Happy Mother's Day! Honoring Mothers By Improving the Lives of Women

This Sunday, we're celebrating Mother's Day. Everywhere in the world a mother is giving birth right now, some by choice, some by the fact of being kept as chattel. Women have attained the highest status in liberal democracies, even though, say, in Norway they fare a lot better than in our own country over all. 


If you want to know a whole lot about a country ask one question: what is the status of women? From the answer, you'll most safely ascertain the level of development, affluence, access to opportunity, legal treatment, economic participation, choices, political regime, and civil freedoms! A great society, a happy society, a more stable society, a healthier society, a nicer society is possible by elevating the status of women to parity with men. This is threatening to traditional societies, primitive cultures, and the American conservatives.

In some places in Africa there's a good chance the mother is infected with HIV/AIDS. It's not here fault, because it's her husband that most likely infected her. And, she's told by her religious leaders that condoms are worst than disease itself.

In Niger, a mother has an average of 8 children, and in much in the poorest countries women spend most of their lives being pregnant and/or caring for little children. In parts of Alabama and Mississippi infant mortality is higher than in Iran. More than one million little children go to bed hungry every night in the US.

Celebrating motherhood has to be more than the activities of one day in the year. We all had mothers, so  it would be nice if we could make their lives better. Take a look at the UN Millennium Development Goals and you'll see that every step we take to fulfilling those goals is a meaningful improvement in the lives of mothers--poverty & hunger, education, gender equality, combat HIV/AIDS, maternal health, etc.

Honoring motherhood begins with treating women better.

The following is from my last year's post, but I think it's worth repeating:

Motherhood cannot be separated from the condition of women in the world today.
UK's The Independent has a great article about that condition. The British government in cooperation with human rights groups have found some very disturbing facts:

• Two-thirds of the world's 800 million illiterate adults are women as girls are not seen as worth the investment, or are busy collecting water or firewood or doing other domestic chores.
• Two million girls aged from five to 15 join the commercial sex market every year.
• Domestic violence kills and injures more people in the developing world than war, cancer or traffic accidents.
• Seventy per cent of the world's poorest people are women.
• Violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war.
• Women produce half the world's food, but own less than two per cent of the land.
• Of the more than one billion people living in extreme poverty, 70 per cent are women.
• Almost a third of the world's women are homeless or live in inadequate housing.
• Half of all murdered women are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.
• Every minute a woman dies as a result of pregnancy complications.
• Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, yet earn only a tenth of its income.
• One woman in three will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime.
• 43 million girls are not able to go to school.
• In 2007, one million HIV-positive women died of AIDS-related illnesses because they could not get the drugs they needed.
• Human Rights Watch, in reports on 15 countries including Afghanistan, Brazil, Morocco, Papua New Guinea, Togo and South Africa, has identified violence against schoolgirls, child domestic workers and those in conflict with the law as on the rise.
• Women across the developing world are the victims of systematic abuse.

Meanwhile in the good ol' USA

And in our country, the conservatives want to conserve anachronistic views which include discriminating against women. The GOP has insisted on fighting against women's health and choice. It's amazing what these conservatives have been pushing for.. [link]

On the surface someone might think that the recent debate about same-sex marriage is not related to anything else, but indeed, it's an illustration of how a conservative prefers the status quo instead of being open, accepting progressive change. 

While we've waited so long for Obama to ..evolve in his views about the rights people should have, it's becoming clearer by the day that there's a big difference between the progressives and the conservatives in this country and it's getting wider. It's good to see the president finally saying the obvious instead of pandering to those whose vote he would never get. 

Leadership matters in order to change people's views, but most importantly leaders, like FDR, Johnson, and Lincoln, may have to push for changes a conservative society would take so much longer to accept. But, once the benefits of the New Deal, the Great Society, Emancipation, etc, take hold, people accept the new reality and adopt it as their own.  

In 2004, I was working for John Kerry's presidential campaign in Cleveland, OH, and the conservatives had an initiative on the ballot to strictly prohibit same-sex unions. I spoke with many conservative Democrats who simply told me that their marriage would lose value if homosexuals were given legal sanctions! Well, such views were also common in states that were among the first to grand same rights to the LGTB community. Once people saw that MA didn't disappear into the Atlantic ocean and things aren't any different, they accepted the new reality. It's not even an issue anymore in most of the states that have been leaders in this regard.


Wasn't the same for the rights of women back then?...

My Reasons for Protesting at Occupy Wall Street

I've heard from many that this protest doesn't have a concrete demand or a message. Apparently some 50,000+ protesters showed up on Wednesday and the numbers are growing. I think those who dismiss this proto-movement are making a mistake. People are angry, people are suffering, and, most importantly, they express concerns that most Americans share today! This has the potential of spreading like a wild fire.

OK, Wall Street has been a convenient target and a great focus point for people to coalesce, but the demand for a fair, egalitarian, decent system resonates across all groups and individuals who participate in this "occupation" and are hurting. They know others who have been hurt by this economy and by the system we have in place to deal with crises and address the needs of Americans. Something's is terribly wrong all around us.

I was interviewed a couple times while I was there. I didn't have the chance to include all of the following points, as the interviewers were looking for sound bites and I was trying to answer in sentences and paragraphs. So I came up with a few sound bites:

• It's time to (re)define the American dream--that success depends on access to opportunity.
• Our government has to be of, by, and for the people. This is a good principle, let's now put it in practice.
• Like Adam Smith (father of capitalism) said, the wealth of a country shouldn't be measured by the gold the elites hold but by the number of people who are able to share the wealth.
• Privatizing profits while socializing the risk is bad economics and fundamentally unjust.
• It's about the vision of the future and the direction of our country. It's about science and the scientific method. It's about modernity versus anachronism.
• It's about education--the kind of enrichment we all benefit from!
• It's about asking why aren't we "number one"? Why aren't we healthier, aren't living longer, and aren't more educated as a country? Why do we work more and earn less? Why we are less safe and so much more stressed? Where's the social safety net a modern society should have?
• It's about defeating the conservative narrative that the status quo is working for the working people.
• It's about our country turning into a plutocracy, whereas the system increasingly benefits the elites, who have closed the doors on the rest of us. They're denying us access to education, health care, clean environment, good jobs, and even to our own government.

 

.....
Update, 10/08/11:

 Here's a source for the OWS groups and activities: Map & Connect Groups


....

Who's complaining?

Some politicians get 12% of the eligible voters [yeah, if only 20% of the electorate bothers to vote, that's what those leaders actually get] in a given election and they come out to say "the American people spoke"...  

