Commodifying Hope

I had high expectations for the recent Generation Regeneration online summit last weekend, July 10-12. While it was not wholly without merit, I found it disappointing and somewhat misleading. We definitely need a vastly different approach to our human enterprises and existence on this planet, but I remain unconvinced that most proposed solutions will work. What I can do here is share my impressions of the event, the majority of which I attended, and why I am having this negative reaction.

The Generation Regeneration online summit was sponsored by Future of Cities, and hosted by Tony Cho. It turns out that FOC and Tony Cho are essentially the same thing. I learned about the event through a Facebook advertisement that promised I could reserve my free seat for the live event. I signed up.

Why was I interested in this at all? My next book, provided I can find a publisher, will be a collection of essays centered on urban natural history. Not in the usual sense of squirrels, raccoons, and pigeons, but on the most common urban animal: Homo sapiens. I want to be able to offer readers some concrete examples of successful innovation and social progression, and hoped to find that in this summit.

The first....red flag, if you can call it that, was that while I did receive confirmation of my reservation, it did not include a link to what I had assumed was a Zoom call. Turns out it was streamed on a handful of platforms. I chose YouTube. The post-conference assessment from Future of Cities boasted an attendance of 20,000 viewers. I was one of no more than eight (8) on YouTube, at any one time. Maybe there were 20,000 participating via Instagram. I don't know, I do not have an Instagram account. I'm skeptical.

The second annoying correspondence suggested that I should upgrade to the "VIP Experience," for a mere $99, which would include a copy of Tony's forthcoming book, in press now, and access to the recordings of the presentations/conversations/interviews making up the summit, for a longer period than if I retained my free registration. This seems to me to be a classic bait-and-switch marketing tactic, and it was a real turn-off.

Then there was, in the aftermath, the "but wait, there's more," an invitation to enroll in the "Co-design Cohort," an online course, for $555 until midnight tonight (July 13), before the price jumps to $1,111 thereafter. Now I can see this for what it is, mostly: an economic engine for Future of Cities.

What is a shame is that there were some truly important featured guests at the summit, who are doing critical and successful work. Majora Carter is an urban rivitalization strategist, a MacArthur Fellow, Peabody Award winning broadcaster, and author of Reclaiming Your Community: You Don't Have to Move Out of Your Neighborhood to Live in a Better One. Her conversation alone would have been worth the VIP package. Same with Atossa Soltani, Director of Global Strategy for the Amazon Sacred Headwaters Alliance, and founder and President of Amazon Watch. Dr. Dominique Hes was another outstanding interview. She is a Director at Greenfleet, in Melbourne, Australia. She helped engineer and execute a paddock project, implementing eco-inviting components in a human-centered development, with exciting results.

See what I am gravitating towards, here? I wanted more Indigenous and other minorty voices. There were at least many women featured, which is a great start, but it still felt like it came up a little short.

Then there were people we have heard from before, and now consider largely irrelevant, like Marianne Williamson. There were self-help gurus, people who Tony Cho met at Burning Man....Some even admitted that what they do, and/or subscribe to, is often viewed as "woo-woo," new age mumbo-jumbo. Whether there is any validity to such things is largely irrelevant when public opinion is mixed at best. The last thing we need right now is any more devisiveness.

We do not need catchphrases like "regenaisance" (seriously, this is what Tony Cho is calling this). We don't need more self-appointed leaders trying a bit too hard to be fashionable and progressive. We definitely don't need to prioritize the accommodation of capitalism. Cho repeatedly asserted that the regenaisance does not seek the elimination of capitalism. There were a few too many guests in relatively fancy offices sipping vendor coffees, at least for my taste. The entire event resembled a series of infomercials in many instances, punctuated by truly meaningful content.

At least I can now go directly to some of these individuals, and their organizations, to learn more and get recommendations for other people to investigate and learn from. I can appreciate Tony Cho for collecting all of these people, even if I find only a few of them relevant to my own projects.

Please Don't Paint Me

The dead, but still stately, cottonwood tree in the image above is located in Leavenworth Landing Park, along the banks of the Missouri River in Leavenworth, Kansas, USA. The snag is slated to be painted blue as part of a global project related to promoting awareness of mental health issues. While this is a noble cause, the side effects of landscape art installations like this should give us pause.

The Blue Tree Project has its roots in the tragic story of Australian Jayden Whyte, whose suicide at age twenty-nine gripped headlines in 2018. During the eulogy at Whyte’s funeral, his best friend related the story of how Jayden had pranked his father by painting one of the trees on the family farm blue. That became the inspiration to paint trees elsewhere as a reminder to check on the mental wellbeing of loved ones, and foster a greater awareness of issues surrounding mental health.

There are now numerous painted trees, and other objects, throughout the world, on every continent except Antarctica. There are currently 1,138 trees registered by Blue Tree Project, mostly in Australia.

Some communities have taken to erecting facsimile trees instead of painting actual trees. One of the more innovative examples is a tree of fifteen basketball hoops. Unfortunately, the website for Blue Tree Project does not indicate where these artificial trees are located, nor how they were constructed.

While this endeavor is meant to send a specific, clearly posted message, what else is implied by turning trees into artistic and/or humanitarian vehicles? One message is that it is permissible to deface a natural object, at least if you have an important agenda. This is vandalism in any other context. We are also saying that nature is something that can only be improved upon by the hand of man. Natural landscapes, and the living things within them, must serve some kind of utilitarian value in order to justify their existence, even if that means reducing them to a “canvas” for artistic expression. This is not ok.

The Blue Trees (plural) is a landscape installation project by artist Konstantin Dimopoulos, designed in part to evoke thoughts about “ecological issues, such as the ecocide of our forests and climate change, and….raising our social consciousness referencing how individually and collectively we shape the world we inhabit.” His exhibitions involve painting the trunks of entire groves of trees a deep blue color.

The pinnacle of artistic hubris may be demonstrated by Christo and Jeanne-Claude. Their landscape-level work was temporary, and performed mostly in urban areas, wrapping buildings or monuments in fabric, usurping the profile and work of the original architects. They prided themselves on avoiding “deserted places,” focusing on “….sites already prepared and used by people, managed by human beings for human beings.” This did include vast rural expanses, though, featuring fabric fences, fabric “gates,” curtains, and other potential impediments to the normal traffic of wildlife, and obscuring scenic vistas. In Surrounded Islands, they draped a hot pink fabric skirt on the surface of the water around eleven separate islands (two were surrounded together). Who knows how marine life was affected.

Where does art cross the line into damage? Who gets the authority to decide? Do we give enough critical thought to these questions? Ideally, artistic license should not trespass on the works of the Creator, if one believes in such an entity. We should not allow historical precedent to dictate the path forward, either.

There are strong and valid arguments to support the fact that Mount Rushmore defaced a mountain held sacred by Indigenous Americans. Stone Mountain in Georgia features the carved depiction of three prominent figures of the Confederacy from the Civil War. The monument glorifies White supremacy, and overwhelms the stories of the Black people who once lived and worked there, and who still reside in local communities. It also defaces a natural landscape feature that figured prominently in Indigenous occupation of the region.

Don’t get me wrong. Art can be a powerful stimulus for positive social and cultural change. It need not be permanent nor massive in scale. I do wonder, though, what will happen when that old dead cottonwood at last falls into the river, as erosion is inevitable. Will the paint contaminate the water, or negatively affect aquatic life? Will another tree be painted to replace it?

Sources: Dimopoulos, Konstantin. 2024. “About the Blue Trees,” Kondimopoulos.
Meachim, Laura. 2019. “Blue Tree Project tackles mental health and suicide in regional Australia,” ABC News, September 30, 2019.
Powers, Benjamin. 2018. “In the Shadow of Stone Mountain,” Smithsonian Magazine.
Spellman, Rebecca. 2020. “Harrowing story behind a solitary blue tree in drought-stricken land takes a sinister turn as it’s found burned to the ground,” Daily Mail, February 17, 2020.
”Most Common Errors,”Christo and Jeanne-Claude.

Real "Cancel Culture" Harms Real People

In yet another spectacular display of incompetent leadership, democrats in the U.S. have allowed republicans to define “cancel culture” as a series of trivial matters in the marketplace, while those same republicans initiate and enact legislation that represents true cancellation of human rights. The electorate should be intolerant of this, and act accordingly.

© NewRepublic.com

The world is not going to fall to pieces because we have fewer Dr. Seuss books. In fact, the decision to discontinue printing some of those titles was made by the publisher, not driven by democrats or any other political entity. Socially responsible corporations are a rare thing these days, and should be applauded and rewarded.

