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. 

Cooking after bariatric surgery - Post 1

Folks,

Jennifer and I just had bariatric bypass surgery and as we are moving back to solid food, at greatly reduced quantity, I wanted to share some of the cooking I'm doing - some favorites, modified for the diet. I intend to try this with spray olive oil to reduce the fat/calories too.

Today I'm making the mini breakfast skillet. This servers 1, but is scalable.

Mini Breakfast Skillet

Ingredients
1.5 ounces of fingerling potatoes, finely diced.
2 tablespoons of Jimmy Dean turkey sausage crumbles
1.5 tablespoons Olive Oil
1-2 tablespoons finely diced onion
1 tablespoon cheddar cheese shreds
1 egg
Salt and Pepper

Step 1 - Prep
Chop your potatoes and Onions. I keep them separate on a small board - I'll put the onions in ahead of the potatoes. Get the rest of your ingredients out (you can measure ahead if you prefer - this is especially helpful if you are preparing for more than one).

Step 2
Add Olive Oil to pan and let heat up to a medium high heat. Add onions and let those cook for a minute or two and then add potatoes. I usually add a little pepper at this time (if you are a fan of pepper, cooking will bring out some of the oil and make it a little more pronounced).

Step 3
Spray your egg pan with cooking spray or add a little butter (I use a pan that is sized for one egg, so the amount of butter I add is very nominal). Heat to a medium low heat (between 3-4 on my LG stove) and once up to temp, add your egg.


Step 4
Add your sausage to the potatoes and onions mixing occasionally, for another one or two minutes. Onions should be caramelized and potatoes mod
erately crispy. Plate once ready and top with cheddar cheese


Step 5
Flip your egg (if you prefer easy over) and once cooked to desired consistency. Plate on top. Salt and pepper to taste. Enjoy!

Nutrition: 360 calories, 10.34 carbs, 11.73 protein, 30.51 fat

U.S. Healthcare - Systemic Issues

There's a number of issues with the US Healthcare system currently, even for those of us with "Good" insurance that I'd like to open discussions on. Today I'd like to talk about the goals of a healthcare system.

Some view this as a black and white - "to keep you alive". Those folks feel our law that keeps anyone from being refused emergency care feel that is enough. But many people suffer from chronic conditions - heart, diabetes, cancer, MS - just to name a few. What of these people? And what about quality of life - how important is it that we exist with some inkling of energy and happiness while we survive?

Quality of life defined: Fundamentally, people need to be able to do things that sustain their health, which is both physical and psychological and currently many of these things are difficult for those that have means, let alone, those who are too poor. This includes;

• Eating quality foods (I'm talking more about access to fresh vegetables, meat without hormones, whole grains.

• Affordable access to medications, even if they are not "Life Saving" but play role in sustaining oneself (think blood pressure, cholesterol, hormones, blood thinners, pain management, nerve and eye health, etc...

• Stress balancing life conditions - Stress is a huge killer. Really. 

• Affordable Emergency care - this is certainly important.

• Affordable Maintenance care - this is just as important.

• Primary Care Physician or Advocate - I know we have lots of medical practices that rotate patients among doctors. I don't believe in this for long term health. An individual gets to know you and your conditions, your concerns, your needs. My Grandfather practiced this way. I believe my father passed because nobody was watching and understanding him specifically. He died from a staff infection that moved to the tissue around his brain - in a hospital full of doctors, being monitored regularly, by specialists, who overlooked the issue that killed him until it was too late. There needs to be a central project manager for each individuals health care. 

• A voice in your own care - where you are competent to be able to do this and an omsbudperson in the event you cannot. 

• Transparency - understanding the decisions being made about your health and by whom, and the costs, where applicable. 

• Holistic health services - physical, mental. The hospital has to save your life if you are hit by a car and injured - but if you don't have insurance, you could be put on the street as soon as you are stable. No physical therapy. No psychological help. That needs to change.

In many cases, even those of us with "good" insurance are struggling with the above. For these reasons and more, we need to look at a system that can address these issues for people from all walks of life - not just people with means. And that's why our current system does not work. The profit motive currently drives care and while cost is important, the main goal needs to be quality of life. Does this include survival - yes. Is it limited to it - no. 

Today I had a nice lunch and later had some Ice Cream - well, Ice Cream and cookies (as a sandwich). My blood sugar rose.