 When 50,000+ people show up to protest, they're labeled as a mob, or fringe elements, and un-Americans! The mayor of our city, incredibly said that the salaries of the city workers are partly paid by Wall Street. So what? He should have said that Wall Street should actually pay more, and that Wall Street or any economic system that benefits the rich shouldn't be given the keys to our society.

Republican leader Cantor called the protesters a "mob." Romney said "it's class warfare!"  Tsk. What war? The one the upper class has already won?...

On the other hand, there are still many Americans who believe that they can, too, be part of the elite. The game is fixed. Who can be like Michael Jordan, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates? Talent alone without access to opportunity ain't gonna allow you to join the gilded club.

Meanwhile in Alabama...

Can't have water if you can't prove your residency in Alabama! Now the Water Co. is a depository of IDs.

....

[to be continued...]

What Would Jesus Pay For (or, Cut from the US Budget). How Would Jesus Fare Today under Republican Policy?

It seems that Jesus has answers for everything, according to many conservative Xtians--who don't think of Jesus when they support cutting/eliminating social programs that benefit the poor. Some religious leaders are running an ad arguing that the budget is not just about numbers but also about morality. Of course, it is! Choices we make reflect on our priorities and our values, and they affect human lives.

The House Republicans asked for more money for defense, which is higher than last year's. They want to eliminate foreign aid (sounds good, heh?) even if it's for fighting malaria, AIDS, etc. OK, we can't save non-American lives, but how about our own people, specifically, American children? Should we fund programs that clearly help the kind of people Jesus had in mind?

ThinkProgress notes that if House Republicans get their way, they would cut $210 million from Maternal and Health Block Grants, which give low-income mothers, pregnant women, and their children access to health care. They also want to cut $27 million from the Poison Control Center, essentially eliminating the program, even though poisoning primarily affects children under six years old.

If Jesus was around in the US today he would not be a friend to House Republicans. However, the feelings would be mutual! They would ridicule a thirtysomething unemployed man who preached progressive social and economic change!

What's a Privilege Versus a Right? Health Care Can Be Boiled Down to this Simple Test. Ted Kennedy Got it Right!

I think the best memorial to someone is to remember his/her actions that contributed to making the world a better place to live--even if it's one person at a time. Ted Kennedy came from a family of privilege but advocated for the many who weren't as fortunate as the elites of this country.

Morality is how we treat others, not how one behaves in his/her private domain. Teddy believed that the government of the people should be in place to work for the people. ["by"the people has meant approval and not that the common people of modest means have a good chance of being elected to high office!] It's amazing when 72% of Americans want health care reform that includes a strong public option their representatives in Congress can't seem to get it!

High stake [steak?] game is being played in front of the American public. There's lots of willful misinformation and scare tactics that have nothing to do with a rational discussion on how to reform a broken system and ensure that thousands of Americans don't die & suffer unnecessarily. It does come down to a simple question: is health care (like education) a right or a privilege? I was stunned to hear many Republicans actually say [including presidential candidate McCain] it's a ..privilege!

As for the cost, of course we can afford it if we can afford to spend much more on armaments than the whole world combined! Besides, the skyrocketing of health care costs in the US, under the current system, cannot be sustained. There will be more "death panels"... when insurance companies deny claims for necessary medical life-saving procedures and when they reject people with pre-existing conditions. How can anyone defend such a system is beyond me...

Here's an excellent treatment on this subject, as recently shown on Bill Moyers Journal. Is there anyone who can argue against the main points raised? Honestly, those opposed to health care reform with a public option don't make sense. It's not just a matter of values and priorities--that would be understandable--but those opponents are incoherent. It's a failure of leadership to confuse the public, distort the facts [those facts], and allow Americans to suffer and die.

PROFITS OVER PEOPLE: Video on Bill Moyers Journal. It includes an interview with W. Potter who served the insurance industry for 20 years. The Money Driven Medicine video has excerpts from the acclaimed Critical Condition, "a documentary in which ordinary hard-working Americans tell their stories of battling critical illnesses without health insurance. They discover that being uninsured can cost them their jobs, health, homes, savings, and even their lives."

Here's N. Kristof's (NYT columnist) take on the issue:
Opponents suggest that a “government takeover” of health care will be a milestone on the road to “socialized medicine,” and when he hears those terms, Wendell Potter cringes. He’s embarrassed that opponents are using a playbook that he helped devise. “Over the years I helped craft this messaging and deliver it,” he noted. Mr. Potter was an executive in the health insurance industry for nearly 20 years before his conscience got the better of him.

Blue Dog (Conservative) Democrats & President Obama Share the Blame for the Impasse

Finally, I have to be extremely critical of president Obama. He's the only person who holds such a big megaphone. Now, I dare to ask: Can you tell me what is Obama's health care proposal? Seriously, try to answer this especially if you're a supporter of the president and for health care reform... He has failed to put forth a succinct plan and a clear message. Even his secretary of Health, Sibelius, said on national TV that a public option could be off the table! Really??!!

I hope that Kennedy's death can serve as a catalyst for meaningful health care reform that includes a strong public option.

Oh, by the way, Mr. President: FORGET TRYING TO GET BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT. IT WON'T HAPPEN. Get this damn thing passed with 218 in the House and 50 in the Senate! YOUR LEGACY SHOULD BE A GOOD REFORM NOT A COMPROMISED AND INEFFECTIVE LAW WITH REPUBLICAN SUPPORT.

Seeing Health Care as a Right and Not as Priviledge Should be the Starting Point

For many years I went without health care coverage. It started when I was in grad school when Blue Cross upped its premium and I couldn't afford it. In the last couple decades, some of my jobs offered health benefits some didn't; during the latter, I hoped that I'd stay healthy, and thankfully I never needed to go to the doctor or a hospital. Now I have coverage, and I've been paying into the system for years without having drawn benefits. But, it's OK, I don't mind. I'm glad I'm healthy, I'm glad I have good options [hey, as far as I know], and I know that I'm paying for others' treatment. I hope this is always the case... Empathy is good.

A few things first. If health care is a priority, then simple logic says that if other less-wealthy countries can do it (yes, Canada's system is superior to ours), then the US can do it too. We tried the private insurance route and it hasn't worked. Medicare--a socialized way to offer coverage to people--is more efficient and much less bureaucratic. After all, if we socialize the risk while privatizing the profit why can't we do it for something that will make Americans live longer, healthier lives.

