Brave Humans

A recent Time magazine article examines the convictions of Mitt Romney; an accompanying article studies the challenges he might face as a Mormon seeking the Republican nomination for president. A major questions posed is, “Is he going to face prejudice since he’s a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?”

During this discussion, John Kennedy’s presidential campaign was cited. His Catholicism was a major issue for many voters. Would he keep church and state separate? He reportedly put the subject to rest during a speech to Protestant ministers in September 1960, when he said, “But if the time should ever come…when my office would cause me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office.”

Reading this, I first thought, “That’s great; he’s wouldn’t put his religion above the interests of the country.” Then I considered the impact a resignation would have had… Some people would have been for it, others against it. Some would have declared, “I told you so!” Others, I’m sure, would have complained that he was forced out unconstitutionally due to religious beliefs. In any case, it would have been a major blow for the U. S.

Jump to today’s candidates… How do personal convictions (religious or otherwise) affect their political positions? Certainly, we’ve seen aspirants such as Rudy Giuliani, who confirms a personal objection to abortion, yet still supports states’ rights to determine it. On the other hand, we have President Bush making decisions (e. g., embryonic stem cell research) based on his own “deeply held beliefs.”

What do you think? Should politicians follow their convictions or use other criteria to make their decisions? Do you believe, as some have stated, that they can ignore their values in order to support others? Also, should a candidate seek election if s/he believes there’s a possibility that there could be a crisis of convictions where the best alternative is to resign?

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

Recently I was reading an article on Daily Kos, and decided to check out the about page. At the end of it was an interesting turn of phrase:

We desperately need to catch the Right in the Blogger Wars.

This was after bragging about being the highest trafficked weblog on the planet, which is true. Daily Kos is the most popular political blog on the planet. In fact, if you check the top 100 list of technorati you find that there are two liberal politics blogs in the top 10 (Daily Kos and Huffington Post), compared to one conservative blog (Michelle Malkin).

There seems to be a disconnect here.

Of course, this disconnect isn’t reserved for liberal blogs. About 80% of Americans are Christians, and yet you often hear about how Christianity is under attack. With liberals waging a “War on Christmas”, for example. Rush Limbaugh talks about standing up to the media, all the while bragging about his popularity. Democrats complain about not being heard, while controlling congress at the same time.

Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!

It is true that there is real oppression in the world. But few of us in western society risk jail or worse for speaking our mind, or for our cherished beliefs. So why do we often cast ourselves in the role of a lonely knight, fighting the great and terrible dragon? Why do we often present our struggles as a battle against an enemy, rather than a rally for a cause?

Why draw a line in the sand?

In this post, Brian raised a great question:

Watching this play out, I wonder if we engage in the same behavior on sites like BraveHumans? We have the keys in our hands. What do we want to do with them?

I let the question linger for a bit, because it intrigued me. Finally, early this past weekend, I found some text that I believe applies generally to the question Brian raised:

A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?…You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.” (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

Where were they? A prior point in the text says they were in the marketplace.

What do they do? Talk about and listen to the latest ideas.

Why? Because they like it.

What do they do with this information? We don’t know for sure, but my interpretation is “not much”; the goal is to hear the ideas, but not necessarily to engage a position or act upon them. For as active as the discussion could be, the result is passive. Later in the same text, the Greeks tell the speaker, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” More talking; more, “Hmm, I think I understand” or “I don’t get it.”

After reviewing right-wing blogs, left-wing blogs, and op-ed blogs for the past year, as well as regularly perusing a number of apolitical blogs, I believe that most blogs fit the description of the Greek marketplace. Ideas are exchanged; if we want to hear more, we ask for more information. If we are amused or bemused, we can join the conversation. If we don’t have any vested interest in the topic, we can lurk.

