"Rise up and take the power back!
It's time the fat cats had a heart attack.
You know that their time is coming to an end.
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend."
About a year ago (on a Friday), the governor of Wisconsin introduced a Budget Repair Bill that "proposed taking away the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care and limiting pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state and requiring public unions to recertify annually."(q) By Monday (Valentine's Day) the people of Wisconsin were already making their voices heard. The protests grew in the days and weeks that followed as the governor (and his supporters) refused to back down from the controversial position that such a move was necessary. So 'necessary' in fact, that it had to be passed with a protocol-bending slight-of-hand that catapulted even the most reticent among us out of our respective reveries.
'Necessity' (or the great lack thereof) aside, what sparked outrage and indignation was the way in which people felt they were being treated by their 'representative' government. Media critic John Nichols has written a new book chronicling the protests in Wisconsin that marked the year 2011. Uprising: How Wisconsin Renewed the Politics of Protest, from Madison to Wall Street is a considered attempt to discuss "how one uprising inspires the next" and "what an uprising and its aftermath may mean for labor, for popular organizing, for media reform, for politics, for democracy." Nichols is not afraid to say that "crooked politicians [were] conniving to take away the essential rights of working people," and to liken the subsequent attempts to remake relevant legislative processes to "Orwellian fantasy" and "way stations on a road map to ruin." Prescient words from Nichols, as new information comes to light just days before his book is officially released. Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin "took the unusual step of signing a legal agreement in which they promised to not comment publicly about redistricting discussions while new GOP-friendly maps were being drafted." (q) Not comment publicly?? As in not answer to the public that elected you and for whom you are supposed to work?!? Cue the outrage and indignation...
So much has been already said about the influence of corporations on government. But corporations are built on the backs of workers - workers who are often degraded in a dozen small and not-so-small ways. Those workers are us. The future of this country isn't going to be shaped by our science or our religion; it will be shaped by what we as workers are willing to endure for the illusion of economic security. And in a day where corporate promises are so easily broken, unemployment is so easily attainable, and the average American is so easily bankrupted by unforeseen circumstances, illusion it is, for 99% of us at least.
Nichols fills his book with inspiring quotes, such as this... "The question will arise and arise in your day, though perhaps not fully in mine: Which shall rule, wealth or man? Which shall lead, money or intellect? Who shall fill public stations, educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?" And yet it seems as if Nichols is content to decry the current state of affairs and suggest the political changes that others might implement. He does not convincingly assume the mantle so often heard by the protesters - an injury to one is an injury to all. But then... who among us really does?
What Nichols fails to identify in his otherwise well-written book: Political action, though necessary, will not be sufficient. We cannot legislate others into caring about the burdens of their neighbors anymore than we can legislate them into acting in accordance with any other aspect of our own values. Attempting to do so only provokes the inevitable rebellion.
But we can attempt to make others see the reality of 'an injury to one is an injury to all'. And that reality is this... If there are any workers who can be denied benefits, a living wage, or a reasonable schedule, then those conditions can (and will) easily become a reality for everyone, because everyone is easily replaced with someone who is willing to put up with just a little bit more for the same (or less) compensation. That will always be the case in a society where workers outnumber jobs, and the conditions for workers grow worse as the number of potential replacements increases relative to the number of jobs. Those who are desperate for work may not be able to see past their own immediate emergencies, but those who are relatively secure in their employment bear the responsibility of seeing that that security does not come at the expense of others. It's not an easy responsibility to bear; we are not biologically or psychologically wired for self-sacrifice. We have no cultural imperative to work for the collective good. But perhaps, when enough of us have suffered, we will rise up and make the cultural changes that are necessary for lasting, non-illusory security.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Second Bill of Rights
"We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."
- Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."
- Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union.
Friday, February 3, 2012
The Power of Now (Pt I)
"I come clad only in the garments of today, with no mantle of history about me."
Every once in a while I'll be reading a book (usually fiction) and my progress will come to a crashing halt when I come upon a totally brilliant sentence. The above quote slammed me and I had to stop reading and ponder it.
I should point out that I have not yet read the Eckhart Tolle book whose title I borrowed for this post. I suppose that's because I see a lot of potential in the title, and I'm a bit afraid that the book itself will disappoint. (This despite 1,200+ readers' mostly high opinions of the book.)
I started think about the power of now not long ago while listening to a friend of mine talk about how she and her husband wanted a new camper (and the requisite class 3 tow vehicle) in the next two years. The last time I had any solid plans for the next two years of my life I was in grad school, and the plan was simply to finish grad school. (And this was about 10 years ago.) I had to wonder if I did (or should) envy her...
Now, perhaps, you can understand how I came to fixate on the above quote. (To be fair, for other reasons, I was also thinking about how the past is frequently a barrier to moving forward, in relationships and/or life in general.) If one were to construct a ritual for moving beyond some painful moment, either personally or in relation to another, I can see that sentence forming the basis of such a ritual. An expression of forgiveness, in response to an apology. A more elegant way of saying "It is forgotten." (Such are the digressions of my mind, stemming, I suspect, from heavy exposure to science fiction.)
Then, of course, I had to wonder exactly how far one could push the concept of now-centric living and now-centric relationships. Conventional, bald-tv-psychologist wisdom says that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Is it really wise to ignore the past, especially if it contains some powerful indicators of how one might be hurt in the future? What is the difference between acknowledging the lessons of the past, and being held hostage by the past? Is it as dysfunctional to cling to the 'lessons' of the past as it is to cling to idealistic dreams of a better future?