Obviously, costs must be reduced. The American Medical Association (only a minority of doctors & medical students belong to it; fewer still support its policies) is against any public plan. Well, maybe they could suggest how we can save some big bucks by stopping those doctors from prescribing unnecessary treatments because they get bonuses for such. Something is wrong with spending far more (as % of GDP) than any other nation on health care and yet we have 1/3 of the population uninsured or underinsured.

My sister is in the medical field and earlier this year she lost her job. Her hospital in Queens closed because it wasn't profitable and/or was in the red. It served a poor to middle-class community and it was very busy. The system is overwhelmed. The other hospitals in the borough will be hard pressed to cover the gap. But, health care is a necessary service, like other services an advanced society offers to its citizens. Most doctors, indeed there's a whole big administrative staff, deal with paperwork--some estimates, up to 30% of running a hospital. Infinite amount of bureaucratic maze focusing on fighting, negotiating and getting insurance companies to pay for patients' treatment.

The insurance companies, the HMOs, are in it for the money. They're concerned about the bottom line. That's why they reject a certain number of claims, and they fight to deny benefits and coverage. And, this for-profit mode is part of the problem.

Not everything has to be evaluated on a cost-profit basis; that is, in monetary terms, because society profits from having a healthier population. Some things work better being private, some don't. The police, the fire department, public parks and libraries, and so many other institutions should not be in private hands. They should operate for the public benefit and not for private profit. Therefore, I think health care has to have a public option in it. I know language matters, but we've already have socialized benefits--anytime there's a program open to a greater number of people, it's a form of social policy that benefits the commonwealth. Instead of being shy about certain "red flag" terms, let's explain what they really mean.

I know someone who's been trying to get a good job for years but she's only found low-paying jobs, the per-hour kind, with no health insurance. She's been paying hundreds of dollars every month to maintain health coverage. The other day, I asked her if, hypothetically, she was willing to pay the equivalent of two months worth of premiums in additional taxes in order to insure all Americans. Her reply, "I don't want socialism in my country." Invariably, she repeats the "horrors of the Canadian system." Now, many Americans parrot this conservative mantra, although I'm happy to see that finally most Americans do want change, including greater government role in health care.

Here are some experts from varying viewpoints discussing Obama's proposals, as appeared on the Washington Post's website. Now, I understand why the president wants a public dialogue, but not everyone comes to the table ready for an honest discussion. Most Republicans will opose anything; they'll now vote against the military supplemental spending bill--but when it was Bush's, they accused those who voted against it as "America-haters," and "unpatriotic."

Anyway, Obama has to make a more forceful case and push for a major overhaul of the health care system. Now it's the time. Not so long ago, we had the same rhetoric and charges against Medicare and Veterans benefits. Going back a little further, the conservatives and the big business opposed Social Security, labor laws, safety belts, consumer protection, public education, and so many other good things, including electrification. And, yes, it took bold government action for these to happen. Once it's done, most of the arguments against good-sense policies deflate. It's natural for people to be afraid of the unknown, especially when they hear irresponsible and false claims by those whose interests lie with the status quo.

I would ask all those Republicans (and some Democrats, who hail from conservative states) in Congress who oppose universal health care, why are they so selfish? They have the best coverage but they're not willing to extend the same to their fellow citizens. It's even more offensive if you consider that most members of Congress are wealthy individuals who can afford their own insurance but opt to enjoy a benefit paid by the American taxpayers.




PS. Here's good documentary, PBS Frontline, Sick Around the World, with a comparison of several countries' health care systems.

PS2. Initially, I didn't know what to make of Daschle's nomination to be in charge of health care reform but I gave the benefit of the doubt to Obama for selecting him. Anyway, then we learned that Daschle has worked closely--and at great profit--with those who prefer the status quo. It's a relief not to have him on the "inside" of the Obama team pushing against what most of us want [new poll showing big majority supporting public plan].... Daschle now urges Obama to drop public health care plan! Tsk.. What was Obama thinking? How can he nominate someone like that? In a way, we should be thankful that Daschle cheated on his taxes...

Education Means More than Getting a Paper Good for Framing

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?- President Bush, Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

It's been a long month with lots of work and countless events to attend. Now it's come to a screeching hold. But, that's the life in the academia. I like it though. A few days ago, I attended the commencement ceremonies and it was the culmination of a long journey for the graduating students. Actually I felt proud for some of them that I got to know more closely over the past 4 years. Even though I will never see them again, I felt I had played a positive role in their young lives. I wish all of them well.

In some sense, it was my moment too, because I started working at that university about four years ago, so I have a few things in common with the graduating class. Our paths will now separate, and I'll go back to the same classrooms next autumn. This is not just a job and I hope I maintain this spirit, which is lost among several of my colleagues.


I often ponder the question of education. It can't possibly be the training of an individual to perform specific tasks. Yes, we do need the scientists, the professionals, the experts, but we need critical thinkers. People who can connect the dots, make sense of the information, explore new paths, are very much needed as well. A learned person is one who has the intellectual curiosity to inquire and the confidence to amend.

Otherwise, we produce automatons, who are highly skilled and specialized--and even though they help our collective progress, they don't get to fully realize their intellectual potential. Education may be the key to many good things, but we should remember that the ultimate goal of education is not a piece of paper good-for-framing; it's to become a learned person--a quest that lasts a lifetime.

The Absurdity of Not Understanding What Science Is

Education should be an equalizing force--that is, give the individual the means to upward mobility--in a society, especially in the US where the gap between the classes is growing especially fast under the Bush administration. Actually, the mobility myth is just that. The rules of the game are being fixed in favor of the established elites, and it's getting harder for Americans to move up the socio-economic ladder.

There is another phenomenon today that's creating another gap: between those who have access to information and those who don't. Education and information are empowering, therefore, access to them is imperative especially for those who don't have a panoply of means.

It's nice to see adults in the White House who speak to us in complete sentences and appeal to our intellect--not to our worst primitive emotions. It's nice to see the President placing an emphasis on education and science. It would be even nicer if our society produced more educated persons; and this means education should be more accessible. If the individual is willing to put the time, energy and effort into this long journey, the price of admission shouldn't be so high as to be a barricade to progress.

We have a problem doing things pro-actively, planning ahead, saving money in the long term. Instead of prevention and reducing ill effects, we try to solve our problems when the symptoms are dire. People in school, for example, are less likely to become a public charge. Access to health care (prevention and early detection included) makes for a healthier population--and the savings are clear.

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." President G.W. Bush —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

A Reminder on Mother's Day: Raising Humanity one Child at a Time

Happy Mother's Day!

