We live in a great country, that can be much greater. We're still King Baby, by far the youngest superpower ever, trying to work out governing ourselves and leading the world at the same time. More - we're trying to figure out who we are and what it means to lead the world at the same time. We're still growing and changing.
The thing about America that is both beautiful and terrifying, both simple and almost impossibly challenging: in order for this country to grow and change, her people have to grow and change.
So celebrate the Fourth by asking yourself some tough questions about what kind of American you've been, what kind you want to be, what kind of lives Americans who aren't like you are living, and what that means for you - personally and politically.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
All of This Came from Reading about the Difference Between Personalistic and Naturalistic History:
[idle thoughts]
Couple of weeks ago, I got sucked into one of those Facebook arguments that occasionally makes me consider deleting my Facebook profile (as though Zuckerberg were somehow to blame for a temporary failure in my ability to tolerate both conflicting beliefs and the willingness of others to believe "facts" that conveniently support their opinions). My buddy was hitting back at the people who believe that Obama inherited Bush's mess, by presenting a bunch of "statistics" proving that Bush left the country just fine and Obama made the mess on his own.
My objection is not so much just that I believe my buddy is incorrect in his facts and in his argument in general. It's this: how could Obama not have inherited Bush's mess? Let's look at it from a forces of history perspective. Obama inherited messes that G.W. Bush made out of situations that actually developed, at times hidden, throughout the Clinton, G.H.W. Bush and Reagan administrations. And even that is only part of the chain of consequence; from another perspective, Iraq and Afghanistan were messes inherited from the CIA of the 1950's. Or, hell, the restructuring of the Middle East at the end of World War I. Or even, I don't know, the prophet Mohammed not picking a successor. (Have you ever wondered which single decision or lack thereof caused the most misery? That one gets my vote sometimes.)
And that's me cherry-picking two messes out of the Presidential Mess-Pile. These chains of consequence exist for every problem on the President's desk and a few problems that people believe are on the President's desk but are really on someone else's. (People, didn't we all take basic civics in elementary school? New Deal or no New Deal, realities of partisan politics notwithstanding, Congress has the power of the purse. Just sayin'.)
When you think about history - the entirety of events and the contexts in which they occurred leading up to this moment, this now - are you thinking about the people? Obama, Bush, Bin Laden, and Hussein? Kennedy and Khrushchev? Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, and Stalin? Or do you think about the worlds that produced those people, the irresistible forces that guided their actions in a very real way? I'm trying to do both from now on. It not only lowers my expectations of my chosen leaders to something perhaps more reasonable, it keeps me from panicking that we're one irresponsible leader away from ruin. (We are, but the threshold of irresponsibility it would take is well beyond even what the American "voter" will tolerate. I think.)
Of these Great People, these supposed shapers of their respective times, Tolstoy said: “Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in a historical sense involuntary and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.” (No, I haven't read War and Peace - yet - but I do like the right quotation for the right occasion.) This might actually not be overstating the case a little.
So, my buddy was wrong. Bush did leave a mess for Obama to inherit. But it's just as silly for me to blame Bush for the whole mess as it is for my buddy to blame Obama. Or even, really, for either of us to blame the Office of the President of the United States, no matter who rides the Resolute Desk.
(Do I believe Bush was pretty close to that aforementioned threshold of irresponsibility? Yup. But that's a personal opinion. He didn't actually lead us to ruin.)
The occupant of the Oval Office has one job, with many facets: to guide a runaway train over untended railways using spotty brakes. (Yes, the runaway train of the U.S.A. is technically conducted by committee, but don't overcomplicate my metaphor.) Unfortunately, that occupant also has to cooperate with other conductors facing the same task, to make sure their runaway trains don't collide and kill a ton of passengers. We should stop being so surprised that occasionally, bad things happen that these conductors theoretically could have prevented/mitigated. The conductor, in these situations, has a ton more power than a passenger - but still, not a whole lot of actual ability to order and oversee the train as he or she might see fit. (For which, in some cases, I am eternally grateful.)
I'm not saying that we as passengers shouldn't raise our voices when the conductor makes a decision to which we object. That's the responsibility, not just the right, of an American citizen. I'm just saying we should limit ourselves to what's useful. On a runaway train, panicked outrage don't help much. Constructive feedback based on calm critical thinking does. And, y'know, it might be far less than useful to blame the conductor for a problem we can solve without needing his authority. Or to blame him for problems that couldn't even be solved with his authority.
