July 4th ... Independence Day ... is fraught with symbolism. It is the beginning of American exceptionalism, the beginning of America taking its place on the world’s stage, the beginning of freedom and prosperity for Americans.
Our nation stands under attack … not from without, but from within. Both our politics and our culture have been corrupted.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
What Are We Celebrating on July 4th?
July 4th ... Independence Day ... is fraught with symbolism. It is the beginning of American exceptionalism, the beginning of America taking its place on the world’s stage, the beginning of freedom and prosperity for Americans.
Labels:
American exceptionalism,
Declaration of Independence,
income inequality,
Independence Day,
July 4th,
Native Americans,
slavery,
status of women
Friday, June 21, 2013
A Meaningful Right to Die
There is a worldwide movement, with organizations in most developed countries, to foster the right of individuals to choose to die with dignity.
Those efforts are limited to directives in the eventuality that the individual is either terminally ill or suffers from irreversible physical illness, intractable physical pain, or a combination of progressive physical disabilities. Even in the Netherlands, which is one of the few countries to have enacted voluntary euthanasia, it is limited to those suffering from “hopeless and unbearable suffering,” which has been interpreted as meaning serious medical conditions combined with considerable pain. These directives are to be made when one is of sound mind when making this contemporaneous choice.
The mission of the organizations working towards the acceptance of a right to die with dignity are thus too narrow in my view. As a human being, one should have the right while still of sound mind to determine the timing of ones death if at some future point one is no longer left with anything resembling “quality of life,” and that should not be limited to the physical indicators typically espoused. One should be allowed the right to choose to die with dignity regardless whether the problems are physical or mental.
Case in point ... my mother. When she was younger, which is to say in her 60s and 70s, she used to notice people who were suffering from dementia, looking blankly at the world, and say, “If I ever get like that, give me the black pill.” Meaning that she wanted to be helped to die.
My mother is now 103 years old. For the past year she has resided in the nursing home of a life care facility where she has lived for the past 13 years, starting with an independent living apartment and “progressing” to assisted living and then the dementia unit before being transferred to the nursing home. She lost her memory, both short term and long term, years ago. She sleeps or dozes most of the time, has no energy, has little awareness of what’s happening around her, although she does recognize my brother and me, sometimes, and takes joy in our presence and when we take her out in the sun on a nice day. I should note that my mother takes no medication and is definitely not alive due to any specific miracle of modern science.
At the facility where my mother lives, there are many people who look blankly into space, who are not “terminally ill” or suffer from an irreversible physical illness or progressive physical disability, unless the dementia of growing old would fall under that category, which is not the case. Suffering the results of a stroke would probably also not qualify under these narrow definitions. The very old are not considered “disabled” nor are they considered to be suffering from an irreversible illness. Odd, because both is often definitely the case.
From every perspective, not allowing such people, indeed all people, to have a directive to die when they reach such a state or one of the physical states noted above is wrong; it is inhumane. From the person’s own perspective, there is no question that most of them had they been asked while they were still of sound mind whether they would want to live under such conditions would have said, “no,” just as my mother did. Who in their right mind, no pun intended, would want to continue living in such a state? And it is the wishes of the individual that should be controlling in a matter such as this.
From the perspective of the person’s loved ones ... spouse or children ... witnessing the mental and physical prison in which their loved one is living without any chance of change is brutal. Even when there is still a spark of life, of who they used to be, left, as in the case of my mother, the overwhelming numbness of their existence is the predominant fact of life.
Finally, from the perspective of society ... and many will howl loudest at this consideration ... the expenditure of vital resources to sustain life at this stage is not a viable use of those resources. If the choice must be made, and unfortunately it must in a world of limited resources, between providing adequate schooling and other resources to children, for example, or spending huge sums of public money for end-of-life care, only one choice is rational.
Before going further, let me make absolutely clear again that what I am advocating is the ability of an individual, while still of sound mind, to make a directive that if or when at some point in the future he or she should reach a certain defined state of hopelessness and unbearableness ... be it mental or physical ... he or she directs that they be helped to die.
The first question to be asked is, why are living wills ... the direction to withhold life-prolonging actions in certain situations ... broadly accepted whereas the right to be helped to die is broadly not accepted, except in very limited circumstances and in very few jurisdictions. The usual explanation given is that it is one thing to ask that medical efforts be withheld, which fact will hasten death; it is another to ask that medical efforts be made proactively to hasten death.
