Posts Tagged: politics

general / health care / politics — Comments Off
23
Mar 10

health care

As a disclaimer, I am not an American citizen – and thus an observer at worst and obnoxious commentator at best.

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.

faith / general / politics — 3 Comments
3
Mar 10

war metaphor part i

“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.

general / life — 2 Comments
19
Sep 09

value

It may be self-evident that all men are created equal.  Unfortunately, this belief leaves a lot to ambiguity. There are a few posts on this blog that have been written to try to encourage people to think about human-ness, human rights, and humanity in general.  I believe, as the late Senator Kennedy did that the health care issue, and many others, are primarily a question of morality.  There are, however, a lot of social, economical, and moral overtones sounding just about the tonic of “equality.”

As with my ignorance towards the many interpretations of the “We” in “We the people…” I have always assumed that if all men are created equal then that means that all men ARE equal – and that’s clearly a misinterpretation or a miscommunication.  It may be that the founding fathers meant the latter and did a poor job of writing it.  Or, it may be that I’ve done a poor job of comprehending it.

A third option, of course, is that we’re thinking about this far too hard…

But, the questions remain:

  • Are all men and women created equal?
  • Do all men and women retain the same intrinsic value throughout their life?

There are so many perspectives from which to view this.  However, I continue to contend that human’s have an innate moral tracking that gives some basis for morality, for some definition (however loose) of right and wrong, of good and better and best, and that we have some hunger and thirst for social interaction and, perhaps, even society.

That’s the perspective I’ll use.

First, let’s look at this matter of equality: on what grounds are humans equal?

Saying that all men are created equal is essentially an expanding of John Locke’s Tabula Rasa (blank slate) theory.  Not only are all people equal in that there is a blank (or at least equally written on) mental slate that experience will write on, but we can expand this to include physical, social, and all of the -als that humans experience.

But our first problem is already self-evident.  All people are not equally able.  Some newborns have issues that may be major or minor; that could cause life-long inequality or could be just a temporary stumbling block.  So then is equality instantly fleeting?

And another.  One of the adjacent beliefs with Tabula Rasa is that nurture plays a major role.  Given differences in parenting styles, circumstances, experiences, and happenstances, there are no two people that have equal opportunity and preparation for life.

Perhaps there is another way to approach this question: does equality speak instead to a person’s worth or value?  Is each child assigned arbitrarily and unconsciously some monetary value that can accrue interest or lose value as they grow, experience life, make choices, etc?

The key here is to note that this value is completely subjective.  To illustrate – if you could “pay” to be saved from a burning building, would you pay more for a skydiver, an IT professional, or a fire-fighter? How would that change if you fell out of a plane?

I believe this is how our free-market society operates – this, too, is self-evident.  Whether it’s insurance companies that look for which risky or money-losing plans to drop for their portfolio or advertising companies targeting some demographic (superbowl commercials anyone?)  As long as you’re worth something to someone.

What is painfully obvious here is the greed and selfishness that bubbles at the surface of all of these discussions – from health care reform to missile defense shields to entitlement to talk radio.  Because of the way with which profit and value are intertwined with our lives, it is so easy to mask human life with an identification number and relegate that number to the “worthless” pile.

You know, we have built into our social fabric means for dealing with individuals that harm other individuals by  damaging them emotionally, or by taking their things or their life; by devaluing other’s lives. But on a corporate level we assess values with the intestinal fortitude of an insurance adjuster.

When there is profit to be had, beware of falling prices.

What does that say about the character of a country?

health care / politics — Comments Off
27
Aug 09

human rights

An interesting question for me that has come out the very pervaisive and oft-wayward debate on the affordable health care for all americans legislation that is currently being considered is this:

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.