So, liberals, what are you blaming Bush for that might not be his fault? Conservatives, what are you blaming Obama for that might not be his fault? Where are we instead looking at the predetermined responses to irresistible forces? I mean, isn't asking any one person to shepherd the economy sort of like asking the conductor to hop out and stop the train Superman-style? (Okay, okay, I'm done with the train metaphor.)
(And where are we looking at both irresistible forces and people who have irresponsibly executed their offices? Congress, we need to talk about your priorities...and it's a talk you're not going to like. GOP, we need to talk about the Federalist Papers. It's called enlightened self-interest. You're forgetting the enlightened part, and it's kind of important. If you want to set yourselves up as the only true guardians of our Founding Documents...read them.)
[/idle thoughts]
Couple of weeks ago, I got sucked into one of those Facebook arguments that occasionally makes me consider deleting my Facebook profile (as though Zuckerberg were somehow to blame for a temporary failure in my ability to tolerate both conflicting beliefs and the willingness of others to believe "facts" that conveniently support their opinions). My buddy was hitting back at the people who believe that Obama inherited Bush's mess, by presenting a bunch of "statistics" proving that Bush left the country just fine and Obama made the mess on his own.
My objection is not so much just that I believe my buddy is incorrect in his facts and in his argument in general. It's this: how could Obama not have inherited Bush's mess? Let's look at it from a forces of history perspective. Obama inherited messes that G.W. Bush made out of situations that actually developed, at times hidden, throughout the Clinton, G.H.W. Bush and Reagan administrations. And even that is only part of the chain of consequence; from another perspective, Iraq and Afghanistan were messes inherited from the CIA of the 1950's. Or, hell, the restructuring of the Middle East at the end of World War I. Or even, I don't know, the prophet Mohammed not picking a successor. (Have you ever wondered which single decision or lack thereof caused the most misery? That one gets my vote sometimes.)
And that's me cherry-picking two messes out of the Presidential Mess-Pile. These chains of consequence exist for every problem on the President's desk and a few problems that people believe are on the President's desk but are really on someone else's. (People, didn't we all take basic civics in elementary school? New Deal or no New Deal, realities of partisan politics notwithstanding, Congress has the power of the purse. Just sayin'.)
When you think about history - the entirety of events and the contexts in which they occurred leading up to this moment, this now - are you thinking about the people? Obama, Bush, Bin Laden, and Hussein? Kennedy and Khrushchev? Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, and Stalin? Or do you think about the worlds that produced those people, the irresistible forces that guided their actions in a very real way? I'm trying to do both from now on. It not only lowers my expectations of my chosen leaders to something perhaps more reasonable, it keeps me from panicking that we're one irresponsible leader away from ruin. (We are, but the threshold of irresponsibility it would take is well beyond even what the American "voter" will tolerate. I think.)
Of these Great People, these supposed shapers of their respective times, Tolstoy said: “Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in a historical sense involuntary and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.” (No, I haven't read War and Peace - yet - but I do like the right quotation for the right occasion.) This might actually not be overstating the case a little.
So, my buddy was wrong. Bush did leave a mess for Obama to inherit. But it's just as silly for me to blame Bush for the whole mess as it is for my buddy to blame Obama. Or even, really, for either of us to blame the Office of the President of the United States, no matter who rides the Resolute Desk.
(Do I believe Bush was pretty close to that aforementioned threshold of irresponsibility? Yup. But that's a personal opinion. He didn't actually lead us to ruin.)
The occupant of the Oval Office has one job, with many facets: to guide a runaway train over untended railways using spotty brakes. (Yes, the runaway train of the U.S.A. is technically conducted by committee, but don't overcomplicate my metaphor.) Unfortunately, that occupant also has to cooperate with other conductors facing the same task, to make sure their runaway trains don't collide and kill a ton of passengers. We should stop being so surprised that occasionally, bad things happen that these conductors theoretically could have prevented/mitigated. The conductor, in these situations, has a ton more power than a passenger - but still, not a whole lot of actual ability to order and oversee the train as he or she might see fit. (For which, in some cases, I am eternally grateful.)
I'm not saying that we as passengers shouldn't raise our voices when the conductor makes a decision to which we object. That's the responsibility, not just the right, of an American citizen. I'm just saying we should limit ourselves to what's useful. On a runaway train, panicked outrage don't help much. Constructive feedback based on calm critical thinking does. And, y'know, it might be far less than useful to blame the conductor for a problem we can solve without needing his authority. Or to blame him for problems that couldn't even be solved with his authority.
So, liberals, what are you blaming Bush for that might not be his fault? Conservatives, what are you blaming Obama for that might not be his fault? Where are we instead looking at the predetermined responses to irresistible forces? I mean, isn't asking any one person to shepherd the economy sort of like asking the conductor to hop out and stop the train Superman-style? (Okay, okay, I'm done with the train metaphor.)