For all the communication we ingest, we really don’t have to do anything with the information. The web, for all its activity, is still a passive communication tool. BraveHumans is a marketplace of ideas, yet nothing we discuss really leads to activity. I say, “Hmm, I think I understand”, or, “I disagree”, or, “I don’t get it.” I don’t think that’s a fault of BraveHumans; when asked, the contributors primarily indicated that this was what they wanted. We got what we wished for; the question is, is it what we want?

Extra credit points for those of you who can name and locate the text that I referenced.

Very recently, the major Catholic and Protestant parties combined and created a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland. Although still tied to London for major policies,
“The parties will share responsibility for the ministries with the DUP [Protestant Democratic Unionist Party] running the finance, economy, environment and culture portfolios and Sinn Fein taking on education, regional development and agriculture.”

The area has struggled with various forms of sectarian violence for generations; in recent decades, CNN reports at least 3,600 deaths and 36,000 injuries.

What amazes me is the perseverance of many citizens of Northern Ireland. The fighting was, at time, horrific, the beliefs were disparate, and the issues were divisive…but there is a cooperative government in place. Imagine the memories, hatred, prejudice, and concerns supporters on both sides had to relinquish. Entrenched, stubborn, non-compromising positions had to be abandoned in order to divide the responsibilities of running the government. Arguments such as, “We’re going to handle the economy,” “No, we’re going to be in charge of economy,” “No, we are,” “NO, we are!” had to end. I commend those in Northern Ireland who let go of the past in order to secure a better future. It was brave, open-minded, and responsible.

Now… who’ll be next? Palestine and Israel? Sunnis and Shi’ites? Democrats and Republicans? Even though I’m generally a “glass half-full” kind of person, I don’t see this happening anytime soon elsewhere in the world. How about you? Any hope? Any insights into what needs to be done? Any other groups you’d like to see come together?

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

This isn’t about current events….more like ancient events, really. I just stumbled across something interesting when I was reading; it made me think, so I thought I’d share it.

I’ve been reading “Cross Bones,” by Kathy Reichs; the protagonist is a forensic anthropologist. She was studying some very old bones, and a reference was made to a date labeled, not with B. C., but with B. C. E.

B. C. E.? Followed closely by C. E… C. E.? What’s up with that? So I did some searching. If this is familiar to you I apologize, but it’s new to me. Here’s the lowdown…

“The Common Era, also known as the Current Era, is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar.” Essentially, it’s sometimes used instead of A. D. Similarly, B. C. E. (before Common Era) can substitute for B. C.”

The usage of these abbreviations is becoming more common, and not just in academia. Wikipedia continues: “In the United States, the usage of the BCE/CE notation in textbooks is growing. The 2007 World Almanac was the first edition to switch over to the BCE/CE usage, ending a 138-year usage of the traditional BC/AD dating system. It is used by the College Board in its history tests, as well as by some National Geographic Society publications. The Norton Anthology of English Literature, and the United States Naval Observatory. The US-based History Channel uses BCE/CE notation in articles on non-Christian religious topics such as Jerusalem and Judaism and uses BC (but neither CE nor AD) in other cases. In June of 2006, the Kentucky State School Board reversed its decision that would have included the designations BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) in referring to dates.”

So what? Well, it appears that this has become a subject of controversy (then again, what isn’t?). Obviously, it’s designed as a non-religious alternative to the Christian-centered designations A. D. and B. C. Proponents point out that the western calendar has been adopted by most of the world; it’s even standard on computers. Thus non-Christians across the world are compelled to use a dating system based on the beliefs of others.

Yet the use of B. C. E. and C. E. “does not alter the pivotal year;” the dates still revolve around the birth of Jesus. Some critics, therefore, consider it to be a euphemistic attempt at being politically correct. Also, problems with the calendar (such as the lack of the year 0) have not been remedied, so the change is incomplete.

Those seem to be the major points; if you’re interested in reading more about pros and cons, click here. So, whether it’s new to you or not, what’s your opinion on the change? Necessary or not? Why? I tend to lean toward the change; if it’s being used by professionals in the fields who are actually identifying dates, we should understand what’s being said. But it does seem a little half-hearted to me, since the dates still revolved around Jesus’ birth…I think it’s an attempt to put a rather sloppy band-aid on and hoping that no one will notice.

