#212 / The Darwin Awards

The recent and tragic deaths of those three young tourists who decided to wade into a raging and icy river, right above Vernal Fall, in Yosemite National Park, paying no attention to the signs and the barriers that warned of the danger, might qualify for one of this year's Darwin Awards.

The Darwin Awards website commemorates those "who give natural selection a hand by removing themselves from the gene pool..." There are some "funny" stories about human stupidity (like trying to steal copper wire by cutting through high tension lines which are active), but the list really seems more tragic than comic, taken as a whole. The "fun" involved (fun for we survivors, whose stupidities didn't happen to lead to an early death) reeks of schadenfreude, that weird German word that means "to take pleasure from the misfortunes of others."

Unless we do something about it fast, the human race in its entirety will soon be eligible for the ironically-named "Lifetime Achievement Darwin Award" and there won't be many, if any, around to be entertained when that award is announced. "We" are not just individuals, and "our" survival demands that our civilization survive, not just a bunch of individual persons. No tortoise lives without its shell, and we, as humans, are sheltered within our civilization, a world that we have made, and this is the world that our disregard of the world of Nature is putting in peril. We will either live or die together.

Collectively, we do not seem to be paying much attention to the limiting barriers and the warning signs. We, too, and all of us, can be swept over the Falls.

#211 / What Gandhi Said

Mohandas Gandhi said a lot of things (I really recommend his autobiography, The Story Of My Experiments With Truth, for those who would like to know more).

Besides saying, "where there is love, there is life" (and I am assuming that the tee-shirt company that published the image I've used is correct that he actually did say that), Gandhi made this comment about the limits of Nature:

There is enough on Earth for everybody's need, but not enough for everybody's greed.

Since our human desires are truly without limit, we need to put the rights of Nature first.

#210 / Insanity And The Green Economy

This is from Pablo Solon Romero, Bolivia's Ambassador to the United Nations, in a statement reprinted in The Rights Of Nature:

Albert Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." Sadly, this is true of the "green economy": it applies the logic of the market to Nature in the hope that the law of supply and demand will somehow put humanity on a path that is different from our current one of rupture with Nature. We are trying to fix a problem by doing the same things that got us into the problem in the first place.

This sort of reminds me of the first rule of holes...

#209 / A New Law Of Nature

Here is the actual text of the provision in the Ecuador Constitution that establishes the Rights of Nature, plus a brief discussion of what this language might mean, in a legal sense:

"Natural communities and ecosystems possess the unalienable right to exist, flourish and evolve within Ecuador. Those rights shall be self-executing, and it shall be the duty and right of all Ecuadorian governments, communities, and individuals to enforce those rights."

Thomas Linzey, a US lawyer who has helped to develop the new legal framework for nature, says: "The dominant form of environmental protection in industrialised countries is based on the regulatory system. Governments permit and legalise the discharge of certain amounts of toxics into the environment. As a form of environmental protection, it's not working.

"In the same way, compensation is measured in terms of that injury to a person or people. Under the new system, it will be measured according to damage to the ecosystem. The new system is, in essence, an attempt to codify sustainable development. The new laws would grant people the right to sue on behalf of an ecosystem, even if not actually injured themselves."

Until now, all legal frameworks have been anthropocentric, or people-based. To file an environmental lawsuit requires a person to provide evidence of personal injury. This can be extremely difficult. To provide a conclusive link, say, between a cancer and polluted drinking water is, legally speaking, virtually impossible.

The origins of this apparent legal tidal shift lie in Ecuador's growing disillusionment with foreign multinationals. The country, which contains every South American ecosystem within its borders, which include the Galapagos Islands, has had disastrous collisions with multi-national companies. Many, from banana companies to natural gas extractors, have exploited its natural resources and left little but pollution and poverty in their wake.

Clare Kendall
The Guardian, Wednesday 24 September 2008

#208 / Stop Playing Deaf

Eduardo Galeano (pictured), one of my favorite writers and thinkers, had this to say in The Rights of Nature, a little book I am (perhaps not so subtly) trying to persuade you to read:

The world is painting still lifes, forests are dying, the poles are melting, the air is becoming unbreathable, and the water undrinkable, flowers and food are becoming increasingly plastic, and the sky and Earth are going absolutely insane.