I was a little surprised to see that Tolle had a section on relationships in his book. Though the languages they speak are quite different, Tolle and bald-tv-psychologist wisdom agree on one thing: "The greatest catalyst for change in a relationship is complete acceptance of your partner as he or she is, without needing to judge or change them in any way." (p. 98) Now I was curious to see what Tolle had to say about dealing with/ moving past past behavior...
"Millions are now living alone or as single parents, unable to establish an intimate relationship or unwilling to repeat the insane drama of past relationships. Others go from one relationship to another, from one pleasure-and-pain cycle to another, in search of the elusive goal of fulfillment through union with the opposite energy polarity. Still others compromise and continue to be together in a dysfunctional relationship in which negativity prevails, for the sake of the children or security, through force of habit, fear of being alone, or some other mutually 'beneficial' arrangement, or even through the unconscious addiction to the excitement of emotional drama and pain." (p. 100)
I won't pretend to be a fluent speaker of the language in which Tolle's answer was couched - "egoic mind patterns" and the "pain-body" - so I'm not quite sure how he gets to his conclusion. "So whenever your relationship is not working, whenever it brings out the 'madness' in you and in your partner, be glad." Er? "Being the knowing creates a clear space of loving presence that allows all things and all people to be as they are." Eh?
But Tolle soon converges with conventional wisdom again. "Learn to give expression to what you feel without blaming. Learn to listen to your partner in an open, nondefensive way. Give your partner space for expressing himself or herself." (p. 102) Still... I don't see that the emphasis there is particularly now-centric...
Every decision we make, every path taken (or not), represents an allocation of resources towards one goal at the expense of others. Such assessment of priorities is only possible in light of a hierarchy of knowledge about the past. What guides our actions in the absence of a 'mantle of history'?
Every once in a while I'll be reading a book (usually fiction) and my progress will come to a crashing halt when I come upon a totally brilliant sentence. The above quote slammed me and I had to stop reading and ponder it.
I should point out that I have not yet read the Eckhart Tolle book whose title I borrowed for this post. I suppose that's because I see a lot of potential in the title, and I'm a bit afraid that the book itself will disappoint. (This despite 1,200+ readers' mostly high opinions of the book.)
I started think about the power of now not long ago while listening to a friend of mine talk about how she and her husband wanted a new camper (and the requisite class 3 tow vehicle) in the next two years. The last time I had any solid plans for the next two years of my life I was in grad school, and the plan was simply to finish grad school. (And this was about 10 years ago.) I had to wonder if I did (or should) envy her...
Now, perhaps, you can understand how I came to fixate on the above quote. (To be fair, for other reasons, I was also thinking about how the past is frequently a barrier to moving forward, in relationships and/or life in general.) If one were to construct a ritual for moving beyond some painful moment, either personally or in relation to another, I can see that sentence forming the basis of such a ritual. An expression of forgiveness, in response to an apology. A more elegant way of saying "It is forgotten." (Such are the digressions of my mind, stemming, I suspect, from heavy exposure to science fiction.)
Then, of course, I had to wonder exactly how far one could push the concept of now-centric living and now-centric relationships. Conventional, bald-tv-psychologist wisdom says that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Is it really wise to ignore the past, especially if it contains some powerful indicators of how one might be hurt in the future? What is the difference between acknowledging the lessons of the past, and being held hostage by the past? Is it as dysfunctional to cling to the 'lessons' of the past as it is to cling to idealistic dreams of a better future?
I was a little surprised to see that Tolle had a section on relationships in his book. Though the languages they speak are quite different, Tolle and bald-tv-psychologist wisdom agree on one thing: "The greatest catalyst for change in a relationship is complete acceptance of your partner as he or she is, without needing to judge or change them in any way." (p. 98) Now I was curious to see what Tolle had to say about dealing with/ moving past past behavior...
"Millions are now living alone or as single parents, unable to establish an intimate relationship or unwilling to repeat the insane drama of past relationships. Others go from one relationship to another, from one pleasure-and-pain cycle to another, in search of the elusive goal of fulfillment through union with the opposite energy polarity. Still others compromise and continue to be together in a dysfunctional relationship in which negativity prevails, for the sake of the children or security, through force of habit, fear of being alone, or some other mutually 'beneficial' arrangement, or even through the unconscious addiction to the excitement of emotional drama and pain." (p. 100)
I won't pretend to be a fluent speaker of the language in which Tolle's answer was couched - "egoic mind patterns" and the "pain-body" - so I'm not quite sure how he gets to his conclusion. "So whenever your relationship is not working, whenever it brings out the 'madness' in you and in your partner, be glad." Er? "Being the knowing creates a clear space of loving presence that allows all things and all people to be as they are." Eh?
But Tolle soon converges with conventional wisdom again. "Learn to give expression to what you feel without blaming. Learn to listen to your partner in an open, nondefensive way. Give your partner space for expressing himself or herself." (p. 102) Still... I don't see that the emphasis there is particularly now-centric...
Every decision we make, every path taken (or not), represents an allocation of resources towards one goal at the expense of others. Such assessment of priorities is only possible in light of a hierarchy of knowledge about the past. What guides our actions in the absence of a 'mantle of history'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
