Our working class is dominated by an apparently singular mythos. One that seems to have found it's genesis in heroic literature and in the American west where individual effort resulted in, presumably, heroic consequences. We salute as a body the individual via his efforts. Even Mister Rogers said that we are each special and unique and that we each have a special and unique place in the world, essentially recapitulating the idea that God creates each of us in order to affect some necessary function within the world as we know it. He was by the way an immensely charming man, Mr. Rogers that is, obviously extremely well intended and is well remembered by me and probably all of my peers. Nonetheless this myth is, I think, an antecedent of the deconstruction of the American working class family.
The industrial age at it's inception with its focus on group endeavor made no dent in this powerful myth or communal self description but did add a principle, a sotto voce contractual principle, in which the individual, with uniqueness of function in hand, even if his or her function was only that of a cog for the betterment of society at large, deserved and got substantial support from that society upon retirement.
This addition to our pre-existing working class mythos has no bearing on the way that other, wealthier, classes perceive a working individual or the working class as a whole. And that, in fact, more wealthy classes seem to see this support of the individual worker as a sort of corporate welfare in which their expenses, read wages, are externalized through the exploitation of taxpayer burden, thereby placing the burden of the care of any individual directly on the working class as a body rather than on that individual.
A laudable system actually, one that not only has provided for millions of Americans upon retirement but circuitously, if unintentionally, engaged an interior myth of the working class while solving the problem in a much more rational, less illusioned fashion. It is both elegant and a textbook Klein bottle effect.
But is this not a societal paradigm that begs a question? Does not the assertion that we are each special and unique end in proving that the great mass of the working class is nothing but an exploitable resource?
I spoke to an elderly man in in Berkeley a couple of years ago. We were preparing his house for sale by replacing windows, doors, sheetrock and cabinets. He said that he had to move because it had become too expensive to live there anymore. He said that in the sixties a working guy would sell his home, if he had to move, to another working guy for a price that was fair and that the other guy could afford. He said that in the early seventies the sale of working class homes became an "Investment Opportunity" for working people. He said that this had never happened before and that before that workers stuck together. In addition he suggested that the self exploitation of workers was increasing and very dangerous calling investors in both real estate and the market sheep in wolves clothing that were compromising the only power that the working class have, unity for personal gain and at the same time creating an environment that could no longer support the very people it was created for.I heard him.
Seemingly the last man standing in this socioeconomic spray of imaginary heroics is the one that writes the paycheck for it is he who appears to benefit from the social security system. This may be true but not for the small business owner. Here enters the amazing web of confusing red tape and presumed cost sharing that is the burden of the small business employer. The impenetrable thicket and skyrocketing costs of insurances in combination with a truly amazing body of law is in effect a Lilliputian effort at restraining what could be the only hope of the working class since these employers emerge from the same class as their employees. Essentially strapping the small business owner to debatable civic responsibilities at the expense of the well being of his employees and ultimately himself thereby, perhaps coincidentally, creating a versus relationship therein. As a result of this quagmire of law and insurances the small business owner simply cannot afford to pay his employees what they need to actually support themselves throughout their lives.
The political sphere resonates with domination and power mongering. What was to be a merely organizational effort i.e., government, has blossomed, triumphed. Corporations via the dollar rule with an iron fist the ground they share with citizens. And idealism at best a quaint spark fades and is overshadowed by a realism necessitated by bullies, the creators and maintainers of wealth. Swords are sharpened in wait for the next spending spree; humanism hasn't a shred of hope in the wake of the almighty faceless economic juggernaut that is self interest as expressed by the corporation.
There is a passage in Richard Jefferies' book The Story of my Heart in which he writes "Is there any theory, philosophy, or creed," he says, "is there any system of culture, any formulated method, able to meetand satisfy each separate item of this agitated pool of human life? By which they may be guided, by which they may hope, by which look forward? Not a mere illusion of the craving heart--something real, as real as the solid walls of fact against which, like seaweed, they are dashed; something to give each separate personality sunshine and a flower in its own existence now; something to shape this million-handed labor to an end and outcome that will leave more sunshine and more flowers to those who must succeed? Something real now, and not in the spirit-land; in this hour now, as I stand and the sun burns. . . . Full well aware that all has failed, yet, side by side with the sadness of that knowledge, there lives on in me an unquenchable belief, thought burning like the sun, that there is yet something to be found.... It must be dragged forth by the might of thought from the immense forces of the universe."