At the same time, a country in Latin America, Ecuador, is debating a new constitution that opens up the possibility for the first time ever of recognizing the Rights of Nature.

Nature has a lot to say, and it has long been time for us, her children, to stop playing deaf. Maybe even God will hear the cry rising from this Andean country and add an 11th amendment, which he left out when he handed down instructions from Mount Sinai: "Love Nature, which you are a part of."

#207 / What The Dalai Lama Said

Shekhar Kapur, an Indian film producer, tells this story about the Dali Lama, quoted in The Rights of Nature:

I visited the Dalai Lama to ask him if he would describe in one sentence the fundamentals of Buddhism. After a moment of amusement at my ignorance and arrogance (they are the same thing, are they not?), he said calmly, "All things connected, formlessly and eternally, as in Nature."

We are utterly dependent on the world of Nature that sustains all life, and we make a profound mistake in thinking that the world we create is not connected to Nature by this dependence. Yet, we behave as if we can act alone.

#206 / Good Ancestors

Rosalie Little Thunder is a respected leader of the Lakota people.

She is quoted as follows in The Rights of Nature:

What our elders always asked of us was to be good ancestors.

Is this not what the children of our children's children are asking of us?

#205 / Revolution #3

I consider Hannah Arendt (pictured) to have been the greatest political thinker of the 20th Century. I particularly recommend her book On Revolution.

Arendt joins with the Beatles in dissociating "revolution" from an inevitable need to employ "violence" in pursuit of fundamental political change. This gives us some hope. There are many (count me in) who believe that a genuine "revolution" in the conditions of our existence must be a primary objective for those of us alive now. If that kind of fundamental political change would in fact require recourse to the incredible reservoirs of violence with which modern governments are now possessed (the United States government above all), pursuing a revolutionary ambition would be stymied, in every practical sense.

Revolution, according to Arendt, means "beginning again," and telling "an entirely new story, a story never known or told before." Violence isn't part of the definition.

Reflecting on the reality of how revolutions occur, Arendt notes that "revolutions always occur where government is incapable of commanding authority and the respect that goes with it." This sounds quite a bit like current poll results, to me.

Arendt notes, however, that "even where the loss of authority is quite manifest, revolutions can break out and succeed only if there exists a sufficient number of men [and women] who are prepared for its collapse and, at the same time, willing to assume power, eager to organize and to act together for a common purpose. The number of such men [and women] need not be great; ten ... acting together, as Mirabeau once said, can make a hundred thousand tremble apart from each other."

Now, that seems hopeful to me. Even I can count to ten.

#204 / In God We Trust

There is a question whether the provisions in our Constitution that require a "separation between Church and State" might not really require a redesign of our money.

My own current preoccupation is not with this question, but with the hot topic in the news: will the United States government default on its obligation to pay its debts? There seems an odds on chance that the answer is "yes."

In fact, we do not trust "God" where government is concerned. We rely on and trust (or hope we can trust) the honesty, integrity, and good judgment of those we elect to represent us. A government that repudiates its obligation to pay its debts (yes, I charged it on my credit card, but I am not going to pay the bill) has forfeited its authority and legitimacy.

What's the remedy when our elected officials do that?

#203 / GMOs

There are practical and prudential reasons not to like the fact that the food we eat may now be "genetically modified," or GM food.

GMO means "genetically modified organism." There are lots of them out there. In fact, the laws of the United States now allow corporations (let's hear it for Monsanto) to patent new forms of life.

Let me make a philosophical point. Human beings have historically understood themselves as "creatures," who come into the preexisting world of Nature and then live within it. My main point, in this Two Worlds blog, is to note that we don't, actually, inhabit the world of Nature directly, but that we live most immediately in a world that we ourselves create.

In our world "anything is possible," because we make the rules. In the world of Nature, the contrary is the case. We ignore the rules of Nature at our peril.

Many of our problems seem to come from the fact that we get the two worlds confused. We think that the kind of "political" changes that we could easily make are somehow "impossible," while we act like we don't have to pay attention to the inevitable results of tampering with Nature.

GMOs are a great example of our thought that we can tamper with the laws of Nature and get away with it. The "better living through chemistry" revolution, long associated with the DuPont chemical company, turned out to have lots of downsides. It turns out we didn't know what we were doing. How much more risky it is to create new forms of life. Yet, that is what we are doing, and we act like it's "progress."

