The Cheapening of Human Life

With the assassination of Khashoggi, and public statements by our president and his cabinet comes a brutal realization that the cheapness of human life has found it's way into mainstream thinking. I've been fortunate to have traveled a lot and one thing I've always held close about this country is that life was valued in a way that it wasn't in some other places. I'm afraid that even that token thought is gone now.

And it's not that this president has introduced anything new - we have valued money over human life for a long time. We did so quietly.We did it by robbing money from social security, by allowing "pre-existing conditions", by not funding public healthcare, welfare, education. By waging wars. By encouraging people to eat a double serving. By giving tax breaks to the wealthy and denying care to the poor. We did by allowing multinationals dictate environmental rules. But these are all "slow moving things". They don't grab the news cycle the same way.

Khashoggi is a shock because of the brutality it highlights in the light of day. The reality is that as brutal as the murder was, the reason it is in debate is the shock value. And by saying this, I'm not trying to take away from the value of Jamal Khashoggi's life - I weep for him and his family - it's more to say, these decisions are made every day, more subtlety.

By all means, please, please be appalled by what happened to him. But in your day to day, remember, this is being done to us - and to the ones we love, by us. The only way we change that is to change how we live and what we demand from ourselves, our society and our leaders. And we need to demand a hell of a lot more.

Sharing.

Two different philosophies - one of self and one of selflessness are frequently portrayed as mutually exclusive. And while they can be, it's frequenty a decision based in limited information that makes us think we need to choose one or the other, when there is frequently a third option.

That is both. Getting where you are going by helping others get where they are going.

Scarcity mentality pushes the idea of self. Every man for himself - I win, you lose. The issue is, scarcity is actually fairly rare for any of us living in wealthy nations.

Conversly, giving away everything you have or all of your time may be a result of not valuing yourself or seeking approval from others.

But sharing - something we're usually taught at a very young age, is both. It's nourshing for self and others. It's where we should live. It's the essence of good. It's what Christianity preaches and virtually every other major religion says. It's teamwork. It's building more than the some of the whole.

Yet somehow, in our political and economic world, sharing is demonized and scarcity mentality is pressed. Don't let others in, they will take what you have. What can you do for me? I win, you lose.

There are some that think that capitalism is win/lose and that's how they play the game. And for a time they win, by never allowing others to achieve. But there are others, who don't just win, they help others and achieve more greatly because of it.

It is why teams work. It is why we defeated evil in WWII. It's how we solve huge problems.

Working together, to mutual or mutually compatible goals gets us farther almost every time. It's taking a smaller slice of a bigger pie and making sure others can eat.

And even in capitalism, where we seek personal gain, we expect this - I work for a company. In return they pay me. We both benefit from the relationship. If it becomes onesided we look to move somewhere that is balanced again.

Lets call this sharing. At it's worst it is comprimise, but at it's best is collaberation. Let's call it the real definition of winning.

So why is sharing demonized? It's called "socialism". It's called "communism". It's called these words by people playing the scarcity game- greed. It causes people to give up the idea of sharing. It makes them think that unless they only think of themselves, they will lose. It pushes self achievement at the expense of others. It's where slavery and child labor come from. It's where nationalism comes from.

Instead I aspire to be a socially responsibile capitalist. That means effort is made to help others, as well as yourself. That we don't make decisions that put the good of one citizen over the other. it's comming to common ground rules so we can all live free, reasonable, high quality, full lives. To get where I am going by helping others get where they are going. It means rules that make sure we consider others, that we share risk and reward.

It means we make good on our promises to Veterans, Retirees and Employees. It means that business shares in the maintenance of the community that they pull on and contribute to. In some cases, it means we forgo profits for the public good. It means we understand contribution varies - some cand and will do more than others (that's the case in any system).  It doesn't mean neglecting oneself. It means maintaing oneself and sharing.

In reality, we have done all of this - your water and other utilities are publicly owned. We have rules about how pensions are funded, how jobs are protected, how public safety and property are maintained. We have national plans that aspire to care for all of us. We work to help others, both here and abroad. We do it every day at work, with our families and friends.It's how the best of our lives are actually lived.

