The following thoughts are not anti-american. They are an outsider’s view of a fascinating history with an opinionated leaning.

None of us are free.

It all started with health care….

There is an incredible undercurrent of suspicion that I pick up on in this country. It’s a suspicion directed squarely at the government. This is not a universal suspicion but I don’t think it’s out of place to say that it’s prevalent. And there is plenty of good reason – the government that this country broke away from was supposedly pretty oppressive. Even in the past 100 years, it’s been prove that government officials have lied to pursue or protect American interests.

It was this oppression, this suspicion, the lies, and worse that led several to declare a new nation absolved from allegiance to the British crown. A tyrant prince acting unjustly and repeating injury in response to repeated petitions drove away an entire people and caused revolt.

As it was, it was completely justified. July 4, 1776 will perpetually and rightfully remember as the birth of the wealthiest nation this planet has ever seen.

The declaration was for freedom from oppression.

The declaration was for independence.

Not entirely, however.

The declaration was also for a new sort of dependence.

With the final stroke of the pen, the founding fathers bound citizen’s of a new nation to each other. Declaring independence from the crown was at the same time a declaration for interdependence on one another. Butchers, and bakers, and brewers formed communities of people that were free to live to their own devices inasmuch as it were beneficial to the fledgling community.

They had freedom to live and choose and be with an understanding that an interdependence on everyone in community meant that sometimes our “freedom” to choose ought best to be in support of the entirety of society.

Freedom never means unchecked reality.

Turn the calendar ahead a couple hundred years or so and this place is very different. History has shaped the views of each citizen. Swarms of people vie for a place at America’s banqueting table where cups runneth over.

For many, our relentless pursuit for freedom has been hijacked by a culture that extols the virtues of independence, suggesting that the down and out pull themselves up by their boot straps, where the cream rises to the top, where self-made men and women have the most influence and the most inspiring stories. Never mind that this inspiration tends to be based mostly on the amount of individual wealth that can be amassed within legal-if-not-ethical systemic confines.

What we now long for is autonomy.

We want to each sign our own declarations of independence from the nation that first inspired such a radical move. We want to make our own rules and act to protect our own interests. This is paramount to our individual rights and freedoms. My hateful speech is justified by my individual worth and to deny my voice is to deny my sovereignty. My wealth has been earned by my own hard work free from the influence and efforts of others. Who is any entity to dictate how funds from my treasury are used.

We are empires of self.

Freedom implies that I make my own decisions within a set of confines established by some social order. Government, community, team, club, company, etc.

Autonomy expresses the idea of “self rule” – complete independence from everything. The autonomous are nations unto themselves.

We live and move and operate in a system that has corrupted the idea of community – that has exalted the individual at the expense of all else. A system that has promoted autonomy.

The same system can now have it’s own way with the hearts and minds of these individuals – free from the social checks of community. When others are of lower priority, our individual opinions trump the controlling processes introduced by others with whom we share mutual concern. We’re tempted to revolt. We’re tempted to declare our own independence.

As I’ve said, the founding father’s, by their very declaration of independence declared an almost socialistic dependence on one another:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Autonomy rejects the understanding that as a human we are by definition communal beings, not only with our neighbors but with our generations of ancestors and our neighbors ancestors who have built the foundation on which we live our lives. We are but small hiccups in the fabric of space time as lonesome creatures – but in communities learning to live and love and support each other we can truly be significant. Autonomy lives free from history written by any victor but me. “This is my wealth. I earned it myself. I have sovereignty over my life.”

And so we come full circle to health care…..

This nation has adopted a bill that forms a strong framework on which a system that provides medical care to all of it’s citizens can be built because we believe that all men are created equal and has an unalienable right to life. It requires that citizen’s purchase health insurance – purchasing and the consumption being the very blood that courses through the nations core. Factions have expressed their view that government should not be the “single payer” for medical services, and other factions now say that government has no right to make me pay for medical coverage, even though my failure to do so will likely result in some cost to my neighbors.

If my actions don’t protect them, is it not the government’s right to ensure their protection?

We are looking for an autonomous answer that does not and cannot exist. Though our culture, our financial system, our educational systems all seem to champion the concept of self, we live completely dependent on those around us in even the most mundane aspects of our lives.

Our freedoms dictate that when our governments overstep their boundaries, we can register our disagreement with our votes, but even in that freedom we are dependent on scores of others to cast their ballots, to participate in their civic duty.