Compliments also to toy manufacturer Hasbro for re-branding Mr. Potato Head as Potato Head in recognition of the reality of non-binary people and transgendered persons. These landmark decisions, without interference from politicians, without threats of litigation, and in the face of potential consumer backlash, represent bravery and compassion. Could we only say the same for our elected officials.

No, at the state level, legislatures and governors are waging war against the most vulnerable and underrepresented citizens, actively encouraging continued discrimination, violence, and poverty. It is utterly transparent that the measures being taken constitute a power grab, or a means of perpetuating toxic power. White, cis, straight, patriarchal supremacy (“white supremacy” fails to convey the full scope of this paranoid, colonial mindset) no longer bothers to cloak itself in the flimsiest of disguises.

In Georgia, new legislation aims to not only make voting more difficult, but a downright punishing exercise for anyone but conservative whites. One highly-publicized initiative would make it illegal to serve water or food to voters standing in line awaiting their turn to cast a ballot. Gerrymandering, reduction in the number of polling places, and restrictions on mail-in ballots are already crippling minority populations in their ability to exercise their right to representation.

Similar voter suppression laws are pending in forty-two (42) other states. This would appear to be an abuse of Article I of the Constitution that gives states the right to oversee federal elections, not to mention flagrant violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Cancel culture is very real in these instances. Republicans are trying to cancel your voting rights, pure and simple.

Meanwhile, in Arkansas, the governor signed a bill that prohibits medical professionals from providing care to transgender minors. Considering the suicide and attempted suicide rates of youths who identify as non-binary, or as different from the sex they were assigned at birth, this bill can be considered a death sentence. It also violates the hypocritic oath to “first, do no harm.” Harm is exactly what such legislation does. It is an attempt to literally cancel someone’s identity, to erase them from existence in the legal sense.

Cancel culture. Real cancel culture is colonialism, slavery, failure to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, red-lining, gentrification, cultural appropriation, immigrant detention, a less-than-living wage, student loan debt, the examples given in previous paragraphs. Please, feel free to add to the list. It is appalling, intolerable, and worthy of revolution.

It seems apparent that we cannot rely on even “blue” allies to stand up for the most vulnerable among us. Fine. Let us unleash our creative energies. Take to social media. Meme the hell out of this on Facebook with examples of real cancel culture. Hashtag the crap out of this on Twitter. Instagram this until that is all anybody sees. Overwhelm everything until we have justice.

We can also reward truly inclusive businesses. Donate what you can to organizations standing up for BIPOC, LGBTQ+, and other vulnerable demographics. Buy Potato Head for every toddler you know. Read them Dr. Seuss.

Armed, Angry, Male, and White

By now you have no doubt tired of worn-out arguments for and against increased control over accessibility to firearms. I will spare you those in the wake of the latest mass shooting events in Boulder, Colorado and Atlanta, Georgia. This is a complicated, tangled issue, but it boils down to a pattern of dysfunctional upbringing in a societal sense.

White males in the United States are reared by a collective culture that constantly pits them against everyone else. The implication of white, cis, straight male superiority is so pervasive and subtle that it is almost never questioned. When groups representing different demographics begin asserting the same rights enjoyed by white men, they are framed as threatening, demanding “special rights” that would somehow usurp the rights of others.

Immigrants are taking “your” jobs, we are told. A black man would not have been promoted were it not for affirmative action. A woman’s place is in the home. These statements, these terribly destructive traditions, stubbornly endure and color the perspective of white male experience and expectation. Your economic success, your place as the head of household, your entire self-worth are yours for the taking, even at the expense of others.

We have been utterly convincing in our indoctrination of white male youths in their birthright of superiority, but have failed absolutely in providing coping strategies when they are inevitably defeated in their attempts to achieve their “destinies.” American men are horrible at dealing with intangible pain. Many of us are instilled with the idea that in order for others to understand our (internal) heartbreak, humiliation, and suffering, we must (externally) inflict physical pain on others. This is how domestic violence happens. This is how mass shootings happen.

What we lack in providing healthy, introspective, mindful solutions to disappointment and frustration, we more than make up for in products of violence, from political rhetoric to automatic weapons. Products are seldom the solution to any problem, but they are critical to economic engines, so are not only tolerated but actively encouraged. Let me repeat: externalizing your internal pain is currently acceptable, even if it kills or maims other people in the process. This is the message being sent loud and clear, on an infinite loop.

Who benefits from broadcasting such vitriol? Those with even more white privilege than you enjoy. We have allowed ourselves to be divided by an excessively privileged minority that knows it cannot endure if the illusion of differences between everyone else evaporates. As long as we are blaming the “other” demographic category, we are ignoring the man behind the curtain, to borrow from The Wizard of Oz.

A just society requires the exact opposite of what the United States has espoused throughout its history of colonization, slavery, racism, oppression, and suppression. Individual success is not dependent upon the defeat of everyone else. Indeed, our definition of success has been strictly material since….forever.

How do we end violence? How do we finally unite? We must immediately reject, erase, and rescind every message purporting the superiority and entitlement of white males. The irony is that in the sacrifice of false supremacy, we will all gain materially, have a greater sense of self-esteem, and lose the stress inherent in artificially propping up a worthless model of what it means to be a white male.

Yes, we need sensible regulation of firearms in this country, but we must demand more of ourselves as white males in accountability for violence of any sort. We must learn appropriate behaviors for expressing emotional and intangible pain instead of externalizing it inappropriately. No, we have not been taught how to do that. It can be our legacy to figure that out. Our non-white brothers can help us get there if we let them. Our gay brothers, too, and our wives, our sisters. Listen to them.

Statues

What is a statue if not rigid, impermeable, unmovable, defiant of the elements that would change it? Copper to cyan, stone to dust. What does a statue represent if not a memorial, nay, a celebration, of history, right or wrong? Concrete figures, concrete ideas, ideals. This is what we are being asked to sacrifice right now, and it is the most minor price to pay.

© nytimes.com

The hostile, even violent sentiments and actions directed at those who are advocating the removal of symbolic representations of racism, overt or rendered invisible by most of the historical record, is disappointing at best, and an infers personal racist tendencies at worst. Are those Black Lives (that) Matter reaching? Is this a witch hunt in which no white, political, military, or social hero with a sculptural remembrance is safe? Maybe, but more likely white people have never been exposed to the entire truth.

If you are unwilling to entertain changes to something as trivial as statues and namesakes, then how can you possibly be willing to make the necessary changes to social, political, legal, economic, business, and religious institutions that continually oppress people of color?

Personally, I associate Theodore Roosevelt with the founding of the national park system, and other conservation initiatives. I am well aware he was a hunter, and that his attitudes towards some species were, in retrospect, completely uninformed, to put it politely. I choose to acknowledge that and temper my respect for him accordingly. Now that I learn his image is a target of anti-racist activists, I need to do more research, not mindlessly object to voices calling for removal of public monuments depicting him.

Even entomology, my other chosen field of endeavor, has not been immune to serious confrontations. The Entomological Society of America, at its regional and national conferences, features a quiz event called the Linnean Games, after Carolus “Carl” Linnaeus, an eighteenth-century figure known as the “Father of Taxonomy,” the classification of organisms. Many insect species bear his name as author but, apparently, he also attempted to classify our own species, Homo sapiens, into different categories, some of which reflect horribly upon Linneaus’s character. There is now a furious uproar between those who want to rename the Linnean Games and those defending the status quo.

The energy devoted to defending individuals of dubious ethical quality should disturb us all. The obvious but unspoken question is: If you are unwilling to entertain changes to something as trivial as statues and namesakes, then how can you possibly be willing to make the necessary changes to social, political, legal, economic, business, and religious institutions that continually oppress people of color? Your voice speaks loud and clear that you are more interested in protecting the past and the present than you are committing to a new, brighter, better future.

Your comfort is overrated, especially compared to the daily fear that black people have for their very lives. Too many white people who protest they are “not racist!” still accept blacks only under certain conditions. Black servants and entertainers (and I lump professional athletes in this category) are acceptable. Even then, we decry that they are overpaid, and probably thugs off the court or off the field. Blacks in other professions? They only advanced in their careers through the reverse discrimination of affirmative action. They got through college via scholarships for blacks only.

