Brave Humans

Hello all,

Been off the site for a few weeks due to work issues, etc. I’m still a bit strapped, but I wanted to forward something written by someone else. The following is a post I read on the John Edwards for President site. The author goes by the name Happy Warrior. I’ll say up front that I don’t necessarily agree with all the specifics of the argument he makes. His points about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example are a bit off the mark for me. I’m also NOT endorsing John Edwards for President at this time. I’m bringing this to BraveHumans because I applaud Happy Warrior’s intent and approach. I strongly agree that (at least) some large subset of these issues really needs to be addressed in any serious campaign for US President.
See what you think.
Be Brave. Be Human.
-Grant

More than other candidates, John Edwards emphasizes providing opportunities for the less fortunate among us and the extent to which Bush administration policies have put many of us at risk of becoming less fortunate. However, his competitors would agree with virtually everything he is saying. If his emphases gain attention, they will quickly move to also emphasize them. All will run on Restoring the American Dream, a theme already expressed by Hillary Clinton. In a crowded field of Democratic presidential competitors, the successful candidate must distinguish him or herself from the other competitors. This is particularly necessary for John Edwards who lacks the network and financial base of Hillary Clinton and the star aura of Barack Obama.

One way to stand out (admittedly a risky one) is to address the Elephants in the Room, those so-far intractable issues which are blocking major needed initiatives. Howard Dean addressed some of these in his 2004 campaign. Washington State Governor Gregoire is successfully implementing this Confronting Elephants strategy. But most politicians fear the risk, with the result that these elephants are scarcely mentioned.

The successful candidate must begin with a clear statement of his or her values and then proceed with narratives that indicate major blocks to the realization of these values and some possibilities for removing these blocks. Like FDR, candidates should show a determination to solve the problems, to experiment until solutions are found. Candidates should not get bogged down in specific policy suggestions. But they should have policies in mind and should say enough to indicate they will deal with the big issues that others are afraid to confront. Here are only a few of many possible examples of elephants that John Edwards might confront.

Electoral Reforms to Increase Our Democracy
Increasing our democracy is crucial to empowering our voters and enacting much mainstream liberal legislation. We must establish electoral procedures which provide fair voter representation and reduce the undue influence of powerful and wealthy businesses and individuals. We need a powerful Electoral commission which is independent of our congress, either part of our judiciary or an independent 4th branch of government. This commission should increase our democracy through such actions as:

redistricting after our censuses
allowing Washington D.C. residents to vote
establishing voting systems such as eliminating winner-take-all election of presidential and vice presidential electors and adopting instant run-off voting so that voters can vote for their favorite candidate without helping their less favored candidate
regulating primary elections and caucuses including their timing
regulating debates
requiring media to provide affordable time for candidates
providing public and limit private campaign funding
regulating lobbying activities
establishing and enforcing ethics policies for elected and appointed officials

Many powerful interests would resist these reforms, but the candidate who supports them (not necessarily in all the above described details) will receive strong voter approval.

Fairer Taxes through Tax Shifting
Our present taxes are extremely unfair, especially since the Bush administration tax cuts. Changes might include:

Altering our income tax to a flat tax with a deductable equal to our medium income. Only half of us with incomes above the medium would pay taxes, at an increasing rate for those with higher incomes. The rate could be set to bring in the same revenue (20% of gross product) which has mostly prevailed since World War II. This tax corrects for market tendencies to over reward high income recipients.

Substituting a VAT (Value Added Tax) for our FICA tax to support our social security and other social services. Our FICA tax is a tax on jobs, which reduces the creation of jobs, especially by new and small firms. A VAT tax recovers the returns on production which should be paid for our social institutions and capital created by previous generations. It is no more regressive than FICA tax, especially when coupled with the flat income tax described above.

While the VAT tax is not necessarily progressive, it is no less progressive than the FICA tax it should replace, and when coupled with a strongly progressive high deductible income tax, can produce a combination which is much more progressive than our present income and FICA tax combination, and which doesn’t discourage job creation.