I would say that this is a distinction without a difference. Are not both actions a decision to commit suicide? Why is asking to withhold efforts morally or legally different from asking that efforts be taken? The one answer is that the medical profession’s holy grail is to prolong life. Withholding life-prolonging efforts, even at the very end, is scandalous enough for many physicians and physician ethicists. Actively bringing on death would be unspeakable, besides raising lots of medical malpractice questions.
Were I more cynical, I would have to raise the fact that the medical profession and health industry makes a huge amount of money from the cost of end-of-life care as it currently exists. There was an article in The Atlantic recently about a doctor who is trying to change the profession’s end-of-life culture and practices so that the patient’s welfare is predominant. But I fear that it isn’t just a matter of ethical or Hippocratic Oath culture, it is one of money. It’s no secret that doctors order many unnecessary tests because of the billings they can then charge insurers. I fear the same motive plays a definite role, even if subconscious, in their decisions on prolonging life at all costs, no pun intended again.
The next answer is the religious one. Most religions have found a way to parse living wills as not being suicide, but consider voluntary choice of death suicide and thus against God’s law. It is only God who decides when one dies. But this distinction is patently without rational merit. Without a living will, there is no question that such people would live longer, whether a few days or many months. Yes, it would be due to the miracles of modern medicine, but that is what is available today. It is, if one is of such mind, what God has provided to modern man.
For those religions that do not even support the concept of a directive to withhold life-prolonging care, all I can say is that I find that position shows no respect for the human being who is suffering. If one truly believes that God chooses the time of our death ... and this naturally must include all deaths, whether car accidents, illness, or gun massacres or the holocaust ... then one is beyond rational thought on this subject.
The final answer is the fear of people being “murdered” against their will. People posit all sorts of horror stories of the mentally infirm elderly being taken advantage of by unscrupulous relatives who want their money, etc. But if someone is of sound mind and makes such a directive, then the only thing necessary to prevent such manipulation is that the event or state that brings the directive into play be clearly defined and that two medical doctors must stipulate that such event or state has indeed been arrived at.
Indeed, in looking at the long and broad experience with living wills, there has been no evidence that I am aware of of manipulation by others. On the contrary, what one does hear of frequently is loved ones not wanting the directive to be honored; they don’t want the individual to die, they cannot give up hope that by some miracle the medical situation will improve.
But the locus for the decision to continue life must reside with the individual. It is their life. To not allow a human being the right to die with dignity is just one more example of the man’s inhumanity to and lack of compassion for man. The right to die movement needs to expand its scope to include directives regarding hopeless and unbearable states that are mental as well as non-progressive disabilities such as those that result from stroke.
There is no master puppeteer that controls our lives. When I and others say that things are the way they because it's just the way it is; it's meant to be and it's all ok – it is in the sense that things happen because of the universe's laws of nature or the laws of developed man's nature, not that some force chooses it to happen. It you say "Your will, not my mind's" to the universe or the divinity within you, you are humble and at peace with the way things are. And at peace, you are able to seek aid in dying in certain situations.
This is an important point: in general, people do not make directives out of fear (other than fear of the medical establishment). They make directives with a state of peace about their death; it is a spiritual state.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Peak OIl or No, The Answer is Back to the Future
I have been a firm believer in the peak oil theory. A recent article in the Atlantic, however, “What If We Never Run Out of Oil?” provided updated facts and changed my perspective. If one believes in peak oil, then one believes in an oncoming economic disaster since the world’s economy is based on oil. But the proponents of peak oil provide no answer to that scenario. If one believes that there is no end to obtainable oil reserves, and we keep on living as we have been, perhaps even more so, then the disaster comes from climate change which will also reek economic disaster. And we have no answer for that either.
There is at least one area, though, where limited use of oil will be required, and that is in the production of modern pharmaceuticals. Unless a way can be found to produce them without the organic compounds that come from oil, that will remain a necessary ingredient.
Labels:
climate change,
economy,
global economy,
global warming,
peak oil
Saturday, April 27, 2013
A Grace to Change the World
Saying grace before or after meals is something that is routinely done by millions if not billions of people all over the world. Regardless of the religion, saying grace is part of one’s religious practice.
This food is the gift of the whole universe -- the earth, the sky, and much hard work.
May we live in a way that makes us worthy to receive it.
May we transform our unskillful states of mind.