#202 / The Politics Of Happiness

As I make my daily entries into this blog, I am frequently amazed that we have (collectively) thought about almost everything already. I almost always find illustrations for my entries by typing my title into an image search engine, and then seeing the pictures that appear. Relevant pictures always do, and rather often I find that the phrase I have chosen as a title for my blog entry is already the title of a full-fledged book. If that isn't true, I've often found that my title has existence as a tee-shirt slogan.

The Economics of Happiness, mentioned yesterday, is a book I discovered by the method I have just described. Same thing for today's book, The Politics of Happiness.

From reading the review, it appears to me that Derek Bok's book, as pictured here, is making the case that "public policy in the U.S. has been so dominated by the drive for economic growth that we have neglected to explore and enact policies that could promote the well-being and happiness of Americans." In other words, the "economics" of happiness and the "politics" of happiness, as these two books see them, are likely to be related. This is, of course, not surprising.

My actual thought, however, when I decided to say something about the "politics of happiness," and picked that title, was not to go where Derek Bok's book wishes to take us. That's a fine destination, and worth a visit I am sure, but I would like to suggest that we consult Hannah Arendt, instead.

Arendt was, in my opinion, the greatest political philosopher of the twentieth century, and I can't think of a book she wrote that I haven't found both illuminating and inspiring. My favorite of all of Arendt's books is On Revolution, published in 1963. Chapter Three is entitled, "The Pursuit of Happiness." This is the phrase, we all remember, that is a key part of the "defining phrase" of our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [persons] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness [and] that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted ...

As Arendt notes, the use of the word "happiness" as part of the third term in this equation (which seems patterned on but is really quite different from another, similar equation: "life, liberty, and property") must mean something. It must mean, in fact, that the "pursuit of happiness" is politically significant. There must be something important about "happiness," and its pursuit, in the political context of the revolution that led to the establishment of our current system of government.

Parenthetically, it is worth noting, as I have noted before, that the Declaration of Independence says that the whole reason that "governments are instituted" is to "secure" the enumerated rights. Government is not, in other words, to be seen as "the problem" with respect to the security of our rights. To the contrary, in our history, government is "the solution."

End of parenthesis.

The key question here is why on earth would the Founding Fathers have thought that the "pursuit of happiness" was an inherent and unalienable "right," somehow equivalent to the right to life, and the right to liberty? Something really is going on here, because we don't conventionally think of "happiness" and its pursuit as being as important as our right to life itself. Yet that does seem to be what the Declaration of Independence is saying, and it is upon this Declaration that we have based our entire national existence.

Arendt's book suggests that we take the words seriously. And here is what she says about them:

The very fact that the word "happiness" was chosen in laying claim to a share in public power indicates strongly that there existed in the country, prior to the revolution, such a thing as "public happiness," and that men knew that they could not be altogether "happy" if their happiness was located and enjoyed only in private life.

What this says, amazingly enough, is that those whose actions brought the United States into being understood that "politics" equates to "happiness," and that we can never be truly happy if we pursue our lives as if were were mere individuals. We fulfill ourselves, together, as we create the political world in which we most immediately reside.

#201 / The Economics Of Happiness

As you can see, there is a book titled The Economics of Happiness. Click the link to order it. There is also a movie with that very same title.

Mark Anielski, who wrote the book, says that his goal (or at least one of them) "is to introduce the concept of Genuine Wealth: a new and compelling model for managing our personal, household, business and community well-being in accordance with the values that define our quality of life.

"Genuine Wealth is a practical system which measures and manages for sustainability the total capital assets of a community or organization. Synthesizing emerging concepts like natural capital and social capital, Genuine Wealth creates a more comprehensive accounting system where human, social, natural, built and financial capital are all integrated into the balance sheet. This vision of a living, sustainable economy is founded on the mutually reinforcing and integrated principles of efficiency, equity and reciprocity and was inspired by the cooperative economy of Emilia Romagna, a flourishing and vibrant region of Italy."

The movie, featuring a cast of wise persons from six continents, suggests that an economy that is "local," above all, has the best chance "to repair our fractured world - our ecosystems, our societies and ourselves."

I haven't read the book. I haven't seen the movie. I do agree, though, that "genuine wealth" is not the same thing as making lots of money, and that "going local" is likely to be far better for the world, and better for us, than mobilizing the economic power of commerce on a global basis.