It may not be politically popular to point to the success of measures adopted successfully almost universally by the rest of our developed countries, but can they all be wrong? And note that the reason we haven’t adopted many of these measures is because we are much less democratic than these other countries. That is, the interests of our wealthy and powerful corruptly block the public interests of the great majority of Americans. Wouldn’t it be lovely to have the quick clean elections that Canada, European countries, Japan and many other countries have?

Universal Health Care Insurance
Implementing universal health coverage (Medicare-for-All) requires reducing costs by (1) eliminating private employer paid private health insurance and (2) introducing cost controls. Both of these characterize the successful universal health coverage of all other developed nations.

Fearing the opposition of private health insurers, most proponents of universal health care coverage include maintaining private health insurance. Even so, their efforts are opposed by private health insurance companies. Due to rising costs, employers and employees are now ready to change to a system which eliminates an employer role in providing health care coverage. With large majorities in congress after 2008, it will finally be time to confront the private insurers.

Two types of cost controls are necessary. Like other countries, we must bargain with health care providers (physicians, hospitals and pharmaceuticals) to lower their prices. Our Veterans health care programs already do this.

Secondly, we must use cost benefit criteria to eliminate coverage of inordinately expensive treatments, including especially end-of-life care. It is difficult to tell our grandparents that we will not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prolong their lives by a few months. But unless we do, we cannot afford to cover younger people whose benefits will be much greater.

Federal Funding for Education
To ensure that all Americans receive quality education, most funding must be federal. This could provide a certain amount per student, adjusted perhaps for variable costs among school districts and by the numbers of students who require more extensive resources. As federal funding increased, state and local funding could decrease, although to achieve the needed educational quality, the overall expenditures would be more.

Strengthening Our International Governance
We must empower a democratic international governance system (probably by modifying the United Nations to (1) deal with genocide and oppression between and within countries (such as Darfur) and (2) to regulate multinational business abuse of workers, consumers and environment. This would include democratization, funding and creation of necessary military and police forces.

Israeli Settlements in Occupied Palestine Territory
The Israeli democratic system weights heavily the influence of small extremist religious parties. A result is that Israel continues to create settlements in Palestine in violation of international law and numerous United Nations resolutions. These settlements do not help to protect Israeli existence. Instead they inflame the passions of Israeli enemies. As the supporter of Israel in spite of its settlement policy, Israeli enemies become also our enemies.

Much of the anti-United States sentiment in the Middle East would diminish if we made our support for Israel dependent upon Israel forsaking these settlements, preferably giving them to Palestinians. Beyond that, we should lead an effort to establish a United Nations force to guard all Israeli borders against cross border violence from either Israel or its neighbors. While this would not eliminate all anti-Israeli sentiment and attempted acts of violence by its enemies, they can be expected to greatly reduce them.

John Edwards, Elephant Tamer
Such proposals as the above are essential to provide for our security and opportunity. Such straight talking by Jesse Ventura, John McCain and Howard Dean led to their political successes. These proposals are compatible with the thrust of John Edwards thinking. They would certainly separate him from the pack, since their other advantages would inhibit Hillary Clinton and probably Barack Obama from adopting them.
Confronting elephants should certainly be considered by John Edwards and his supporters.

Bush is a Fascist!

Before you cry foul, here’s a picture to prove it:

Notice the similarity? Is it the thirst for power? The beady-eyed stare? No, look closely…

Bush and Hitler both wear ties!

Before you start sending me hate-mail, let me make clear I realize this assertion is ridiculous. It is just as ridiculous as comparing Barak Obama to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

They both share the same sense of casual dress. Clearly, Islamofascists don’t wear ties. The only difference between these two comparisons is that the Obama-Ahmadinejad comparison made national news. Several weeks ago, CNN ran a piece where this exact comparison is actually made. CNN news analyst Jeff Greenfield, who had made the comparison, later claimed the piece was a joke.