Far more inflexible and resistant to change than statues are our own minds. That is the tragedy in all of this. Even air pollution, bird guano, rain, and wind erode the stone- and metalworks. Why is nothing nibbling at our psyche? We are blessed by our Creator, or through evolution, or both, with an infinite capacity to adapt to changes, be they physical, social, economic, or emotional/psychological. Too often we conveniently ignore that and persist in beliefs and institutions that protect our self-interests at the expense of others. That is not even what other animal societies do. It could be argued that elephants, cetaceans, and Bonobos are light years ahead of us.

Lastly, resisting what Black Lives Matter and others have started is not only futile, it goes against your own self-interest as a middle- or lower-class Caucasian. I promise, no, guarantee, that if you embrace the values inherent in this movement it will elevate your life to unimaginable heights. If you cannot fathom what true equality looks like, simply imagine a more empathetic, compassionate, prosperous version of yourself. Now, act like you are already there.

Art is What You Make (of it)

What do a banana taped to a wall and snowshoe tracks in a mountain landscape have in common? Both qualify as art, or not, depending on your point of view. Debating the definition of art is a useful and important exercise, if only within our own individual minds. It informs our personal and collective aesthetic, and our morality.

© abcnews.go.com and Maurizio Cattelan

The wall-mounted banana by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan might have made the news just for the $120,000 price tag it commanded, but the ingestion of the piece is what got the attention of the media. Evidently, the man who tore the duct tape off and consumed the fruit, David Datuna, is himself a performance artist who claimed that his act of eating it was itself a form of art. Here, it would appear that art is a matter of convenience, publicity, and questionable ethics. Is art for the sake of fame and/or notoriety really art?

Meanwhile, in mountain landscapes around the globe, Simon Beck creates stunning, large scale patterns by tromping across the snow in snowshoes. He gains inspiration at least in part from the intricate designs of snowflakes themselves. He will be coming here to Colorado in January to no doubt make something magnificent. Beck has also done similar work in sandscapes.

The personal choices of the artist, and the range of interpretations among the audience, make art the most universal expression of freedom that there is.

Both the banana and the snow tracks are ephemeral. Fruit spoils, tracks are quickly obliterated. One thread I read in social media asserted that Beck’s work was not art because it “has no meaning.” I found myself boiling at that remark, but was not sure why. I started writing….

”Wow. One could ask what is the meaning of a sandcastle, a snowman, an ice sculpture, a decorated cake, or any other ephemeral piece of art. If anything, I think this is astonishing precisely BECAUSE of the labor involved knowing the results could be gone in the next hour. The message? Appreciate the NOW, that is all we have."

This goes to the root of what makes art such a volatile subject. Art is whatever you make of it, but the intent of the artist is key. Art can be used as a weapon, as a way to empower or a way to oppress. Art can be propaganda or it can be a tool of social change for the better. Art can be whimsical or profound, humorous or gut-wrenching. The audience decides whether to elevate works to an iconic level or deem them worthy of the trash bin, but there will always be dissenting voices. The personal choices of the artist, and the range of interpretations among the audience, make art the most universal expression of freedom that there is.

It may be telling that I am personally much more likely to hold contempt for those offering derogatory opinions and comments about a given work than I am for artists who I still may not celebrate as genius or buffoon. You have the right to create something and call it art, but then again you do have the right to your point of view as an onlooker. What sparked your outburst of praise or condemnation, though? That is what I want to know. You were moved, but why? Honest conversation should be valued more than it is, and is itself a form of artistry we should all aspire to.

I was living in Cincinnati at the time that Robert Mapplethorpe’s posthumous “The Perfect Moment” came to the Contemporary Arts Center in 1990. Controversy surrounded the sexual and homosexual images in the exhibit, and protests and a trial ensued. I felt it was my civic duty to patronize the exhibit, regardless of whether I agreed with all aspects of it. Yes, there were photographs that made me uncomfortable, but many more that made me laugh, or simply gawk at the jaw-dropping beauty of orchids and the human figure. Besides, exposing yourself to discomfort is underrated. It tends to cultivate empathy. There is no doubt in my mind that Mapplethorpe fully embraced, and celebrated, everything that makes us human, from an appreciation of the natural world to our sexual proclivities. There was zero malice to be found in his intent.

What is your own threshold for “art?” Does it hinge on the degree of effort exercised in executing the piece? What about the degree of effort you put into making your interpretation? Do you scoff and move on? How do you express your appreciation? Is it by assigning an arbitrary monetary value to it at auction? Do you leave flattering comments in the guest book at the gallery? There is an art to evaluating art, wouldn’t you say?

Of Science and Reverance

Last night I stumbled upon the documentary Inventing Tomorrow, directed by Laura Nix, on our local PBS (Public Broadcasting System) here in Colorado Springs. One of the things that struck me about these young women and men was how much they are motivated by reverence for nature and human history. I found the cultures these students live in to be a welcome, but stark, contrast to the culture and society American children are raised in. Science has informed their emotional attachment to nature, amplified their ability to empathize, and offered them real hope for a brighter future, one they can create.

© Quotation.io

Here in the U.S., children barely connect with their elders, let alone respect them. In many other cultures, several generations reside under one roof, or live next door, or no more than a few blocks away, the better to teach their children and grandchildren well. Personal stories are a powerful source of inspiration and action when told to children. Do we relate our own experiences to our children these days, or do we fear embarrassment, or risk empowering our youth to try daring things like peace marches, or poetry? Do we invite our children to sacrifice instead of feeling entitled to material things? Most children who excel have families that go above and beyond mere support. Fathers and mothers may leave jobs or drive their child for hours to participate in activities or meet with a mentor. Sometimes entire families uproot to be in a location that is optimal for the next step in the child's path to greatness.

While the family is usually at the core of a child's developing sense of values, the community, the "village," is also important. Surrounding a child with influential people outside the familial circle further expands the child's realm of experience and knowledge. This happens routinely in non-American cultures, and it once happened here in the U.S., too, but today we are told that every adult is a stranger, a potential pedophile, rapist, scam artist, or other devious criminal. We assume the worst now, and trust no one. We fear that sending the gifted child to university prematurely will forever stunt their growth in the social sense.....

Religion should be working in concert with science to develop young minds. Science can show what is possible. Religion, ideally, creates the bedrock of reverence for creation and cautions against a completely dispassionate approach to research, especially in the biological sciences. That is not what is happening in American Christianity. Extreme conservatism has put itself at direct odds with scientific advancement, even questioning practices like immunization inoculations that have protected humanity from illness and disease for decades (centuries in some cases).

One could argue that the religious practices of indigenous peoples reflect a much greater reverence for the natural world, but Christianity has dismissed such belief systems as "paganism," seeking to convert other cultures at every possible opportunity. Missionary programs offer poverty relief, but with the strings of Jesus attached. Meanwhile, Christianity pays lip service to a reverence for creation, even when it could claim that Noah was the first wildlife conservationist. Prayer is the only action needed to save the world, while you continue your over-consumptive lifestyle.

I have personally exposed myself to both science and religion, and found that science creates a greater reverence for the natural world. It does at times demand a detachment from your (research) subject that I find distasteful, sometimes outright wrong, but it is generally a far less judgmental community, and getting better by the day. It does not retreat into outdated doctrines that have proved toxic to scientific progress, impeded the advancement of women, and suppressed minorities. It is embracing the entire spectrum of gender identity, and continues to welcome immigrants who bring new insights, skills, strategies, and vision in meeting the challenges of the future.

In short, science is what religion should be. Go ahead and pray, it cannot hurt, but please stop wasting energy attacking science. The two should complement each other, not antagonize one another. Practice restraint in your lifestyle, be conservative in your carbon footprint, and joyful in your celebration of all things wild and free. Feed your curiosity, fascination, and sense of wonder. Support your local science fair, as well as the vacation Bible school bake sale.

Is The Abortion Issue About Something Other Than The Sanctity of Human Life?

I have studiously avoided the most hot-button issue of our time, abortion and the right to choose, but I can no longer stand by silently. What I can do, finally, is refrain from a string of profanities and repeating most of the statements you have already heard. I can continue in my longstanding tradition of not sharing "memes." I can also call for honesty in the debate, if only be sharing my own sentiments. Yes, I am yet another old(er) White male, but please bear with me.

© Christian Seebauer and Look-Act.com

Ironically, it was a meme shared on Facebook by a colleague that got me believing that civil discussion might be possible. The meme began with the conventional argument that making abortion illegal won't halt abortions, but will simply make the procedure unsafe. The next panel in the meme re-hashed the idea that abortion rates drop when there is easy access to healthcare, affordable contraception, and comprehensive sex education (presumably including a long, hard discussion of "consent")....