May we take only foods that nourish us and prevent illness.
We accept this food so that we may realize the path of practice.
The first four mouthfuls
With the first taste, I promise to offer joy.
With the second taste, I promise to help relieve the suffering of others.
With the third taste, I promise to see others’ joy as my own.
With the fourth taste, I promise to learn the way of non-attachment and equanimity.
Eighteen years later, I still carry these words with me every day in my wallet, and recite this grace every morning before eating breakfast and starting my day. Why?
The words of this grace are not so much about thanks, although that element is there. It is about how we as human beings should live our lives so as to be worthy of the gift of life and food that has been bestowed upon us. If everyone, regardless of their religion, spoke and took to heart the words of this nondenominational grace, the world would be on its way to solving all the intractable problems that we face.
“This food is the gift of the whole universe -- the earth, the sky, and much hard work.” This reminds us not to take the food that we eat for granted. It is the result of much hard work, whether it be peasants in some faraway land or a worker in a food processing plant where we live. People labored, and if we eat meat animals died, so that we may live.
“May we live in a way that makes us worthy to receive it.” Having food to eat is not some absolute or unconditional right we have. With food, as with life, come responsibilities ... to ourselves and to others. We may have the power to nourish or destroy, whether it’s ourselves, those close to us, or strangers. But it is our responsibility as human beings to nourish ourselves, our fellow human beings and all sentient creatures, as well as the environment, not to destroy. All religions have at their core morality the saying, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That is our highest moral responsibility.
“May we transform our unskillful states of mind.” What are these states of mind? They are greed, lust, envy, anger, pride. These cravings destroy our ability to exercise good judgment and do what is right for us, our loved ones, and for others. And despite our tendency to almost revel in these states of mind, they cause us nothing but suffering for they always ultimately result in frustration. Because when we feed these states of mind, our mind just wants more. There is good reason why these emotions form the core of the Seven Deadly Sins of Christianity, as well as being admonished in other religions.
“May we take only foods that nourish us and prevent illness.” There are two aspects to this thought. One is that to eat foods that do not nourish us or prevent illness is not good for our body ... witness the epidemic of obesity in this country. It is not so much a question of eating too much, but of what we eat. Although gluttony (another one of the Seven Deadly Sins) is also not good for our health. Second, food is a precious commodity; it is limited. There are many people in this world who go hungry, even in the United States. The problem is not that there isn’t enough food; it’s that there isn’t an equitable distribution of it because obtaining food is a function of having money. If we all just ate what was necessary to nourish us and prevent illness, there would be plenty of food to go around; just look at all the food Americans waste.
“We accept this food so that we may realize the path of practice.” The word, “practice,” here refers to Buddhist practice, but it applies equally to the practice of any religion. Again, with life and food come responsibilities. And what are they?
“With the first taste, I promise to offer joy.” Just as we want other people to offer us joy, we should offer others joy. And if we aren’t offered it, that makes no difference. The point is to do other others as you would have them do under you. And this is not just to be a goody-two-shoes. As in all aspects of the teachings of this grace, what we do is not just to benefit others but to benefit ourselves as well. When we offer others joy ... for the pure reason of wanting to offer joy, not for an expectation of receiving anything in return (and that’s a major catch for many people), we experience joy just in the giving. Regardless where you are, if you interact with people in a friendly, joyful way, you will experience joy yourself, regardless of their reaction. Likewise if you go through life interacting with others in a perfunctory fashion, you will experience no joy.
“With the second taste, I promise to help relieve the suffering of others.” There is so much suffering in the world ... and I don’t just mean the obvious suffering of malnutrition or illness or extreme poverty, but the daily suffering of people caused by their insecurities and the neuroses that stem from that feeling. One of our main responsibilities as human beings is to help others, and in so doing we bring joy into our lives. Not because we feel sanctimonious and superior because of our good deeds, but for the pure pleasure of trying to help another suffering person. Whether it be random acts of kindness or donations to charity or hands-on volunteer work, you will experience joy when you help relieve the suffering of others.
“With the third taste, I promise to see others’ joy as my own.” In our culture, we are so ego obsessed, that the common reaction to much of this teaching is, “What about me!” If our focus in life is in finding ways to make ourselves happy, we will not find happiness because wanting something that we don’t have just leads to frustration. One may achieve what one wants initially, but then one always wants more. The fact is that if we stop being so ego obsessed, if we see our oneness with others, and see others’ joy as our own, we are much more likely to experience joy and happiness. That being said, I must advise that if one truly sees others’ joy as your own, you will also see their pain as your own. The two go hand in hand. But that’s an essential part of what being human and understanding your oneness with others is about ... whether you think of it as we’re all in this boat together or we are all children of the same God.
