiness Go to Complete List

ambridge, Mass.

BY now, most of the people I know should be Canadians. At least that’s what they said they’d be if President Bush won re-election. And yet, my unofficial tally suggests that the number of disgruntled Democrats who actually emigrated northward is roughly zero, plus or minus none.

November saw more than its share of cursing, wailing and gnashing of teeth in some quarters, but by the middle of December the weeping had largely subsided and most of the people I know were busy buying gifts. With the exception of the junior senator from Massachusetts and a few hundred others whose lives and livelihoods hinged on the election’s outcome, most Democrats had a good cry, kicked something until it broke, then slipped quietly back into their daily routines of family, work and television.

The speed and ease with which normalcy returned should not have surprised anyone. In the last decade, psychologists and economists have conducted numerous studies to determine how accurately people can predict their emotional reactions to future events. They’ve studied people’s responses to misfortunes ranging from romantic breakups to financial losses, from personal insults to personal injuries, and the results of these studies have converged on a single conclusion: people typically overestimate the intensity and duration of their emotional reactions to adversity.

Mr. Bush in particular has been breaking Democratic hearts since he first ran for governor in Texas in 1994. But studies of that and subsequent elections reveal that voters were rarely as unhappy a few weeks after he won as they predicted they would be when they were doing their best to help him lose. And it wasn’t Mr. Bush’s performance that changed their minds, because those who voted against him returned to their original levels of happiness even before he was sworn in.

So what happened? Research suggests that human beings have a remarkable ability to manufacture happiness. For example, when people in experiments are randomly awarded one of two equally valuable prizes, they quickly come to believe that the prize they won was more valuable than the prize they lost. They are often so surprised by their apparent good fortune that they refuse to believe the prize was awarded randomly, and they are generally unwilling to swap their prizes even when the experimenter offers to sweeten the deal with a little extra cash.

Things do seem to turn out for the best – but studies suggest that this has less to do with the way things turn out than with our natural tendency to seek, notice, remember, generate and uncritically accept information that makes us happy.

Our ability to spin gold from the dross of our experience means that we often find ourselves flourishing in circumstances we once dreaded. We fear divorces, natural disasters and financial hardships until they happen, at which point we recognize them as opportunities to reinvent ourselves, to bond with our neighbors and to transcend the spiritual poverty of material excess. When the going gets tough, the mind gets going on a hunt for silver linings, and most linings are sufficiently variegated to reward the mind’s quest.

So when President Bush puts his hand on the Bible today and begins his second term, Republicans will not be the only ones thinking about how lucky they are. Democrats will surely remind one another that the dollar is down, the deficit is up, foreign relations are in disarray and the party that presides over this looming miasma may well have elected its last president for decades to come.

At the same time, Democrats will tell themselves that they did everything they could – they wrote more checks and cast more ballots than ever before – so if the president and his party insist that Democrats now enjoy a fat tax break, then why feel guilty? And they will inevitably note that if just over half the fans at an Ohio State football game had voted for John Kerry instead of the president, a different man would be taking the oath of office today.

In short, Democrats will realize that winning isn’t always such a good thing – and besides, they almost won.

Of course, not everyone will be happy today, because not everyone has this talent for reasoning his way to happiness. Throughout history, there have always been a few unfortunates who found it impossible to reframe negative events in positive ways, and these poor souls were predictably less happy than the rest of us. Lincoln, for example, was perpetually melancholic. Martin Luther King Jr. had more bad than good days. “Suffering and evil often overwhelm me,” said Gandhi from the midst of a depression, “and I stew in my own juice.”

Many of the heroes and redeemers we most admire were unhappy people who found it impossible to change how they felt about the world – which left them no choice but to change the world itself. Outrage, anger, fear and frustration are unpleasant emotions that most of us vanquish through artful reasoning; but unpleasant emotions can also be spurs to action – clamorous urges that we may silence at our peril.

As we watch the inauguration today, Republicans will take satisfaction in their victory and Democrats will find satisfaction in their defeat. But tomorrow it will be a nation – and not a party – that faces the dire problems of war, terrorism, poverty and intolerance. Perhaps over the next four years we would all be wise to suppress our natural talent for happiness and strive instead to be truly, deeply distressed.

Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, is the author of the forthcoming “Stumbling on Happiness.”

TOPIC: 3rd world America, and a new site with great animation

2 and a half years ago, I did an internship in DC, as a criminal defense investigator.  One of my clients, was a woman accused of threatening the life of her landlord.  It was my job, with my partner, to learn as much as possible about the case.  I remember our attempts to meet with the landlord, who lived in NW DC in a nice house, with two BMW’s parked out front.  First, we called, and actually set-up a time to visit her.  The husband was home, but after keeping us waiting for 30min., told us his wife, the landlord, wouldn’t be coming home that night.  Another time, we arrived and the children were sent out, telling us they were having dinner, and their mom couldn’t speak to us.  We realized we weren’t going to get our interview.  We did receive a call back though, telling our attorneys to stop terrorizing her.