Jeffries casts himself as a romantic dreamer whiling away the day while standing before a beauteous terrain lost in thought with his hands in his pockets. But on closer inspection this passage makes a very interesting point and asks an interesting question. What can the working class point itself toward that will aid them in their efforts and keep them trudging foreword in their labors?
I guess the point I was trying to make before I lost my way here was that economically it has been the tack of administrations and the political sphere in general to solve the post industrial working class problem by setting us one against another economically. But that like the old man in Berkeley I believe that unity is the only way out.
During a conversation I had with Taj Mahal several months ago I asked what he thought would become of the working class after the deconstruction of the support systems attendant upon it and the obvious end of the industrial age here in America. His answer was that we as a class should become creative producers in the world arena. He said that creativity could and should be learned and taught in schools. He said that as a body the working class could, utilizing creativity, raise itself from the desperate straits it now faces.
This seemed idealistic to me initially. As I gave it some thought though I realized that I had internalized a presumptive and perhaps arrogant element of our world view that states that creativity and the efforts that it fosters are a realm available to a few.
He may be on to something. I don't know.
I do know that something has to happen though. The burgeoning working class is far too large to fit in the service industries and the service industries cannot pay their employees enough to ever buy a house or send even one kid to college.
Anybody got any ideas?
Assuming Obama wins, the man will have the ability to do a lot of good.
But there's some things that are better fixed bottom-up (grassroots and individual action), rather than top-down (action from government and corporations). For instance, making the transition to sustainability is going to require a lot more than just legislation - we have to get the myth of consumerism-as-fulfillment in check, for instance, and the battleground for this fight is our own lives. We need to fix our own lives before we can help others to fix theirs. Moreover, we need to create further demand for positive, constructive change, by selling our solutions as win-win: we lead happier, more fulfilling lives AND we help improve the world. Progressive thinker Adam Werbach came up with this idea, and I think he's absolutely right.
In this election, we have built the networks needed to accomplish these goals. If after the election any significant fraction of My.BarackObama were to start working on the issues which are best solved from the bottom up - living our own lives as the basis of positive change - then we would quickly see that Yes We Can indeed.
So, while it's true that Yes, Barack Obama Can do a lot, there are other things which we must do ourselves. Thoughts for things to do? I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I'll post some of my tentative bottom-up solutions soon.
Here's an interesting perspecticve:
"Instead, what shapes the consciousness of Americans are two psychodynamic issues: the level of their fear vs. the level of their hope, and the degree to which they feel recognized and respected by those who are seeking their vote. One of the terrible problems with the people who have pushed Obama to present himself as more "centrist" is that they don't understand how their role in pushing the candidate away from his own deepest truths has undermined his campaign and made him appear less authentic and hence less trust-worthy. So lets explore these issues."
When was the last time voters were asked to play a part beyond an election? Are we prepared to answer Barack's call?
When you go to Barack Obama’s website you are met with this quote, “I’m Asking You to Believe...Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I’m asking you to believe in yours.”
How many people that are chanting “Yes We Can!” do you think have really thought about what this quote means? Maybe, you should pause for a moment and think about what it means to you.
If change is what you are after, getting Barack Obama in the White House is only part of the equation.
Change is defined (according to dictionary.com) as, “to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one's name; to change one's opinion; to change the course of history.”
If “change” to you is about seeing a black man in the white house, then you are only perceiving a small portion of change should Barack Obama win the Presidency.
If “change” to you is about seeing the gas prices decrease, then you are only perceiving a small portion of change should Barack Obama win the Presidency.
If “change” to you is about keeping us safe from terrorists, then you are only perceiving a small portion of change should Barack Obama win the Presidency.
If “change” to you is about every American having healthcare, then you are only perceiving a small portion of change should Barack Obama win the Presidency.