When the piece came out many on the liberal side of the blogosphere cried foul, decrying the piece as Yellow Journalism. At the time I thought the outcry was over-reaction. The comparison wasn’t very funny, but it was clearly ridiculous. Standard tabloid fluff in mainstream news.

Except this type of thing keeps happening. Fox news recently ran a piece asserting that Obama was raised as a Muslim and attended a Madrassa as a child. Fox news went on to assert that it was Hillary Clinton’s camp who leaked the story in an effort to swift-boat Obama. Clearly a scoop, right?

No, something much darker.

The idea for the story stemmed from an article on the website of conservative Insight Magazine. It was quickly and easily shown to be a hoax. The “madrassa” Obama supposedly attended as a child was actually a normal public school. Obama has never been a Muslim, and became a practicing Christian in his 20s. Even the Clinton team has declared the story to be patently false.

To this day, Fox News has issued no retraction of the story. CNN has debunked the piece, but Fox News stands by its story. (Update: Scott has noted in the comments below that Fox News has posted an article on their website, noting their assertion was false.) Fed by Fox News, many in the conservative blogosphere have latched on to Obama as a closet Muslim, perhaps even a Manchurian Candidate waiting to be sprung on a helpless America.

We have moved beyond the joke stage. We have moved into a brave new world of swift-boat journalism.

I find this cultural shift deeply disturbing. What bothers me about this shift is not that a conservative news network has attacked a liberal candidate. I would be equally bothered if a conservative candidate was falsely skewered by liberal media (and I think that will happen as the campaign progresses). What bothers me is that swift-boat journalism prevents us from truly learning about the various candidates. Candidates can’t be honest about their past if any little mistake or coincidence could kill their chances. Swift-boat journalism means ideas are no longer important. They are trumped by discussions of clothing styles and whether a candidate went to the right kind of kindergarten. Elections get decided by news institutions whose sole obligation is to ratings and corporate sponsors.

It is strangling our democratic society.

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

We were once a country of ideas. Our country was founded on ideas. Great ideas. How far the mighty have fallen.

Image Credits:
Hitler, Bush, Ahmadinejad, Obama

Hello everyone. My name is Rick, and I am a new contributor to Brave Humans. I have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, a PMI certification in project management, and just about two decades of systems design and development experience.

I play electric bass in a band, play piano at home and try to sing. Some call it singing; I hope that one day, I can earn the title of “singer” that some people have bestowed upon me.

I am a confessional Lutheran. If you don’t know what that means, don’t go to the Lutheran denominations’ web sites, because most of them don’t know, either. They are all trying to figure out what they want to be when they grow up, usually Reformed or Baptist. Nine times out of ten, someone is proselytizing me, not vice versa.

I’ve worked with bigots of all types, but primarily those of the Microsoft, IBM, Linux and Java variety. Some strive to design the most elegant technical solution, but waste so much time and money in the concept stages that they are not permitted to finish the prototype. Others couldn’t architect an exceptional technical solution to save their life, but they always get their projects done – on time, within budget and fulfilling all of the customer’s requirements.

I’ve had cussing matches with technical architects who speak around the world about stuff they’ve done. I’ve learned that they have groupies, too. When I’ve asked them when they would deliver a product to me, though, they could only offer more conditions, not answers.

I live in a deadline-driven, budget-conscious, results-oriented arena.

If I could, I would…

• spend my whole day studying music.
• spend my whole day dissecting sports strategy for my beloved pro sports teams.
• learn all the theology and philosophy I desire.
• spend all my days investigating the politics du jour, so that I could have learned discourse with others on any topic.

But…

• I can barely make the time to fulfill my church duties as Deacon and Vice President.
• I require my band mates to explicitly agree to the next 3-4 songs we will learn. I don’t have the time to practice all the “next” songs, usually 9-12 in number, and be ready for whatever comes up in practice.
• I am blessed to get all the time I do with my wife, 10-yo daughter and 5-yo son. It is not as much as I like. Most of my other activities take place after the kids are asleep and my wife is knitting.