It was the ending panel in the meme that got my attention. It asserted that if one does not endorse measures designed to prevent unwanted pregnancies, then what you are supporting is "'pro control-of-women' and you should be honest about that." Wow. It is the very last part of that sentence, that plea for honesty, that we need to take to heart. Yes, you should be honest about that, about everything.

That is the definitive, overriding problem of our time: honesty. We know some of our beliefs and selfish motivations are distasteful, so we will sacrifice the innocent, put words in the mouths of the unborn, do whatever it takes to justify our continued patterns of behavior and sustain our (outdated?) beliefs. That even extends to warped interpretations of the word of God, the Bible, and other religious documents.

I don't think there is any question that many older men, especially White men, object strenuously to any attempt by women to assert their rights, demand equality, and otherwise threaten the dominion of the patriarchy that has architected our culture and society since....well, pretty much the beginning of our civilization. This stubborn and persistent thirst for power is no doubt expressed in the creation and execution of legislation around abortion.

Why do so many women stand in support of these measures, then? Not being a female myself, I cannot pretend to answer that, nor should I. However, I do suspect that many women are uncomfortable with the idea of independence. My own mother was forced into independence when my father divorced her. It was a hard road for her in the early 1970s when divorce was not common, or at least not publicly discussed; and she had been out of the workforce for well over a decade. Re-entry at an older age was difficult, and most of her superiors in the workplace were....men. Enough said.

As near as I can tell, the other, unspoken motivation for advocating for abortion bans comes down to the desire to protect souls without sin, or with the least sin. This would go a long way to explaining why the birthmother is left out of the debate, and why there appears to be little support for child welfare, health, nutrition, housing, education, and other necessities of childhood in the sense of an earthly existence. The "defense of souls" argument would also explain why some religious conservatives do not object to the death penalty. The person has sinned, and is going to hell anyway, so why not hasten his or her arrival at that destination. Since only humans have souls, this might explain a lack of interest in the protection and conservation of non-human organisms, while still clamoring for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution.

If my assumption that "pro-life" advocates care more about the hereafter than the here-and-now is correct, let's start talking about that in an honest manner instead of going to such great lengths to disguise that core principal. If I am completely wrong, I will gladly sit back and listen to your explanation. Keep in mind, however, that I have a pretty good B.S. detector and I will call you out if I sense you are still trying to deceive me.

Mostly, I want to know what is really at the heart of all arguments, about every issue, not only abortion. Be honest and I cannot level accusations or make ridiculous assumptions, or have to guess your intentions or desires....or make blog posts like this where I am left to channel only the straws I am grasping at.

Assumptions of Guilt

A couple weeks ago I was watching CBS Sunday Morning and a story came on about the "Central Park Five." This true story is now on Netflix as the docudrama When They See Us, coming May 31. I am old enough to remember the sensationalized press coverage of the April, 1989 case, but the outcome for the unjustly accused never made the same media impact. This is how it works: Make sure the public knows that the face of violence and mayhem is Black. Let any evidence to the contrary fall through the cracks, or even be intentionally suppressed. This is the storyline of our times, in overt and subtle variations, that we must overcome.

© Medium.com

It has the capacity to be a self-fulfilling prophecy for minorities, especially African Americans. Eventually you will become angry and hostile when you are constantly faced with the assumptions of others (Whites) that you are angry and hostile. One could hardly blame any minority individual for becoming a criminal when they have been sentenced by assumption to being one already, yet that is hardly the case. Black criminals are a true minority in our society. The overwhelming majority lead honest, productive lives, and are miraculously tolerant and forgiving when they have every right not to be.

While watching the CBS segment it occurred to me to ask why there are no Black news channels. I went looking for the answer online and learned that there will be one. BNC will debut in November, 2019. There is even a countdown clock on their website. They will be broadcasting in the metropolitan areas where there are high populations of Blacks.

What is needed, though, is for White people to watch it. Caucasians need deprogramming from the constant portrayal of African Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities and immigrants as a threat. BNC also needs to be on one of the digital slices that now come free with traditional antenna reception, not something you pay for because....surprise....many minority households cannot afford cable or streaming services. Urban folks will likely have access, but rural White folks are, arguably, the ones most in need of an education in "black."

Why do we not assume the best about other cultures? We could improve our own lives a hundred-fold if we were interested and committed to learning. Black families are not "welfare queens" as much as they are grandparents, aunts, and uncles living on the same block if not in the same household, their elder experience benefiting multiple generations....We do not need to know about the next LeBron James. We need to learn about Black inventors in prime time, not on "EI" shows on Saturday mornings. We need to hear about Jerome down the street who became an Eagle Scout the other day, and Jasmine who will be giving her high school's commencement address as valedictorian. We also need to stop stereotyping names like Jerome and Jasmine.

You get the picture. None of us are immune to the ramifications of the status quo. We White folks are all guilty of perpetuating a society and culture that continually reinforces certain expectations of behavior and occupation of other ethnicities, appropriates other cultures, and repeats it in every news cycle, every piece of advertising, nearly every experience of everyday life. The problem is that we are not demanding accountability from the media, corporate, educational, and religious institutions that are doing it. We are not demanding enough of ourselves in refusing to participate. The only ones being punished, on top of being subjected to constant bigotry, are minorities. Caucasians need to stop being the spokespeople for other ethnicities and cultures. We need to listen, then change our ways. We need to fundamentally change our language to be more inclusive, then be genuinely inclusive.

I am an aging White male writing this, and rarely do I feel this awkward and ill-equipped when I put text to a Word file, let alone broadcast it on my blog. I stand ready to be educated, confront revisionist history, and help build the world I have always wanted to live in, where White Privilege is no longer a....thing. How about you?

Book Review: Underbug Will Unravel Your Mind, in a Good Way

Lisa Margonelli's Underbug: An Obsessive Tale of Termites and Technology (2018 Scientific American, 303 pp) offers a much bigger picture than a mere glimpse inside a termite mound. The book has a story arc as great as the universe, and as small as a microbe found in a termite's gut. It represents a metamorphosis of history, science, and the mind of the author herself. Part memoir, part journey, and all science and experience, it works brilliantly.

The only holes in Underbug are the ones in the dust jacket, a clever nod to the affinity of termites for all things cellulose and lignin, or derived from it. The irony that this work about termites will inevitably be consumed by them reflects a bit of the humor in Margonelli's approach, as well as the futility of expectations in scientific inquiry.

It came as a shock to this reader that the book was something of an afterthought that emerged from a....recreational(?)....fascination with scientific endeavors that Margonelli was pursuing at her own expense, without monetary advances and publisher deadlines. Who does that? Maybe the proper question should be why don't we (writers) all do that? I dare say this might have been a completely different book if the author had started with the intention of writing it instead of putting a wild horse before an organized cart.

If your brain is wired to go off on tangents while reading, Underbug will have your mind reeling, spinning off into the existential time and time again. Anticipating a dry-as-weathered-wood treatise on termites? Then you have another think coming; and another, and another after that. All your assumptions about insects, science, and even history and culture are in for a shake-up. This is exactly what our society needs to recognize: that while we may have a desire to compartmentalize our human activities, social groups, and our personal motivations and emotions, they all have impacts far beyond our habitual perceptions. Interconnectedness, distant consequences, ambivalence, and empathy are the major themes of Underbug, not termites.

Margonelli is one of the "new" league of women non-fiction writers who is able to insert herself into the story to the correct degree, conveying humility and struggle rather than bravado and arrogance as many male writers tend to do. She manages the perfect mix of participation and detachment, cultivating a bond with readers that only gets stronger as the story progresses. She shares your skepticism, but has relentless curiosity and a tenacious commitment to doing whatever she needs to in order to elevate her knowledge and broaden her horizons.

Termites, it turns out, are a nexus of ridiculously disparate scientific disciplines, and a metaphor for human societies. They span a scale that ranges from their miniscule bodies to continental landscapes. Well, smaller than that since termites rely on intestinal microbes to digest cellulose and lignin into compounds useful to the termite. Meanwhile, the mounds of many species utterly transform ecosystems. One can argue that termite colonies and their architectural masterpieces are ecosystems.

How such a "simple" organism can achieve such overwhelming success is one of the conundrums addressed in Underbug. Our failure (so far) to scale-up the termite's "engine" to produce "grassoline" and other biofuels is a testament to the complexity of insects and the limits of science and the human mind. Also, where does one termite end and the colony begin? Which of those two is the "brain?" What constitutes a "mind?" You may be left wondering if termites have it better than we do. The attraction of instinct, after all, is freedom from morality, freedom from responsibility for our actions, because we would not be cognizant of them.