Those that are greedy, work to tear those things down and turn them into tools for their own profit, at the expense of all of us - wheras if we built these up, everyone benefits. Those that are greedy use terms to talk about others like "they want to raise taxes" to defeat the idea of public investment. They try to find ways to skirt the idea of sharing.

And again, isn't this what our parents taught us? Isn't this what we hold up as an example of living a good and just life? What Thanksgiving and Christmas are about?

If we are truly thankful for our bounty, we open our eyes and see our neighbors and invite them to it. We invite everyone to walk the road together. Because together is how we get there. Not seperately, not by shunning or hoarding. Not by winning at the expense of others.

We do it by winning together.

Nice guys don't finish last.

There are lots of personal philosophies to pick, but I'd like to address two major themes today. The first is the "Nice guys finish last" philosophy.

Yesterday, I read a posted article in which argued that the reason for keeping Trump was this (and I paraphrase) - the majority are just going to end up picking someone like him because you don't want a nice guy in the office, you want someone who can be strong.

First - they couldn't be more wrong - I want a nice person in the office and second, who says nice people can't be strong. It's a popular cliche but one that is false.

"Oh but Toby, you know what they mean, they mean someone who can make the tough decisions."

Yes. Look, I want my president to have a tough time with decisions that affect people's lives. I want that person to wrestle with decisions until they find the best ways. I want that person in charge of my military, and thinking about business, the economy, foriegn relations.

If we break it down, I want the country run thoughtfully. But these folks argue that nice people can't be tough and that's not true. They can stick to their morals. But frequently it's sticking to a different philosophy. Winning together. Getting where you are going by helping others get where they are going. Sharing.

See, in the Trumpian "nice guys finish last" world, each person is only out for themselves and life is a matter of grabing whatever you can, your neighbor be damned. America First relies on greed. You might remember, but at least a lot of our parents taught us to share.

It's not that sharing is not "getting what you want". It's just bringing others along. That's key to being nice. And sharing doesn't mean giving up or losing - it means being willing to see the needs of others.

People that follow the "Nice guys finish last" philosophy make horrible managers. They think management is about telling others what to do. Good managers know the role may include guidance, but a lot of it is about support - helping take obstacles out of your employees way so they can suceed.

That doesn't mean the nice guy doesn't ever get mad. That doesn't mean they don't occassionaly say "go do". But that "go do" needs to be matched with "how can I help you" or at least "holler if you run into trouble".

I don't want "America first" all of the time. We need to recognize our neighbors needs and understand sometimes, you need to put others first. Especially when you have prviledge. That doesn't mean neglecting your own (for instance, we should not have homeless - vets or otherwise). But it means we also give aid to other countries. Not because we are going to get something in monetary exchange, but because we want to help.

Folks - the double win - the art of getting where you are going by helping others get where they are going is harder than yelling, dictating which are short term strategies but long term failings The double win nurtures relationships. It cultivates goodwill. But it also requires restraint. Kindness. Understanding. Intelligence. Compassion. And a true wish for others to suceed too.

There is a reason for the term "Public Servants". Because they are - they are not supposed to be dictators or dicks. They are supposed to be interested in promoting the success of their constituents. All of them. Together.

That is not who is in office now, but that is who we have to put there when we vote this November and in subsequent Novembers. It is who we need to be too. Because this "every man for himself" crap ultimately ends itself. It doesn't sustain. It burns everything behind it down. We weren't meant to live life that way. Art, Music, Sports, Literature, Dance, Theater and all of our livelyhoods are based on sharing with others.

And if you don't think this is the case, please step back and look at the world around you and remember the first people that helped you. Fed you. Clothed and housed you. And then remember each of us has experienced that in some way or some degree to be here. The world started with sharing and that is the only way it continues. Peace and love.

Remember Animal Farm?