It could be (again, I haven't read the book or seen the movie), that the insights contained in the book and movie could be expressed like this:

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? - Matthew 16:26, King James Bible

#200 / Paying For What We Get

I am absolutely in favor of paying for what I get, individually. I am also in favor of paying for what we get, collectively. In other words, I don't think that taxes are "theft," and I think that the United States government is absolutely obliged to pay back the money it has borrowed in our name. I well understand that this means that we are going to have to tax ourselves to make certain that our government both can and will do that.

Most people, I believe, would not claim that they should receive goods and services without paying for them. Most would also agree that they should pay back any money they might have borrowed. However, people who would see this as natural in the individual context may not see that the same rules apply at a collective level. Why should I have to pay for what someone else gets?

Our willingness to accept taxation as legitimate (and in fact to accept the legitimacy of government itself) is directly related to how we see ourselves. Are we individuals only, or are we part of a greater whole?

#199 / You Get What You Pay For

This expression, "you get what you pay for," is usually seen as an argument that "quality" is important. If you want quality, you have to pay for quality. That's the idea.

Given the current debates in the United States Congress about taxation, my question is: "do you need to pay for what you get?"

Apparently, a lot of elected officials think you don't!

#198 / Taxation

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who served on the United States Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932, said that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization."

It is now popular to think (or at least to say) that "taxation is theft." Statements along these lines are being made in connection with the current debate on raising the debt limit.

Just to be clear, the nation's need to raise the debt limit has been precipitated by the fact that our elected officials in the federal government have been spending a lot of money for services and things that are supposed to be benefiting us, or that we are at least unwilling to forgo, and since those elected officials don't want to tax the supposed beneficiaries of their spending largess, they borrow the money.

In that situation, to be strictly accurate, and particularly if we default on the debts owed, it isn't "taxation" that is theft, it's the expenditures. When I hire someone to install a new sink, or if or get a manicure, and if I pay for these things and services with my credit card, it is supposed that I will ultimately pay off the debt so incurred. If I don't pay, I've actually stolen either the services or the money loaned to me by my credit card company.

But, hey, if the whole nation does it, it's OK, right?

Theft is not paying your bills. At least, that's the way I look at it.

#197 / Harry Truman Socialism

I don't think that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was good. But I do like Harry Truman. He was the 33rd President of the United States, and he had guts. One manifestation of his willingness to use the power of the people was evident in the 1952 steel strike.

When he was faced with that 1952 crisis in our economy (and its threat to the nation's ability to continue its war in Korea - another problematic military adventure in our nation's long history of such military interventions), Truman didn't just wring his hands. The 1952 steel strike was precipitated by a "labor" walkout, but Harry Truman believed that the real culprits were the capitalist owners of U.S. Steel, and other steelmakers. They just weren't willing to treat their workers fairly, because they didn't like various national policies that affected their business. It was, in a way, a kind of "capitalist strike" of a different flavor. By refusing to meet the reasonable demands of their workers, the steel companies were willing to put the entire economy (and the nation's war effort) in jeopardy. That was just what the owners "had to do," to get what they wanted. And getting what they wanted was more important than anything else! If you have the money, you should be in charge, right?

So what did Harry do? He nationalized the steel industry. You could call it Harry Truman socialism.

The Supreme Court is ever vigilant to protect the rights of the corporations (then as now). The Court said that Truman couldn't do it. But he had already done it, and when it all got "undone," the companies did what they should have done in the first place, and settled the strike their workers waged.

My thought is that we may need a little bit of that Harry Truman approach today, Mr. President!

#196 / Capital Strike

There are those who believe (I am not one of them) that the "capitalist" class, the owners of the wealth of this country and the world, are being treated shabbily by the United States government. People with this view (and they seem to have quite a following in the Congress) think it's just fine for capital to "strike."

Hey, if you don't think we're important (and that you ought to do what we want) then we just won't invest any more money in your economy, and we'll show you! That's basically the idea of a "capital strike."

To me, this sounds very much like what's going on in this country today. We have bailed out the bankers (no banker left behind) but the money managers of America are still not satisfied. We are experiencing, economically, what could appropriately be called a "capital strike," or (to continue the labor analogy) a capital "sitdown" or "slowdown."