We are nothing if not collectively selfish, being animals ourselves, able to execute our desires to eliminate competition from other species for scarce resources, minimize mortality factors such as predators and pathogens, reproduce freely with greater success thanks to advances in medicine, and to enhance our lives through technology. However, as Margonelli writes:

"We need to call technology what it is -- an abstraction of power, politics, and economics. And then -- if we are going to take ideas from the termites into our human realm -- we should use them to become more human, not less."

I cannot recommend this book highly enough, as a microcosm of concepts in critical need of addressing by the world community, and mulled over with regularity by us as individuals, families, and local communities. Oh, and to explorers looking for signs of intelligent life in other galaxies? You might be looking for interstellar termites.

Deliver Us From....Delivery

© Zencomputershop.com

This Sunday is the "big game," and we are guaranteed as Americans to have pizza and other food delivery drivers scrambling to satiate us as we gather at parties to sit in front of the huge television we had delivered just the other day to make the sports spectacle all the more spectacular. Lately, though, it seems that "delivery season" has stretched to encompass the entire calendar year, and that should stir some unease at the very least.

Our delivery culture has arguably made us more isolated and dependent, physically weaker, overspent financially, and turned us into hoarders of a sort. It continues if not accelerates the idea that material things are all that matters, all that gives us comfort and joy. It bloats not only our consumption of products, but adds to our waste of energy and other natural resources. We have come to embrace convenience as our social and economic god, above all else.

"Free shipping" encourages mindless binge shopping because we can simply add an item to the shopping cart icon, no muss, no fuss. People who bought this also purchased this, and so we want to keep up with the Joneses. We are slaves to fashion, marketing and advertising, peer influence, and the "influencers" we follow on social media. Strike that. We are shamed by those manipulative factors.

My own home looks more like a warehouse these days, in part to my deceased mother's and father's belongings that we relocated to our house from their storage lockers. Still, we seem to accumulate more boxes almost weekly from purchases my spouse makes online. That is not to say she is impulsive. Neither of us spends much on material goods beyond what we need. We tend to "upgrade" sporadically. Despite our best intentions, we are tripping over Amazon containers.

Let us think for a moment about all that extra packaging that goes into delivery, most of it disposable, too often like the products inside them. We tell ourselves we can re-use the boxes, but are defeated in trying to strip off all the tape and labels and barcodes. In the end we often just dump them in the recycling bin if we are lucky enough to have recycling services. Our food orders come in styrofoam, plastic, or maybe cardboard boxes, all inside a trash-worthy plastic bag. Wasteful, even as we are laughing at the new handheld gadget that comes in a cubic foot box.

Perhaps the scariest part of our obsession with delivery is that virtually all of the vehicles used to bring things to our homes are fossil-fuel dependent. Maybe some couriers employ electric cars, or bicycle messengers, but the range of both are geographically small and microscopic respectively. Delivery drones have not become commonplace despite promises to the contrary, but I for one think that is a good thing. I loathe the prospect of a future full of the incessant whining of tiny rotors from drones passing overhead.

The growth of delivery services has become almost exponential. Restaurant food delivery alone is becoming the norm, though ironically restaurants still call such customers "guests." Options like Grubhub, DoorDash, and now UberEats make it uncomfortably easy to never leave your home or apartment except, maybe, to commute to and from work. One can see the day where Uber and Lyft are transporting more goods than they are human passengers.

We cannot, of course, ignore the social ramifications of delivery. The only way we can deliver ideas, sentiments, passion, and other vital currencies of society to each other, powerfully, is in-person. Conversation has been replaced with keystrokes. We are allowing corporations to have the only voice, the only authority, in our lives. We meekly accept the invasion of our privacy as a logical consequence of convenience, individualized marketing on Facebook as the price we pay for our otherwise anonymous participation in the economy. Oh, we complain about it. We mourn the closing of our favorite bookseller, hardware store, bakery, and other local businesses, but fail to see how our shopping habits led to their demise.

We are also up-in-arms over thieves that steal the packages off our porches, but now we have spyware for that....The snowball of technology keeps rolling, right over us as we lie listlessly on the couch, with Netflix and Hulu, the new delivery streams for media. Maybe we need to re-think this. Maybe we....Excuse me, I believe I just heard the doorbell.

The Empty Hourglass and the Boomerang Curve

The extremist ends of our two dominant American political parties might best be illustrated by a couple of familiar, if not ancient, objects. How we decide to address the problems and predicaments presented therein will determine the future of our country and our world.

"Time is up" describes not only the assertiveness of women and the renewed feminist movement, but also the growing urgency in addressing climate change, labor rights, consumer protections, universal healthcare, civil rights for all ethnic populations and all categories of gender and sexual orientation. These are timeless issues that have advanced only incrementally even when the Democratic party has been in power. The sand in the hourglass has been wasted by previous centrist democratic leadership seeking to appease Republicans who lean slightly left. The exhaustive effort to convert centrist Republicans has sucked all the energy out of the rest of the party. Change has been at a snail's pace; and that same impatience in the far-right has resulted in great leaps backwards as current administrations dismantle existing protections for all but the wealthiest of individuals and corporations.

The trajectory of the Republican party is best described by the path of a boomerang, originating from the point of absolute White Privilege, and seeking to return to that point, albeit in a form that does not resemble original slavery. "Reactionary" is the word that was once used to describe this desire for a return to the "good old days," but now we just call these people what they really are: racists, bigots, homophobes, and misogynists, to name but a few. They are not interested in the prosperity, or even the survival, of anyone but themselves, and they define prosperity only in monetary terms.

The two parties have always been similar, starting to diverge only when the democrats began realizing that there were constituents to be mined from the feminist and civil rights movements. Later, they embraced gay and lesbian issues, but mostly to again swell their voting rolls. Democrats have, to put it bluntly and cynically, recognized minority populations as a means to advance a tamer form of White Privilege. Yes, dear Blacks, Hispanics, gays, lesbians, and transgendered, and disabled and discriminated, we are reaching out, we are giving you a seat at the table, just not any power to enact significant changes that require sacrifice from White men.

Ideally, we want the trajectory of our political party to steadily increase, with no setbacks, instituting changes that are perceptible but tolerable to all, assuming that our motivations are clear and in the best interest of our constituents. The curve of that pursuit over time represents a graph we can comprehend easily, a smooth climb of idealism.

The Republican curve has become a boomerang arc, a "fool you" curve that turns back on itself in trying to reassert White male privilege, with increasingly hostile legislation and policy, more distractions for the gullible, and no apologies to the disenfranchised. The Democratic curve, on the other hand, is more schizophrenic in its ascent, and the leading edge has become a splintered rainbow of constituencies, each with its own overriding agenda, and the upper layer (Democratic National Committee) still being White male interests. Guess what? A rainbow has no white light. That is the whole point, in fact. You address the white light by embracing whole-heartedly the colors behind it. Raise the profile of each color and you lift up the whole radiant beam.

How do we prevail as a just and equitable society, then? We need faith. White democrats need faith in leadership that does not look like us, that came from a different culture and different circumstances. We have to lose the fear that by electing and supporting leaders from disparate enclaves we are turning power over to people who will try and oppress us as we have oppressed them, historically.

Do we deserve to be punished for our own version of apartheid, our prior collective hate crimes? Sure. Personally, I don't see vindictiveness in our diverse and newly-elected federal representatives. I see an energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to making our country better for all, including White people. We should be grateful for the strength and forgiveness of those we have suppressed and neglected and waged war on. Let us begin the road back by letting them lead on the road ahead.

I'm on the Edge....of Irrelevance

I happened upon a recent Wired article chronicling the writer's self-imposed demotion from a smart phone to a flip phone, and it got me revisiting my own philosophy of technology, which is a product of both intent and financial hardship, with a dose of reluctance for good measure.

I wrote about some aspects of technology in this post, but let me speak more personally as to why I draw the lines where I do. My first reaction to the Wired piece was that it was a flawed experiment in that the writer was regressing from a smart phone to a "dumb phone" as opposed to never having had a smart phone in the first place, which is my situation.

I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the cell phone era. The breaking point came the nth time my flight was delayed or cancelled and I had no way to reach my party on the receiving end to tell them I would not be arriving in a timely manner. I was still reluctant to make the expenditure for a phone, battery, and calling plan, but it was getting embarrassing and impolite to beg the use of a stranger's device. Consequently, I purchased the cheapest phone, and a pay-as-you-go service.