The effects of misinformation. In 6th or 7th grade, George Orwell's Animal Farm was required reading (Orwell notably was a democratic socialist - who believed in equality, but very much against Stalinist Communism). An alligorical tale reflecting on the Russian revolution, where Lenin's communists took over - and then on to the rise to power of Joseph Stalin.

In the tale, the animals revolt against humans and take over the farm and develop the tenants of animalis. It starts with "All animals are equal". When the Lenin figure is removed, Stalin is left and the phrase is revised to "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

This is the implementation of Stalinism, or essentially and oligarical dictatorship which Russia had become and remains today, although still mistakenly associated with "Communism"by the rest of the world. Further confusing things, they were called the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" or "USSR". They were not a socialism or a communism.

In the 1950's "Communism" became the focus of Joseph McCarthy and a very black period in our history where people that believed in communism and people labeled communist sympathizers, were labeled as enemies of the state and indeed the american people.

A main message of Animal Farm is to show us that Communism easily mutates to Stanliism, something that Orwell saw happen and wrote an published in 1945, prior to McCarthy.

Communism itself never really has been implemented in a lasting situation. Idealically, everyone is equal and the group owns the means of production and an equal distribution of wealth. I personally believe it is impossible to reach a lasting communism, because of the nature of man - we have changing desires and are by nature competative.

Socialism in a course has some of the same problems, but itself is not the same as Communism, because it is looked at more as the common management of means of production - but allows for ideas like profit and wealth.

Conservatives have lumped these two (Communism and Socialism) together since McCarthyism, but the truth of the matter is they are 90 degrees from each other. And they then conflate these to the Oligarchical Totalatarianisms that are the old USSR, newer Russia and China, in an attempt to scare people off.

But if we go back to the idea that "all animals are equal", we see that Democracy, Socialism and even idylic communism have this idea at their core. And it is at thsi point where we have to step back and look at ourselves and understand

When we start trying to label "Immigrants" as dangerous, When we allow oppression of people by race/origin, religion, age, sex, gender identy, sexual preference we are losing that basic ideal and pushing into the dominance of one group over others.

And when we ask ourselves, what do American soldiers sacrifice their lives for, it needs to be the removal of oppression, not the implementation of it. It is easy for the unscrupulous to use conservatism as a route to facism. When does communism as and idea stand it's best chance of contemplated? When our pendulum swings so far in the direction of capitalism, facism/autocracy that people are oppresed, enslaved and hungry.

And lest we think that "Hey, the economy is good, that's not happening here" - think again. The economy is great for people with money. There is plenty of hunger, homelessness, unemployment. But oppression happens lots of ways. It happens as voter suppression. It happens as police violence towards people of color. It happens with women making less than men for the equivelent work. It happens as elderly and vets get pushed to the sidelines, as corporations pull retirement plans out from under their employees, as they discontinue benefits for retirees. It happens when we don't care to feed children lunches, care if our population starves or we degrade their education - in fact with all government privitization, as the public investment is stolen. It happens with tax cuts that affect our social security and medicare.

What keeps this revolution from happening? Balance. Progress. Investment. Caring about people - all people. Real opportunity. Things that are squarely in the middle of the spectrum - they are not Democrat or Republican ideas - they just site as a collaberation between sides, rather than a swing to the polar end. With as far right as we are, we need a long, sustained push from the left to get anywhere near center.  So not just this November. But in multiple Novembers to come. And the left and center win when people show up. So show up. Vote. If you run into a real issue getting there, call around. Call assistance. You can get to the polls. You can vote. Please.

Government and the profit motive - part 1

In our democratic capitalism, profit and legality (compliance) are the two milestone by which we judge a business and how business judges itself.

Because business is a collective and authority is to an extent decentralized, we are bound by rules and in business, rules and strategy is to drive down costs and maximize the output of investments. That's all fine and good. But left unchecked, without rules, there is no good moral guide for business because it is a diverse collective. In medieval times, the church played the role of bringing the collective social conscience to t, mahe trades – for instance, making Fridays fish only (keeping fishermen employed, even if you owned cows, chickens or pigs) or forcing particular garments, rituals or tithing.