If we want to make our mothers happy, we should celebrate them more than one day, and, generally speaking, we should strive to elevate the position of women everywhere in the world.

Linguist George Lakoff in his book, Moral Politics, talks about the strict disciplinarian father and the nurturing mother as two different models of government. Lakoff suggests that we need more of the mother model--which is preferred by the progressives. The conservatives appeal to people's belief in a strict father; and it seems, that many people need the rigid structure in their lives as they prefer to follow than lead.

Mothers have played a greater role than fathers in raising the generations of humans. They're the keepers of the culture--even if this often means discriminating and prejudicial practices against themselves! But, without their long investment in our well-being, humanity would not have survived.

We do need a progressive culture of life, whereas family values have a true meaning...

Not when the government or religion try to control a woman's reproductive choices... Or, when the emphasis is on the cellular level (before and at conception) but afterward mother and child are left with no social support for survival...

Not when women are treated as chattel and as vessels for procreation. On the contrary, a true culture of life means pre-natal care, full health care coverage for mother & child; it means good educational opportunities for the children too.

Since societies became militaristic, women were relegated to the bottom of the social ladder and their duty & self-fulfillment was to be found by serving their husbands. This has to change fast. For goodness' sake, we've come a long way to the 21st century; at least we should bring all humanity to the present and not leave them in the past!

We hear about family values but we see little in the way of policy that actually promotes those conditions that enhance family life when it matters! Family values should mean a much lower infant mortality. In the world today, every minute, a mother dies due to childbirth complications. Her children die of malaria and other preventable diseases by the millions. But, even before a woman becomes a mother, she can greatly benefit from formal education. An educated mother is less likely to totally depend on her husband, less likely to get AIDS (and more likely to be healthy), and less likely to have too many children.

Some of the conditions in the developing world are appalling. Yet, poverty, hunger, and preventable diseases are not strange to American mothers either. The US is a much better place than the Third Wold, but we do have the weakest social safety net among the advanced democratic countries! The indicators of the health of the nation tell a sad story: we're number 37 on the World Health Organization's list.

The bottom line is this: we honor motherhood by treating our mothers well. It makes sense, doesn't it? Better mothers & better conditions for motherhood and we all benefit. After all, we exist because we were the recipients of our mothers' nurturing and love. That's a smart culture of life, and good family values!

Domestic violence kills and injures more people in the developing world than war, cancer or traffic accidents

By looking at the condition of women in a given country, you can tell a great deal about that country--its economy, politics, and culture.


Mother's Day is this Sunday but I'd like the celebration to be more than one day. I have a problem when people become romantic just because it's Valentine's Day, or remember their mother because it's Mother's Day. I believe it has to be a way of life, an attitude to behave nicely, to be an enlightened person, to treat other human beings with respect and afford them dignity. Unfortunately, not every country is a liberal democracy [the only truly free society we know today], and many haven't arrived at the 21st century yet...

Motherhood cannot be separated from the condition of women in the world today.
UK's The Independent has a great article about that condition. The British government in cooperation with human rights groups have found some very disturbing facts:

• Two-thirds of the world's 800 million illiterate adults are women as girls are not seen as worth the investment, or are busy collecting water or firewood or doing other domestic chores.


• Two million girls aged from five to 15 join the commercial sex market every year.


• Domestic violence kills and injures more people in the developing world than war, cancer or traffic accidents.


• Seventy per cent of the world's poorest people are women.


• Violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war.


• Women produce half the world's food, but own less than two per cent of the land.


• Of the more than one billion people living in extreme poverty, 70 per cent are women.


• Almost a third of the world's women are homeless or live in inadequate housing.


• Half of all murdered women are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.


• Every minute a woman dies as a result of pregnancy complications.


• Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, yet earn only a tenth of its income.


• One woman in three will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime.


• 43 million girls are not able to go to school.


• In 2007, one million HIV-positive women died of AIDS-related illnesses because they could not get the drugs they needed.


• Human Rights Watch, in reports on 15 countries including Afghanistan, Brazil, Morocco, Papua New Guinea, Togo and South Africa, has identified violence against schoolgirls, child domestic workers and those in conflict with the law as on the rise.


• Women across the developing world are the victims of systematic abuse.

I know that, in my lifetime, I propably won't see a world where true humanism and enlightenment are universally practiced, but for every life we change today, we can affect thousands in the future. Yes, every person can make a positive difference, big or small. Oscar Schindler saved about 1,200 human beings, who went on to have families, children, grandchildren, and so forth, for generations. I think it's rather basic, it's respect for human life, in the here & now, when it actually matters!

Women are our mothers. They deserve everything, and more, than we--the children, the men--enjoy today. It makes sense, it's good for the world, it's humane!

Added, 5/10:
This song is about a man bidding farewell to his mother..

It's About Time We Think and Act Big. [and Why Republicans Should Oppose all of it]

Sometimes you have to thing big and act accordingly. What the country needs is bold moves right now, from the economy to education, health care, and even what we do in everyday life. We come from the past and certainly we want to maintain a continuity but not at the expense of having a better life in the future. We should also be open to reality and spend some time learning about the important issues, because many policies will be implemented in our name. All this assumes that people are mature enough to re-examine certain myths that sustained our politics & policies in the last several decades.

We've already taken some bold steps with the election of Barack Obama. Some bank checks are written for hundreds of billions of dollars--and they're not issued only by Wall Street as bonuses to its executives. Our government is writing big checks right now and we are being charged that amount. At last count, the national debt exceeded $11 trillion. This has to be paid back but how it's done will depend on what we do today and how we use all this money. It's about time we became smarter as a nation and how we behave politically--which involved lots more than voting every couple years. But, how does one become smart?

This is an Equal-Opportunity Project. We All Have a Role to Play

It starts with the family that imbues children with proper attitude and good habits. We have to examine the conditions that make a family stable. There are some actions individuals can make while the government provides access to information, proper nutrition & health care, and better education. Spend in advance so we can save money later. Crime costs this country a pretty penny, and the cost isn't just what we spend on more police, courts, prisons & housing of inmates.

Information--accurate and informative--is power. Access to the Internet is a necessity today and every citizen should have it. Researching, learning, exercising one's civic duty & rights, keeping an eye on our elected officials, finding a (better) job can all be done via the cyberspace. Faux News can still exist (so we can always point to an example of stupidity, prejudice and intellectual blindness), but we have to maintain those media that inform and pursue the evidence no matter where it leads. Funding (private & public) for PBS, NPR and your local non-for-profit media is necessary. Democracy cannot exist without free media, but free media doesn't necessarily mean good information.