As a diabetic, I try to generally watch my carb consumption (too much and my thinking gets fuzzy, I get very thirsty and it is bad for me in a number of longer term ways if it happens frequently. Too little and I sweat, get weak and pass out. So balancing my input with my activity is important too. And balance is the key.

So I take insulin. I have a basal insulin that I use that lasts all day. It makes sure there is something to allow my body to process at any given time. I also take short term insulin (fast acting) with most meals.

With my elevated blood sugar, my thinking was getting particularly hard, as I tried to remember a version number for something and I realized I hadn't taken my lunch insulin. About 4 seconds after I took it, I could feel the could moving away.

Thats because insulin is a trigger. It sends messages to the body and because all thought is chemical, the body starts responding immediately. It's amazing to me - especially when it's so tangible. We experience these kinds of things all the time. Regular bodies are doing this automatically, just like our response to other stimuli.

But we often push our signals away - pain, discomfort, need are all managed in order to direct our attention to modern life. But take a minute, especially as you start gaining years, to listen to what your body is saying. Often times you know the answer and you can make your life better, you can maintain your balance, just by minding this. It's worth the time.You're worth the time.

Our opportunity.

Mark Twain is a hero of mine. Although my inner Twain rarely comes out... I'm not nearly as fast witted as Twain was reported to be, he's in me, marveling at the wonders and idiocy of man, self included.

Twain talks about us being the most conceited animal because we are the only ones who think that God spends his time watching over us, interested in our comings and goings. And to an extent, I agree with him. We make more of our momentary issues and problems than god does. We make our own bed, so to speak. 

And yet there is some sort of providence that touches us. Not equally, not fairly, not necessarily justifiably, but, I've experienced it and I've experienced the lack of it. Sometimes within the same experience, just years apart, owing perspective for the experience when I thought providence wasn't present and it was. Some of it comes from the privilege that comes from being white. Some from my upbringing and family. Much providence exists, when it does exist, due to a reasonably balanced socio-economic environment.

But what is providence for one man is not for another. Those that have privilege rely less on that balance. Those that don't desperately need it.

We Have Some Control
As we get into this voting season, I realize that providence appears to be missing again for middle class and the poor. We are in a card game with a fixed deck. We look to our politicians and need to understand that at best they are human and at worst they are monsters. 

There are a lot of pro wealth, pro business, anti-constituent monsters in congress. In state and local government. And more trying to settle in. They come in the guise of "Lower Tax", "Smaller Government" and "Family Values". They come in the form of classism, thinking that anyone who considers social progress is lazy, a loser or stupid (they made the wrong choices and now want someone to bail them out).

They come in the form of the privileged, some who don't recognize their privilege and in those who think they should be privileged and somehow guarding that club will gain them entrance.

That is why it is necessary look beneath the skins of the politicians that they are championing. These people are looking to sell our government, turning current services into revenue generators (look at things like the post office, your toll roads, prisons, schools). The more they sell, the less voice we have in how they are run and the more they will cost us ultimately, making education exclusive rather than ubiquitous and pulling the net out from under the poor, the jobless, the homeless and seniors. 

Nothing wrong with pro-business until they sell off public ownership of water or right to information on the food we eat, or turn our jails into revenue farms that perpetuate inmate occupation.

We need affordable, comprehensive, medical insurance for everyone. We need to partner with other countries to make sure we all are good world citizens in every sense, and remember, we, along with a few other countries, have responsibility for a lot of what happen as our economies drive it. We need balance the invisible hand (the economic force) alone cannot deliver.

Providence only works in a reasonable climate, rarely in the desert. And our current system is being turned into a desert.

 ... We need to make this a representative government again... Make our own providence by voting the monsters out or keeping them out. Not just the presidency. At all levels. Do your research. Work for moderation and vote, vote, vote. This one is on us. 

Contemplation

My thought for the day: Change is constant and life is short. The future holds the new. The present holds us and what has not yet changed, but we actually have some good idea of what the near future holds. 

Take advantage of this time to appreciate the now and shape the future. Take that drive down a winding road (before your self driving, electric car does it for you). See natural environments (like the Giant Redwood Forest or Glaciers) while they still stand (and work to keep them that way). Look at the person next to you day after day and let them know you care. A good bit of what you experience is within your control and every day we make decisions to circumvent our own needs and priorities. Use your mind and your tools to change that.

I'm reminded of our own mortality and the mortality of our ideas over the last couple of days - don't fear change but celebrate your life, now and plan for the future (to allow the celebration to continue, for yourself, your loved ones and every beautiful being on this planet). Carpe Diem, yes. But more "Occupare Vita"... Seize Life.

