We Are The Worst?

I fantasize escape. My heart and soul point West ..to California or Oregon. Or further, to Vancouver…oh how I fantasize about Vancouver. Do you know how hard it is to emigrate to Vancouver? Hard. Very hard. My kids would have to move and then I could come along, like luggage. The Canadians have decreed me too unproductive to let in the door. I’m old. How sad is that? Talk about a reminder of mortality.

I'm rooted here by family, who are essential to my quality of life, but still, it is hard to live here. If the Neanderthal Kansas political climate isn’t enough to chip away at my sanity, here comes new data on the state of our local health.

The Kansas City school district is officially the worst in the nation.

Men’s Health magazine placed Kansas City in the bottom 10 for men. I have sons. This matters.

And were I to seriously ponder escape to Portland (if I could stand the gloom), there is this lede from today’s New York Times: “Harder For Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs”. Not that I’m into “rising” any more, but I hate it when options are cut off, don’t you?

Of course those loonies who’ve been camping out in cities across the country, those outraged 99 percent-ers, have been trying to tell us this. Those un-American, disaffected, lazy class warriors need to just suck it up and get a job. Fox News says so. It must be true.

You may be one of the lucky upper 5%; for you, the protest is moot. You can access the best food, education, and health care. Your kids have the best shot at living well. You’re set. You can write off those other folks because I’m pretty sure you’d agree that they are irrelevant to your quality of life.

May I share a lesson from medicine? The human body can’t survive with only one well-functioning body system, even if it’s a biggie like the brain or heart. The body will hang on as long as possible, but eventually it’ll succumb to the burden of too much gone wrong. The body politic lives and dies by the same rules. In time, a society with only one thriving class will begin slipping toward demise as the prime ingredients of a healthy society vanish.

Americans face a choice: delusion or action. But to make a reasoned choice, we first have to recognize that we are not exceptional. We are not exempt from the natural cycle of a civilization’s rise and fall. If we face reality, we can reject delusion and embrace the actions essential to reclaiming our communal health. We can fend off societal decay. People who survived a health crisis have two choices: actively alter behavior or passively swallow a pill. Most choose the latter. The pill gulpers feel better for awhile even as the clock counts down to the day when medicine won’t overcome the burden of bad choices.

Which choice will we make? To renew our society tackling all the sacrifices that entails, or to search for a soothing elixir? Our clock is ticking. And I'm pretty sure Vancouver won’t take us.

Presidential Health-fulness

From the get-go, my gut was on edge. I was not an early adopter of Obamamania. I had no faith in him. He got my vote because I was terrified of the alternative. My take? He was inexperienced, naive, and a capitulator by nature.

Sometimes, it hurts to be right. Bush had an excuse for his performance -- actually, he had many. Stupidity. A fundamentally distorted value system. Evangelical lunacy. Backing from a Republican machine that had him by the short-hairs.

Obama has none of these excuses. I'm left with the conclusion that he is a poser, captive of his Corporate masters, a coward and utterly inept at leading and governing. This is no better than Bush, and you could conclude he is worse. Obama had sufficient backing to lead with vision and he squandered it.

So, he hasn't been health-ful for the country, its people, or the planet. He has made no meaningful progress on bank regulation, job-losses, health security, climate change, clean energy, de-militarization, or delusional empire-building for the sake of "security". He has accomplished nothing on the foreign policy front other than killing Bin Laden. Big whoop. And if the news reports on the "debt ceiling" debacle are accurate, he is selling out Social Security, Medicare, and damn near anything else to get a deal with the devil.

We are all in terrible jeopardy, far more than most of us realize. An election looms and for the first time in my adult life, I'm not sure whether or not I'll sit it out or support a third party at the presidential level while attempting to secure a Democratic Congress ...though I'm no longer convinced that our corporate-owned government can serve anything other than the narrow interests of the global corporate hegemony.

I took my Obama stickers off my car. I'm ashamed to have voted for him. I will not give a dime to his campaign.

Barack Obama. No, he can't.

Passion Redux - RFK, Jr. Rocks!

We know I have a thing about passion. I can't help myself. I have it in abundance ..and am profoundly moved by it in another person. Last night, I spent 2 hours in the presence of a deeply commited and passionate man: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I'm still feeling buoyed by the experience.

