I have been active in politics for as long as I can remember. I believe I marched around with a home-made sign proclaiming my choice for President of the United States when I was two or three years old -- my older siblings had cardboard signs attached to yardsticks, while mine was attached to a ruler. By "active in politics" I mean that I have been interested in politics, and actively campaigned for candidates, and volunteered to work at polling places, and occasionally served as a delegate to party conventions. I have never run for political office.
One of the lessons emphasized in my high school government class was the need to be a registered member of a political party, and participate in party politics, in order to give yourself a greater voice -- more power in the process. In America, those who do not participate in politics at the party level are limited to choosing between candidates selected by other people. This makes sense ... but it does NOT mean that any particular party is always right, or has a lock on the truth. I have worked for both major parties, and voted for candidates from a variety of parties.
During the height of my association with the Democratic party, I was one of only three people with my own key to the county Democratic headquarters, and I worked tirelessly for Democrat candidates. It was at that time that Bill Clinton was first nominated for President. The Democrats I worked alongside were both amused and troubled by my reluctance to do any sort of campaigning for Bill Clinton.
My problem with Bill Clinton is a straightforward one: Bill Clinton lies. He lies a lot. He has lied throughout his public career, and about a wide variety of subjects. His lies are well-documented. Those who associate Bill Clinton's lies exclusively with the subject of "Monica Lewisky" or "sex" are either misinformed or deluding themselves. Keep in mind that at the time he first ran for President -- when I was so concerned about his lying -- he had probably yet to even meet Monica Lewinsky.
I vividly recall a few conversations I had in those days with Clinton supporters, regarding his lies. One person -- on the staff of one of our senators -- first asked me for some examples of Clinton's lies. After I reeled off half a dozen examples, the staffer said, "You have to understand. Bill Clinton could not have made it to where he is today WITHOUT those lies." THAT was supposed to provide JUSTIFICATION?
Another conversation was more satisfying. A pleasant, older, philosophical man -- a Democratic activist -- listened calmly to my complaints about Clinton's lies, and then phrased it this way, "I am willing to overlook Bill Clinton's lies and other flaws, because I believe Bill Clinton will advance my agenda, and causes that I believe in. You are unwilling to overlook those things." If nothing else, I have to respect that man's honesty, as well as his clarity of thought.
I am still thinking and writing about President Bill Clinton, even as America stumbles toward the 2012 Presidential election. I am not trying to make any particular point about the present day, though I firmly believe that the past has much to teach us, especially with regard to politics and leadership. I realize that Bill Clinton was, and remains, very popular, and many people would object to my assessment of him.
I never could bring myself to support Bill Clinton, and I never voted for him. For me, his lying is a fatal flaw, regardless of his personal appeal, or his positions on the issues -- not that I agreed with him on the issues. That is actually a key point: Even if I disagree with a politician on the issues, I can support them as long as I consider them to be fundamentally honest. I can work with honest disagreement. It is dishonesty that I find to be intolerable. And, incidentally, I consider dishonesty about one's opponents to be perhaps the most toxic form of dishonesty in a politician.
Truth is complicated, but honesty is honesty, and lies are lies.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
The Wayfarer's Dole
Years ago, I read a magazine article that made reference to “The Wayfarer’s Dole”. My memory is quite hazy, but it had to do with someplace in Britain -- I thought some sort of medieval monastery -- where anyone could stop by and be offered food and drink and perhaps even a place to sleep, AND this had been going on for hundreds of years, and was still going on today.
I recently decided I needed to look all of this up, and the truth is a bit more complicated than my vague memory -- but the fact is that for many years, THIS is what I vaguely remembered … and this is one of those cases in which this vague memory of the truth is in some ways more important than the actual truth.
The reason the inaccurate vague memory is more important than the truth is that for several years now, I have tried to re-create this concept of a medieval monastery, but for critters -- mostly cats, though I have yet to turn any critter away. Basically, my rule is that any critter -- again, mostly any cat -- who shows up at my place gets a meal, water, and a place to sleep that is hopefully safe and warm and dry. If they will let me handle them, they get medical care, if they seem to need it, and if they choose to stay for a prolonged period, they get “fixed” and medical care, including vaccinations, whether or not they appear to need it, and whether or not they will let me handle them (I possess and am capable of using a trap, nets, and special protective gloves).