Peace

It strikes me now, as an Egyptian military clashes with some religious zealots, that our problem relates to both of them. Neither group is interested in compromise, due to basic ideology. This makes me think of John Mayer's (yes, that John Mayer) song Belief. It says it all. Except that we need to find ways to bridge or mitigate these dissonant chords. Killing and violence effect everyone, not just those directly involved in the conflict. I'm not an idealist, but there have to be ways to do better than this.

Is there anyone who

Ever remembers changing there mind from

The paint on a sign?

Is there anyone who really recalls

Ever breaking rank at all

For something someone yelled real loud one time

Everyone believes

In how they think it ought to be

Everyone believes

And they're not going easily

Belief is a beautiful armor

But makes for the heaviest sword

Like punching under water

You never can hit who you're trying for

Some need the exhibition

And some have to know they tried

It's the chemical weapon

For the war that's raging on inside

Everyone believes

From emptiness to everything

Everyone believes

And no ones going quietly

We're never gonna win the world

We're never gonna stop the war

We're never gonna beat this

If belief is what we're fighting for

What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand

Belief can

Belief can

What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand

Belief can

Belief can

John Mayer

A Poem

I think I need an new hand gun, to keep away my neighbor, Ron. He's the kind of element you see, that can't be trusted, cannot be. Ron has a hand gun and so, if I have one, he'll have to know, that my gun counters his, you see, so his gun is held in check by me. My logic is in vain because in truth Ron is insane. My gun does not deter him, it doesn't even scare him. Turns out that I'm also insane, to think a weapon will win the game. This is not a game you win or would even choose, because when one of us wins, we all lose.  - Toby Venar

Together we stand, divided we fall. We need to move the politics to the center again...

The problem with any extreme view is exactly that. It is rare that solutions manifest their finest version in the extreme. It is rare that we expect the extreme and get it (think of Orwell's 1984 and think of what we see - versions of what he spoke about but in many cases, in some more moderate and governed form - although the Patriot Act admittedly still brings us to close to Winston's world).

Now - that is not to say I haven't found myself on one side of a particular issue. But I'm sad to see that our candidates are polarized to such an extent that they represent a loss of common sense and negotiation that our nation has thrived upon.

Compared to the rest of the world, and excepting a few totalitarian countries or oligarchies, we are pretty far to the right already. It is what makes the formerly center left seem extreme - but it's not. I think it is important to have some yardstick other than our own two political parties upon which to define the extremes. Canada, England and France are farther left than we are, and yet they are more moderate in many cases too.

And contrary to anyone's ideas, the Soviet system was the farthest thing from true leftism that you could probably find - Stalin called himself a communist because he succeeded Lenin, but he was a dictator - and post Stalin USSR and Russia has been an Oligarchy at best. China is an oligarchy as well and falls on the right, not the left as they may claim, because the force the political opinion. True leftist arguments tend towards a classless society where equality in status and possession are the goal. It is easy therefor to draw the conclusion that at anything that works towards providing equality is leftist. But wait a minute. We want racial equality. We want sexual equality. Those are human rights issues. Why is fiscal equality not a human rights issue? It IS a human rights issue to the extent that some cannot eat. But I believe in socially responsible capitalism where we still have unlimited potential to reach our zenith as individuals and collectives - with the understanding that it is important that we preserve everyone's ability to survive in order to allow them to pursue liberty.

No, there is no real good example of a pure left state, so we have to use our imagination and call that communism and understand it to be a completely community oriented society - no personal property, etc... socialism is a moderation of the ideal and social democracies like Britain are closer to the center than the left.

The closest reference we have for "Right" is Hitler's Germany. But it doesn't matter. All extreme's abuse human and civil rights. They dimiss the compromise that we need, as a society, to function and live together. And we need to change our society from the inside. My father once pointed out that protest is great, but not as effective and systemic change - because protest is always from outside the system.

We need the center of this country to pull forward and learn to work together. Both public and private interests function in our great nation because of the debate and our ability to collaborate. Collaboration is the optimal brother of compromise - where we don't just arrive at a balanced agreement, but we step forward together to improve the situation for the majority of folks. Party politics support the idea to a point. But they also get in the way of collaboration and compromise when they show no ability to work on behalf of the citizenry, which is far more moderate, in general, than either of the parties.

Come on people. Don't get angry. Start thinking about how we work together to solve problems. Don't like a particular solution? Figure out how to modify it. Examine the goals in mind and determine if there is some common ground. Together we stand, divided we fall. It was true when it was originally said and it's true now.