We also had an opportunity to meet with our client.  She was married, and had three kids, one of whom I learned to be autistic, which was recognizable from his constant back-and-forth rocking.  The first time we met our client, we all sat down in the three plastic lawn chairs they had in their living room.  One of them collapsed under the weight of our client (a somewhat large woman), and we all laughed and helped her back up.  She was a sweet woman, living in a run-down apartment.  There was no air conditioning, but a few cheap fans trying to cool down the apartment in what was an extremely hot DC summer.  In the winter, she told us, they have a few heaters, but it’s pretty cold.

One of her kids was doing math problems on the fridge.  He didn’t have any other supplies, and couldn’t afford to go to any summer programs.

Our client lived in Section 8 housing, which pays 70% of rent, through the government agency called HUD (Housing and Urban Development).  I wasn’t thinking much about politics back then, but I can see now how taxes and spending through gov’t subsidies were essential to allowing our client to live, even in the poor home she had. 

The landlord turned out to be literally crazy.  We had a hearing with her at HUD in DC, and she started shouting and screaming about how our client was destroying the apartment.  I tried speaking with her after the hearing, and she was literally incoherant, throwing pictures all over the floor of damage to the apartment (damage, which records showed, had been there for years). 

Through our investigation, we also learned through an interview w/ a heating repair company how the landlord had made no attempts to fix the heat, and how she may in fact have “blown the place up if she tried to fix it herself, without contacting a specialist.” 

What upset me at the time was the underlying story of this case.  Rich vs. poor.  How a rich landlord was probably just upset that she had to partake in the HUD program, when she could be making more money elsewhere.  How our poor client, who couldn’t even meet the basic financial needs of her children, was facing the possibility of being booted from her home. 

(we won the case, and got a HUD extension for our client!!!)

Like most of my life, I’ve gone through dramatic experiences, without the aid of others to help me in interpreting what’s going on.  I was left with all these thoughts and questions, forgotten, although now re-discovered.

A New York Times article today discusses the HUD situation in New York.

With any government program, there’s questions of efficiency and cutting the fat.  HUD is a large piece of meat, without which, people like my client would be homeless.  What worries me about some Republican economic policies, (such as in Colorado where their solution was actually setting budget caps), is that it does not just cut fat, it cuts meat. 

As the meat dries out, it begins to look unhealthy, and there’s calls to stop funding the program altogether.  This is what you have with social security and public schools, which could both stand to receive more tax-money, but without which, begin to look like failed government projects, that should be replaced with private programs.  However, when you look at a program like HUD, you realize that you need to commit dollars to the program, in order to keep it healthy.  No money = more homeless.  As the Times article describes, Bush’s budget, which has tight fiscal restraint across the board, and is already cutting back taxes, is cutting back on HUD financing.

Now…to understand the Republican economic point-of-view, it’s probably useful to think about the moderates, like Schwartzeneger.  They recognize the importance of social programs, but see spending as getting out of control.  But, their efforts to cut fat, go hand-in-hand with holding funding for the meat.  Anytime I hear calls for across-the-board budget freezes, I’ll just have to think of my client, and wonder if she has become a victim of fat cutting.

Let’s look at it this way.  Government intervention (taxes, tariffs, subsidies) has helped the US to become a world economic leader.  Now that we’re developed, we believe that 3rd world countries should follow gov’t policies that we never uses (low taxes, no tariffs, no subsidies).  This is the problem and hypocracy of organizations like the WTO, World Bank, NAFTA, etc.  This is crippling 3rd world countries. 

The same hypocracy that has been going on internationally, applies domestically as well.  Many Americans are well off.  They have benefited from the above mentioned policies.  However, in order to aid our poor, the 3rd world that exists in America, (the 3rd world that has existed since the poverty of slavery, to the poverty of today), we must stop the rhetoric of no government, and instead, do as we’ve always done, tax and spend. 

Should we be more efficient?  Yeah.  Should we cut out certain “pork” spending, such as abstinence only sex ed programs that teach faulty science and paying media pundits to spout propaganda?  Wouldn’t hurt.  But, should we call for across the board tax-cuts for the rich and freeze spending?  It seems that doing so, means keeping the 3rd world here in America, and making a deeper need for public aid to help the poor.

Kind of makes me think of Iraq.  Start a war, with warm rhetoric of promoting democracy and fighting terrorism, covering true aims of benefiting certain corporations and wealthy individuals.  In the process, threaten democracy and create more fuel for terrorism, thereby opening the door for more warm rhetoric of fighting terrorism and spreading freedom, thereby further helping certain corporations and wealthy individuals.  

Juxataposed w/ this:

Starve a government program, with warm rhetoric of curing a sick program, covering the true aims of benefiting certain corporations and wealthy individuals.  In the process, make the program sicker and make it more difficult to flourish, thereby opening the door for more warm rhetoric of rescuing the program, thereby furhter helping certain corporations and wealthy individuals. 

And there you have much of American foreign and domestic policy from Columbus to Bush.  Fuck the poor.  Fuck democracy.  Create a breading ground for hatred and terrorism.  All in the name of a wealthy minority of certain corporations and individuals.

       

Choose your emotion…