Speaking of evidence, we have to make sure that the scientific way wins over superstition and ignorance. There's a strong correlation between science and democracy and this will become even more prescient in the 21st century. Science embodies the notion of inquiry, increasing knowledge & finding new stuff, while amending beliefs is a welcomed outcome if better evidence is found. Intellectual pursuits are good, despite the official mantra of the last 8 years of Bush & Co--which includes much of his conservative base. The anti-science stance must end right away; it hurts the country and harms the individual. We've become a great country partly because we embraced science, and despiteour population being one of the most ignorant among industrialized nations.

Universal health care is way overdue. We can have it, we can afford it--providing we reform the present system--and it has been tried with success elsewhere. This is a huge topic by itself and I will return to it, but I find unconscionable that so many people die due to lack of health care and/or appropriate insurance. [see sidebar, American Cancer Society's way of reducing cancer deaths by 50%!] If one of the goals of government is to protect, then providing decent health care is it! Terrorists kill far fewer Americans than other preventable causes. It's only a matter of priorities.

All the talk these days is the economy. How did we get to this? Short memory syndrome is one cause. We forgot that the banking system & Wall Street cannot self-regulate! The Republicans helped erase our memories of the Great Depression and perpetuated harmful myths while creating huge gaps of wealth in our society. Sadly, many voters have supported policies against their own interests. But, hey, the GOP gave those people what they wanted: the 3 Gs (God-gays-guns). Now they say tax breaks are what's need. Trickle down riches, and tides that lift all boats are crackpot folklore.

A Chance at Change But Success Comes With Prudent Choices

There's a window of opportunity to revamp many of our own myths, past practices, and show that a new approach can be a winning strategy for most of us. The government has an important role to play--that's why often it's not necessarily the size (the stone of contention between cons and libs) but whom we put there! Give me the best (whatever size) organization and put the wrong person in decision-making position, and I can guarantee you failure. We've done this for far too long. The Wall Street geniuses believed their own delusions and became arrogant. They formed close-knit groups and served on each other's boards, giving themselves huge pay packages & bonuses. While we privitized profit, we socialized the risk. The taxpayers are bailing them out because they became too big & too entrenched in the wallets of most Americans to fail.

There is some good news in this mess. The Republicans have become a regionally-based party which is shrinking. They still hold the illusion that it was Bush or McCain (strangely, not Sarah Palin--judging from her popularity in the GOP) that failed the ideology. Their strategy is to "just say NO!" and hope that Obama fails, that new scandals will wash away the Republican sins of the last 12 years, so the GOP will return to power. Wishful thinking? We'll see.

I do hope no Republican senator votes for Obama's economic plan. Like their counterparts in the House did--not a single Republican voted for it. And, I hope they elevate Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Sean Hanity, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, and all such wingnuts to official spokesmen for the GOP. This party should either modernize or be relegated to the dustbin of history. Thus far it hasn't shown any inclination to progress. It hasn't realized that from a majority party, controlling the White House, and both chambers of Congress, it has become a small minority!

It's time we think big. All small-minded people please step aside and take your ignorance, prejudice, and myths with you.

US Healthcare: Poor or No Choices for One in Three Americans

When people organize themselves into a civil society they expect certain benefits according to the abilities of their commonwealth and the historical circumstances. We hear a lot about freedom and choices in this market economy, many of the arguments coming from the conservatives and the ruling elites. The market economy, capitalism, competition, reward for one's efforts, innovation, private profit, efficiency, rationalism, etc, are all good things. But, it helps to examine the details, because as it is said, the devil hides in the details.

Adam Smith is an icon of capitalists, though I doubt many have read his Wealth of Nations carefully enough. Who needs public schools, he asks. The wealthy can purchase their own education, and the "free" choice the poor can exercise is to go to work in the factories. Same scenario with the health care in this country. The market forces and our government have failed to provide a good solution to the nation's ailing population. About 1 in 3 Americans either lacks health care insurance or is under-insured.

This is the only industrialized country where a person can be driven into bankruptcy because of medical expenses. In addition, despite all the militaristic culture and the huge outlays on security, more Americans die every year (6 times more) that all those Americans who were killed by terrorists on 9-11. The American Cancer Society estimates that cancer deaths in the US can be cut in half if everyone has access to care and early detection! The only solution, of course, is to provide universal coverage.

So, next time you hear the politicians talk about choice, freedom and the ..American way, speak up, ask questions, think for yourself, define what the American dream is all about. For freedom to be meaningful it has to be practical and available. You're not really free, if you're free to think & say whatever you want in solitary confinement! You also have to be alive to have freedom. In this dangerous world, we have to ask smart questions about safety, and be ready to form majorities to demand real, practical safety, and access to all the services a wealthy, advanced, democratic society should provide to its people. That's a progressive culture or life!

Sharks are dangerous to humans for they kill a few dozen people a year world-wide;. Yet, this is not a risk most of us have to be afraid of, because we can reasonably escape it. Talking about the sharks and spending billions upon billions to protect ourselves while practically ignoring the most dangerous animal* (that injures 200 million and kills 3 million humans every year) is absurd. Let's put a few things into perspective here. The absence of a public safety net is what kills more people and brings so much suffering.

Oh, one more thing. It's shameful that the wealthiest country on the planet has really bad health statistics as ranked by the World Health Organization. It's a travesty that there is a gap of 30 years in the average life span between the people in the Northeast and those in several states in the South!

* mosquito!!!

PS>In an earlier post, I discussed Bush's statement that the US has a better health care system that other countries... Click here to jump to that page.

Raising Humanity One Child at a Time

Happy Mother's Day!

If we want to make our mothers happy, we should celebrate them more than one day, and, generally speaking, we should try to elevate the position of women everywhere.

Linguist George Lakoff in his book, Moral Politics, he talks about the strict disciplinarian father and the nurturing mother as two different models of government. Lakoff suggests that we need more of the mother model--which is preferred by the progressives. The conservatives appeal to people's belief in a strict father; and it seems, that many people need the rigid structure in their lives as they prefer to follow than lead.

We are different after all. Progressives want to explore the world, entertain ideas, are open to change & revision, and have a more positive view of human nature. Conservatives, like GW Bush, don't want debate (or talking back). Why, exchanging liberty for a promise of safety is welcome... Oh, and an absurd reductionist approach: with us or against us; good or evil; hero or villain; moral or immoral, etc.