To this day, I run out of "service days" far more regularly than I run out of minutes. Our household still has a land line, with unlimited long distance (no "roaming" fees), that I rely on for the overwhelming majority of telecommunication aside from e-mails. I briefly flirted with an upgraded phone that had an uncovered keyboard, but after I accidentally pocket-dialed a friend in Massachusetts, I went back to a flip phone and here I am.

One Christmas my wife got me a tablet as a gift. After the futility and frustration of trying to scroll and accidentally connecting to unwanted website after unwanted advertisement, and the aggravation of automatic word suggestions while texting or posting, I gave up. That was about three days in. I am all thumbs when it comes to anything smaller than a full-sized keyboard.

There are many benefits to having sub-forefront technology. The greatest of these might be the deterrent to theft. If a burglar had ever entered my prior residences, he or she would have taken a look around and screamed something to the effect of "Are you KIDDING me?!" and maybe an expletive, before storming out. Had they managed to haul off the television, recovering the unit would be a simple matter of calling around to hospitals to see if anyone had come in with a severe back injury. My laptop is so outdated that even I no longer use it. My desktop is over seven years old, and the various cords too tangled for a hurried criminal to untangle. I am still running Windows 7. This is all exactly how I like it: Technology that gets me through, is still supported and serviced, and not new enough to be attractive to thieves.

Another benefit to not carrying a smart phone or tablet or notebook or whatever they are calling the latest thing is that I am forced to unplug when I am out of my home. I am compelled to interact with other people in the flesh, pay attention to my surroundings, and experience the unadulterated reality of the here-and-now. Yes, sometimes it is boring. So what? If you have to be entertained all the time or, increasingly, feel obligated to entertain others via social media, then you might want to re-examine your life. Take a breath. Smell the flowers. People-watch. Wildlife watch.

I can assure you I do not relate any of this to paint myself as superior, or inferior, or out of touch with the realities of the digital universe. Indeed, I find this Age to be a wonder, but I also wonder whether we are losing sight of things that truly matter, whether we are still engaging one another in meaningful relationships, and whether we are losing touch with the natural world. I am fortunate enough to know people who balance flesh-and-blood and digital worlds perfectly, so I have hope. Meanwhile, if you need to reach me on my travels, good luck. I use Tracfone, and isn't that everyone's punchline for any joke about irrelevance?

Alone Like Never Before

My wife just got us an ECHO™ device. I was not consulted, at least not while I was paying attention, but it got me thinking about the deepening and darkening trend toward the total isolation of the American household, the individual U.S. citizen. Freedom has come to mean freedom from others, and social media aside, that should be disturbing to you.

Advertisers don't frame it this way, of course. They paint these newer technologies as the latest in "convenience." I suppose so, but they conveniently omit the loss of labor from the self-checkout at the supermarket, the fresh air you aren't breathing and the exercise you aren't getting when you call Grubhub or DoorDash, your lack of daily education that comes from interacting with other people face to face, in person.

Can't be bothered conversing with an Uber or Lyft driver? No problem, driverless taxicabs are on the horizon. Where will this end? At what point do we say no, I can do that myself? It is all I can do to tolerate hotel personnel waiting on me hand and foot when I am at one of the fancier establishments. I am not helpless, and I didn't get where I am as a writer by asking Alexa or Google for everything. Back in the day I had to go to a library. I still do, but not as often as I should, and so I miss out on local happenings because I fail to go up the street regularly and see what community announcements they have posted. Shame on me.

I can see where this is going, and it is very clever. Eventually there will be Republican Alexa, Fox News Alexa, Gangsta Alexa, Zionist Alexa....and maybe their counterparts of Democrat, CNN, Folk Alexa, and Agnostic Alexa. Why be unduly inconvenienced by different opinions, religions, cultures, and whatnot? Who needs that baggage? The answer, of course, is that we all do.

While we are talking to our home devices, our Senators and Representatives are talking to lobbyists and corporate interests and making deals that further undermine our rights as workers, consumers, voters, and taxpaying citizens. Alexa is not going to remind you of that. You eventually won't know the rules until you unwittingly break one. Right now, Blacks and Hispanics are all too familiar with this scenario, but sooner or later so will you unless you leave your comfort zone, at least periodically.

People fear the wrong thing from the in-home devices. They think these are stealth machines, surveillance products we have been duped into buying ourselves! Don't you know they are listening to our every word, recording our every action if you have one of those portal thingies, and otherwise invading our privacy? Not likely, though I trust that the manufacturers are listening to find out what else they can sell us.

The real fear we should have in our constant isolation is the erosion of empathy. You cannot relate to others if you don't share experiences. You cannot acknowledge wrongs to others, or validate their trauma, if you do not bear witness firsthand. That was the power of the Civil Rights movement. Comfortable people finally opened their eyes and what they saw shook them.

We need another breakthrough like that, and something sustainable that rejects not technology but the agenda behind it. The future of products and services, as the corporate world sees it, is in cutting us off from each other, automating marketing based on our prior consumer choices. No other input necessary, but thank you for the Yelp review, and "checking in" on Facebook so that we can start a marketing campaign for other individuals. Oooh, look at this bright and shiny new gizmo while we beg Congress for more tax breaks and subsidies that will go to our CEOs and shareholders rather than into properly compensating our employees, providing healthcare and other benefits, testing our products for safety, and making our factories safer, cleaner, and less impactful on the environment. Don't look behind the curtain at our lobbyists arguing for relaxed industrial emissions, looser labor laws, and reduced consumer safety standards.

One day soon I may toss our ECHO into the trash, or at least take it to a thrift store, though I hate to encourage the proliferation of these gadgets. Meanwhile, Alexa? Tell my wife I love her and that I forgive her for the error of your purchase.

Climate, Consumerism, and Immigration

Wow, look at all those refugee....Oh, never mind, it's Black Friday© CNN.com

It has been an eventful Thanksgiving week, but you might not be in the loop if you were properly focused on family, food, and travel. We can be grateful for our American privilege of indulgence in those loves and pursuits, but for how much longer? A government report acknowledging climate change, a scathing indictment of mindless consumerism by a journalist, and the virtual disappearance of the immigrant "caravan" should give us pause.

Released at 4 PM on Black Friday, when the masses were distracted by shopping, comes the Fourth National Climate Assessment, volume II, outlining what we can expect if we stay our present course in, well, pretty much our everyday habits as consumers, producers, drivers....Will the fourth report (time) be the charm, the one that finally elicits action? Don't hold your breath.

The first alarm bells began ringing around a 1965 report issued by President Lyndon Johnson's Science Advisory Committee, its findings echoed in a speech by Frank Ikard, then President of the American Petroleum Institute. Ikard's analysis was published in the journal Nature. Good luck accessing that government report from 1965, despite it being public record. Attempts by Texas Pollinator Powwow, a Facebook group, to provide links in its posts have resulted in not one, but five broken links. Cover-up, much?

The hyperlink above goes on to reveal that physicists and other scientists had their suspicions, and were conducting atmospheric research, back in the mid-1950s to create projections of rising carbon dioxide levels and the implications thereof.

Appropriately for "Black Friday," journalist George Monbiot dropped a bomb of an editorial on what he calls "Pathological Consumerism", condemning the largely American habit of gift-giving for the sake of gift-giving, with little or no thought to the greater ramifications. He argues convincingly that production of many products, including novelty items, consumes so many resources, and takes so much energy, that it is nearly equal to the impact of driving internal combustion engine vehicles in terms of contributing to climate change. Plastics are derived largely from petroleum, electronics depend on the mining of rare metals, etc, etc.

Ok, fine, but what about that parade of immigrants threatening our southern border? Largely dismissed as a political stunt for the midterm election cycle, the deployment of troops to the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas seems to have evaporated in its urgency. There are larger than average numbers of asylum-seekers at the California border checkpoints, we are told, but that does not seem to have triggered any alarm or military response.

Here is something to consider: if you think "normal" streams of immigrants are an issue, just wait until catastrophic climate change kicks in. As more of the planet becomes uninhabitable, where do you think those displaced people are going to go? You want to do something about the immigration problem? Then do something to mitigate climate change. Call on our government officials to mandate industry controls, but also think twice about your daily habits, including whether you really need to drive to the store, or if it can wait until you have a greater necessity, or can find a carpool buddy.