It appears that the owning class in America is willing to let the whole country go to hell, economically, because they want to be in charge, and because they want a different President. Some of us think the "capitalists" are pretty much already in charge, and that our current President is all too accommodating. I guess we are wrong. As this posting goes public, the "capitalists" of our country (and their supporters in the Congress) appear to be ready to repudiate this nation's obligation to pay its debts. They'll go down with the ship, too, but at least we will know who is really important!

#195 / Oil Is Bad For Us

We spent the last century basing our world on oil because oil seemed to have so many advantages.

Of course, there were problems, too. Mistakes were sometimes made, and oil related pollution is one of our greatest and most enduring environmental problems. Still, we tend to exclude "mistakes" from our analysis when we evaluate past, present, and future projects. We judge our projects based on the assumption that everything will go right.

But everything doesn't go right.

The problem with oil, however, isn't our mistakes. We have now found that the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels is putting the future of our world in peril. Global warming isn't just "inconvenient." It's life threatening.

Even if there are no mistakes, oil is bad for us.

If we try to have another "Oil Century," in the next hundred years, we are probably not going to be around to see the end of it. Hard as it is to contemplate going to a "no oil" world, that's just where we need to go. It took us a hundred years to get so deep. It may take nearly that long to dig ourselves out.

And just remember that "first rule of holes."

If you are in a hole, and want to get out, the first rule is to "stop digging."

#194 / The Oil Century

There is a pretty good argument that the 20th Century was dominated by oil. NPR did a show, in fact, called "A Salute To The Oil Century." Frankly, that sounds a little too "positive" to me. I don't feel much like saluting.

How about a show titled, "Do Oil Companies Rule The World?" Or, do we already know the answer to that?

Click the link for a review of the "Oil Century" that can send shivers up your spine.

I am interested in finding ways that we can make fundamental changes to the "political" world for which we are responsible. That world really is a world that has been created, over the last hundred years, of, by, and for the oil companies. And they are still in charge!

Daunting as it might be to get a bead on the vast powers of the oil industry, and their influence over the politics that determines our most immediate reality, I think it's good to know what we are up against!

#193 / An Airplane Trip

The Picture 

This image is of a painting by John Henry Fuseli (1741-1825), The Nightmare. Fear sits upon us, riding us astride, as we seek to escape by a retreat into sleep.

My Story

When I was still a member of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (a rather long time ago, now), I went to Nicaragua with a delegation of local government officials, and with others associated with government at both the state and local level. This was during the time of the Contra war, in which the United States government was providing military and financial support to the so-called "Contras," who were waging war on the established government of Nicaragua. In response to this real, though never fully acknowledged attack by the United States, the government of Nicaragua was taking steps to get "opinion leaders" from the United States to come to Nicaragua, to see firsthand what conditions were like.

Lots of people from Santa Cruz went to Nicaragua. John Laird, then a member of the Santa Cruz City Council, had already been to Nicaragua when I signed up for my trip. Before I left, I asked him for any pointers he might be able to give me. All the more so since I didn't speak Spanish at that time.

John had an interesting story to tell, which I took quite seriously. Apparently, on the flight from Mexico City to Managua, on the Nicaraguan airline Aeronica, the airplane appeared to get "lost" somewhere during the flight. John noticed that the airplane was circling, and became concerned; his concerns were amplified when the pilot came into the main cabin with a set of maps, and consulted someone seated towards the back of the aircraft. After that consultation, the airplane stopped circling, the plane arrived in Managua safely, and John returned home to tell me the tale. Based on his story, happy ending though it had, I did take seriously the problematic nature of any flight on an Aeronica airplane, and I paid close attention on my own flight to Managua.

On my trip, there was no problem in getting from Mexico City to Nicaragua. I was still thinking of the issue that John had raised, though, when our plane took off for the return flight.

The take off seemed normal enough, but I soon noticed that our flight path seemed to be different from the incoming route. (I definitely had been paying attention on the way in, thanks to John's story). Furthermore, we weren't gaining altitude, and we did seem to be circling. Since I didn't speak any Spanish, I went up and down the aisles to those in my group whom I knew did speak Spanish, pointing out that the plane might be in trouble, and asking them whether they could inquire what was going on.