The area where I live has cold, snowy winters, so the winters are the most difficult time. I make various shelters, including insulated houses that I build from scratch, and do my best to supply unfrozen water. At the coldest times, everyone is urged to come inside, though some steadfastly refuse. I have one cat who I consider totally “mine”, who eats all his meals on my front porch, lives in a custom-built cat house, and gets regular veterinary care, but even on the coldest nights dislikes staying indoors for more than perhaps an hour.
This does involve lots of effort and expense, and hundreds of cans of food, and hundreds of pounds of dry food. I am well-known at my local veterinarians’ office, and they have a special program just for neutering “my” cats.
I would like to think that everyone would have access to a wholesome meal and clean water and a safe, warm, dry place to sleep, but I know that is not the case. Here in our little corner of the world, we do what we can.
(By the way, the classic “Wayfarer’s Dole” is dispensed at “The Hospital of St Cross and Almshouse of Noble Poverty” in Winchester, England, founded in the 1130’s, and consists of bread and ale. Though 25 men currently live there full-time, I do not believe most travelers are offered a place to sleep.)
I recently decided I needed to look all of this up, and the truth is a bit more complicated than my vague memory -- but the fact is that for many years, THIS is what I vaguely remembered … and this is one of those cases in which this vague memory of the truth is in some ways more important than the actual truth.
The reason the inaccurate vague memory is more important than the truth is that for several years now, I have tried to re-create this concept of a medieval monastery, but for critters -- mostly cats, though I have yet to turn any critter away. Basically, my rule is that any critter -- again, mostly any cat -- who shows up at my place gets a meal, water, and a place to sleep that is hopefully safe and warm and dry. If they will let me handle them, they get medical care, if they seem to need it, and if they choose to stay for a prolonged period, they get “fixed” and medical care, including vaccinations, whether or not they appear to need it, and whether or not they will let me handle them (I possess and am capable of using a trap, nets, and special protective gloves).
The area where I live has cold, snowy winters, so the winters are the most difficult time. I make various shelters, including insulated houses that I build from scratch, and do my best to supply unfrozen water. At the coldest times, everyone is urged to come inside, though some steadfastly refuse. I have one cat who I consider totally “mine”, who eats all his meals on my front porch, lives in a custom-built cat house, and gets regular veterinary care, but even on the coldest nights dislikes staying indoors for more than perhaps an hour.
This does involve lots of effort and expense, and hundreds of cans of food, and hundreds of pounds of dry food. I am well-known at my local veterinarians’ office, and they have a special program just for neutering “my” cats.
I would like to think that everyone would have access to a wholesome meal and clean water and a safe, warm, dry place to sleep, but I know that is not the case. Here in our little corner of the world, we do what we can.
(By the way, the classic “Wayfarer’s Dole” is dispensed at “The Hospital of St Cross and Almshouse of Noble Poverty” in Winchester, England, founded in the 1130’s, and consists of bread and ale. Though 25 men currently live there full-time, I do not believe most travelers are offered a place to sleep.)
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Personal access
I can be hard to get a hold of.
Though you probably aren’t thinking about it, there are actually multiple ways to interpret that sentence. The most common interpretation probably has to do with a tendency -- as in “I am sometimes hard to get a hold of.” There are also other ways to use the word “can” -- indicating an ability, such as “I can play the piano” or “I can recite quotations from Shakespeare.” Finally, there is “I can do it if I want to do it, and you will not be able to stop me,” such as “I can stay up late and watch television.”
I find it profound that in this particular case, all three interpretations apply. I have a tendency to be difficult to get a hold of, AND I have an ability to be difficult to get a hold of, AND I want to be difficult to get a hold of, and you will not be able to stop me.
In this “connected” era, where people have not only cell phones but “smart phones” and do all manner of not only e-mailing but “instant messaging” (perhaps out of vogue now) and “texting”, I am increasingly out of step with those around me, and more than one person has actually become angry about how difficult it is to reach me. Notably, the people who have been angriest have been people who I barely consider acquaintances -- certainly not friends. I must admit, though, that many friends and family have also offered at least some criticism about the fact that they are unable to contact me at the moment they desire to contact me.