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

In the recent Republican debates, John McCain was asked if he believed in evolution. McCain answered that he did, but that he also saw the hand of God when looking at something like the Grand Canyon. Asked a controversial question, he answered in the middle, which is not unexpected. But when the question was addressed to the candidate pool in general, three hopefuls (Brownback, Huckabee and Tancredo) indicated they did not accept evolution.

And then the interviewer moved on. No follow-up, nothing.

Which left me nearly screaming at my computer screen. Three candidates indicate that they reject an established scientific theory, and no one asked them to elaborate. Why do they reject evolution? Is it because the Bible is literal truth? Do they think evolution is just a fairy tale made up by atheists? Do they reject the “micro-evolution” of germs as well, or just speciation? Given that science is central to issues ranging from flu vaccines to global warming, it would seem worthwhile to ask a few questions exploring their view of science and scientists.

If I were the moderator, I would have asked a few follow up questions along those lines.

If you were moderating one of the debates, what would you ask? Not just about evolution, but about anything. What questions would you raise given the chance?

Be Brave. Be Human. Question the answers.

I contribute to an on-line chat board fairly regularly, and I find that I am often the only voice of moderate liberalism. Most of the contributors are right and far right of center. Recently, the topic of Affirmative Action was raised. That discussion evolved into a discussion on education in America, and how a well-designed and executed public school system would eventually erase the need for Affirmative Action.

The question then came up: what’s wrong with American schools, and how can we fix them? I found myself trying to explain that poor school systems have a number of hurdles to face, and money is one resource that would help. The response was a fairly predictable stock phrase about people just “throwing money at the problem,” thereby completely ignoring the point I had made about what to do with that money. The argument was made that the answer to the problem is to re-introduce God into the school system, to provide a moral fabric for today’s young people. I countered that this was not a good option – the place of faith-based morality is in the home. The public schools should be providing academic and life-skills support and value systems that apply to all, not just to Judeo-Christians. Not to mention school buildings which aren’t falling apart, science textbooks that aren’t from 1972, and healthy lunches as opposed to industrial spaghetti from a can, Cheetos and Orange Crush. There’s more, but I think you get the idea.

I have never taught in a public school system, nor did I attend one, and I don’t have a child enrolled in one. I’d like to throw out the question to this community: what do you think is the worst problem facing our public schools, and what do you think is the best course of action to improve the poorer public school districts in this country, with the hope of giving all young people a fighting chance to fulfill their potential? Okay, that was actually two questions. Facts and figures are welcome as well as creative ideas on what we can do.

I don’t like exercise machines. I hate treadmills. But I live in the northeastern U. S., and due to family responsibilities, I have to exercise EARLY in the morning, so from late fall to early spring I run indoors while it’s dark outside. And I hate it.

Outside I can look at the neighborhood, at the trees, at the people and animals; I can feel the fresh air and (occasionally) sun. I am constantly challenged by uneven pavement, cracks, and stealthy attack branches.

In the gym there’s the treadmill with buttons to customize the workout. There are walls, mirrors, other exercise equipment, and (very occasionally) another human. There’s also my Ipod (if I’ve remembered both to load it and bring it) and a TV.

Since I hate being inside so much, I really need a distraction on my long runs. Otherwise, I’m constantly checking how much time has passed, and I’m convinced that digital timers on treadmills run more slowly than any other clocks on earth. So if I forget my Ipod, I watch TV. And let me tell you, there’s not much variety at 5:30 a.m. …lots of infomercials, old sitcoms, “Angel” reruns, and new channels. Because of this dearth, I have been watching a fair amount of CNN. Recently, however, they’ve changed their morning line-up in an attempt to increase ratings…but that’s not all they’ve changed…