The hope that I have for this, my temporarily adopted nation, is that we reject this destructive, divisive view. The pursuit of an idealist freedom that so many people seem to be chasing is futile. Such a freedom does not and cannot exist. Realize that we are not enemies, that there is great pride in being your brother’s keeper, and that the pursuit of happiness can only be carried out within the rich confines of community.

However, If I could vote in this country, I would vote in favor of universal health care every time.

I base this on:

• The fact that the majority of the developed world believes that access to health care is a fundamental human right
• Health care is a costly undertaking that will ultimately cost everyone money one way or the other
• I know several people who legitimately cannot live healthy lives based on their circumstances in the status quo

Today, President Obama signed a sweeping health care reform bill into law. I am not so naïve as to think this this bill in it’s current form is even close to “the answer” that is needed with respect to this issue. But it serves simply as a foundation on which the US can finally build a system that allows a core level of security when it comes to their health and the repercussions of circumstances that any American can find themselves in.

What does is say about a nation to be easily the wealthiest of all time and yet not provide a basic security to it’s citizen’s in this regard? What does is say about our character to allow citizen’s to lose everything because of medical bills? Why do we often choose liberty over life? Why is “give me liberty or give me death” a noble proclamation?

This process has had an interesting history.

We are fickle frontiersmen.

When we first began began the debate the thoughts of inclusion of a “public option” stoked the fires of socialism. How dare the government expect me to pay my hard earned money to pay for the health care of another human being!

Now that we’ve lost it the cries are accusations of voiding the constitution. How dare the government require me to pay a free market enterprise money to protect my and my fellow citizen’s well-being!!

There is no way to win.

Except to realize that we are all in this together, as cheesy as this sounds. At the level of basic human rights when we are forced back out of our self-indulgent, capitalism-induced cocoons and thrust back into community. This is a state of living that we have somehow forgotten on our push to reach the top of the food chain.

Community is where living takes place. Where rewards are sometimes intangible. Where the cost of sharing life with others is often higher than facing life alone but far more worthwhile.

Community is where we’re all better off. Where I’m not gaining at your expense. Where I’m better for my contributions to your life you’re better for contributing to my life.

I’m glad this bill has passed.

I’m anxious to see how it develops.

“This is not language, this is the way people think.”
George Lakoff

There is no way that I possess any authority to say that as a culture we are obsessed with conflict and war and combat. What I have heard, and have seen, and am probably too keenly aware of have colored and/or tainted my thoughts on what I’m about to share. I have a lot of thoughts on this so my plan is to lay some foundation and the dig in with some meat a little later. We’ll see how that goes.

Since my college days, having spent many an evening lying on the floor by the fireplace reading about personality and ego and cognition, I’ve been captivated by all things unconscious. In particular, I have a fascination with our words and our figures of speech, our entire lexicon and the way that we choose (or often don’t choose) to describe people and places and things.

There is so much that you can learn about a culture just by studying words. Cultures that live in the isolated north and understand the cold and ice and snow have many more words for describing these things; they can say in one word what we might say as “light, fluffy snow falling in large flakes.” Understanding snow and weather conditions are critically important to their survival. I would be willing to be however, they have fewer words for money than we do, but more on that later.

For those of you that follow Rob Bell, you may have heard him make reference to something similar in a Nooma Video (002 – Flame) when he talks about love. Bell says that he loves his wife and also loves tacos. For the record, I completely relate; the best is when my wife and I get to eat together at Taqueria Mexico on South Blvd (much like we did today). In essence, Bell says that the words we use can provide great insight into internal processes and thoughts and feelings.

In reading another author (Don Miller, Blue like Jazz), I got reminded of a train of thought I started to have a number of years ago. Miller references the use of metaphor in various parts of our life – one example: the use of war metaphor with respect to dealing with cancer. These thoughts were presented by a professor at an alumni group gathering and Miller was captivated. The essence of the discussion as it was described was that we often use war-centric words when discussing cancer: we battle cancer, we combat cancer, we fight it. This implied conflict has actually been shown to make the process of dealing with cancer more difficult as it induces more stress in patients. The professor argued that it makes the emotional response more intense than it need be and people often forget the fact that the majority of people survive the disease.

As a caveat here, no one is saying that cancer ought not to be treated seriously, only that the metaphor we have come to use to convey the weight of this disease carries with it collateral baggage and that it would be nice if a more appropriate and helpful metaphor could take it’s place.