People seem not to understand that the issue is at least as important to ME as it is to THEM. I feel very strongly that NO ONE “deserves” or “has a right to” instant access to ANYONE. In fact, I would argue that this is one of the few things that separates us from prisoners. Prisoners often have at least SOME freedom of movement, and perhaps the ability to decide whether or not to eat and drink, and precisely what to eat and drink, and how to occupy their time -- but if their captor WANTS to have access to them, their captor HAS access to them. The prisoner does NOT get to decide who reaches them, or when.
This is one of those areas in which people will argue about motivation -- “WHY shouldn’t people be able to instantly reach you?” or “WHY is it important to you?” -- but I will respond that motivation is irrelevant. It is my desire, and my right. People will also come up with all sorts of “reasons” why they NEED instant access -- mostly having to do with the possibility of “emergencies”, but also for a variety of more individual needs. I am hard-pressed to think of any “emergency” situations in which quickly reaching me will have an impact on the outcome of the situation, though I am willing to acknowledge that the possibility exists. In those theoretical cases, I am willing to suffer the consequences of being hard to reach. On a practical level, the fact is that I am not UNIVERSALLY difficult to reach -- there are one or two or three people who I allow the ability to contact me most of the time. That is MY choice. The “problem” (not for ME) is that MOST people will have difficulty quickly contacting me.
In the back of my mind, there is always the fear that as the future unfolds, everyone will have instant access to everyone. I would not want to live in such a world.
Sometimes, the truth is straightforward.
Though you probably aren’t thinking about it, there are actually multiple ways to interpret that sentence. The most common interpretation probably has to do with a tendency -- as in “I am sometimes hard to get a hold of.” There are also other ways to use the word “can” -- indicating an ability, such as “I can play the piano” or “I can recite quotations from Shakespeare.” Finally, there is “I can do it if I want to do it, and you will not be able to stop me,” such as “I can stay up late and watch television.”
I find it profound that in this particular case, all three interpretations apply. I have a tendency to be difficult to get a hold of, AND I have an ability to be difficult to get a hold of, AND I want to be difficult to get a hold of, and you will not be able to stop me.
In this “connected” era, where people have not only cell phones but “smart phones” and do all manner of not only e-mailing but “instant messaging” (perhaps out of vogue now) and “texting”, I am increasingly out of step with those around me, and more than one person has actually become angry about how difficult it is to reach me. Notably, the people who have been angriest have been people who I barely consider acquaintances -- certainly not friends. I must admit, though, that many friends and family have also offered at least some criticism about the fact that they are unable to contact me at the moment they desire to contact me.
People seem not to understand that the issue is at least as important to ME as it is to THEM. I feel very strongly that NO ONE “deserves” or “has a right to” instant access to ANYONE. In fact, I would argue that this is one of the few things that separates us from prisoners. Prisoners often have at least SOME freedom of movement, and perhaps the ability to decide whether or not to eat and drink, and precisely what to eat and drink, and how to occupy their time -- but if their captor WANTS to have access to them, their captor HAS access to them. The prisoner does NOT get to decide who reaches them, or when.
This is one of those areas in which people will argue about motivation -- “WHY shouldn’t people be able to instantly reach you?” or “WHY is it important to you?” -- but I will respond that motivation is irrelevant. It is my desire, and my right. People will also come up with all sorts of “reasons” why they NEED instant access -- mostly having to do with the possibility of “emergencies”, but also for a variety of more individual needs. I am hard-pressed to think of any “emergency” situations in which quickly reaching me will have an impact on the outcome of the situation, though I am willing to acknowledge that the possibility exists. In those theoretical cases, I am willing to suffer the consequences of being hard to reach. On a practical level, the fact is that I am not UNIVERSALLY difficult to reach -- there are one or two or three people who I allow the ability to contact me most of the time. That is MY choice. The “problem” (not for ME) is that MOST people will have difficulty quickly contacting me.
In the back of my mind, there is always the fear that as the future unfolds, everyone will have instant access to everyone. I would not want to live in such a world.