“In a time of drastic change it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists.” –Eric Hoffer
If you believe that the issues you are facing in your personal life are solely the fault of our government then your perception of both, this election and your world, is one dimensional and while chanting “Yes We Can” today to get Barack Obama elected, you will, likely, be the very one blaming him later if you don’t perceive, receive and willingly begin to perform your part of the “We” in the chant.
So, while, statistics are proving that Barack Obama is the leadership that many United States of America citizens believe our country needs right now, the balance to “Yes We Can” is that all of us – white, black, yellow, brown or green with purple polka-dots – must be willing to do the mental and emotional work to bring about real change, first individually which will position us to develop collectively.
This quote is a plea to the willing, “I’m Asking You to Believe...Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I’m asking you to believe in yours;” a plea to those who are willing to believe in his ability to lead for changes that are going to be for the good of all while in the Washington White House, but more importantly in each American’s belief in their own ability to bring about change in themselves to create collective changes in our worlds from the bottom up: individual, immediate family, extended family, community, city, and state.
We can not undo what is done - not in the world, our country, or our individual lives. Change has to begin with you, and in your own life...with the choices you make. Your personal choices are solely about you, but rarely do the decisions you make only affect you.
Barack’s plea is valid to every American. Believing in your own ability is refreshing and revives individual possibilities in the face of challenging times, and challenging times are always easier when you have a mentor who can inspire and lead you where you want to go.
We must, all, be willing to acknowledge where we are – our personal beliefs and whether they are for the greater good; be willing to learn more, and make better decisions that will, ultimately, produce the collective changes we need to raise our country up.
Can “WE?”
A balanced government is a balance between wisdom and freedom, a balance between the individual and the collective. Supported by balanced systems and information, this is a government that supports the body as a whole and each of its cells and organs.
A balanced individual is also a balance between wisdom and freedom, a balance between the left brain and the right brain. A balance between the feminine and the masculine, this is a whole individual.
A balanced policy is one of integrated all encompassing perspective void of fiction.
Balanced legislation is one of integrated all encompassing perspective void of fiction.
When the citizens achieve balance within themselves they will manifest a balanced government.
There is no balance to be found between truth and fiction.
There is no balance to be found between reality and illusion.
I have been reading really inspirational and enlighted writings that suggest a quantum leap is made when the current quantum level is filled. It, I think, can be expanded to include the behavioral evolution of man.
Man has been evolving behavioral since his beginning- however you feel that began. We have been gaining knowledge and understanding at a phenomenal rate. Our behavior has been changing and evolving right alongside. It is as if we were preschoolers as far as knowledge and now have moved into maybe middle school. Our increase in knowledge has come from our curiosty and the development of technology to open new levels of understanding.
Our behavioral evolution though has come from both the increase in understanding of the roots of behavior whether genetic or learned and unexpected quantum leaps. These leaps have come from a man or woman with inspiration coupled with an open mind that leaves custom and habits and seeks new worlds of beahvior. Examples of some would be Buddha, the Biblical prophets, Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, and the list goes on. They forged the path of a different way of behaving, of interacting with each other, or of seeing or visualizing God in whatever way they saw Him.
Our behavior is at the limit though now of its viability to the survival of humans. It is that we need to make another quantum leap. Surprisingly it is that we need to go backwards. We need to jump back to the nomadic cultures when man existed in a balance with his environment. We then need to leap way ahead and couple that with society today. It is the only way man will survive.
In more nomadic cultures, every individual was important. Each had a role. Each had talents and gifts that added in some way to the survival of the group. There were really no possessions but that which could be hauled with the group. That which was valued then and developed was the individual. Money or the conglomeration of 'stuff' was not even yet envisioned. No more was taken from the environmentn then was given. Man was in balance with his environment. He thrived and lived as a part of it.
When nomadic groups became stationary, it was then that the roots of possessions became to emerge and the value of the individual became slowly over hundreds of years less than the value of the currency of exchange that now measured the importance or success of an individual. Man now started to want more than he needed. His desire to gain more created cultures based on the attainment of goods, and man began to take much more from the earth than he returned.