But we are diverse now, with many religious and non-religious beliefs driving our groups and religion can be the arbiter for an individual still, laws are what drives behavior. That secular approach gives us freedom to move within who we are and very ethically, provides freedom of religion.

But in order to have a set of guidelines that promote the overall social welfare that individual religions cannot, we must not only have regulation, to prevent harmful behavior, but contribution, in taxes and in action by business.  It's a safety net against the very raw terms in which market economics works. For instance;

Your house, let's say, sits on top of a natural gas supply. In an unregulated environment, the business takes over your land by any means necessary and claims your gas. That doesn't happen because we have rules in place. You own your land and business cannot just walk in and take what it wants.

Here's why government still matters:

The city could claim eminent domain – and push you off your land for a nominal fee, if business were able to convince them it served a greater good.

Now – if business has lobbied government and funded candidates to make rules that you own your land but mineral and gas rights are the governments right – and the government sells those to business and now they have the right to go after those resources and it is unethical if you didn't understand that when you bought the property – but it's legal.

So you need representatives that work on your behalf – and respond to business environments and needs, but work for the good of the people first.

And those that argue that business provides jobs and therefor profit is for "the good of the people" let's remember that business is profit driven – jobs are not created by creating more profit. Jobs are only created by a need that results in profit (said another way, business does not hire when it earns more money – it only hires when it has an opportunity that the current staff cannot carry out – and is constantly looking for ways to reduce cost, of which, people are usually the largest). So the only way the community benefits from additional profit (cost savings) is through taxation.

Because of taxation, business set up foundations, which donate money which can be leveraged to bring costs in balance with revenue. There is moral good at work here too, but very much subject to the rules of profitability so those cannot be counted on.

Safety and above board behavior is driven by regulation as well – in the 1940s (less than 80 years ago) collective bargaining started in the US because laws were put into place regulating business to stop heavy on the job mortality rates and starvation wages.

Capitalists call regulation communism or socialism, but that's inaccurate – in fact it's a lie. The means of production remain in private interests. In (true) communism, the means of production are held by the people and in socialism they are held by the government.

In a democracy, they need to be regulated in order to be privately held and still support society. Taxes and the infrastructure of government to regulate and enforce regulation is necessary in order for the socio-economic system to work. To promote individual welfare, balanced economy, education, scientifc advancement and basic human rights.

Right now, that government is being disassembled and the controls that keep people safe, educated and able to live are being removed, taking us back to a pre-1920's condition and beyond the individual risk in that is the risk that unregulated business will do what it did in 1929 – and even what moderately regulated business did in 2008 – it will allow greed to prevail over security and the economy collapses.

Yes, the invisible hand works. It's elegant in moderation – but in excess, it's scales tip to the ruination of many people and society. In 1930's and 40's we realized this and put protections in place, for the economic system and for social welfare – like social security and Medicaid. Like the Fed and the support of collective bargaining. When businesses lobby against these things, it's understandable, they are costs and they are counterintuitive to that closed system – but in the greater machine of human existence, democracy and society cannot survive unregulated capitalism. We need the balance.

This makes your choices at the poles urgently important. Voting for additional pro-business reform results to condemning society to unbridled greed, which only benefits a very few and only benefits them for a short time. Look for candidates that want secular social reform, universal healthcare, fair labor and trade laws. That's true freedom, where the system works for all (including business, who still make profits).

To be clear - I'm not anti-business or communist or socialist. I am in favor of democratic, socially responsible capitalist society. That means we put the needs of people first in with businesses needs. Some equate this to socialism, but it is in fact not - I'm not in favor of state owned means of production. I do believe in regulation and in some state run institutions, like government, water services, prisons, roads and health services - necessities where profit motive corrupts the basic nature of the endeavor (anything that is required access for everyone).

Healthcare - now that sounds socialist you say? Well, the basic idea of any health insurance company is to provide insurance where risk is spread over a group - and that way, everyone pays in a moderate fee, to allow everyone to use benefits if needed. The fee is high in the case of private insurance because the company has to make money. That means that not everyone is covered and not everyone can afford coverage. Having the pay system state run removes profit, which lowers cost. It doesn't keep hospitals and doctors and nurses from being paid market rates, just like private insurance - in fact it is like private insurance in every way except it doesn't have to make a profit - the goal is to break even.