Sometimes, the truth is straightforward.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Personal trust
Once, while I was in High School, I attended an overnight camp-out with our church youth group. Specifically, we spent the night in a lodge at a nearby camp, with a lake, a beach, and trails through the surrounding woods. I was only minimally active in the church youth group, and only casually acquainted with the other members. One of the evening's activities involved separating into pairs, and then taking turns being blindfolded while your partner led you around the camp. Later, we gathered to discuss the experience. Most of the people described being fearful and apprehensive during the time that they were blindfolded. I was the only one to express a sense of relaxation and peace. The period of time that I was blindfolded was the ONLY time during the evening that I had no worries at all about bumping into things or tripping, and had no decisions to make about where to go or what to do. My partner was carrying all those concerns for me. While my PARTNER was blindfolded, now THAT was a different story. THEN, I had to worry constantly about all the misfortunes that might befall my partner if I was careless or inattentive.
As children, my friends and I would often shout out urgent commands to each other, such as "Duck!" or "Look out!" or even "Hide!". Sometimes the commands might be more specific, like "Kick your right foot!" or "Pedal your bicycle faster!" In the swimming pool, someone might tell you, "Go underwater!" I cannot recall a single instance in which there was not a very real reason, or at least a perceived reason, for such a command. They were NEVER pranks. Obviously, if you were told to "Duck!" you were in danger of being hit in the head with something. If you were advised to submerge in the swimming pool, there was probably some sort of stinging/biting insect, either already ON you, or about to land on you. In every case, failure to heed the command carried some sort of imminent risk, and the response "Why?" was always innappropriate and risky.
I do not know whether my childhood experience might have been unique. I doubt it. I do not know whether children growing up in my neighborhood today share the same sort of interactions. I DO know that if I shout "Duck!" today, at even my closest friends and family members, it is highly unlikely that any of them will respond, other than to ask, "Why?" Examined objectively and logically, this is absurd. IF someone you trust feels the need to shout "Duck!" at you, then clearly there is no time for you to ask, "Why?" and for the person to respond, "Because there is a baseball/brick/satellite about to hit you on the back of the head!"
So far, everything I have stated is just undebateable observed phenomena. I have yet to state any opinion. My OPINION is that the change is unfortunate; that we would all be better off if grownups could still yell, "Duck!" and have people "duck" without first asking "Why?"
Assuming that I am correct in my observations, and that we are unlikely to immediately "duck" when a trusted friend or family members tells us to, the question is, appropriately, WHY? This brings up an entire range of other questions. Is the change simply part of the growth process -- the change from childhood to adulthood? Or has there been a fundamental change in our society? Perhaps people are simply less trusting today. Perhaps we, and especially our children, are simply less active. In my childhood, most of our activities involved actually moving around. We had no video games or even videos, and most activities that involved sitting in one spot for more than a few minutes were considered boring. Today, children are less likely to be in a situation in which they are about to be hit by a baseball, or stung by a bee. Hit by a video baseball or stung by a video bee really does not carry the same urgency as something that will truly raise a welt.
Perhaps it all relates to issues of independence and control, and our reluctance to subjugate our own wills to that of anyone else. In my childhood, we were more likely to do things simply because we were told to do them. We did not ask for reasons -- perhaps AFTER we did what we were told, but certainly not before.
Or perhaps the change comes from the other direction. Perhaps those who GIVE the urgent commands are less sincere, and more likely to be pulling some sort of prank on us, or making a joke, and we are wisely adapting to this new reality. If so, this is very sad, and raises a "chicken or egg" question. If there is a significant chance that, by ducking, we place ourselves at more risk than by not ducking, then it is only logical NOT to duck -- but it is also quite tragic, and means that we are all collectively contributing to this lack of trust -- similar to the idea that by insisting that doors be locked, we are condoning theft of items from unlocked vehicles and homes.
As I continue my speculation, I fear that there are larger issues involved. IF we lack even this modicum of trust in our most trusted associates -- if we must always ask "Why?" even of them, then what hope is there for situations that require cooperation with those for whom we hold less trust, or even fear. We do not trust politicians from "the other side" and we do not even trust the politicians that we ourselves vote for. We know that our politicians must work together to accomplish anything, yet we endorse the fact that politicians from opposing sides refuse to trust each other.