Despite what might even have been an "agitated" request from me, no one expressed the slightest interest in pursuing or discussing the topic that we were, perhaps, in real danger. In fact, most of my friends were extremely brusque, and were almost ostentatiously burrowed into a book, or insulated from external stimuli by their Walkman headphones. I returned to my seat, after trying for about six or seven minutes to interest someone else in what I thought of as a possible crisis situation. One of the passengers in my row, a woman from Nicaragua who may not even have spoken Spanish, and who certainly didn't speak English, was being sick into the courtesy airsickness bag provided. Maybe she knew something?

After about one-half hour, in which my distress escalated, but during which everyone else, at least to appearances, manifested an almost preternatural calm, the intercom came on and gave us the message that we were returning to Managua to correct a "minor problem."

When we landed (which we did, without any disaster occurring), I saw on the runway what I believe must have been virtually every item of emergency equipment available in the entire country, with crews of men on standby with fire retardant suits and foam extinguishers at the ready.

We got another plane, and I got home.

As I have thought back, I now realize that I was not the only person on the plane who perceived the danger. In fact, everyone knew we were in a critical situation, and since they also knew that they couldn't really do anything about it (since they couldn't fly the plane), they chose to read a book, or listen to music, or refused to pay attention in some other way, as their best avenue for escaping from panic and pure nightmare thoughts.

If we are on a metaphorical airplane ride towards a possible disaster right now (and I think the metaphor could well be apt), I find I am still trying to get the other passengers on this flight interested in the possible dangers, with the thought that we ought to be trying to do something about them.

In this case, though, unlike on the flight from Managua, there probably are some things we could do!

#192 / PTSD

I believe that self-esteem, generally seen as a psychological issue, has a "political" analogue, and that our individual and collective self-esteem, or lack of it, has a major impact on how we either succeed, or not, with efforts to create a human world that fulfills our deepest needs and desires.

It strikes me that things are exactly the same with respect to the psychological condition of post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. That psychological condition may well have a political expression, too, and I wonder if our current politics can't largely be explained by the fact that our society, generally, is suffering from a rather extreme form of that condition.

Desmond Tutu's recent article, pointing out that although we all suffer under the threat of nuclear disaster, no nation is actually doing anything to relieve us from this nightmare, is just an example of what I am talking about.

I am often accused (by my friends and those who love me) of being too "negative" about our situation. If that's a valid comment, and I admit its truth, this could well be another manifestation that the PTSD diagnosis is accurate, and that the diagnosis may correctly be applied not only to our individual conditions, but to our collective existence, as well.

#191 / I Didn't F*ck It Up

You can hear the song by clicking on the image, or on the highlighted link.

It's pretty good to know that we didn't f*ck it up.

But as the song hints, maybe the key issue isn't who did f*ck it up. The key issue is who is going to "unf*ck" it up.

#190 / Civic Literacy

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute publishes an annual report on "civic literacy." The most recent report is based on a sample of 2,508 Americans. It concludes, among other things, that a college degree fails to promote active civic engagement, beyond voting, and that greater "civic knowledge" has a much more determinative effect on civic engagement than a college degree.

Interestingly, the report also says that greater civic knowledge discourages elective office holding.

I think we've got to "learn by doing," myself!

#189 / Self-Esteem

Self-esteem is generally discussed in the context of individual psychology.

If "we" are more than just "individuals," however, which is what I think, then self-esteem must have a political counterpart.

John Vasconcellos, who represented areas in Santa Clara County in the California State Legislature for almost forty years, did seek to make self-esteem a political "issue." Most notably, Vasconcellos was able to persuade the State Legislature and the Governor to establish a California Self-Esteem Task Force, through legislation he authored in 1986. The Final Report of the Task Force was published in 1990.

Vasconcellos was more or less ridiculed, in a series of Doonesbury cartoons, for his attempt to bring a serious discussion of self-esteem into our political debate. The cartoons, as I recall, were rather funny, but the importance of self-esteem is actually no joking matter. Abraham Maslow, a well-regarded psychologist, identifies positive self-esteem as a basic human need.

In retirement from the Legislature (enforced by term limits), Vasconcellos has continued his efforts to make self-esteem part of our political lexicon. For me, it's all about power. We cannot have a healthy psyche if we don't feel (because it's true) that we have the power to overcome the challenges and to realize the opportunities that our lives present. And the same is true in our common life together, as we create the "political world" we most immediately inhabit.