Companies work like this for internal charges. They work for Net Zero. There is nothing uncapitalist about this - just that not everything needs to be exposed to the larger market - it's still a market, but is closed to profiteering. Invisible hand is still at work. What destroys healthcare (privately insured or publicly is the attempt to subject care to accounting rule rather than medical necessity. If we did our best job of care, however, Doctors, not accountants or actuaries, would decide on treatment. That doesn't happen in the private insurance market. Business people decide on what formularies are available and what treatments are considered normal. These are done with consultation with medical professionals, but the evaluation still needs to include profit - an extra layer of money.

Conversation invited.

Welcome to the Matrix

In the Matrix, the big shocker is when we find out that humans are being used as batteries. And to some extent, the analogy exists in our society.

In business, people generally are responsible for continued generation of capital products for business.  And as consumers, we pay for that production with the result of our production.

Nothing evil about that in the abstract. In the Matrix, the issue is people are enslaved to the system, unable to see the real life they are living for the one that is being fed to them.

This is where the analogy starts feeling a little to real and you start thinking about stuff like, well, free will and “why am I here”.

The poor are absolutely enslaved as are most of the rest, even the 1% - everyone has to do stuff to generate or consume or in many situations both. Could go deep down that Rabbit hole, however, let’s stay here for a moment.

Let’s realize that this is how capitalism works and why we put regulation around it so it impacts more people reasonably. The better and more compressive the regulation, the better we cover those who don’t or cannot produce as much. In regulations we set baselines for quality of life, at least in regards to important things… how much necessities cost, how we educate, so that kids can generate revenue, and contribute and enjoy into adulthood, how we pay for research and healthcare, the quality of food and medicine, safety in life and workplace, access to technology and so on.

It’s regulation that is frequently seen by business as infringing on their ability to make money, however some have embraced the novel idea of doing both - that is helping society and making a profit.

Regulation keeps Nestle from owning all the water supplies. Regulation keeps big Oil from being the only source of energy - it prevent monopolies and closed markets. Because in closed markets, we really are just batteries and not human beings.

As humans we need education, art, music, debate and love. In order to get to these things, we need safety - food, shelter and some physical things that mean we stay alive. That’s well documented in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

The real tragedy in the Matrix is it’s a closed market. Everything’s a simulation by a few for others to live in. The current leadership thinks of us as batteries. They are removing regulation to make it easier to close markets, to become monopolies of both consumerism and power.

You can take the red pill or the blue pill. The red pill is voting and active consumerism. The blue pill is doing nothing.

“You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more.” - Morpheus (from The Matrix).

Vote and consume from companies that work to be socially responsible. Renewable  energy. Progressive candidates that support open markets with regulation rather than closed markets. Healthcare for all. Food and shelter and education for all. It’s not a pretty reality right now, but this is our way to actual free will, actual freedom. It’s not through nationalism, closed borders, coal fired electricity and gasoline only cars. It’s not through privately owned water. We’re not just batteries, are we?

Common ground

You walk into the timeshare demonstration sceptical - and you should be. Perfect pictures, a slick pitch and they won't let you out of the room for 90 minutes. You are sitting on wooden chairs that make it impossible to get comfortable. The literature is in front of you but it looks old. They tell you that there's is a unique and special deal - only they can provide you with the goods. Then comes the kicker - you cannot see the place before you buy. Pictures yes, but there's no demo unit. And there is an option, to stay there without prepaying a years worth of money, but it's the equivalent of spending $1000 a night.

Do you buy the timeshare for $10,000 with the idea that you can stay there two weeks year for perpetuity - and accept the unknown as a prerequisite for a potential great experience? Do you take it on faith that you will get what you are paying for?

This is how I feel about organized religion in general.