War metaphor is everywhere. Back to the cancer example, the British Medical Journal wrote about the War Against Cancer in 1934. It is all over science where we here about “invading species”, “biosecurity”, “killer cells”, and “methods for attacking viruses.” We hear it in sports when “epic battles” or “showdown of the century” are scheduled as pay-per-view events. Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney, and the gang quickly turned what was first referred to as a crime on 9/11 into a declaration of war and the ensuing 9 years have been framed as such ever since.

An author that I am quickly becoming interested in, thanks to my newfound interest in linguistics is George Lakoff, an expert on all things language (two books are on the way as I write – I’m sure I’ll have some follow up, providing I can find the time to read them).

He wrote an incredibly compelling article just 5 days after 9/11.

As a child in New Jersey, the NY city skyline was a major part of his life and as a cognitive linguist he finds deep meaning in the words that we use as individuals an culture to describe both the buildings and the events that took them down and he can describe the physical, neural circuitry that undergirds this meaning.

The article as a whole, though obviously biased politically, is incredibly insightful. Click here for a long, but really good, read.

Lakoff does say that the Administration searched for metaphors to help them understand this event – the first response was that of framing the event as a crime, which connects to various parts of our consciousness as involving criminals, justice, courts, lawyers, innocence/guilt. Hours later though, the event was reframed as an act of war, which brings it’s own imagery: “casualties”, “enemies”, “military action”.

What I don’t want to do here is turn this into a commentary about the response to 9/11. The implications pointed out in this article with respect to war metaphor are what really interests me as we’ll need them to frame some later discussion.

War implies good and evil, correct and incorrect, right and wrong. It is only evil that can “justify” the expense, the collateral damage, the death that is associated with war. Lakoff says this:

If our enemy is evil, we are inherently good. Good is our essential nature and what we do in the battle against evil is good. Good and evil are locked in a battle, which is conceptualized metaphorically as a physical fight in which the stronger wins. Only superior strength can defeat evil, and only a show of strength can keep evil at bay. Not to show overwhelming strength is immoral, since it will induce evildoers to perform more evil deeds because they’ll think they can get away with it … Nothing is more important than the battle of good against evil …

My two cents here is that “war” is the ultimate polarizer. We can come to the table to discuss if we are any closer but war occurs when two factions helplessly diametrically opposed to one another.

Lakoff goes on to suggest that if we operate outside of this good and evil paradigm there are many facets to any issue and that invoking war metaphor stations us to think in terms or either/or.

Now would be a good time to stop and breathe.

*inhale*

*exhale*

There are times when the use of war metaphor is appropriate and times when its use has unfortunate results. At RealitySandwich.com you can read about several such instances that are in the latter category. For example, one “invading” blackberry (oooooh, scary) was held responsible for hurting a Californian bird population. Scientists argue that war metaphor causes us to think in terms of eradication instead of exploring more helpful symbiotic relationships. In fact, some even say that this is why a former president decided to merge the government department responsible for “invasive species” into the department of homeland security.

So what do we know?

War metaphor is prevalent. It’s sometimes appropriate; other times, it’s not. When it’s used, our culture, our neurons, our experience, our relationships all contribute to the way that we frame the situation at hand. We have a conscious awareness of what war means but, perhaps more profoundly, we have a deeply-seeded unconscious understanding as well that invokes imagery of good and evil, justification, victory, defeat, and collateral damage.

If you’ve made it this far, congratulations …. or I’m sorry.

Here is where I’m really interested in going with this next. I grew up in a church whose very structure and existence was built around the concept of war metaphor, the ultimate in good versus evil, God vs. Satan, sinfulness vs. righteousness. I understand the mechanism by which our churches arrive at war metaphor, and I’m really interested as to whether or not the church is an appropriate home for these concepts of war – that’s up next.

To the left or to the right.

In fact, every time we make any decision that is at all political, we can only move along this dimension.  We either move towards a conservative view and away from the liberal stance or vice versa – some say we’re marching “towards” socialism.

I would also argue that this tendency has begun to drift into our daily interactions.  We have the false notion that life is experienced as an endless progression of dichotomies; things are either black or white.

This is never ever the case.  It is not practical.  It is not reality.

Rob Bell in his video “Everything is Spiritual” talks about the problems in seeing things in one dimension.  I would highly recommend it and have a copy if any one wishes to borrow it.  But fundamentally he is saying that when we approach issues from a single dimension we lose a lot of the breadth and depth surrounding what are realistically complex issues.  It is not possible to view the much debated health-care reform as black and white, or left and right.  There are so many dimensions and perspectives and positions yet we insist, collectively and subconsciously that we need a left and a right solution.