I call on my followers to set an example of responsible consumerism, activism, and compassion for all species. No, we are not going to be perfect, and we have to learn to forgive ourselves for that and not let it prevent us from acting anyway. We have to be stern to those in power, and gentle to those struggling to change for the better. We can do this, but we have to start now, no pessimism allowed.

Americans Must Define 'Great' and Who it Applies to

Has the President of the United States lived up to his campaign promise to "make America great again?" The answer may depend upon whom you are asking. Looking at the advertisements for the midterm primary elections, it is glaringly obvious that the divisions we see in the electorate are largely manufactured by our two major parties, designed to pit us against one another such that the status quo of prosperity for the few is maintained. Citizens need to ignore political rhetoric and keep chugging along, as we have always done.

Let us start with immigration since that is the hot-button issue of the day in the wake of images of children sleeping under sheets of silver mylar inside fenced areas resembling cages. Children. Forget everything else. They are vulnerable human beings first, and every other label second, if applied at all. Speaking for myself, one of the facets of this nation that I believe makes it great is its desire to comfort the afflicted, as so perfectly worded on the plaque beneath the Statue of Liberty.

I did not know that our sentiments had an expiration date. When you are fleeing for your life and seeking safety, you do what you have to do, "legal" or not, to get yourself and your loved ones out of harm's way. This is not criminal behavior, it is a heroic example of one's obligation to oneself and their family. The United States can compound the problem, or it can do what it does best and create new and unique solutions that do not further traumatize people who are already victims.

One must also recognize that the U.S. does not exist in a vacuum, "America first!" chants to the contrary. Immigration is a global crisis. Withdrawing from United Nations Human Rights Council, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the Paris Agreement (on climate change mitigation), and other international bodies and treaties only exacerbates issues with immigration and other forces that impact U.S. citizens. One of the great historical aspects of the U.S. has been its willingness to cooperate in global peace endeavors. We are now abandoning our obligations and abdicating our world responsibilities.

Some will argue that previous presidential administrations have abandoned obligations to our domestic citizenry, especially in rural areas where fewer voters are dispersed over vast expanses of agricultural landscapes. The current Commander-in-Chief has managed to convince those folks that he can make them great again, when in reality it is business as usual, with more mom-and-pop farms, ranches, and businesses going belly-up or being gobbled up by multinational corporations. There may be an immediate infusion of cash into rural economies when a company purchases land, a business, or equipment, but it is a quick fix that will leave that community begging again in another few years, though hopefully not before the next election cycle.

Economic prosperity, this writer would argue, is not what makes America great. It should be a byproduct of greatness, if anything, something that comes as a tangible reward for selflessness, not greed. Aspiring to material excess is what empires do, and we know from history that such greedy pursuits end badly.

What is truly making America great right now is the stubborn determination of Americans to succeed in spite of government, regardless of what political party is in power. We come home after a long workday and rail at the television newscasters bringing us stories of want, war, and woe; but we go to bed, get up, and go to work again.

That work may be volunteering at the food pantry, for Planned Parenthood, the local chapter of the Audubon Society, or any number of other organizations doing what we believe the government ought to be doing. Bless each and every one of you. Whether your neighbor agrees with your "agenda" or not, you are making society great, and that transcends borders, politics, religion, race, economic status, and all the other things that supposedly divide us. It is that daily commitment to participating in things greater than yourself that makes you great, and by extension makes America great. Not "again," but still.

Don't Ax or Ask....

© YouTube.com

A couple of people I admire recently shared in social media a video that claims that "ax" was once a perfectly acceptable alternative to "ask," until it was co-opted by the (largely White) aristocracy as a way of demeaning the (mostly Black) lower class and elevating the privilege of those in power through an elitist version of our common language. I was surprised that my visceral reaction was one of anger, and a sense of being offended. So, now I struggle to discern the source of that. The following will not be pretty, but it will be honest. Honesty is maybe the last vestige of my voice that is allowed in differentiating myself from other writers.

First of all, I am not opposed to being enlightened on the history of African American Vernacular English (AAVE, the dialect formerly known as "ebonics"). I consider it a travesty that this was not a part of my education back in middle school or high school, akin to the celebration of Christopher Columbus while choosing to overlook his disastrous treatment of indigenous Americans. However, I believe the illumination of AAVE can be achieved with a little more finesse, without implying that the rules of English I grew up with and abide by today are not inherently racist or designed solely for some air of snobbish intellectual prowess.

Please do not confuse my pursuit of literary excellence with a desire for privilege. If grammar, syntax, and spelling do not have a place in informing quality of expression, then what am I left with?

Every heritage deserves a sense of pride, and warrants celebration, not just on holidays. It appears that we have difficulty doing so without taking something away from every other culture, though, or offending in some respect. The backlash then reduces things like Irish immigrant history to leprechauns and shamrocks and green beer, and other demeaning caricatures and stereotypes of St. Patrick's Day. Sigh.

I sense that elucidating AAVE is not without an unspoken desire to take traditional English down a notch, and I think that is unnecessary. There is no way I can write about this dispassionately, without giving the impression that I take these assertions personally because yes, I do feel threatened by them. This is the first time that I have truly felt not just uncomfortable, but under explicit attack by another ethnic group. I am beginning to wonder if certain segments of the activist community will simply not be satisfied until they convince every White person that they are, in fact, racist. No, Eric, not even you can assert that you are above your Caucasian privilege. We will find a way to make it so. We will expose you one way or another. Well, they did it, by coming after my vocabulary.

Maybe Blacks are now projecting their often legitimate fear and hatred of law enforcement officers onto the "grammar police." Maybe they see those who subscribe to traditional English as using words to beat them into submission and irrelevance. I assure you the abuses, if there are any, are unintentional. You want to take language to task? We are on the same side in wanting to banish the n-word and other hateful language, believe me. Were it in my power I would exempt hate speech from protection under the First Amendment. I would also overturn Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission because the truly offensive language of oppression and privilege in this day and age is money.

There is a larger question at play here. Is there any facet of White culture, if there is such a thing, that is acceptable to Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and all other "minorities?" Is all of it contrived to ensure a sense of superiority, elitism, and privilege? We have given you plenty of reasons to hate us, no question, but are we as individuals guilty until proven innocent, or guilty no matter what, just because we are White? Are we guilty by association with the legacy of oppression that has come before us? Where does it stop? Help me out here. Enlighten me more. What are we permitted now? Am I really out of bounds in asking these questions?

Please do not confuse my pursuit of literary excellence with a desire for privilege. If grammar, syntax, and spelling do not have a place in informing quality of expression, then what am I left with? Where does my voice come from if not my own flawed and imperfect education, the dictionary of my own mind, and yes, those rules of language?

Maybe it is, in reality, one of those "just when you thought you had it all down...." moments. Maybe I have a hard time admitting I am out of step, that I haven't kept up. Perhaps it is confronting the fact I am too old to learn any more, or too stubborn, or too lazy. Yeah, that is probably....what....I...am....objecting to. Nope, pretty sure it is the racist thing.

Guns Are a Problem And a Symptom

© Eric and Heidi Eaton 2018

So I had a peaceful conversation the other day with a friend who, along with her husband, own at least two guns. She was raised by responsible gun-owning parents, and she exhibits rational and loving behavior. She believes that our current issues are "multinodal" in their causes, and I agree completely. Our collective short-term strategy may require stricter gun laws, but our long-term strategy should be to make guns irrelevant.

We did not get to the weaponization of America overnight, and we won't willingly disarm ourselves quickly, either. We must have an honest dialogue about what we fear, and why we see a solution in firearms. I am no pacifist, but I also don't trust myself with a gun. I can be too impulsive, for one thing. I would pass a background check easily, but I know myself and there is no way any good could come from arming me. I also do not trust many other people to make the same kind of self-assessment.

Our society has become reactive, not proactive, regarding the stresses and threats to our lives. We are constantly subjected to media that teach us to fear each other. It starts with the morning news, interrupted by ads for security systems, and drones all day long. We go to social media and buy into memes that can be overwhelmingly classified as propaganda. The average citizen believes they have no escape from this relentless stream of negativity, but there are positive choices. Physical exercise helps relieve stress. Owning a (shelter) pet helps immensely. Experiencing forests, mountains, meadows, deserts, and other natural habitats brings peace to both myself and my gun-owning friend. She advocates for bird conservation.