This man epitomizes what it means to be an engaged citizen. His intellectual range is enormous -- environmental pollution, voter fraud, children's health, constitutional law, to name a few. He can articulate fact-based positions on each and every one of these, with humor and depth. I was mesmerized as he described entrepreneurial initiatives that could significantly alter the way we use energy. He deftly walked through the true cost of faux "free-market" capitalism as practiced by Republicans since Reagan. He argued cogently for why true partriotism and democracy are dependent on an informed citizenry, and how at-risk we are with a toadying Beltway press. He described the machinations of K Street lobbyists who occupy posts in key government regulatory agencies, where they work tirelessly against the public interest.

It was enough to make me give up on Democracy. Let's be honest: the Democrats embrace the culture of D.C. influence peddlers as much as their Republican cohorts. Liberals like me, count on the influencers having values and an agenda that meshes with mine. Somehow, that seems like a naive mindset to hold, given the peril we find ourselves in today. While it was immensely reassuring to know that people like Bobby are out there working tirelessly on our behalf, we have an individual obligation to hold our elected representatives' feet to the fire. To make them live up to their promises. This is not a time for incremental change -- that will be lethal. Our problems require substantive and transformative change. Whether or not our new President has the cojones to proceed fearlessly and boldly, remains in question. But I know where I stand. And where Bobby stands. And where the grassroots stands that helped elect the current administration. Much like the '60s, when activists brought down a president and ended a war, we will only get the change we need if we mobilize the people, put pressure on Congress and the President, and insist that they work in the public interest.

We cannot rely on the press to keep us well-informed. We must do the work ourselves. Think critically. Dig up the facts. Read relentlessly. Be a patriot. Be inspired.

Then, we will get the country we truly deserve.

Thanks to Kevin McCarrison, from UMKC, for the great photo!

Hope Is In the Air

OK, the stats are out this morning and the economy is contracting like a sponge in Death Valley. Bad, bad stuff. Worst numbers in over 25 years. This is not a sign of hope. And yes, I'm scared to death when I think about the next 3-5 years. So, why a post about "hope" for crying out loud? Have I lost my marbles?

No, I'm thinking about President Obama's joint congressional speech. He was quick to point people to the other side of this calamity -- growing opportunities to change things. I'm big on change, especially radical or transformative changes. Rarely are those kinds of changes considered, let alone attempted, in stable times. The New Deal is a prime example.

Of course, those kinds of big changes can also have substantial negative impact, depending on who's at the helm. Prime examples are the radical policy changes of Reagan and Dubya. They utterly transformed our country -- eroding the Middle Class, nurturing the wealthy, fostering corporate greed, limiting people's access to the American Dream, despoiling the environment, compromising civil rights -- I could go on, but it gets too depressing and enraging. I'm not naive. Change can be a force for evil as well as good.

But there are signs that after this misery is over, transformative, progressive change will come. Here are some:

1- A story in this morning's New York Times describes the public's response to the cadre of Republican governors who are refusing to expand unemployment benefits because it would "hurt business". The stimulus money comes with some strings attached -- and those strings are designed to provide benefits to workers who, for technical reasons, are being denied state benefits. Guess who's pissed off? Might it be workers? People in deep Red states who are seeing just what those Republican governors really value? You know, the ones who fight for the lives of the "unborn" but who are more than happy to screw the living if it protects business interests. C'mon guys. Keep it up. That is the best way I know to turn your state Blue the next time around.

2- Yesterday's news was the release of the President's budget. Word is that the budget will attempt to rapidly dismantle programs reflecting President Reagan's cynical view of government and his me-first, screw-the-commons policy positions. Rachel Maddow listed very effectively last night (don't you just love her??), ways in which the new budget will support efforts to limit climate change, promote reform of health care and education, encourage energy and transportation innovation, place limits on gas and oil companies, bring reduced subsidies to large agribusinesses, and overhaul the tax code to bring more economic balance to society.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

You gotta give the Republicans credit: They consistently put their money where there values are. Well, it's our turn. President Obama is about to insert Democratic values into his budget process. Any and all of his proposed changes will significantly alter American life and policy for the next generation and perhaps beyond. Hey Gipper? You spinning in your grave yet?