Selling the American voter out

The Supreme Court, the group that defends the rights of our citizenry has just announced its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. In a 5-4 decision, the court overturned the 60-year-old ban on corporate spending in elections. This means that while corporations cannot contribute directly to a candidate, they can buy adds supporting a candidate or slandering others.

If this doesn't seem like a big deal, consider how much money was spent on influencing congressional voting and consumer opinion on healthcare was over 600 million dollars, with special interests against public insurance spending about 2:1 against those who are for it. And this is to influence the vote of less than 600 people.

Citizens United is a conservative PAC funded organization that produced a negative campaign against Hillary Clinton which was slated to run during the 2008 election. The FEC (Federal Election Commission) sued to keep the movie off the air because it was a political advertisement, funded by business.

Naturally, the RNC and some other conservatives are calling this a win for "Free Speech". Many others, moderate conservatives and liberals, including John McCain and Olympia Snow have called the ruling regrettable and disappointing.

The big loser here is the american voter. The volume of the special interest propaganda, on both sides of the fence, is about to go up. But that isn't the truly bad news - the bad news is that corporate voices are going to be much louder than those of ordinary citizens. Without rules governing truth in content, these ads can say anything. Anything.

That's going to make it harder for Americans to discern the truth and easy for companies to push their agendas regardless of the effect on ordinary americans. We are all losing today.

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty....

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William S. Smith (13 November 1787)

In Jefferson's day, guns were thought to be what evened out a man with his government. Clearly that is not the case - I don't believe that violence is an answer. Our weapons are those of our voice, our action. We need to pass the "Fair Elections Now Act" and we need to work to limit the voice of lobbyists and PACs. Follow the links to:

http://www.publicampaign.org/node/38166 and help get legislation passed to put limits on the damage this ruling invites.

Sources

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_United

http://www.publicampaign.org/node/38166

http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html

http://www.fec.gov/

The sale of our representative government

The Supreme Court ruled today in a 5/4 decision to remove the 60 year old ban on corporations contributing to political campaigns. This essentially opens the door for blatant purchasing of candidates. God help us all. More on this later.

Our greatest tool

As I get older, time seems to pass by quicker and issues and votes that once seemed far apart (seemed like Nixon/McGovern - the first election in which I was politically aware, lasted for years whereas now, presidential elections feel too frequent).

As we get into this season, I'm reminded about how people are focused on getting what they want (nothing wrong with that) at the expense or a best ignorance of others (lots really wrong with this). There is irony that in this season of sharing, people become more focused on themselves.

It is with extreme relief that I step back and recognize that balance tends to win both on large and small scales. This is what our founding fathers intended for our system and this is what tends to regulate life in a way that eventually works out for many of us.

It has become obvious to me that power shifts readily in this country and that change itself is a tool that helps keep us from becoming single minded in our direction. The danger to the system are those that look to create a situation where change cannot not effect their cause.

Special interest groups based on business, religious ideology or social issues tend to push hard to set their agenda as being for the common good - in separate corners we might find 'Religion in public school", "Carbon credits" and "Clean Air" groups, pressing to win their issues (and funding them with ungodly amounts of money).

There will be many who disagree, but in my opinion, it is fortunate that these groups are subject to a system that changes - it keeps us from living in a land where school prayer is forced or where business is legislated without representation.

Don't get me wrong - I support some special interests - but in knowing that they live and die with my support - they are a market of sorts - they gain and lose based on a system of balance, a brother to the the invisible hand that regulates our economy - there is comfort in the physics of it all.

It is the same with our personal lives - if we each view ourselves as a special interest, we can recognize when pushing for the home team is a reasonable thing to do and when we need to subjugate to the better good - it is better when we come to that conclusion ourselves. It is even better when we realize that in most social situations others do not have to lose in order for us to win. At the same time, it is good that our governance is such that it is representative and that individual cannot always prevail.

An excellent article in the economist December 19 issue called "Direct Democracy: The tyranny of the majority" is worth a read (see the link below). I was thinking about the discussion above when I read this and it hit home that we do live in a republic - it is representative, not majority rule - another check and balance that our forefathers were visionary enough to put in place. Mind you, it doesn't always work - special interests can corrupt this, but special interests can corrupt any check and balance - the irony - and our salvation - is that competing interests in turn keep these at bay.

Happy New Year. Support the balance. Long live change.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15127600