So…

In this right-of-center world of mine, I will contribute to Brave Humans when I believe I have something interesting to say. I am part moral libertarian, pragmatist and utilitarian – all hopefully on display here, at Brave Humans. I am also a part-time satirist, cynic and bad comedian, mostly on display at my QuipSpot blog (see below). I hope my posts, whether you agree or disagree, help lead us, as Americans, to get better results out of ourselves, our governors and our politicians.

To me, life is gray. It’s not just because it’s winter in the northeast, either. It’s getting harder to say, “this is right; that’s wrong.” I just don’t see things in black and white anymore…the older I get, the grayer everything seems. Yes, I do still hate broccoli, that’s an easy one. But abortion? Capital punishment? Private schools? Drugs? Things used to seem so clear when I was younger…now, not so much. I prefer to believe that I’d a better thinker now, not that I’m wishy-washy. I’ve come to the conclusion that there are usually more than two sides to an issue.

I remember the first time this really sunk in… as an adult, no less. I was in my first class in graduate school. (This is a second-career focus for me, so I was almost 40 years old… perhaps a bit late to be hit by insight, but there you are.) There were three of us in the class, and our assignment was to summarize several learning theories. I read mine first, confident and successful (as opposed to terrified and overwhelmed as on my first day in class). I then listened to the reports of the two other students. My mouth may have fallen open. (I hope not, but it certainly could have.) Each of us had covered the same topic with profoundly different approaches. The problem was, when I first attacked the assignment, I distinctly remember thinking, “Well, this is straightforward. I know how to do this.” It had simply never even occurred to me that there could be other avenues… but there were. All of us had reached the same objective. And all of us were correct.

Though I’m almost through with my dissertation now, that is one of the most important bits of wisdom I picked up in graduate school.** Most issues, whether political, societal, educational, religious, economic, artistic… have more than just two sides. I’ve concluded that our society is very often a functioning duality. He’s a Republican; she’s a Democrat (but I’m independent). Teachers are overpaid; we need to pay teachers more (but what if our educational system is obsolete?). “Brokeback Mountain” was the best movie of 2005; “Brokeback Mountain” was indecent (but what if I just can’t watch heart-wrenching drama for entertainment?).

Nowadays, so much of the news I see, so many discussions I hear revolve around “either this or that.” No in-between, no outside the box, no reconceptualization. You are either for us or against us.

Well, no. Maybe I’m for EVERYONE and would like to find a solution that benefits all. Maybe I see the issue in a completely different focus. And maybe, sometimes, as in the case of that grad assignment, we are really saying the same thing, only in different ways. We just have to realize that. And if our mouths hang open, so be it.

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

**That, and, “Everything will take longer than you think.” Seriously. It does. Once you surrender to that and plan for it, life becomes a lot easier.

This term I am teaching an 8:00am University Physics class. For those who aren’t familiar with university life, no one wants an 8:00am class. The students don’t want it because it is too early. They usually struggle to get to class on time, and are often so tired they fall asleep in the middle of lecture. Faculty don’t like it because getting sleepy students to participate and learn is like herding cats. But someone has to teach the 8:00am class, and this term that someone is me.

I’ve had several early classes in my academic career, and this is one of the better ones. The students still struggle to stay awake, but they are eager to participate. As I sip coffee, they chug down Mountain Dew or Red Bull. They still get sleepy, but if it gets too bad I have them jump out of their chairs and do jumping jacks. A few have invented a caffeine drinking game, where they take a swig every time I quote a phrase from Monty Python. It isn’t an easy class, but they are good students. They want to learn, and that always makes it easy to teach.