#188 / Personal Involvement

Each weekday morning, on KUSP Radio, the NPR affiliate in Santa Cruz County, I present a brief Land Use Report.

Since the Land Use Report, like other KUSP content, is available on a “podcast” basis, I have sometimes heard comments on what I say from people outside the Monterey Bay Region, from as far away as Boston. (Besides the “podcasts,” written transcripts are also posted on the station website for anyone who is interested).

While I am happy for such widespread coverage of my thoughts about land use, I must say that my comments do tend to be “local” in their focus. Still, I have always thought that the “think globally, act locally” approach to politics is exactly the right way to do it. Where the Land Use Report is concerned, don’t hesitate to tell your friends, wherever they may live.

This week, I found I was spouting off more than usual on the topic of getting “personally involved” in the land use planning process. Since the week began with the Fourth of July holiday, that is probably the reason. The land use planning process provides a great example of how democratic self‑government is supposed to work.

In fact though, as I did say on the Land Use Report, effective involvement and engagement in the politics that creates our world requires not only the involvement of individuals, but their involvement through an organized effort. Individual, personal involvement can make you a “gadfly.” Connection with a dedicated group, focused on an issue you care about, can really affect the future, and make you and the group a “political” force to be reckoned with.

This is a shorthand way of saying that politics is always a “team sport.”

#187 / Reboot

I think it is time to reboot our politics. "Cleanly" would be nice. Is "Forcibly" really necessary? I think I am with the Beatles on that question.

I know it's possible. I just wish it were as simple as pushing a button.

#186 / Our Corporate Flag

The American Revolution was not fought to bring power to the corporations.

But that is the way it has worked out.

Having just celebrated the Fourth of July, maybe the question now is whether or not we shouldn't start working towards some sort of new "revolution." It's a serious question, worthy of debate.

#185 / Our "Political" Holiday

The Fourth of July is preeminently a “political” holiday, associated with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

It is obvious, but may bear mentioning, that we wouldn’t have the holiday if the Revolution had not been successful. Saying that you are going to do something, and then not actually accomplishing it, doesn’t lead to a celebration. What counts is following through. Our most important political achievement is not actually contained in the Declaration of Independence but in the Constitution, which translated that “declaration” into a genuine political reality.

The political reality of American politics is our commitment to a system of democratic and representative self-government. If you think about it, the politics we have created works (or at least is supposed to work) on the model of the Declaration of Independence. We “declare” what we are going to do by enacting a law. We then follow the law and (we hope) achieve the results we said we wanted to. That’s the way our politics is supposed to work, and it has worked that way often enough to celebrate the system. Land use planning is a perfect example of the process. We debate and discuss what we want, adopt a plan, and then follow the plan to create the kind of community we think is best.

I’ve played a part in that land use planning process in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, as so many local residents have. That is something worth celebrating!

#184 / Self-Evident

The truths we have held to be "self-evident" are not
"self-executing." Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not the inevitable attributes of our existence, which we will "discover" when we search for them. They are, if we achieve them, the accomplishments we realize by our work in this world.

#183 / Seriously Heavy

"Heavy" has some colloquial meanings, as documented in the Urban Dictionary. One of them is "serious."

In fact, etymological research indicates that the word "serious" is directly related, in its origins, to the word "heavy."

Serious people take the "weight of the world upon their shoulders," just like Atlas.

That certainly goes along with the idea that it is we who have the responsibility for creating the world we most immediately inhabit.

#182 / Deconstruction

"Deconstruction" is a term in vogue in philosophical and literary circles. If you click the link, you can get a feeling for the jargon that the concept has generated.

I take "deconstruction" to be a process in which we look "behind" what appears to be the reality of a thing, to find out what is "really" going on. It's a search for philosophical and historical and economic and literary "metadata," in other words.

In Wednesday's San Francisco Chronicle, my favorite columnist, Jon Carroll, discussed why other nations have tried to place limits on cars (and why that hasn't happened in the United States). Here is his take:

There's another good reason for Europe to try to reduce fossil fuels - it reduces its carbon footprint to bring them in line with the Kyoto Accords. You'll recall the United States didn't sign those accords, because we are run by oil companies and their lackeys. Also, climate change is just something they made up in Scandinavia.

When we "deconstruct" the politics of the United States, we do find that "oil companies and their lackeys" are actually in charge. The "American Corporate Flag," pictured, is that deconstruction made visible.