“With the fourth taste, I promise to learn the way of non-attachment and equanimity.” This is the real kicker, the real challenge, for most of us. We can do all sorts of things that are on the surface good or worthwhile, but if we attach to them (obsess about them) or if we do these things because we are unhappy or dissatisfied with our life as it is, if we feel insecure, while we may still be productive and help others, we will be frustrated and unhappy. We will feel anger, greed, envy, and lust regarding the things that we or others do. We will suffer and we will make all those close to us suffer.
People sometimes react to the teachings of the Buddha with, “Why should I always be thinking of others; what about me!” What people often fail to understand, and their teachers don’t make the point clearly, is that the Buddha developed his teaching as a way to end suffering, starting with the individual. The Buddha understood that to free the world of suffering, one must start with the individual who causes suffering in himself and others. The teaching thus is all about how to free ourselves from our suffering, which is mainly caused by our learned experience, our past. A significant part of that process is learning to find joy in giving joy to others, helping others, and seeing others’ joy as your own. This is one way we free ourselves from our ego.
If everyone acted according to the words of this grace, there would in time be no more suffering in the world. Everyone would feel secure and loved. No one would try to gain control over others, to exploit others, to oppress others, to take advantage of others. The world’s wealth and resources would be distributed more equitably. It would be a very different world indeed.
Labels:
anger,
charity,
envy,
equality,
grace,
greed,
lust,
obesity,
pride,
responsibility,
selflessness,
social responsibility
Monday, April 22, 2013
Our Political System Has Failed Us
The health of our democracy depends on three components, among others. The first is an informed electorate which has the responsibility of electing those who will both represent it and help lead the country. The second is leaders who both represent their constituencies and act for the greater good of the country. The third is an electorate and leaders that respect that all are working in the best interest of the country and accept the inevitable loss, whether of a legislative bill or an election, that is part of the democratic process.
The old saying, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country," was discredited years ago, and yet that still is often the marching tune for both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. What happened to the concept that, while being supportive of a strong and healthy business sector, an important role of government, and therefore Congress, is to protect the general public from the excesses of corporate activity and power?
This can especially be seen in the federal response to the recent financial crisis ... nothing has really changed; the same financial practices that led to the collapse are ongoing; regulation has not really improved; no one in the big investment firms has been brought to justice for their shady practices; it's business as usual on Wall Street. It can also sadly be seen in the team that President Obama put together after his inauguration to advise him on such matters ... all seasoned Wall Street types who were prime actors in the period leading up to the collapse.
Labels:
campaign finance reform,
Citizens United,
Congress,
Congressional gridlock,
corporate influence,
dirty tricks,
elections,
federal funding of elections,
NRA,
Obama,
political advertising
Thursday, April 18, 2013
American Exceptionalism - A Myth Exposed
American political leaders and average Americans too take great pride in trumpeting the United States as the greatest country in the world. We are the strongest, the richest; we have the best medical system; we have the best educational system; and the list goes on and on.
Overall Ranking (2010) 3 6 4 1 5 2 7
Quality of Care 4 7 5 2 1 3 6
Access 6.5 5 3 1 4 2 6.5
Efficiency 2 6 5 3 4 1 7
Equity 4 5 3 1 6 2 7
Long, Healthy Lives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Health Exp/Capita (2007) $3357 $3895 $3588 $3837 $2454 $2992 $7290
Labels:
American exceptionalism,
education,
equal opportunity,
exceptionalism,
gun deaths,
gunviolence,
Health care,
income inequality,
security,
social mobility
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
How to Prevent the Next Financial Collapse
The newest scheme that the financial industry has devised to avoid transparency is something called a “deep pool.” Apparently these trading pools have popped up all over the place. According to the New York Times, on some recent days as much as 40% of trades occurred in such pools, which are totally unregulated and secret. This has given pause to many. In Canada and Australia, rules have been passed to limit such off-exchange trading. But the SEC has shown no inclination to do so.
Labels:
deep pools,
Glass-Steagall,
Goldman Sachs,
JP Morgan Chase,
regulation of financial industry,
SEC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)