I believe there is a higher power in the universe. I'm not sure if it has consciousness or just is. But if god exists in the way organized religion proposes - that we have to take it on faith, then I'm sceptical. An all powerful being that requires you recognize and accept that theirs is the only way, prior to death - otherwise it's too late? There are certainly signs that power exists, but the idea that it emanates from traditions that are only a few thousand years old - doesn't provide a plausible base for belief.

I personally think this higher power is reachable directly. No middleman. Really. If you are able to see the miracles of life and nature directly, what claim does any organized religion have on this - life existed long before the organization did. There were no Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu dinosaurs. My actions create ripples in the world that come back and are reflected in others actions. We find power in universality, when we support each other, even when we are on different paths. We see it in paying it forward or feeding a stranger. We see it when the world bends our way.

It's much more reasonable, in my mind, to think that life happens in harmony or discord  with this higher power - that it doesn't intervene in my day to day life per se, but it influences the way the world works.

And in that case, I'm not sure about multiple planes of existance and other things, but I have to pay attention to now. And if organized religion is right and there is a concious being in control, why would they require a set of rituals? Wouldn't they make decisions about your direction as you move tot hat next plane of existence? Have data to evaluate?

If they are are all powerful then they know what each of us does and can make that judgement. We cannot judge others actions against imortality - nor can we live for others.

It's a better likelyhood that man invented religion as early law, with an understanding that we had to curb our animal instincts and as an explanation for the unexplainable. And some of these are universal truths. Being good to and not killing others. Moderation. Building lasting relationships. All good concepts to help people live. And to that extent most organized religion teaches those kinds of things. But there are people that will use religion for control. For gain.

And in those self proclaimed prophets and preachers lies the problem. Mine is the only way. Follow my rules and you will find eternal bliss - follow any other path and you are eternally damned.

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him (a statement attributed to a 1st century zen master Linji Yixuan). Anyone that claims to have the answer doesn't. Life is a journey not a destination. My father introduced me to these ideas and in them I have found my direct connection. It's not an answer, it is just recognition that freewill is what we carry as both a responsibility and a gift. Because people recognize and define entitlement in many different ways, we need a governor on freewill in order to live together, in order to share.

Laws that are truly secular are fairest - they do not benefit or prefer a faith. They govern freewill in a way that defines our boundaries at the point where we infringe upon others. Secular ideals are why their themes show up in religion and law - not killing, loving each other, not stealing, It's why they are common. It's why our laws need to be secular - to ensure that the discrimination inherent in being part of a group is not the deciding factor of what is right. Faith based law is inherently exclusive. Secular law is fundamentally inclusive.

It's not to tell you your religious beliefs are wrong or that you should drop them - but it is to challenge that your religious beliefs are the only path to the power. There are many paths. We are each on our own journey.

All this leads up to, each of us being able to follow their freewill in how they conduct their life - where they live, who and how they love, how they care for themselves. It also requires standards of care for others when they are unable to care for themselves for whatever reason.

Religion and politics inform our world view and each contributes ideas to our journey. We must be careful to recognize that what we know is dependent upon what we have learned so far in our journey and that others on a differing path or a different point in their path, still are legitimate unto themselves - and we need to support and respect them under the universal boundaries of peace and goodwill.

We can do this as ourselves, without burdening a higher power with responsibility for it. We are each responsible for it. For those that believe in ultimate judgement, you will be judged well because you followed the basic tenants of respect. And for those that don't believe in judgement, you can rest assured that you live the best life you can in relation to your fellow beings. And we can each love and worship in our own way because of it.

There is little there to be taken on faith. Our interaction with our fellow beings in real and now. It is generally easy to see if something we are doing is beneficial or detrimental to them and their worldview. It is compatible with reasonable faith (not fundamentalist or evangelical, which demand they are the only road and that people must be converted - these cross the boundaries of individual respect). It is a way forward. For all of us.

Change

Change can be hard. If what you are changing from is comfortable or familiar or well worn. The most successful changing comes from a desire to change. It's harder if it's just a need – or unimportant to you – or requires effort or even pain, even if we know it's the right thing to do.