This particular course is part of the core curriculum. Most of the students who take it aren’t physics majors. Most want to be engineers, some will go on to medical school, a few have no idea what their life’s work will be. Right now they simply want to learn and explore. All of them are fortunate to attend university, and a few of them realize it. The rest simply see my class as one more hurdle in their path, just one more obstacle in their way. But whether they are taking my course out of choice or obligation, they are good students. Twenty-five intelligent, hard-working young men who remind me how rewarding my career–my life’s work–as a physics professor really is.

Over the weekend twenty-five U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq. The equivalent of my entire 8:00am class in a single day. My entire class. The student who calls Mountain Dew a girlie drink, gone. The one who thinks he knows everything, gone. The one who struggles with math, gone. The one who sits in the back staring at the ceiling only to ask really advanced questions from time to time, gone.

I do not know any of the twenty-five soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq, but today I saw them in the eyes of my students. Twenty-five students. Twenty-five casualties. Twenty-five funerals.

In a typical year I will teach university physics to about 100 students. If I’m successful most of them will leave my classes prepared to reach their goals. They will go on to become engineers and scientists, go into teaching or start a business. They will undertake their life’s work, just as teaching physics has been mine. That is why I became a professor. I had a love of science and wanted to pass my excitement and knowledge to others.

A typical professor might teach for 30 to 35 years. For me, that means about 3000 to 3500 students, roughly the same as the number of soldiers killed in Iraq thus far. There is an American casualty for every single student I will ever teach. My life’s work. For those 3000 soldiers, their life’s work was sacrificed to their country.

That is how I compare those numbers to my life. How would you compare them to yours? How does 3000 compare to the population of your town? The number of people who attend your local church? The population of your child’s school?

Add to that the more than 20,000 American wounded, and estimated 60,000 Iraqi men, women and children who have died in this conflict, and make the comparisons again.

Then answer me this: How many more human souls will we pay in tribute to the demon of war? How much more blood do we have to sacrifice on the altar of fear?

Be Brave. Be Human.

Hi all. Nothing about politics or religion today. No, this time it’s the morality surrounding health advances.

Truth telling first: the idea for this topic was inspired by a book I’m reading: “My Sister’s Keeper” by Jodi Picoult. It’s about a girl whose parents conceived her in order to donate her cord blood to her leukemia-ravaged sibling. But as time passes and the illness reasserts itself, the sister also donates blood and marrow. Now she’s being told she’s donating a kidney. Her problem? She says she’s never been asked to donate anything…it’s just been expected of her. She’s fighting back: she has retained an attorney so she may obtain medical emancipation…

I’m finding the premise of this book a bit creepy. Since becoming a mother, I ordinarily can’t stand any kind of “entertainment”…. movies, TV, books… where harm comes to children. It’s hard to get through, but I persevere, hoping to get some insight into the minds of the parents. How can they justify medical procedures that are not in the best interest of one child in order to help another? Could I coerce my child like that?

On the other hand, wouldn’t I do just about anything in order to protect my child? I’d certainly give up my own kidney in a heartbeat. I’m sure that my husband would do the same if he were a better match. Isn’t family sometimes about selflessness?

I think, however, that the larger issue is not about family; it’s about medicine getting ahead of humans. There have been so many medical advances in recent times (e. g., stem cell research, certain infertility treatments, life-sustaining measures for the terminally ill) that are controversial, not only within a society, but within individuals. For instance:
• I’m pro-choice, but the idea of selective reduction leaves me queasy.
• Ditto late-term abortion.
• When my mother died recently she had a living will, but I really didn’t want to lose my mom and part of me wanted her hooked up to a machine so I wouldn’t have to cope with her passing.

My major point here is not to debate how to settle such issues. I’m not delving into the medical ethics involved in the rapid progress that is made every year. But as I read “My Sister’s Keeper,” I understood, if not the decisions, at least the doubt and torment faced by the parents. How can I come down on one side or another on a controversial medical issue when I’m struggling within myself over the morality of it? I don’t want medical advances to stop or even slow down (I think), but our country already faces grim decisions with what has been accomplished so far…what’s next? And how will we as individuals handle those complications in order to generate societal decisions?