3- None of the changes that Liberals want can come unless the ranks of Republicans holding power are thinned (see #1). So public outcry against the Neanderthal economic policies of Republican governors and Congressmen/women is essential. But we also need Democrats to stand up and push for Democratic programs that reflect what President Obama constantly calls "American Values". For most of our history, the call to live up to the better part of ourselves, was both American and Progressive. Those values are what made us Reagan's shining city on the hill ...not the policies he promoted. To that end, a group of activists, Accountability Now PAC, intends on targeting Congressional Democrats who don't support Progressive values with their votes. While this initiative runs the risk of generating counter-productive infighting and compromising the ability of Democrats to pass legislation in the near-term, it's about time that Democratic voters start to hold wishy-washy Democratic incumbents accountable.

As an unabashed Liberal, someone who believes that the foundation of the word "progressive" is progress, I'm hopeful. If we're smart and aggressive, real change might finally come. We are in for very tough times, no question. Many of my fellow citizens, including me and my family, are going to suffer in ways we hadn't anticipated and may not be prepared for. But if out of that suffering comes the change we need to ensure a better future for my grandchildren and children everywhere, then I'm prepared to sacrifice for the long haul.

That's why I will continue to look for hope amidst the rubble of our economy and communities. Our generation's legacy is on the line.

Rational Passion

This weekend, Glen Greenwald wrote a series of posts here on Salon.com that got my attention. I read his columns intermittently but have been a philosophical fan of his since his book How Would a Patriot Act?. That book examined the constitutional assault by key provisions of the Patriot Act and the attempts to marginalize anyone as unpatriotic if they opposed some of the draconian measures enacted under it. Glen is about as liberal/progressive as they come, and is one of the few within my political base who has been willing to lead a public charge against some of Obama’s policies. One of the others in that league is Paul Krugman, a hero of mine.

But on to Glen and some thoughts he triggered in me today. In his post yesterday, Greenwald called the media to account (specifically, David Brooks) over their agenda to preserve the status quo and their special place of influence. A New York Times columnist quickly accused Glen of “shrillness”. In a response to the label, Greenwald wrote:

One is guilty of the sin of "shrillness" if one: (a) argues that there is something fundamentally -- rather than marginally -- wrong with our political and media establishment and/or (b) fails to use suitably restrained, muted and respectful language when expressing those critiques. Thus, one is "shrill" if one says that George Bush committed felonies by spying on Americans without warrants and torturing people and should be treated like any other accused criminal (rather than saying: "Bush might have circumvented some legal constraints and gone a little too far in trying to keep us safe"). One is "shrill" if one says that establishment journalism, at its core and by design, is principally devoted to serving the interests and amplifying the claims of the Washington establishment (rather than saying: "Journalists could do a better job of reporting some stories"), etc. etc.

"Shrillness" – the first cousin of "Unseriousness" – is the conceptual instrument used to deter and (when that fails) demonize those who view the political and media establishment as corrupt at its core. It's a way of
demanding that everyone just calm down, avoid impetuous and inflammatory language, and stop acting as though there's anything seriously wrong with our political and media elites:

Sure, they've made some mistakes; nobody's perfect. But it's not as though there's anything to get excited or angry about. And fine: there are some narrow disagreements among people of good faith and some small problems here and there that require some modifications -- little things like torture, chronic high-level lawbreaking, immunity for the political class (juxtaposed with the sprawling prison industry for ordinary Americans), rampant domestic spying, sky-high walls of government secrecy, full-scale economic meltdown, massive and growing inequities in wealth, endless wars, sleaze and corruption oozing from every Beltway pore, complete media complicity with all of it -- but there's no reason to get all indignant or agitated by it or act as though crimes are being committed or radical changes are needed or anything.

By definition, only people who are "shrill" would do that.

Here’s what hit me when I read this: those are the same tactics that are consistently used against women who take any position against the establishment. Men aren’t shrill unless you are trying to feminize them, which instantly discredits them. For still, in 21st century America, one of the quickest ways to discredit someone is to feminize (in a negative way) their opposition to policies or ideas, as “shrill” and irrational. And isn’t this another way of attacking the passionate, the forces for substantive change?

So it got me thinking, are rationality and passion — which is often intense and insistent — opposite forces? Is more accomplished with cool rationality that doesn’t directly take on the issue, or passionate arguments that make it abundantly clear what is wrong and what should be done about it?