(And where are we looking at both irresistible forces and people who have irresponsibly executed their offices? Congress, we need to talk about your priorities...and it's a talk you're not going to like. GOP, we need to talk about the Federalist Papers. It's called enlightened self-interest. You're forgetting the enlightened part, and it's kind of important. If you want to set yourselves up as the only true guardians of our Founding Documents...read them.)
[/idle thoughts]
Monday, April 2, 2012
Quick Blast of Brevity, On the Occasion of an Uncomfortable Realization:
As much trash as I talk about people who say "FML," there are definitely things that happen (sometimes in my life, sometimes in someone else's) that cause the automatic thought in my head: "God hates me."
I should do something about that.
I should do something about that.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Still Another Dose of Brevity, on the Subject of Awesome Typos that Should Totally Be Real Things:
I would absolutely love to be a biospychologist. I don't know what that would entail, but it would be the best job description ever.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Another Dose of Brevity, Upon the Occasion of Uncovering Apparent Let's-Not-Call-It-Hypocrisy-Okay-Let's in My Sexual Health Textbook:
My textbook goes to great pains to discuss the psychological effects of rape. This includes careful historical and cross-cultural examination of the blame-the-victim phenomenon. The authors illuminate the feelings of shame the phenomenon can produce within the victim, even before anyone has blamed her.
Under the subsequent section, "Rape Prevention," I found about twenty helpful tips as to how women can avoid being raped. And nothing else.
Under the subsequent section, "Rape Prevention," I found about twenty helpful tips as to how women can avoid being raped. And nothing else.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Reverb 11, Follow Up
Happy New Year, my friends, and thanks for coming on this little journey with me. Without the invitation to participate in this twelfth-month soul-search, I doubt I would have had the courage to follow through on tonight's theatrical journey. Thanks also to the Sacred Fools Theater Company for being kind, welcoming, hilarious, talented, and high-octane in the best of possible ways, and my buddy Chris for bringing me to them.
I second-guessed myself many times before walking into the theater this morning. I'd just written about how long it's been since I performed for an audience - what was I thinking, letting my first venture back to the stage be this 24-hour madness? It'd be like swearing off singing for a decade (like I could do that) and doing a one-night stand with the L.A. Master Chorale.
Then I thought about all the other things I've written this month; in them I found the kernel of courage I needed to move ahead.
By the time we actually went up in front of the audience, I felt like I'd been reintroduced to a vital part of myself. How could I do this? How could I not? How could I have forgotten, how could I have abandoned this integral component of Dash for so long?
Truth: I hadn't forgotten. I abandoned that part of myself because I no longer felt worthy of it, no longer had faith in my own value. Worse, I couldn't bear to risk having that self-perception confirmed by others. Only with restored belief in my abilities could I take the risk. And boy did I reap the reward.
Sharing in the vivacity and creative lust of the Fools was like coming home again; earning the laughter and applause of the audience was like a big hearty hug from Mom.
This is the best start to a New Year I've ever had.
I second-guessed myself many times before walking into the theater this morning. I'd just written about how long it's been since I performed for an audience - what was I thinking, letting my first venture back to the stage be this 24-hour madness? It'd be like swearing off singing for a decade (like I could do that) and doing a one-night stand with the L.A. Master Chorale.
Then I thought about all the other things I've written this month; in them I found the kernel of courage I needed to move ahead.
By the time we actually went up in front of the audience, I felt like I'd been reintroduced to a vital part of myself. How could I do this? How could I not? How could I have forgotten, how could I have abandoned this integral component of Dash for so long?
Truth: I hadn't forgotten. I abandoned that part of myself because I no longer felt worthy of it, no longer had faith in my own value. Worse, I couldn't bear to risk having that self-perception confirmed by others. Only with restored belief in my abilities could I take the risk. And boy did I reap the reward.
Sharing in the vivacity and creative lust of the Fools was like coming home again; earning the laughter and applause of the audience was like a big hearty hug from Mom.
This is the best start to a New Year I've ever had.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Reverb 11, December Thirty-First
Encapsulate your hopes for the year 2012 in one word. Explain why you’re choosing that word.
Open. I want this to be the year I open up my life - to new people, new experiences, new places. I want this to be the year I share more of myself.
Wish me luck, my friends, and Happy New Year!
Open. I want this to be the year I open up my life - to new people, new experiences, new places. I want this to be the year I share more of myself.
Wish me luck, my friends, and Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)