I have friends who pursue crafts like knitting with such enthusiasm they do not have time to worry, fret, and fear. They enrich the lives of others by sharing the gifts of their talents, mentoring youth, and channeling their energy into these creative pursuits. My wife sings in the church choir and plays handbells. I write, doodle cartoons, and venture outdoors frequently to find insects, spiders, and other overlooked wildlife that I can show to other people. We even have a Mile High Bug Club of like-minded souls. When I am actively engaged in something I am passionate about, all problems and anxieties fade.

We certainly need a diversity of experiences; and we need to expose ourselves to different cultures and communities to even have insight into, let alone appreciation of, the lives of others. I have not done such a good job of getting out of my comfort zone in that respect, and I am embarrassed. I believe that a certain degree of periodic discomfort is as healthy as the activities we take refuge in. How to stretch our boundaries little by little, day by day. That is the challenge.

We can have illuminating conversations about what plagues our collective psyche. We can craft innovative solutions and even laugh at ourselves in the process. I remember the comedian Gallagher espousing his own solution to gun crime: "Let everyone have a (hand)gun, but just require that the barrel be three feet long. That way, if you see someone limping toward you, you know trouble is coming." Humor is healthy, and in careful doses does not detract from the seriousness of our most heinous atrocities.

It takes a village to raise our children, but the village seems terribly hostile right now. We need to lighten up, support our neighbors, and reject the subscription to fear and anger that is the media and marketplace. Demand products of peace. Preach not "tolerance," but acceptance of those different from yourself in gender, age, ethnicity, religion, and sexual preference. Do not arm teachers with anything but love, an ample paycheck, and maybe a conflict resolution curriculum. We can do this. We must do this. We put it off at our civilization's peril.

We need to imagine a nation in which we are so equal and respectful, devoid of envy and the urge to aspire to material wealth and power that the thought of violence never crosses our minds. I will finally rest when there comes a day when someone cleaning out their closet, garage, or shed, finds a gun, and says aloud "Hm-m-m, I forgot I had this."

Can You Live Too Long?

© Shutterstock.com

Earlier this week my father turned ninety-two. At least, we're pretty sure, when you get over ninety it is easy to lose track. There was really no celebrating, at least not with me here in Colorado and him in Washington state. It got me thinking again about whether an extended lifespan is really a good thing.

Almost a year ago now, my father sold his house and went into an assisted living facility, initially in the most independent wing. One broken hip later and he was forced into a more "managed care" wing that took away his independence. He hasn't been the same since. He had fallen in the parking garage while trying to get into his vehicle to go renew his driver's license. The outcome of having him off the road is probably a good thing, but I wouldn't tell him that. He has always been an excellent driver, but at his advanced age, anybody is going to be slower to react to traffic situations.

Dad calls his new home "assisted dying," and I find it hard to argue with that. In their defense, such facilities cannot do much for someone in relatively good health, but with reduced mobility. The best they can do is wake me up at one in the morning to tell me he has fallen again, and refuses to go to the hospital. I'm not at my most reasonable at that hour, and if he is lucid enough to comply with response protocol, then he can make his own damn decisions as far as I'm concerned. He's paying seven grand a month to live there, he ought to have some say in his care. That reminds me, I need to get a better itemized account from them.

Truth be told, my father's welfare began to decline after his second wife passed away, rapidly, from cancer, in July, 2006. Like me, he has never been that successful when left to his own devices. Our genetics have probably managed to get us this far in spite of our lifestyle. My father's coping mechanisms have always been anger and alcohol, and I have had to unlearn a good deal in order to get through my own days, and become the most minimally desirable spouse. At least I can articulate my emotions most of the time, something his generation never learned to do.

Ironically, our phone conversations are much more peaceful now. This is mostly due to his difficulty in hearing and, even more to the point, his resignation. He tells me not to worry, he has had a good life, and he is happy to go to sleep permanently whenever that happens. We still worry he might try and hasten that final goodbye, so his firearm is safely locked away; and we do what we can to prevent enablers from furnishing alcohol, though that has been impossible so far.

My father's business, for most of the time I was part of his life, was making custom jewelry, and I can say without bias that his designs were ahead of their time, exquisite in attention to detail, and worthy of every penny he charged for his creations. His skill extended to woodworking and model-building, too. Unfortunately, his current accommodations do not provide ample room to execute anything artistic, and it is probably best that he does not have access to sharp objects anyway. What is left, then? He has no interest in computers or the internet, like many of his era, and in some ways I envy that; but it means that he has fewer things to distract himself from tedium.

At his age, my father really has seen it all, or at least all that he wants to, and I find it excruciating that there is no socially acceptable exit for folks who have no joy in living this long. I would think that by ninety or so you would have earned the right to decide when you have had enough. Heck, here I am at over fifty-five, and I am already not liking what is on my horizon. All the benefits one has traditionally gotten as they age are either being taken away, or the age limit increased, forever putting senior discounts and other privileges just beyond one's reach. For shame! Where are my incentives to go on living?

I do hope that my father passes peacefully, without undo pain and suffering, even if he inflicted that on my mother, and myself in my childhood. I've no more animosity towards him, though I still have my truths about him, many of which are not pleasant. As a culture, though, we have a long way to go to make life worth living for our elderly. They are more than a revenue stream for care facilities, for pharmaceutical companies, and investment firms. They are living history, tangible wisdom, and our mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers. They deserve better.

Addictions, Distractions, and Coping

© BrainyQuote.com

These days I am finding it almost impossible to find joy in anything. Instead, I am reduced to distracting myself from all the negative that permeates life these days, from world news to the incessant ear-piercing screams and screeches of unsupervised children playing just outside in our townhouse complex. Some of those distractions, compulsions, and addictions are productive, some are not. We don't cope well here in the U.S.A. That is our collective weakness, our Achilles heel.

Do I have addictions? Yes. What are they? None of your business. That is not what is worth discussing anyway. Specifics lead to gossip, judgment, shunning, shaming, bullying, and other social reactions that only reinforce addictions or drive people deeper into despair. What we need to be asking is how we have come to adopt addictions and other negative behaviors as coping mechanisms. We want to "check-out" without doing so permanently. Take away our coping skills, if you can call them that, and we might actually end it all.

Complicating matters, of course, is the fact that we have entire industries that profit by feeding our addictions: adult beverages, tobacco, marijuana (in some of our states), casinos and lotteries, adult entertainment....The list could go on and on. Sure, we pass legislation, have sobriety check-points, and institute other means of limiting our indulgences, or at least providing consequences for abuse that can affects others, like drunk driving; but the penalties are so minor and forgiving as to be an insult to victims. The treadmill continues.

Meanwhile, we desperately need new alternatives to alcohol, drugs (illicit and prescription), tobacco, gambling, and other avenues that usually compound our problems instead of alleviate them. The problem is, I am not sure there really are any. Individual brains are all wired differently, and what appeals to one person won't appeal to another. We make our suggestions, like exercising, going for a walk, going to a movie, volunteering for a charity, church, or other organization, but then chastise the person if they say no to our way of coping.

Even a good thing can turn ugly if one has an addictive personality. Why do I feel compelled to bring back images or other trophies from time I spend outdoors in nature? Why do I have to even justify time in the woods, on the plains, or elsewhere to myself? Why do I think that if I don't I have been wasting time? I need proof to show myself and others that I am not just goofing off, "bug hunting," or "birdwatching" or whatever. It would help if our society would stop stigmatizing positive behaviors like that. Ultimately, though, we have to make ourselves judgment-proof, and unless you are a complete recluse, that is extremely difficult.

What helps me a little is to make a weekly to-do list that I alone answer to. Some days, just doing a load of laundry is all the accomplishment I can muster. That should be ok, for other days I turn out an article, a blog post or two, or clean the bathroom, or all of the above. Having interests and skills that few others don't is both a blessing and a curse. Creative pursuits have their own schedule, which is usually no schedule at all, and the periods between those times can be depressing, lonely, irritating, and addiction-filled. This is not an excuse. It is a condition that I often fight daily, struggling between acceptance and shame.

No lifestyle today is free from external stress in one form or another, free of demands, responsibilities, and expectations, though we all should strive to liberate ourselves and each other from unhealthy degrees of those stressors. Ironically, we avoid or cope by adding self-imposed stresses in the form of addictions, distractions, and compulsions. What worries me is what if those bad habits and behaviors are all that is keeping one from losing their grip altogether. This is not a sustainable cycle, but we seem loathe to turn our culture around, to look to European nations and elsewhere for viable solutions. Nope, addictions are the American Way, and we'll be damned if we ever admit we don't have all the answers already.

Note: Thank you to all my followers here, new and "old," for your patience and support.