My take? Passion is essential to moving humanity forward. Yes, there can be a dark side to passion (Hitler is a prime example), but to negate passion, to label it as “shrill” and female, ensures that society stays stuck in its dysfunctionality. Passion can be rational when the ideas and positions undergirding it are well thought out and logical. A well-honed argument in support of an ideal that is expressed dispassionately may appeal to the intellectual elite, but it won’t do much to mobilize the masses or bring about transformative change. Martin Luther King, Jr. was passionate in holding America accountable for how it lived its ideal of “equality”. As LBJ was said to have told him, enacting legislation to right the wrongs of racism, required a mass revolt against the status quo. You don’t get that kind of movement from a dispassionate argument at a debate lectern.

I’m frankly tired of the bad wrap that passion gets when it is expressed on the Left (interestingly, I don’t hear that epithet hurled at Rush, or Boehner, or Palin). I’m really pissed that it is disloyal and “shrill” to hold Obama or the Democratic leadership accountable for enacting a progressive agenda. If progressives abandon their passion for accountability to progressive ideals, then we are no better than the cult of personality that surrounded the last president. We must develop rational, progressive, supportable positions and then we need to passionately mobilize large blocks of the American people to speak out, to hold their elected officials’ feet to the fire. If we Liberals abandon passionate, outspoken support for our ideals, we are doomed.

Lusty Capitulation

Nope, it's not a post about kinky sex. You'll see. Be patient. Read on.

You haven't heard from me in a while. You can count that as a blessing or a loss -- you choose. I've been out here digesting political reality, mourning the dream of President Hillary, seething over the Palin pick, grasping the siderails as our disintegrating economic battleship rams into a Perfect Storm. Amidst it all, I've also been practicing at being sixty -- no small feat in more settled times. I might be getting the hang of it. Or at least enough of it to unleash my opinionated self again.

It's been noted that I've gone from being really pissed off at Obama to having two of his signs in my yard and a car that is covered with Obama stickers. Yes, I still get a tear in my eye whenever I see Hillary campaigning on his behalf, but I'm unabashedly committed to BHO. What changed? Simple answer: Nothing and Everything.

First for the 'nothing'. I'm a Democrat down to my DNA. I always said that I would support our nominee, despite my conviction that he was not the best person for the job. Any Democrat -- and I mean ANY -- is a superior choice as compared to even the very best Republican. I cannot, with any conscience, vote Republican. I'm a partisan, through and through. I do not believe the Republican party represents my values nor do I think their value system and policies are good for the country and the world. Period. No exceptions. So it was ordained from the get-go that if Hillary lost, I'd vote for our candidate. I'm not now, and never have been a PUMA (Party Unity My Ass --- the acronym for Hillary supporters who were hell-bent on punishing the party for mistreating Hillary and giving the nomination to Barack). But I seriously doubted that I would/could be enthusiastic for the man himself and there was no way I could imagine donating money. I capitulated -- accepted the party's choice. Fell in line. OK, I also cried during his acceptance speech. I'm a wuss...what can I say?

Much to my surprise, I've given him money. Today I will give him more. I'm enthusiastic. Even rabid. What the hell is that about?

Seasoning. It's about seasoning. Not mine, his. Hillary may have lost the primary season, but she put him through hell on his way to the nom. And thank God for it. I wasn't always sure that she was pursuing the best strategy and I wanted to beat the crap out of Big Dog, but it forced Barack to get his shit together and develop a strategy in the general that could respond to whatever the Right has lobbed at him. She brought up Rezko, Ayers, Rev. Wright. She and her surrogates never let him off the hook. That paid off... for Obama.

The man has earned his place in the polls and in my Democratic heart. For me, everything changed as I watched him over the last few months. He's solid. He picked an outstanding running mate. He's connected to a web of advisors of exceptional talent and experience. He projects a strong, intelligent, steady leadership style. But perhaps what I admire most is his organizing skill. I know ...I dismissed that early on ...but the man knows how to build an organization and lead it. He has a ground game unlike any that has ever existed before ...except when the unions dominated Democratic politics. He has legions of workers in nearly every single state. They are young, and tireless, and they are zealots. They are exceptionally well-informed. They have dreamed up strategies like The Great Schlep, and are winning converts the old-fashioned way -- one at a time. He is competitive in swing states. I'm in awe of the campaign he has run ...he has been more professional, creative, and focused than Hillary. It hurts to say that, but it is true nonetheless.