And as we automatically assume the approach of our “party affiliation” we distance ourselves as far as possible as our “non-enemies-who-are-perceived-as-enemies.”  And we wonder why they can’t or won’t see things from our single perspective.

(This would be a killer description if I go create some 3D animation here….)

May we always try to find more perspectives in more dimensions as we attempt to understand the issues that we have to deal.  May we be OK with moving towards those who oppose us – realizing that we are not enemies and have mutual interests.  And, may we also understand that moving towards and promoting the extremes are beneficial to no one.

• It’s easy to let opinions get drowned out by name calling and insults,
• Some argue that there is much more at stake than just health care (an unfortunately major part of this debate is over socialism and America’s move towards it if this bill is passed and whether the founding fathers intended it to be this way or how they would have handled it),
• When you’re prepared with research and facts it makes you a better arguer,
• Many people aren’t prepared with research and/or facts,
• Most of all, polls show that America does think that something is wrong with the healthcare system and that the vast majority of us feel that affordable health care for everyone is a good thing – we differ just on the method by which that should come about.

So what do we do with this knowledge.

• Cut out the name calling – my wife had a saying for a long time: “Sarcasm kills communication.”  It’s true.  We can add that name calling, insults and badly placed fusions of entertainment and enlightenment to the exact same thing.  Approach the debate with a clear head.  To be frank, I have had to remind myself that people on the right aren’t bad – sorry, just being honest.
• Realize that some people do think there is more at stake than health care. Do I think that America is becoming a socialist nation?  Not on your life.  Why?  America is the “wealthiest” nation in the world for a reason.  No one is brain dead enough to really mess with that formula.  Is the move to a public option a move towards socialism? I don’t believe so for a minute, but I can see how it could be spun that way.  It’s much like calling saying humans are moving towards becoming martians because we’ve been to space a time or two.  The expanse that the nation would have to travel to get from where we are to what socialism actually is is simply too great.
• Be prepared.  Read.  Consume the information and deal with what it actually says….. don’t let you enlightenment be fuzed with entertainment.  Too much at stake  (the bill: PDF – it’s really not that bad, Socialism, capitalism, FACTCHECK.org)
• You know what….we’re not enemies here.  Please remember that.  Even though I think this health care bill could do more good for this country than bad, and even though you may think the opposite way, we are still not enemies.  We are as much not enemies as this country is not becoming socialist.  Enemies are the people that wish you harm.  We want the same things – we just need to agree quickly on how to make that happen.

So, that’s what I’ve learned so far.  I know I have a lot more learning to do.

In order to tackle the question of whether or not we should be pursuing universal health care, we need to figure out if humans deserve health care.

What are human rights?

What are humans entitled to because they are human?  There are many different perspectives everything from we have no more rights than animals on the planet to we have complete and total reign over every resource around us.  As with everything, there has to be some reasonable middle ground.

On personal levels, we sometimes hear that human rights are those things that only God gives you and only God can take away.  So let’s think about what a few of these could be.

• life
• ???

I’m up to one.

Some of us believe “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  I don’t have an objection to this other than to say I don’t know where we can find proof of this.  I believe that if you add ” . . . within certain boundaries” after each of those things, then that’s probably a little closer.

Modern day nations have tried to put some definitions to this concept too.  Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the US has a Bill of Rights, and even the UN has the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I’m sure many other nations have similar documents.  Each have a slightly different perspective – it’s interesting to compare and contrast the Canadian and UN charters with the US Bill of Rights, by the way.  None of them have consensus on what the rights of a human are – and the priorities are noticably different.

I’m going to assume that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as it was drafted by several different nations, is most representative of the generally accepted list of human rights.

After article 1 which says that are humans are equal and should act towards each other with a spirit of brotherhood, it says this:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Here’s a paraphrase of what they list as human rights….

• life, liberty and security of person
• no slavery or torture
• equal as persons before the law
• no arbitrary arrest/confinement
• impartiality in determining rights and before tribunals
• presumed innocence
• no arbitrary interference with privacy
• freedom of movement into and out of their country
• right to asylum in other countries and a right to nationality
• marriage
• right to own property individually and in association with others
• freedom of though, consciousness, and religion; expression and opinion
• peaceful assembly
• participation in government
• social security (here’s the full text of article 22: Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.)
• right to work
• right to leisure
• standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family (again, full text: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.)
• right to education
• right to participate in cultural community
• social/international order

The declaration finishes by saying that we all have duties and responsibilities to the communities in which they live and that these rights are inalienable.