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

P. S. Now that I’ve finished “My Sister’s Keeper,” I can recommend most of it as a thought-provoking read on family morality, but I found the ending contrived and unchallenging. You’ve been warned.

In this week’s issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Scott Turner wonders Why can’t we discuss intelligent design? Here we go again.

The fact that this country actually engages in serious debate over evolution vs. intelligent design says something deeply troubling about our American education system. For scientists and educators such as myself, it means we have fundamentally failed to convey the basic precepts of science to the general public. It also says something troubling about religious faith in this country. It means faith is a truth which cannot be challenged, or even questioned.

Science is powerful precisely because it is challenged. This includes Darwinist evolution, which is continually refined as new evidence comes to light. But Turner argues that Darwinism refuses to be questioned:

In our readiness to proscribe intelligent design, we Darwinists are telling the world not only that we are unwilling to ask such questions ourselves, but that we don’t want others to ask them either. No wonder the war on Darwin won’t go away.

The problem with Turner’s assertion is that he assumes intelligent design asks scientific questions. It doesn’t. Intelligent design is not scientific. It doesn’t ask scientific questions, and it doesn’t make predictions which are scientifically verifiable. Granted, I’m a scientist so I might be a bit biased, so let me explain.

At its most basic level intelligent design makes two assertions:

1. There are holes in the darwinist model.
2. Since Darwinist evolution can’t address everything it is reasonable to presume some intelligent design plays a role.

Both of these arguments are based on a misunderstanding of science. The first is true for all scientific theories. The fact that you can poke holes in a theory is precisely what makes it scientific. The second is a philosophical assertion. It presumes that mechanistic cause and effect inherently fails.

As Turner points out, intelligent design poses the question of purpose. Is there a purpose to evolution, or does it “just happen.” Supporters of intelligent design often argue that such questions are scientific, or at least should be. But questioning whether there is purpose to evolution is like wondering if there is purpose to gravity. Do we propose a theory of intelligent falling to challenge general relativity? Maybe we should teach children both sides of the gravity controversy. We can teach children about the theory of gravity AND the hypothesis that gravity must be due to some cosmic intelligence which pushes things downward.

Don’t get me wrong, intelligent falling could be right. It is possible that things only fall because God wills it. Science can’t prove such an assertion one way or the other. But if falling is God’s will, science shows it is God’s will that (barring air resistance) objects near the earth fall toward the earth’s center at an approximately constant acceleration of 32 feet per square second. Every single time.

Advocates of “teaching the controversy” never ask that intelligent falling be included in curricula. They never argue that since we don’t know exactly how gravity works (and we don’t) that children should be shown both sides of the issue. They never require that stickers be put on physics books stating that gravity is “just a theory.” They only make those arguments for evolution, because Darwinist evolution challenges their faith. If natural selection is accurate, then the earth is millions of years old. If neo-Darwinism is correct, then God did not literally speak animals into existence, and God did not form Eve from a rib-bone of Adam. If science is right, then Biblical Creation is allegory at best, and not literal truth. Gravity doesn’t challenge the literalist view of the Bible. Evolution does. So rather than question the Bible, they question science. They refuse to let their faith evolve.

The thing is, I’m not opposed to the study of intelligent design. Questioning whether the universe has a divine purpose is a perfectly valid philosophical or theological question. I’m not even arguing that everyone must believe Darwinist evolution. If you want to believe that the universe is 6000 years old that is your right. If an old-looking universe popped into existence a few thousand years ago, science would be none the wiser.

But intelligent design, intelligent falling and every other hypothesis of “purpose” is not science. Science doesn’t concern itself with purpose. It is simply a process for discovering how the universe works. Through a confluence of evidence we now know that stars are not pinholes in the ceiling of heaven. We also know that living things evolve through a process of natural selection over millions of years. Period.