Again, I repeat, the philosophical difference is that we like the nurturing approach in our government--not a nanny state, but a government that creates the conditions in the country for the individual to have a reasonable opportunity to reach self-fulfillment!

Mothers have played a greater role than fathers in raising the generations of humans. They're the keepers of the culture--even if this often means discriminating and prejudicial practices against them! But, without their long investment in our well-being, humanity would not have arrived at where it is today.

We do need a progressive culture of life, whereas family values, for example, have a true meaning... Not when the government or religion try to control a woman's reproductive choice, but during pregnancy and soon after birth mother & child are left to their own devices to survive! Not when women are treated as chattel and as vessels for procreation. On the contrary, it means pre-natal care, full health care coverage for mother & child; it means good educational opportunities for the children too.

Since societies became militaristic, women were relegated to the bottom of the social ladder and their duty & self-fulfillment was to be found by serving their husbands. This has to change fast. For goodness' sake, we've come a long way to the 21st century; at least we should bring all humanity to the present and not leave them in the past!

We hear about family values but we see little in the way of policy that actually promotes those conditions that enhance family life when it matters! Family values should mean a lower (to non-existent) infant mortality. Every minute a mother dies due to childbirth complications. Her children die of malaria and other preventable diseases. But, even before a woman becomes a mother, she can greatly benefit from formal education. An educated mother is less likely to totally depend on her husband, less likely to get AIDS (and more likely to be healthy), and less likely to have too many children.

Some of the conditions in the developing world are appalling. But, poverty, hunger, and preventable diseases are not strange to American mothers either. The US is a much better place than the Third Wold, but we do have the weakest social safety net among the advanced democratic countries! The indicators of the health of the nation tell the story... we're number 37 on the World Health Organization's list.

The bottom line is this: we honor motherhood by treating our mothers well. It makes sense, doesn't it? Better mothers & better conditions for motherhood and we all benefit. After all, we exist because we were the recipients of our mothers' nurturing and love. That's a smart culture of life, and good family values!

Bush is Right: We Have Better Health Care Compared to "Other Systems in the World"

El Presidente is a gambler too! But, he's gambling with other people's lives & money.

I've been a gambler. I admit it. There was nothing I could do about it. The circumstances, you know, didn't allow me to stop gambling with my health, and I could not afford to stop. Either pay for grad school or for health insurance--that was my choice. I has hoping that I wouldn't get sick for a while. I was lucky. As you can imagine, I'm very sensitive to this issue of health care and the need for universal coverage. In an advanced country, I consider it a right not a privilege determined by price and available only to those who can buy it.

I’m going to tell you something — we have fabulous health care in America, just so you know. I think it’s very important — before people start griping about the health care system here — and of course there’s always grounds for complaint — just to compare it with other systems around the world.
President Bush, Fredericksburgh, VA (Dec. 17th, 2007)

He's right! The US ranks much higher in health care than most countries in the world. We're not in the top 10 though. Not in the top 20. Not in the top 30. Does it matter? After all, as Paul Krugman says the US health care "at its best, is the best." Does it matter that an estimated 47 million Americans don't have health insurance? Many more are under-insured. In 2005, the # 1 reason for personal bankruptcies was health care costs--and most of those people who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance but not enough coverage.

The World Health Organization ranked the US #37 among 191 countries in 2000. Do you think there's been an improvement since? Our own American Cancer Society says that there is a way to reduce cancer deaths in the US by half! Save more lives than all our expensive operations against the terrorists combined. How? By giving every person universal coverage that includes prevention & early detection! Is this too much to ask? Can we afford not to have it?

This is another important difference among the presidential candidates. The Democrats seem more sensitive to this issue. The Republicans want the marketplace (as if it hadn't had the opportunity already) to solve the problem. [Read between the lines: profit is more important than lives]. John Edwards has the best plan out there, and, for me, this is a very good reason to endorse him. I'm not one-issue voter, but health care weighs very heavily in my mind.

I don't want to hear about the threat of "European socialism" as the Repubs describe any sensible plan for universal coverage. Are the western democracies that have universal coverage less democratic than the US?!! Besides, what's wrong with a social program that promotes the general health of a nation? We do it here for our veterans, our senior citizens, with administrative costs around 3%, instead of 30% for the rest of the system!

Oh, I don't want to forget, our leaders in the US Congress, the White House, and in the high echelons of our government enjoy the best health care in the world! We pay for it. Is it socialized medicine for millionaires? Yes, I liked it very much when Edwards said he'd take away this coverage if Congress didn't pass a universal coverage plan. He's also said that you can't solve this huge mess by negotiating with the insurance companies as Hillary Clinton has suggested. I agree. Health care administration costs have to come way down, and profits shouldn't the result of denying coverage to people! This is a rather simple approach I think. It will take a fight to change the health care system in this country, and we should be involved in this--starting by electing a president who understands the need and the urgency of solving this problem.

Of course Bush can say that we have the best care in the world. It costs us 17% of GDP--way more per person than any other country! And, we get less. But other than that, we're number one--well, if you don't count those who can't afford any coverage and the under-insured. Eliminating demand does wonders.

Isn't insane to spend trillions on armaments, invading & occupying countries to keep our country "safe" from foreign threats while millions of Americans die unnecessarily, often not without prolonged suffering? When the doctors examined the First Colon and found pre-cancerous polyps and removed them, they likely saved Bush's life--because of preventive care, frequent checkups. Rudy is with us today and running for president because he could be tested early and treated for prostate cancer. A good thing? Why should the rest of us be gamblers?

It's feels nice to wave the flag and sing patriotic songs. But, for what kind of country are we rooting for? When we exalt our virtues, our values, our achievements, our greatness, shouldn't we recognize our problems too? There are 30 million Americans below the poverty line. There are almost twice as many (57 million) of the missing class as Catherine Newman describes them. [click on her name, it's worth reading/hearing what she has to say about this class]

But, what am I saying? I forgot. Compassionate conservatism is concerned with ..sex*[see footnote]. When two cells meet--life begins at conception (even earlier) they tell us. But after that point, the mother is on her own. Her children? On their own too. Poor families, heck, you know... If the children make it to 18, then they can enlist in the Armed Forces. No high school diploma (education) is necessary either. What a culture of life this is...

No, a civil society has a government in order to promote the commonwealth. To protect and empower the people. This is the measuring value. Is it not? But, this view is a progressive culture of life. Don't expect the same from those who see the government as the problem; a problem so big that they want to shrink our government so much as to "drown it in a bathtub" and therefore make it incapable of protection and empowerment!