Combined with our scripting – every utterance from your parents, jokes your friends told, good and bad and awkward experiences that form our notion of right and wrong, true or false, evil and good.

I had a friend point out that there is a lack of morality and "God" that she holds responsible for school shootings. I might not agree that this is a problem with him not worshiping a particular deity, but I can look at him (in this case secularly) and say that she's right – the shooter obviously doesn't value human life (a lack of acceptable morality) and his experiences didn't allow him to consider other alternatives.

But we cannot change all of the experiences our children go through (we can affect some), but we can teach kindness, compassion and love secularly as well as religiously. Competition can be healthy, but can also be damaging. We cannot turn out looking at every other being as someone to better.

There are those who feel that teaching our kids that winning is everything and this is where I think we need to change. Children need to be taught to compete with themselves. They need to be taught to think of themselves critically (and objectively – not" I'm failing" – but "what can I do to be better").

There are those that criticize awards for reaching a base goal – attendance awards, for instance, but these serve a purpose. They are not lowering expectations – they are making achievement incremental. And so it needs to be with changing acceptance of others. Tolerance – not ideal, but a base point to start from. Acceptance and eventually collaboration/integration are more positive steps on the path. This relates to race, it relates to age, to sex, to sexuality, to gender preference, to innderstanding and come – to social differences of any kind. We need to move ourselves, as a nation, incrementally towards uloving each other.

The problem is when change is presented, agendas start to engage. There are many that profit off our disenfranchisement from each other – from people that market to "select" groups to politicians who want the divide to be their mechanism to influence voters.

Thoreau is credited with saying "He is the best sailor who can steer within the fewest points of the wind, and extract a motive power out of the greatest obstacles. Most begin to veer and tack as soon as the wind changes from aft, and as within the tropics it does not blow from all points of the compass, there are some harbors which they can never reach."*

And we need to take other preventative steps in the meantime. This means taking away easy access to things some people love.

We have to teach mutual love knowing some of our folks won't get there in their lifetimes, but their children or grandchildren can. We need a long term focus on this.

I can relate. One of my great pleasures in life is writing and making music – and I do this with guitars. The experience is tactil – just as it is with other physical joys – a part of the joy is in the feel. I own 25 guitars right now (but that fluctuates up and down) and the reason is, each is different – feels different, sounds different, evokes different music from me. It would be hard for me to change my love of this – I've done it for 48 years – since I was 6.

But, if giving this up would save lives, I would have to consider it. I would need to be sure that it would work. There could be people telling me it wouldn't, for their own gain (those who sell me guitars for instance) or others who don't value the life of others as much as their own joy. There would be those that would try to hijack my love of life for other issues – like abortion or religious agendas. I would need to see past that and would need to be sure that my sacrifice would achieve the desired result.

It would be easier if I didn't give up all of my vocation, just the part that primarily made it easier to hurt others. I would view this suspiciously – as a slippery slope – where would it end? And this is where we are at with guns.

Short term, we need to remove access to the deadliest weapons that are commonly available. I recognize there's a reasonably sane part of the population that can use these tools responsibily. But just as we take unsafe toys away (you can't buy lawn darts anymore. Trampolines have been modified to prevent many injuries and nobody sells fireworks as toys anymore - althought they too need more regulation for safety).

This change is hard to accept. It would be like giving up some of my guitars – it's very hard. If I knew it would work – if I could save the lives of children – I would be morally compelled to make that change.

Well, we know that removing AR15s and variants from the street will help. We know it. Gun bans have worked in many other parts of the world. Removing easy access works. It's not to say nobody can have access – it's to say it needs to be substantially different than it is today. No private sales. Registered and owned for a reason, continued proof that we're sane and capable if we do use them.

I'm fortunate. The most pain I inflict with my vocation is that I subject you, my friends, to my music – which you can ignore, turn off or occasionally suffer through. So I get to keep my guitars and hopefully someone somewhere gets joy out of what I do.