If you still want to discuss the meaning or purpose of the universe, Philosophy 101 is right down the hall.

Be Brave. Be Human.
Brian

The way I see it, people frame their political views based on the idea of “quality of life.” What you see as central to your quality of life frames your political views. Take any political issue, and I would bet your views on it can be traced back to your opinion on what makes a “good life.” Those who are for gay marriage frame the issue on the idea that legal recognition improves the quality of life for gay couples. Those who are opposed to gay marriage frame the issue on how protecting traditional society preserves a quality of life. Those who oppose abortion base their view on the idea that abortion violates a fetus’ quality of life, whereas those in favor of choice base their view on the idea that a woman’s quality of life is impeded if she does not control her own body.

The list goes on and on. Those who are in favor of the war in Iraq argue that it protects the quality of American lives. Those opposed to the war argue that it is a waste of American lives. Those who are for school vouchers argue it supports the quality of life of children, while those who oppose school vouchers see vouchers as hurting the quality of life of children. Democrats tend to see issues of social equity as vital to our general quality of life, Republicans tend to see free markets as central to our quality of life.

Given that this is the case, there are two interesting points I would like to make. The first is that “quality of life” issues are not religious in nature. There are those who see the issues through the context of religion, but one chooses to follow a particular faith (or rejects religious faith) because they see their faith as a benefit to their life. There are those who base their arguments on religious doctrine, but this is simply a way to say “my views on quality of life are valid”, or even “my views are more valid than yours.” But the central discussion is not religious, it is societal. I think this is an important distinction to make because too often political discussions are sabotaged by arguing over the validity of a particular religion rather than the political issues. If societal issues are based on quality of life, then one’s personal faith is irrelevant to the discussion. It is too easy to dismiss someone’s political views because you disagree with their religion, but this doesn’t address the real and valid differences of opinion.

The second is that despite all the bickering on both sides, our views on what makes a quality life are far less diverse than we would tend to admit. Those who are against abortion are not generally in favor of subjugating the independence of women, and those who favor choice generally don’t feel that abortion is no different than having a wart removed. Those who support the war generally recognize the sacrifice our soldiers make, and those who oppose the war generally recognize the tough choices our soldiers make every day. At the heart of it all, most people want a quality life, and support the right of others to have the same. We only differ on details.

Which leads me to a proposal regarding political discussions. Rather than arguing from a right vs. left or religious vs. secular standpoint, what if we started any political discussion with a question: What do you value? If we started a discussion by first asking the other side what they value, and what is important to them (and truly listen to their views), then we could begin by understanding how each side frames the issue, and how their views on “quality of life” focus their opinion. If we did that, there would still be some issues (like abortion or the Iraq war) where it is hard to find common ground. But I would bet that a large chunk of political issues we constantly argue over (like education and health care) common ground would be easy to find. Then maybe, just maybe, we could make serious progress on these issues.

It shouldn’t be too hard for brave humans.

Be Brave. Be Human.
Brian

I’m supposed to be writing something else write now, but I foolishly checked the news on CNN.com one more time. Something got me so riled that I can’t go on until I compose this. I even have another post underway, but that’ll have to wait…

I read an article that discusses the national security issues for which the Democrats want to enact legislation during their first 100 hours in control. Reacting to the House bill, Rep. Peter King, R-New York, top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, said, “To make it part of a 100-hour show shamefully trivializes an issue of life or death” (as reported by CNN.com).

In the same article, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, stated: “Democrats will be — and hopefully we’ll be doing this in a bipartisan way — putting the protection of the American people very high on our priority list.”

As I discussed in my last post, I think, in general, neither Democrats nor Republicans work in a bipartisan way. Clearly, Rep. King is not so inclined, or he wouldn’t have made such an inflammatory statement. Shameful? To jumpstart Congress with something that could actually be of significance to Americans? What word then would he use to describe the Republican avoidance of many of the recommendations publicly issued by the 9/11 Commission on July 22, 2004? That’s a long time to be waiting on some potentially deadly problems. If the Democrats did not gain control of Congress, would the Republicans have addressed these measures? They’ve had time in the past, with limited results.