Now, in addition to not liking treadmills, I don’t like CNN. In the past week, I’ve seen three segments on CNN that have really appalled me. Sensationalistic, mocking, superior, inappropriate…

I’ve watched CNN for quite a while now, and, although I know that some folks complain it’s biased, I’ve never seen anything blatant. Now sensationalism seems to be becoming the standard. In competing with other news channels, it’s morphing into them, to CNN’s detriment. In the past week I’ve seen the following:

• The day after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Judiciary Committee, the correspondent reporting on it said that, if Gonzales was seeking support in Congress, he was “looking for love in all the wrong places.” I found that offensive. The investigation into the attorneys’ firing is troubling for all sides involved. Whether or not you think Gonzales should resign, the position of Attorney General should be respected; it shouldn’t be the subject of ridicule on a (supposedly) NEWS program. That’s John Stewart’s job.

• Also last week: an audiotape of a phone message left by actor Alec Baldwin for his daughter was made public and aired on many venues. (Personally, I think this is a tragic but private story and is not our business.) After reporting on the story, one anchor said to the other (and I’m paraphrasing here), “You have a daughter about that age. Can you imagine talking to her like that?” The other anchor, with an incredulous look on his face, replied, “My daughter is almost 16 and I can’t imagine leaving her a message like that.” They were clearly superior and dismissive about something that (I think) wasn’t their business. I do believe that the phone message was highly inappropriate, but I have a 6-year-old daughter, who is loving and usually well-behaved, but, yes, I can imagine talking to her like that. Occasionally, I get mad at her and do a lot of mumbling under my breath. Helps to relieve the anger. I don’t believe I’d ever say the things I’m thinking, but heck, yes, I can imagine it. And, although I can’t think of an example now (probably repressed), I’m sure I’ve said some things that I’ve regretted and wished I’d never said them; I bet all parents do. But that’s between my family and myself, and it should be that way for everyone (plus appropriate outsiders if the behavior becomes abusive). It’s not for scornful media, however.

• The day after author David Halberstam died in a car crash, I heard an “obituary” on CNN. It mentioned that he’d written “The Best and the Brightest,” a book about successive American governments’ involvement in the Vietnam War. The reporter mentioned Robert McNamara as one of the subjects of the book. Then she continued (I’m paraphrasing again), “Some critics suggest that if you substitute Donald Rumsfeld for Robert McNamara and Iraq for Vietnam, you have the same story. But there’s no one left to write it.” What???? What does this have to do with Halberstam’s life? That was (supposedly) the topic of the segment. Dragging Iraq into it is just another attempt at being provocative.

Well, it’s worked. CNN has provoked me. I’m not turning it on at 5:30. Maybe I’ll start watching “Angel” again. Better yet, I’m going to remember to load up my Ipod. Something fast and energetic…maybe a little Springsteen, maybe Santana, maybe Bowie…

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

Consider the following poem:

All by itself it is a simple little poem, and not a very good one. But this poem is a dangerous piece of verse. So dangerous that it is illegal for me to tell you how this poem was created.

I kid you not.

Buried within this poem are sixteen numbers. If I were to tell you what the sixteen numbers were, or how to find them in the above poem, I would be in violation of the law. That is because this particular string of sixteen numbers is the key to unlocking HD-DVDs. Anyone with a new HD-DVD player who knows these numbers can break the encryption on any HD-DVD movie. Quite simply, knowing the number allows you to pirate movies in all their high-definition glory. That is why the Motion Picture Association of America wants to keep the number secret, and that it what makes it illegal.

But locks only work if you can protect your key. If they key gets out, it would be like locking your door but hanging the key on a little nail right beside the lock. The problem with digital keys is that they are impossible to keep secret.

As a case in point, yesterday someone posted the numbers on the social site Digg. The MPAA became aware of this, and demanded Digg remove the offending post. It was then deleted, and the member who made the post was banned. Outraged at this act of censorship, Digg members rallied. They made posts with the number faster than they could be deleted, and faster than users could be banned. Within hours the site was flooded with posts and comments containing this numerical key. This went on all day. Digg management deleted posts and banned users, while Digg members kept posting the key, daring management to ban them.