With guns, we need to get to that well-regulated place, where they can be used responsibly by those who are capable and are not available to those who are not or don't care to be exposed (this is the right to turn them off – just like you don't need to listen to my music, I shouldn't have to worry about your gun).

You may believe this is a violation of rights – but our rights end where they start to negatively impact others (this is true of anything). We need to provide mechanisms to allow us to coexist understanding that neither of our preferences negatively impact each other – and when they do, we have the ability to, without taking our lives into our hands, let each other know and work it out.

This goes against that scripting, that comfort, our intuition – to sacrifice things we hold dear for the safety of others. But this exists in religion and in the wide world. Many of the people we hold as examples sacrificed significantly, if not everything;

Mother Teresa. Gandhi. Our WWII Veterans who saved humanity. Our philanthropists, the people who work at food banks and animal shelters, those who work tirelessly to cure disease (in the face of inadequate and unsure funding). It's those that protest the inequities in society to affect change.

It's not just guns. It's all of the things that we need to invest in to keep our kids educated and alive. But alive is where we need to start and guns are significant in that area.

I hope we find the strength to change, to compete with ourselves to be better, for everyone's good, rather than against each other to the detriment of some.

_______
*Quote attributed to Henry David Thoreau; A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers (1849), in The Writings of Henry David Thoreau, vol. 1, p. 362, Houghton Mifflin (1906). http://www.captainfletch.com/literature/poetry/thoreauocean.asp

The "Foreign Threat".

A diatribe this morning on the "Foreign Threat". The Trump administration would proport that foreigners, coming into this country illegally, are the big threat – to jobs, to our security – both physical and social. 

This is rubbish.  

The Foreign threat to US jobs comes not from an illegal source but within business itself and in our ability to compete. In business, services are theoretically sourced at the lowest cost, while still being effective. Right now we occupy  number of jobs that require education and training. We're still cost effective in some of these areas. 

But there is nothing inherently superior intrinsic to the American worker. There are creative, smart people all over the globe. I've traveled extensively and have worked with people from Hungary, India, Russia, Brazil Switzerland, Germany and Suriname (among many others) and they have been brilliant, kind and hard working. To claim ingenuity as our own is to kid ourselves.  

What makes us special to us, is we are our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and neighbors. What has traditionally been our strength, in this capitalist world has been access to education and capital. 

This is changing. Every other country on the planet has focused on public education – here we are with an administration that is actively destroying the public education system in order to help "For Profit" education. How? They are changing public school funding. They are pushing for taxes to be moved into vouchers where families choose a school. This seems innocuous but ends up pulling funding from public schools and transferingit to "For Profit".  and the problem with this is, public education needs a base that is funded by everyone – is consistent and predictable, which in turn allows everyone, regardless of economic circumstance an opportunity to get a high quality education. As soon as that is fractionated, we lose critical mass (the same, incidentally goes for all public services, like water, roads, healthcare and many others – privatization ultimately weakens universal access).  And the administration is pushing this down to state and local government. The problem with funding moving locally is that poor communities will have less per capita to spend on students, creating economic discrimination. Deregulation removes the safeguards that ensure standards are met – making some "Pay for" offerings no more than babysitting services. 

Other countries are providing universal access to education. So – our children and theirs will be working at a disadvantage in the competitive marketplace. This means we become less competitive in a global marketplace, full of well-educated people. And money will follow them (access to capital). 

Ansel Adams was once asked how he took such wonderful pictures. He replied (I paraphrase) "I take a lot of them". It's the same thing with innovation. The more scientists, mathematicians, MBAs, artists and musicians we have, the more we will innovate, the more our nation will thrive. 

This is how we let others take over our markets. Not through borders, but through denial of the universal need for education.  There's a phrase that's often used in business (too much) and that is is "Work smarter, not harder" - well, following that logic, one needs the education and training to pull that off.  

And an American, regardless of their country of origin – and arguably regardless of their legality, armed with these tools, contributes to the country and brings in capital and pushes it back into our economy – which, by the way, is still the biggest in the world (but not for long on the current course). 

We need to support public education – fund it and help it thrive. Our very survival depends on it.