By advocating and embracing the idea that we must maintain our own personal control and independence, and offer unquestioning trust to no one, we isolate ourselves and weaken our society. You will NEVER have all the information or skills to be totally self-sufficient. To a certain extent, you will always be stumbling along in the dark, with unseen others offering assistance. We will all be better off if you can find it in yourself to take that assistance, at least occasionally.
As children, my friends and I would often shout out urgent commands to each other, such as "Duck!" or "Look out!" or even "Hide!". Sometimes the commands might be more specific, like "Kick your right foot!" or "Pedal your bicycle faster!" In the swimming pool, someone might tell you, "Go underwater!" I cannot recall a single instance in which there was not a very real reason, or at least a perceived reason, for such a command. They were NEVER pranks. Obviously, if you were told to "Duck!" you were in danger of being hit in the head with something. If you were advised to submerge in the swimming pool, there was probably some sort of stinging/biting insect, either already ON you, or about to land on you. In every case, failure to heed the command carried some sort of imminent risk, and the response "Why?" was always innappropriate and risky.
I do not know whether my childhood experience might have been unique. I doubt it. I do not know whether children growing up in my neighborhood today share the same sort of interactions. I DO know that if I shout "Duck!" today, at even my closest friends and family members, it is highly unlikely that any of them will respond, other than to ask, "Why?" Examined objectively and logically, this is absurd. IF someone you trust feels the need to shout "Duck!" at you, then clearly there is no time for you to ask, "Why?" and for the person to respond, "Because there is a baseball/brick/satellite about to hit you on the back of the head!"
So far, everything I have stated is just undebateable observed phenomena. I have yet to state any opinion. My OPINION is that the change is unfortunate; that we would all be better off if grownups could still yell, "Duck!" and have people "duck" without first asking "Why?"
Assuming that I am correct in my observations, and that we are unlikely to immediately "duck" when a trusted friend or family members tells us to, the question is, appropriately, WHY? This brings up an entire range of other questions. Is the change simply part of the growth process -- the change from childhood to adulthood? Or has there been a fundamental change in our society? Perhaps people are simply less trusting today. Perhaps we, and especially our children, are simply less active. In my childhood, most of our activities involved actually moving around. We had no video games or even videos, and most activities that involved sitting in one spot for more than a few minutes were considered boring. Today, children are less likely to be in a situation in which they are about to be hit by a baseball, or stung by a bee. Hit by a video baseball or stung by a video bee really does not carry the same urgency as something that will truly raise a welt.
Perhaps it all relates to issues of independence and control, and our reluctance to subjugate our own wills to that of anyone else. In my childhood, we were more likely to do things simply because we were told to do them. We did not ask for reasons -- perhaps AFTER we did what we were told, but certainly not before.
Or perhaps the change comes from the other direction. Perhaps those who GIVE the urgent commands are less sincere, and more likely to be pulling some sort of prank on us, or making a joke, and we are wisely adapting to this new reality. If so, this is very sad, and raises a "chicken or egg" question. If there is a significant chance that, by ducking, we place ourselves at more risk than by not ducking, then it is only logical NOT to duck -- but it is also quite tragic, and means that we are all collectively contributing to this lack of trust -- similar to the idea that by insisting that doors be locked, we are condoning theft of items from unlocked vehicles and homes.
As I continue my speculation, I fear that there are larger issues involved. IF we lack even this modicum of trust in our most trusted associates -- if we must always ask "Why?" even of them, then what hope is there for situations that require cooperation with those for whom we hold less trust, or even fear. We do not trust politicians from "the other side" and we do not even trust the politicians that we ourselves vote for. We know that our politicians must work together to accomplish anything, yet we endorse the fact that politicians from opposing sides refuse to trust each other.
By advocating and embracing the idea that we must maintain our own personal control and independence, and offer unquestioning trust to no one, we isolate ourselves and weaken our society. You will NEVER have all the information or skills to be totally self-sufficient. To a certain extent, you will always be stumbling along in the dark, with unseen others offering assistance. We will all be better off if you can find it in yourself to take that assistance, at least occasionally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)