Now, I don’t necessarily agree that all of these are rights necessarily – I think privileges at some point come into effect.  I don’t know that we have the “right” to leisure necessarily – it may be more of a privilege of being able to work and earn resources.  But I think this is an excellent jumping off point for the rest of our discussion.

I will say this: while I don’t necessarily believe that “free health care” is a human right, I do believe that  affordable access to sufficient health care is.  I also believe a couple of things about how this affordable health care should be provided, though granted not with any particular solution.  I believe that we have a responsibility to contribute to the improvement of our communities by giving out of our immense, incredible, unprecedented wealth so that others who are otherwise unable can be taken care of.

To this point, I’ve not spoken much of faith – though, as “everything is spiritual” I don’t think it’s hard to see the parallels.  Helping others live healthy productive lives makes the world a better place – which is what Jesus’ peeps are supposed to be doing.  I think there is a good case that the Bible teaches a lot about the responsibilities of of individuals and nations alike to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Now, I know where this leads…. what about those who choose to not provide for themselves.  I don’t want to ignore that, but I don’t want to deal with it right now.  Next time: more about nations ensuring that human rights are taken care of. Decided against this…I’m not a theologian and there’s so much about nations in the Bible that I don’t understand…probably wouldn’t be responsible.

Yes, I’m aware these are philosophical questions that may or may not have an easy answer.

Let me start with the latter.

What does it mean to be human?

I approach this answer following a history in traditional Christian theology and that certainly colors my perspective but not in the scary “turn-or-burn” sort of Christianity.  I know that not everyone will approach this question with any sort of Christian worldview to which I say “Fantastic!”  I think truth can be gathered from a lot of perspectives so please share them with me.

Now, my first notion is that humans exist and have a character modeled after that of God.  Despite what you may have heard, God is more about relationships than stand-off-ishness.  He is more interested in interaction with us than damning us to hell.  The earliest poems (e.g. Genesis) that discuss God’s first interactions with humans also point out that it was not good for humans to be alone.  Relationships are the basis for life.

My slant is that to be human is to be engaged in and value relationships.

Secondly, I would say that the self-actualized human being is also interested in improving humanity.  Part of this can be seen in wanting the best for self.  It is not that far of a jump to go from wanting best for self to wanting best for all.  Christians would say that this involves restoration (putting things back the way they were meant to be) or bringing heaven to earth (by acting how Jesus would act).  But even without a Christian approach to life, this is still true for many people.  Given the question is it “better” to be selfish or to be selfless, most people would likely choose the latter as the most admirable character trait.

Mature human beings are interested in making life better.

Finally, purpose.  Long story short we have purposeful actions often backed up with rationale.  That’s pretty uniquely human.

Obviously there are many other things that we’re not delving into here . . . humans should be logical, self-aware, capable of dreaming dreams, engaged in culture, etc, etc.

Thoughts or philosophies on any part of life must first be framed by these core perceptions about humanity.

So, what about human rights?

is health care a human right?

I’d never given that any thought. Growing up in Canada it was never, ever a concern. Was it a right? Was it a privilege? Irrelevant. We had health care just by the fact that we lived in Canada. There was never a hint of anyone taking away our right/privilege. I never thought about it.

Turns out that Canada does not express anywhere that health care is a legal or constitutional right and in Canada there continues to be extensive debate about that fact.

Wasn’t expecting that.  I gotta admit.

However, I do believe that equal access to health care – at some basic level – is a right.  I’m OK with an “if-I-have-the-money-I-can-get-the-best-of-everything-now” because I believe that people are free to make money and/or be greedy.  But comprehensive, affordable or free health care ought to be available for everyone.  Consequently, I believe it’s criminal, appalling,  and evil that it currently is not.

But a more fundamental question now exists for me and it comes from the Declaration of Independence…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

I have never understood what that last bit means…

What is the pursuit of happiness?  Either it’s a completely arbitrary statement or they knew something we don’t – what is happiness?  It’s almost like reading scripture in a way.  What are the other rights that aren’t mentioned here?  I wish they would have just listed them all.

The discussion is much bigger than does everybody deserve health care and should I pay for it.  The questions are more what does it mean to be human and am I my brother’s keeper?

We may need to break this down more a little later.

note: I’ve got a lot more on this that I want to share; particularly as it relates to apparent priorities, realities, and differences between health care in the US versus the rest of the industrialized world…stay tuned.