None of us can anticipate the future and its challenges. We do know -- unless we are delusional -- that very tough times and choices lie ahead. For us as individuals. For the country. For our government. For our president. We need thoughtful leadership. A willingness to see the world clearly and still not be trapped by old mental models. This country could be falling into a death spiral. The old model says that only the pilot can right the plane. The new model says that while the pilot pulls on the stick, the passengers need to haul their ass to the back of the plane, throw unneeded shit out the windows to lighten the load, and lean backward, aiming for the heavens above.

Barack, when you seize the controls on November 4th, I'll be leanin' and throwin'.

Health Care Policy for Dummies

OK, I'm trying to hold my temper, but I'm sitting here watching the Democratic debate, and I want to just smack Barack Obama. He and Hillary are debating health care. The contrast between the two is remarkable. She understands the business and the domain. He simply does not. He has a pollyanna view of health care that is consistent with his lack of experience on the national stage or in the trenches where the really big and powerful play hardball.

Let me cut to the chase: Barack's plan is right of center and far too Republican friendly. He is sacrificing principle and worse, he is violating basic business principles that make coverage work. He believes he's progressive on this issue. He's not. It is obvious he's never had to actually negotiate coverage. You cannot leave anyone out of the pool and make the thing work. It is a fundamental actuarial principle of the business. And whether Cigna or the Feds run it, you have to follow the same coverage principle. You must mandate coverage, just as Hillary and Edwards pushed for.

I have been an executive in an insurance company. I was intimately involved in managing care and helping to rate applicants. Barack says everyone who wants health care will buy it if it is affordable. Bullshit. I have seen many young adults -- working young adults -- refuse coverage because they'd rather spend their money on cars, electronics, entertainment. They do not believe they'll get sick. Wolfe Blitzer is right. Those people get sick and then the rest of us pay for it. Yes, people with little income for insurance...mostly responsible adults with families...can't afford the premiums. Subsidies are the answer, not exempting them from the system.

He also spouts that he will pay for his program by focusing on prevention. To paraphrase him: we'll pay for a dietician so we won't have to pay for a diabetic's foot amputation. Right. Has this man ever talked to someone who actually cares for patients? I do. I'm a nurse practitioner. I work with people who have heart problems and many of the illnesses that go with them, like diabetes. Even if you can get people to get control of their health and lifestyle (and let me tell you, this is a rare feat), this takes an enormous amount of time and MONEY. The payback is not in a premium year. Ever. He is totally nuts and clueless to think he's going to pay for his programs with this as a core strategy. It just won't work. And I think what distresses me the most is that this guy thinks he has answers when he is so clearly misinformed.

Hillary covers her program with new taxes and savings from negotiating pricing and instituting administrative cost savings. That may still not be enough, but it is much more realistic.

You know, I keep saying that I'll support Obama but the truth is, while he's charismatic, he just isn't a heavy hitter in the policy department. Worse, he has top advisors guiding him and they aren't pointing him in the right direction. Why would anyone think that would substantially change if he were elected?

I'm sorry, too much of this story feels like 2000, when the Republicans fell all over themselves lining up behind a guy who was charismatic and seemed like a whole new animal. He was an empty suit. I'm still not sure how full Mr. Obama's suit is either.

Fat and Malnourished

A contradiction? Nope. Increasingly, research on obesity reveals that the quality of our diet is poor, even if the amount we eat is huge. The result? Malnourished fat people. I see it every day in my clinic (and I’m sadly inching into that demographic myself, no pun intended).

When I read this great commentary on the economy today, it struck me that our country increasingly resembles its people: fat and malnourished.

“From 1980 to 2005 the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.) But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during that period. The standard of living for the average family has improved not because incomes have grown, but because women have gone into the workplace in droves.”

So, the economy is ‘fat’ but our people are ‘starving’.

A malnourished country cannot thrive, though it may limp along with the dwindles for a long time. Like a human being, a poorly nourished society will be plagued by chronic conditions for which there are no easy fixes.