It was not all bad. Actually the development of stationary populations opened the doors for the time to learn and seek new understanding. There was also more time to interact with each other and the accumulation of knowledge burst forward along with technology and material goods. In democratic societies free enterprise led to the pursuit of new technology to earn more money and to accumulate more goods.
However, the end result has been environmental disaster, overpopulation, and the divisions of populations into the poor, not so poor and rich. The individual has been forgotten. It is the money that propels everything. It is the greed to have more that has even initiated the destruction of morality. Thousands of individuals are totally lost. They are locked into poverty, violence or disease at birth. Thousands of people starve daily. Thousands die from lack of health care, Thousands are killed by people wanting more power so they can have more stuff. The value of a man is now how much money he has. And it is the desire to have more money that has left the environment behind. He cares not for it, but how much money he can get.
I know this sounds impossible, but the only way man can survive is if he turns everything backwards and starts to value not 'money' but individuals. In fact probably the only way we can do that is if we do away with 'money' all together. We have to make a quantum leap of gigantic proportions. But how?
I think that after following and reading Obama's speeches and views that he is one of the individuals that will be part of the next Quantum leap. At least he has a great opportunity to do that. Many of his plans are plans that actually start to value the individual and in the end the country. Maybe the leap can be in baby steps like this. However, with the state the world is in we do not have that much time. I think we will need big steps and soon.
What if we did away with 'money'? What if each individual was valued and nutured from childhood in schools and communities that developed his/her strengths and strengthened weaknesses? What if the talent and gifts of each were found and honored? What if the value of a child in high school was not what clothes he wore, car he drove, money his father/mother made but who he was? What if everything was free.? What if what was nurtured and honored were the talents of each and each became the full sum of their potential?
What would happen is that a society would emerge at a new level of behavioral evolution. We would no longer exploit the earth in our pursuit of more money. We could temper technology with wisdom. No one would pollute to 'make more money', no one would kill to get 'more money' no child would be bullied because each was so valued and nurtured by all around that instead they grew and became all their genes destined them to be. Prisons would soon become fewer and less populated because what was valued was the person. There would be no motivation for crime, no drug lords, no billionaires, improved technology would be welcomed not blocked because of 'money' made by another technology. Colleges would be open and free. It would be the value of the knowledge that individual gained and gave to his community that would be valued not whether he could afford to even go. Health care would be free because it would be of the utmost importance of society to foster and nurture the health of all its individuals because of the beauty and contribution each gave. There would be no need for wars.
I know this is simplistic. I know that it would involve much more. I know that many lock out knowledge because of religion. I know that much violence comes from the different religions that hate others. I know that there may be behaviors that are genetic that are truly destructive and hurtful to others. So money is not the only reason we are destroying ourselves. Obviously there are even more roots too such as religious beliefs and prejudices. However, some of these behaviors are learned. They are not genetic. We learn religion, culture and prejudice. We are not born that way which to me indicates that these learned behaviors must also meet the end of a quantum and leap to new levels of understanding. We do not innately 'hate' a person of another religion or race. And in a society and world that values deeply each person there would never be a need to learn destructive behaviors.
I think that Obama has the open mind, the diverse background, the vitality of understanding and the ability to inspire others to start the quantum leap. How we could do this truly I do not know. Any ideas?
The MySpace Age is indicative of the dramatic change in the world we have known, primarily in the way we now relate to one another. This age is characterised by the following: individual expression, technology, communication and connections.
1. The MySpace age is the age of the individual. An age where individual expression is paramount compared to the old age of collective information, suppressed information, information censored by authority and being denied access to it. Emphasis is now on personal profiles, extending one's reach globally to others, instead of just to our extended families, and sharing in a cultural enrichment of artistic, social and literary expressiveness. The blog is now king which gives everyone a voice. People have always wanted to be heard and now there is an instant personal comment and expression on every world event. The ubiquitous blog gauges world opinion through individual utterances, while giving the blogger authority, presence and significance.
Michelle Obama attended an afternoon social on Friday in Sioux City. With forecasts of scattered showers everyone was a little apprehensive about the weather, but it turned out to be a beautiful afternoon to appreciate Chris J. and his wife Beth’s beautiful garden.