* Every day, 10,000 young people get a sexually-transmitted disease in the US. But, according to some, condoms are worse! The Bush administration continue to promote anti-scientific and non-effective policies, while insisting on funding abstinence-only programs. Teenage & unintended pregnancy rates are also rising in the US.

It's time we focus more on the conservatives' illusion of being fiscally responsible. OK, Bush & Co mortgaged the future of our kids, but even the likes of Ron Paul and other economic hawks cost our society a great deal in financial terms. They disguise their budget cuts by shifting costs from the federal government to the states and the individuals. They also promote a system whereas saving some money today results in bigger expenses in the future (as discussed above).. .

The drawing is by one of my most favorite political cartoonists, Ted Rall (12/23/06)

World AIDS Day: Pay Attention Today, Tomorrow, and Until We Beat this Disease

People living with HIV/AIDS (adults and children)
Global Data, 2007; Country Data, 2005

Global health data provided by GlobalHealthFacts.org
Customize a map for your website

Many problems humanity faces are not dealt expeditiously, with all the available resources, or with reason. Now if such problems are connected to sex, then it's even harder to deal with them. Obviously, AIDS is not entirely the result of sexual activity if you count the people infected through blood transfusions, but the images of the drug addict, the homosexual, the lascivious & promiscuous person dominates many minds in this case. However, the pandemic unnecessarily drains humanity of resources and lives. We can change this with education and sensible public health care.

Many HIV/AIDS victims live in the under-developed world. Women in Africa who have HIV/AIDS tend to be married and infected by their husbands! There's a lack of education about human sexuality, prevention methods, and sparse availability of treatment. Oh, and there's religion that complicates things. Religion that keeps women as chattel, sexually subservient to men, and the Catholic Church that says AIDS is bad but condoms are worse!

Here in our country, el presidente places his emphasis on faith-based groups that teach abstinence instead of giving practical information & ways to prevent the spread of HIV. To fight the disease, Bush has given 2/3 of the money to abstinence-only programs! Of course, such approach is not effective!

From a State of Nature to an Enlightened Society: Democracy Won't Survive if the People Aren't Involved. Let's Put our Ideas into Good Use!

part 2/2

Ideas are very powerful because they help form beliefs and motivate people to action. So, it's not a fruitless exercise to think, re-think, revise, and learn by observation. It's good and necessary! However, this activity takes a bit of courage since it may uncover truths that could make you uncomfortable. Once I asked myself whether my need to know is greater than my fears. The answer was, if there's something I should know, then I do want to know. Granted, we often don't have all the facts, but that's life. We make decisions using the best available data and by employing logic. How good our data and our logic are impacts the outcome. But that's why it's very important to keep the dialogue going. A strong theory is one that leaves room for amendment. Closed, de-facto, divine, or absolute theories are just baseless opinions, and not theories in the scientific sense.

Our world is a complex one, fast-moving, and ever-changing. Change for the sake of change is a foolish thing, but progressive change is necessary. A true conservative is a traditionalist who prefers the "true & tried" to the unknown. The resistance to the pace of modernity may be due to his inability to make sense of the new quickly enough. The sense of identity rooted in the past is being challenged by modernity and, yes, cosmopolitanism. Being "special" means to have some kind of exclusivity, and thus humans have shun others--especially those who believe in other gods, dress, speak, behave differently. Traditional culture to a great extend is repetition. Nationalism is similar to providing exclusivity and special status. An offshoot of this is nativism--which has been present as long as immigration to this country.

Liberals tend to be persons who welcome and can cope with change. They're more likely to be risk-takers, more tolerant, inquisitive, to explore what's beyond the horizon, and use a rational approach. Progressives always looks to improve society. We accept the scientific inquiry and the scientific method. Most of us like the ideas of Locke, Kant, Mill, et al, but we don't accept dogma and absolutism. In present-day US politics, we have to be partisan as the Republican party with its neo-cons, prudes, religious fanatics, authoritarians, anti-science (and proud of) views, power-grabbers, and non-democrats, is beyond hope.

A liberal democracy offers the best chance for the individual to reach self-fulfillment because of the rights it confers upon every person and for the opportunities if affords. Democracy cannot exist without the demos (the people) and without opportunity! Regrettably, we are in danger of losing our grasp on the political system that has made our country great. When others were struggling with authoritarian, backward systems, the US was pushing ahead. We had the best of the three Tees! Technology, Talent, and Tolerance. We're not as good as we used to be, at least not in relative terms vis-a-vi the rest of the world.

The Gilded Age has return and the income (wealth) inequality is as great as it was some 100 years ago. The stock market is going up but real wages have stagnated since the 1970s. We have to ask, what's the benefit of having such a huge economy that produces so much wealth if the distribution of wealth is absurd! Wealth is being accumulated by the very tiny elite at the very top. I think this is not healthy for a society, nor do I think it's good business. We know that power & wealth are closely related.

If the American middle class doesn't receive most of the wealth, power will also accumulate to the very top of the economic elites. And, all socio-economic elites want more and use their means to that effect. This situation is not good for us. Unless we act today, it may be too late tomorrow, or, it we may have to go through a traumatic shock.

Being rewarded for one's efforts is a moral thing--I agree with Adam Smith on this. But, no one achieves everything by himself. He usually stands on the shoulders of others. The self-made successful business people depend on the resources & the conditions that exist. They do not operate in the vacuum of space! Public transportation, educated work force, police, fire, EMT, the armed forces, and the law that secures their property are some of the benefits this country provides.

What should the benefits be for being a member of such a rich country? Is health care, for example, a right or a privilege? And--if I may push it a bit further--we can't analyze everything on a profit basis. Certain things aren't supposed to be profitable, like public libraries, national parks, etc. But, they are necessary for the quality of our lives.

Unless the majority of Americans start to pay more attention to what's going on, and are willing to participate in the affairs of our country, then the situation is going to get worse. This is an investment all of us should make. I think many Americans haven't realized this as yet. They sense that it's a good thing to live in this country--and it is! But, this is not enough, nor it's the result of divine order. It took many years of effort and leadership. The genius of the Founders was this: to create a system that allowed popular participation, minority rights, separation of church-state, economic opportunity, and it provided a way to amend it as the country moved through the centuries.

I don't believe our democracy will continue to function if we're to rest upon the achievements of the past and the occasional wise leadership that may come along. I think people's participation is necessary today more than ever. But, the people have to know enough to make reasonable decisions. We can't afford leaders like Bush any more--not in the highest leadership offices of the land anyway. We don't have another grace period; we have to hit the ground running.