Finally, faced with lawsuits on one side and killing their user base on the other, Digg management sided with the users. They stopped deleting posts, stopped banning users, and even posted the number key themselves. The mob had won, and news of their victory reached the BBC by morning.

On one level this incident is just another example of how our connection to information has shifted. Before the expansion of the web our source of information lay in publishers and newspaper magnates. The keys of the kingdom were held by the few. Now those keys can spread across the globe almost instantly. The keys are now in everyone’s hand, and the media moguls can’t stop the signal. Their deeply guarded key is now an open secret.

But on the other hand we seem to be content with the illusion of freedom. What fired up Digg users was the perception that they were being censored. In fact, all Digg did was delete articles that were in violation of their user agreement. The HD-DVD key has been known for months, and anyone interested in cracking the encryption on HD-DVDs could easily find it. What the Digg uprising did was convince users that THEY were in control. As soon as their protest was finished, they went back to their old patterns, linking to trendy sites, feeding the circus.

Fundamentally, nothing has changed.

Watching this play out, I wonder if we engage in the same behavior on sites like BraveHumans? We have the keys in our hands. What do we want to do with them?

My mother is elderly and in poor health. She is like many older folks in that much of her daily life centers on doctors’ offices with occasional side trips to the ER, and periodic hospital admittance. I worry about her, but have assuaged that worry over the years with the sure knowledge that she has some of the best healthcare available. In addition to extensive basic care through her former employer, she pays for (and uses) various supplemental health plans that are expensive, but I have considered money well spent.

She recently had fairly major surgery, which went well, but she complained of substandard post-operative care in the hospital. My mom’s doctor had ordered a procedure that was clearly not working and (according to mom) the nurses failed to monitor the process adequately. From her point of view, she would have died if a friend had not come by for a visit and alerted an unaware nursing staff that she was in serious trouble.

In all honesty, I largely discounted this story as the angry and scared recollections of a woman who is not as mentally quick as she once was, especially under stressful conditions. How could the nursing staff be THAT out of touch with an on-going medical procedure under their supervision?

My mom is now on her way back to the same hospital for a standard follow-up surgical procedure. She’s scared. She is, quite simply, afraid she will be overlooked and die. Who pays attention to sick old women? Again, I was reluctant to believe that things were that bad. This is a big regional hospital with a solid reputation.

Here’s where I get shocked and need to apologize to my mom. Apparently, I’m one of those people who don’t pay attention to sick old women. In a recent pre-operative office visit, her surgeon suggested that she hire a nurse to stay with her in the hospital for at least the first two days post surgery. The job of this private nurse would be to make sure that my mother gets the care and attention she needs while in the hospital. Let me be as clear as I can about this. My mom’s SURGEON suggested that the only way to ensure quality care while in a large, fully staffed U.S. hospital under normal operating conditions, was to hire her own private nurse. His reasoning was simply that under current conditions at many U.S. hospitals, even the best nurses do not have the time and other resources necessary to care for patients adequately.

OK, grasping at straws and STILL not wanting to believe, I did a net search on this and found that the straws likely don’t exist. This NY Times article from 2005 lays out the issues pretty clearly. Despite paying more for healthcare than most other humans on the planet, Americans may not get adequate hospital care without the additional expense of a private nurse/aide. And this isn’t cheap. In my mom’s case, she’s looking at about $2,000. Let’s not even ask about the large numbers of people who a) don’t have healthcare to begin with and b) certainly cannot afford this additional expense.

In the U.S. we hear horror stories about people needing to bring their own drugs and medical supplies to hospitals in other countries because healthcare in those countries simply doesn’t work. Well, it seems we’re a whole lot closer to that than I realized. I’m both scared by this and profoundly angry. This is simply not acceptable. How did we get to this point and how do we find our way back?