For any given event, you need someone to introduce the featured speaker. We asked a woman named Stacy to make the introduction here in Sioux City. When we asked Stacy if she would do the introduction she asked: “Why me?”
I thought 'why not?' and soon realized that this interaction represented so much of what this campaign is all about. Often campaigns push a “bulk” campaign style where they attempt to hit the largest amount of people with the smallest effort and don't necessarily look to bring everyone together.
The Obama campaign is different in so many ways. Everything, from the online My.Policy site to senior coffee hours in the office, encourages a personal interaction with voters across Iowa and the nation, and ensures that all voices are heard and engaged and have an opportunity to speak – not just to the campaign but to each other.
As Michelle said numerous times at the event, this is a campaign of “Hope.” We truly are trying to effect change in a new way. While some may call this style of campaigning naïve, we call it a new way of doing things. This is a breed of politics where each and every person can make a difference and affect the direction of the campaign.
The message truly resonated with everyone at the event. After Michelle spoke, one attendee, Pat H. (see her in the picture below), said she was really excited about the potential for the campaign. “Michelle hit the right tone…she spoke from the heart. The idea of hope and reaching out really appeals to me because [this] is different than your usual campaign.”
It all comes back to Stacy's question. She wasn't asked to introduce Michelle because she is a huge donor or because she was an elected official; she was asked because she's also a part of this campaign. It's going to take all of us being hopeful about the future – instead of accepting the present – to really effect change.
Want to learn more or be a part of it? Click here to see a list of our local field offices.
Published in WSJ, Tuesday, April 17, 2007
AARP to Offer Health Coverage To Wider Group
By VANESSA FUHRMANSApril 17, 2007; Page D2
The powerful senior lobby AARP announced an ambitious expansion in the health-care products it markets to older Americans, targeting in particular the roughly 7 million who are still under the age of 65 and have no coverage.
As part of the expansion, the 38 million-member organization renewed and expanded a longstanding contract with UnitedHealth Group Inc. to continue to sell AARP-branded indemnity health plans, Medicare supplement policies and drug benefit plans. It will also market private, comprehensive Medicare plans, known as Medicare Advantage, under the AARP name. The group also struck a new partnership with Aetna Inc. to design, underwrite and administer a range of health plans for the under-65 set.
AARP says its move is an effort to improve the health and to bring more affordable and stable health care coverage to a population that increasingly finds it out of reach. Unless they're covered by an employer, many Americans between the ages of 50 and 64 find individual insurance either too expensive or simply unavailable from health insurers eager to avoid customers in declining health.
The deals also illustrate how providing health care for older Americans has become a big business, even as AARP tries to remain a consumer health advocate for its members.
The deals are a coup for both insurers, though Medicare still represents the much larger share of the business. UnitedHealth's existing partnership with AARP has already helped make it the largest seller of Medicare products, and generates roughly $5 billion in annual revenue just from selling Medicare supplement plans. For the first time, though, the insurers' income will also be tied to whether they improve the health care of plan members, provide easy-to-read policy materials and reach certain benchmarks in corporate governance, responsibility and diversity, AARP said.
AARP executives say the deals will help them reach their target of providing health insurance products to roughly 14 million people by 2014, up from 7 million today. Through its new and expanded partnerships with Aetna and UnitedHealth, AARP expects to generate some $4.4 billion in health care-related royalties over the next seven years, $1.5 billion more than its previous projections. AARP's CEO, Bill Novelli, said much of the money would be ploughed back into other health care access and affordability initiatives.
AARP's scale would help keep a lid on the new plans' costs, executives said.
Although Aetna would still underwrite, or price premiums individually based on a customer's health and demographics, it would be required to take a more flexible approach than many commercial insurers currently do. Members who bought the plans also would have access to disease management programs and other tools designed to monitor and improve chronic conditions such as diabetes—and which are typically only available through an employer group plan.
Likewise in the Medicare realm, UnitedHealth will be required to commit to providing AARP-branded Medicare Advantage plans in a given market for at least two years. Federal law requires insurers to stick to providing the plans a minimum one year.
AARP said the plans would become available at the beginning of 2008.