As a people, we face: Deteriorating infrastructure; declining wages; joblessness; inaccessible and unaffordable health care; environmental degradation; energy dependence; stressed families; and a tarnished international reputation. Our politicians, who recognize our dis-ease and fear, appeal to our emotions, our child-like desire for ‘hope’ or ‘change’ or ‘security’. They do not challenge us to retool our expectations and communal lifestyle. No one talks about hard work or sacrifice, especially in service of the greater good or future generations, like this country did during WWII. Yes, we need to expand jobs — that is critical, especially in infrastructure, green energy, and related industries — but that isn’t sufficient. Like the obese, we want a solution that asks little of us — let’s just eliminate carbs, get our lapband put in — and then go back to the way things were. I see people every day who lost weight after obesity surgery but 10 years later have gained it back. They didn’t change; they ‘hoped’ that the surgery would do the work for them.

I fear that we are getting the solutions and the politicians we want but not the ones we need. Yes, we need to inspire people to believe they can succeed in changing the country. But changing a country means changing US. The kind of change we need should exact a price from each of us. While I believe we should tax the hell out of the wealthy and corporations who send jobs elsewhere, even the middle class is going to have to sacrifice and change. We are going to have to be willing to live in smaller houses that are healthier, more sustainable — that put less burden on the environment. Drive smaller cars, walk, use public transportation. Learn to live and work in our neighborhood again rather than commute for hours to earn a wage that barely keeps us even with our debt. We can live well with limits if we reframe what living well means: improved well-being and peace-of-mind, close-knit families, jobs that satisfy us, high-quality food eaten with those we love, more time for caring for one another and the community.

This is no time for magical or wishful thinking. We must be clear-eyed and rational. We must ‘think local’ — at the level of ourselves as individuals — as well as globally — setting expectations for business and government. Too often I hear people say that small changes made by individuals are irrelevant, that government must change. How ‘bout both being true? When other people see me carrying my own bags, they comment. I give a little spiel about why it is important. Now some of those people are carrying their own bags and hopefully, giving their own little spiel. Increasingly, we ‘bag ladies’ are asking businesses and institutions to support our efforts by making new rules about bags. And so it goes. But we can’t ask government or corporations to be the only ones accountable for our societal health.

We need to vote for change, meaningful change, and expect to change ourselves as well. It won’t be easy, because we will need to do things most of us have never done before, like finding happiness while making a smaller personal footprint on our earth. Regardless of the outcome of the next election, let’s hope that we can ask our politicians to make some hard choices that will demand hard choices from us too, not just sacrifice from ‘other people’.

Redeemed and Noble

Thrilled? Me? I've been living for this day...so, thrilled is a tame description of my emotional state. The Wingnuts are already out in force, attempting to denigrate the one Hero I have. Will they succeed? Your answer likely depends on how much faith you have in the average American's intelligence.

Not long ago, we undertook an exercise at my workplace. The assignment: name the one person we'd like most to meet and what we'd like to ask him/her. The choices included the usual suspects offered up by a typical crowd of zealous Fundies: Bush, Jesus, an assortment of Biblical icons. I chose Al. I titled it "My Hero" and wrote a short tribute. It was shunned by most, who do not think kindly of Progressives and their longings.

I admire Al more than any other public person. He suffered a horrid public humiliation when the Presidency was ripped from him...and us. And while he took time to tend his wounds, he resurfaced stronger for the experience. In his late 50s, he decided he had work to do, and would damn well do it. He reached into his kishkes to find the one passion that would sustain him: mobilizing others to save this fragile planet. His award today demonstrates what an individual can achieve if they can rise above their darkest hour, their most demoralizing defeat.

What next? A 2008 run? God, I've been fantasizing about this possibility for so long...and today, on the announcement of his prize, I reached the conclusion that it wasn't what I wanted him to do. While we need a President with his gravitas and intellect...national politics, regardless of the nation, is not where guys like Al make their biggest mark. His achievements over the last 6 years would not have been possible if he'd been inside the system. Any system. His strength is his ability to work outside and beyond political agendas. His is a moral and spiritual quest.

Al is a Global asset. I want him to hold everyone else accountable, to forge alliances that go beyond national boundaries, to stimulate innovation and allegiance to a cause bigger than America. His agenda to help save humanity from itself cannot afford to get bogged down in the bullshit of elections.

Don't run Al. We need you far too much to lose you to campaigning. Please. Lead us...all of us...to commit to whatever it takes to leave a healthy planet as your legacy and ours.