Look, I’ve no doubt that the Democrats are pushing national security for PR purposes, in order to make themselves appear strong, decisive, commanding…but so what? It’s a relief to see something of actual importance under discussion. But the partisan backlash that is beginning is, to me, shameful. If a member of Congress disagrees with a proposal, fine, discuss it on its merits. But to criticize it for political expedience? That’s the way the game has been played, traditionally. Remember the family values issues that arose just before the 2004 elections? Coincidence? I think not. Complaining that the Democrats are doing what Republicans have done treats the voting public like we have neither memory nor intelligence. And we have both, because we are brave humans.

Susan

Here’s an equation:

Democratic-controlled Senate + Democratic-controlled House + Republican White House = not much happening.

Call me pessimistic, defeatist, cynical, fatalistic, negative…choose your favorite adjective. I despair of partisan politics, which seems to be standard operating procedure in Washington. Perhaps because the other party is so “wrong,” perhaps because of party pressure, or perhaps out of fear of losing re-election, members of both major parties generally stick to their platforms. I think this is an abysmal problem-solving system, and experience has shown me that it can be different.

First, a little information to clarify my position. Because of partisan politics, I am registered as Independent; I have been since I first signed up at 18. I’m also a former public school teacher, and I served on the district contract negotiating team a few times.

How is that relevant? With a little imagination, I think you can see that negotiating an employment contract is a lot like working in politics. You have controversial topics (health benefits, pay, work schedule) and parties (teachers, administrators, school board) with differing positions. I worked in a poor district with a lot of problems, but, in each case, we settled our contract within a week.

No magic, no threats, little money…how was it done? By using a cooperative style of negotiations sometimes known as integrative bargaining. Each party comes to the table with its concerns and relates them. Then, with the assistance of facilitators, the entire group creates a list of shared problems. Ok, so the teachers want more money, and the school board doesn’t want to raise taxes…so salary is a problem. Teachers want time to work with each other, but released time is an issue for the administrators…so scheduling is a problem…and so on. As a team, we generate solutions while considering all points of view, and we don’t stop until we reach a decision that everyone can live with.

This wasn’t easy, not by a long shot. Before beginning negotiations, there was extensive team-building and procedural training all members had to attend. Still, trust issues arose. It also was sometimes very difficult to let go of the connections to our “parties” and just think about the good of the school district. We also made some decisions that, in retrospect, we regretted. But I do believe the contracts were fair, there was little animosity generated, and the process did not drag out for months as it can in traditional negotiations.

I think our leaders in Washington should adopt a similar process. No matter what you think about an issue (e. g., the Iraq war, immigration, universal health care), it is a problem, and you have a stake in the outcome. If we could look at concerns in a broader context, I think there’d be more agreement, and perhaps a more satisfying solution could be reached. For instance, most people are either pro-life or pro-choice; that indicates that abortion is an issue. That does not indicate, however, that the only solutions are total ban or total freedom. Nor does it indicate that the best compromise is in the dead center of the two extremes. I’d like lawmakers to look at problems of Americans, not Republicans or Democrats.

Look, I know I’m asking a lot. There is a tremendous amount of past practice and history keeping the status quo…not to mention a few trust issues. But try to imagine the amount of animosity that can fester among teachers, administrators, and school board members. We overcame that tradition, and for a few shining years, developed something shared, functional, and respected.

I’ve since left that district. I’ve heard through the grapevine that they no longer use integrative bargaining; they went back to traditional oppositional negotiations. I was really disappointed to hear that; I wonder what the catalyst was for that decision. I suspect that it was human frailty: greed, mistrust, suspicion…in my opinion, not a stance from which to start negations. But that’s where my former school district is now….and that’s where we are in our federal government.

Be brave. Be human.
Susan