I'm an optimist, but also a realist. I know that for all the hoopla, the necessity for reversing the present disastrous course, and the excitement of electing the next leader of the free world, etc, only a small percentage of US citizens will show up to vote in the months to come. How small you ask? Well, in our first contest in Iowa, only 6 to 10% of eligible voters will vote!

Americans may dislike their politics, they may find the political process unappealing, and definitely complicated. On the other hand, they still believe that "we're number one!" In the past, we looked around the world and we compared favorably. But, look how the world has changed since. Even totally destroyed countries (Germany, Japan) have rebounded.

I think the dissatisfaction hasn't reached the tipping point yet. It may come sooner than later and it may produce another wave that will bring a new New Deal. The "great middle"--the middle class ever so important to a stability of a country--is not gaining as much as the corporations. Now the latter are not only getting exceedingly preferential treatment but are increasingly capturing our government! Public services--once thought to be a main reason to have a government--are disappearing, being outsourced to corporations whose main concern (and obligation) is to make money, often by denying services! [such as the case with the health insurance companies]

We're privatizing our own government. Profit is good. Wealth is desirable. However, we have to create & maintain conditions for a good life; to keep a country where a progressive culture of life prevails. Creating wealth has to be done smartly not with savagery. For example, if you're in the business of logging in a competitive unregulated environment, then you cut down the last remaining tree standing! In the end, you're out of business (if rich) and all of us suffer. There's got to be a sane, more practical way than this approach.

Who's to care for the commonwealth then? If not the citizens, who? There's no one else but us.... Benevolent dictators are no more; hopefully, we've matured enough to assume responsibility for ourselves; to confer high offices to capable leaders who won't stroke our passions but motivate us to make the world a better place to live in. We cannot afford not to be people of the Enlightenment.

An Obscure Question: Is this an Age of Englightment, or an Enlightning Age? [or, are philosophical meanderings totally boring & impractical?]

Part 1

Yes, I know, most of the visitors to this blog today just said, "I'll be back later," after reading this post's title! it's OK, I still want to talk about ideas and their practical necessity in our world. Certainly, it's a good exercise to ponder ideas, to think in the abstract and connect the imaginary dots. On the other hand, I find that the world of ideas (hence, philosophy) is a very powerful one. Haven't humans done beautiful and horrible acts alike because of ideas? Often, it doesn't matter if an impression or an idea is based on fact or fiction, it gives a reason for action. It justifies, pacifies, soothes, excites, and provides a sense of identity.

The clash between the ancient religion and Christianity was inevitable [photo from the Agora in Athens with a byzantine church in the foreground]

The values we hold are based on ideas too! Culture evolved because of certain concepts about life and the perceived necessary conditions for human survival. God originated as an idea, and religion was the result of what people thought [most people were told and believed as de facto] of the practical application of the divine.

Faith provided a path to salvation and physical immortality. Unfortunately, religious ideas haven't been very compatible with each other and frequently they operated in a zero-sum game, where it was believed that the survival of one meant the death of the other. So, for much of human history religion played an important role in war and the reasons for going to war.

I'm not concerned with the supernatural [not today in this post anyway] but with how a range of philosophical observations help explain and challenge human behavior. Philosophy becomes very real and applicable when an empirical approach is used. You observe, analyze, form conclusions & theories, and revise as necessary. It's a rather scientific approach. I like that. It's a great medium for humans to evolve upon. The challenging part is also very important, because it can provide fresh ideas and methods of improvement. But, I think only enlightened persons who value inquiry and are brave enough to face reality are comfortable with such a challenge.

The good news is that this elite club doesn't have membership fees, nor other requirements except an open, skeptical, deliberate mind--oh, and probably an interest for such exercises of the mind. With all the amenities and the benefits of a modern society, life isn't always easy, time & energy are limited, and our focus can wane into the trivial.

Jeremy Bentham a "philosophical radical" [radical during his time] said that humans have two masters: pleasure and pain, and, therefore, behave accordingly. These two "masters" can be used as a guideline for human interaction and for deciding on the role of government. He said, government should have the purpose of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Although, there are those who seek pain either for ..satisfaction or as a required means to an end, most people do prefer pleasure. Thus, a logical question would be, what is pleasure?

One of my favorite philosophers, John Stuart Mill, said it should be the individual who decides what constitutes pleasure; the same individual should be free to construct his own path to personal fulfillment. Mill put forth the Harm principle--which is very useful in deciding matters of privacy and public interest. The only acceptable reason for society to control individual behavior is to prevent harm to others. The individual's own good--either moral or physical--is not a sufficient warrant! This, of course, applies to people who are mature adults, not to children or to ..barbarians. In short, there's a personal definition of pleasure! In order to have that, rights of privacy are imperative.

We are who we are because of the environment we grow up in, our own efforts to enrich ourselves, accidental circumstances (luck), and availability of time & space to be ourselves. If the conditions of freedom and privacy change, then human character changes. I believe a liberal democracy offers the best possible conditions for the individual to fulfill his own potential. If this country is about property rights, let's not forget that you should own & be in charge of yourself.


But, shouldn't the light of reason prevail? As Immanuel Kant once asked, is this an age of enlightenment or an enlightening age? It's probably the latter. If we are to look around the world today many humans are hell-bent on total annihilation and destruction of reason and anything else that stands between them and their utopias. For a species, we are young and still primitive--although we have taken huge leaps of progress and we do have the greatest potential. If we allow ourselves to evolve that is.

One important act of maturity--or, in the process of getting there--is acting. Yes, observing and experiencing life can have a maturing effect, but taking the initiative and making choices is vital. A person should be an actor, not just part of a passive audience. That's why the conditions that foster freedom must be maintained, for freedom in this sense is a practical necessity!

We are creatures of convenience. Why not! But, there are a few things worth spending some time & effort on. Right? Convenience and laziness aren't identical. Thinking--critical and deliberate--is one worthwhile activity I reckon. Making decisions and assuming responsibility is hard too. At times we all want to regress to being children so we don't have to deal with life's adversities and demands. This is not a mature approach though. Sadly, too many modern humans are quite happy to remain in perpetual immaturity and let others make the decisions for them; it's much easier that way they reckon.

Those who have a choice, (usually those who live in a liberal democracy), have to answer a couple very important questions: Is it a worthwhile activity to lead an examined life? And, is it important to contribute a little bit to the conditions that foster human enlightenment?

[to be continued]