A Shout-Out to Generation Q — The Quiet Generation

The Quiet Generation was newly christened by Tom Friedman in this morning’s New York Times. These college-age young adults are quietly rebuilding New Orleans, staffing “Teach for America”, and going abroad to combat AIDS and poverty. They represent the best of American ideals. But they are making a difference far too quietly. As Friedman notes:

“I am impressed because they are so much more optimistic and idealistic than they should be. I am baffled because they are so much less radical and politically engaged than they need to be.”

“… Generation Q may be too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country’s own good. When I think of the huge budget deficit, Social Security deficit and ecological deficit that our generation is leaving this generation, if they are not spitting mad, well, then they’re just not paying attention. And we’ll just keep piling it on them.”

We of the Greediest Generation — Generation G— are desperate for you to funnel your energy and rage against the machine. We fiftysomethings …and up …whose hearts beat progressive tunes…are behind you with money and whatever power we’ve accumulated. But no matter how energetic and well-intended we might be, there is no substitute for the fire and endurance of youth.

Friedman pleads:

“America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That’s what twentysomethings are for — to light a fire under the country. But they can’t e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won’t cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.

Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy didn’t change the world by asking people to join their Facebook crusades or to download their platforms. Activism can only be uploaded, the old-fashioned way — by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall. Virtual politics is just that — virtual.”

Soon, some of us will be retirees and hopefully, refugees from the Greediest Generation, reclaiming what we once stood for — change, responsibility, a rejection of the religion of corporatization and consumerism. Retirees are notorious for their willingness to embrace activism to achieve goals that matter to them ...they have the time and the money to kick some ass and they care a lot less about who they offend. But they still don’t have the physical advantages of youth and the natural organizing environment that a college or university provides.

Maybe Generation G needs to set up recruiting tables at local colleges, natural organizing hubs. We can enlist all those students into a cross-generational militia. A merger of AARP and Facebook could be a formidable community both online and off. I love it! The young and the not-so-young, raising hell together!

Can't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow...

Following the injunction of Fleetwood Mac, I can't stop thinking about tomorrow. At my age, I should finally lighten up and take one day at a time, don't ya think? But yesterday, I read this article on the front page of the New York Times, and who in their right mind can ignore this?

The Arctic ice cap shrank so much this summer that waves briefly lapped along two long-imagined Arctic shipping routes, the Northwest Passage over Canada and the Northern Sea Route over Russia.

Close your eyes for a minute. Imagine waves lapping the shore of the NORTH POLE. Yes, I'm shouting. There are still dipshits out there who insist that it's no big deal, we're getting all 'exercised' over nothing. Like that guy who wrote this book. He's cute and all ...seductive and soothing and ..freakin' dangerous. The siren song of the 'skeptic': Won't it be great to plow ships through water and not ice? I mean, we'll be able to get all our precious trinkets so-o-o-o much faster! And maybe we'll grow tomatoes and corn and cows right outside Santa's workshop. How cool is that?

Seriously, when my heart isn't turning to ice in sympathy for the Arctic, I want to pummel someone. But it's hard to know who to beat. There are so many choices, so little time...and (here I'm gonna sound old) so few mechanisms for effectively ranting and raving. I miss the good old days -- a sure sign that I'm approaching senility. I remember when the University of Wisconsin had mock gravestones on the hill up to the main campus. When people boycotted classes, professors, stormed the streets. Do any of you remember that? What has happened to collective outrage?

Until we can muster up the courage, the time, the rage we had as youths, we're doomed. The only people who take to the streets are immigrants, who are promptly hosed, arrested, and dismissed.

I can't stop thinking about tomorrow though. About the world my children and grandchildren will face. We all have too much to lose to risk the streets and too high a price to pay to sit on our sofas, hoping Jon Stewart will do it for us.

Options? Well, voting isn't enough, as 2006 reminds us every day. It won't be enough in 2008 either. Interest groups send letters on our behalf but are too polite to kick some ass. Aren't young people supposed to do that stuff? Aren't they supposed to be the Idealists who shame the rest of us into action? They seem so passive ...waiting to inherit the future rather than forge it.

I guess we Boomers, who went from angry to self-involved, are going to have to risk our Golden Years. When they told me old age wasn't for sissies, is this what the hell they meant? Am I supposed to start yelling and throwing stuff again?

Yup. Seems so. Grab a rock.