Life, people, the world, society, politics, countries, current events

This blog is for my own benefit, to help me organize, analyze, rationalize what I think and feel about the events in my day. These include but not limited to news events, personal interactions, reading, comments, if any are ever left on this blog. Bernard Paris has written a book, Bargains With Fate, which applies his interpretation of Karen Horney’s concept of personality to Shakespeare’s characters. The concept holds we all develop an idea, frame, belief that if we act certain ways the world will magically and not merely in a direct, cause-effect way, respond as we wish is beguiling, but ultimately of limited valid application. We all believe we can by taking certain actions obtain certain outcomes. This approach is different, it posits we expect or believe the results come thru non-real world power. For example, if I behave kindly and generously to others, they will behave the same to me. If I work hard and smart I will succeed. Not in each case because people naturally react as they are acted upon nor because hard smart work must naturally solve problems and overcome obstructions. But because the world is so arranged by a higher power that good acts returns good acts. Or because reward/success is ‘given’ to the virtuous and hard smart work is virtuous. There is no allowance for sociopaths, or psychopaths, for narcissists, there is no allowance for disease and accidents maiming and killing the ‘good and virtuous.’ Perhaps the European Nazi holocaust convinced many that this view of the world is naïve and dangerously incomplete. Perhaps this view was prevalent in Shakespeare’s time when church attendance was mandatory, information for most was thru conversation and anecdotal, and in England of that time the government was based on the firm belief that God had specifically ordained the monarch to rule the realm. Indeed, as nearer to god than her subjects, Queen Elizabeth performed ‘laying on of hands’ at the pleading of her subjects to cure disease and bring ‘good fortune’. The mindset must have been very alien to us. So yes Paris’s approach may have explained how Shakespeare and his audience framed the characters actions, feelings, and motivations. Shakespeare the genius has presented characters, many so life like and ‘rounded human’ that they can still touch us, be comprehensible to us, but we do not see them in the same way perhaps he and his audience did. The disillusionment and cynicism of the post WW1 ‘lost generation’ and the incomprehensible, horrific but undeniable truth of the holocaust have demonstrated to much of the western world that there is no Fate at all that will hold up its end of a Bargain.

they have a point but they are wrong

The HCR requires everyone to purchase Health insurance. Libertarians are right, it does. However here is the situation which liberarians don't address. An emergency medical situation, car accident, industrial accident, plane crash, train crash, multiple injured persons, many appaearently serious, some unconscious. If they are given med treatment, as we would all insist happen, who pays if they have no insurance, the cost of medical care for serious medical conditions is so high, only the richest of us can afford it out of our own resources. We insist hopsiatals admit and treat emergency cases, publicly supported hospitals are required to by law. The public does pay in the end to fund public hospitals. The numbers out are about $1,000 per person per year on all of us to support hospitals we require treat everyone. Young working people who choose not to purchase insurnance and have acquired little resources in their short working lives, children whose parents do not purchase insurance for them, un employed, etc, etc all do get treatment and we pay for it. We ouls not tolerate sick children thrown oout of hospitals untreated becasue parents are not paying for health insurance. We would not tolerate accident victims untreated lying on the street or the factory floor until their insurance can be verified. Why is the president not making clear in a national speech why mandatory insurance mere relabels what we already do, and if anything requires us citizens to act responsibly about our health care. We demand it for each of us when we need it, but some of us choose to evade the costs. Libertarians ought to be suppoolrting this, or advocating some type of qucik read implant so each of us if unconscious and injured can have our insurance verified, those who have no insurance, let 'em bleed to death on the street. The Administration should make this and other aspects of HCR a daily mantra to counter the daily chorus of lies. It is never enough to build a better mousetrap, not if the competition have a vital welf interest in destroying you.

why is Sarah Palin

Someone who refers to the law department of the whitehouse lacks knowledge of the basic structure of the federal executive. When asked Palin said the "office of Law" at the whitehouse would reject ethics compaints against the president. This statement was given in a video interview with andrea mitchell broadcast yesterday. The issue of Palin's lack of knowledge is not new, what I am curious about is the supported for Palin who either jsut as ingnorant or more and therefore doesn't see Palin's ingnorance, or the supporter who does not care. Well if you think you have enough information to cast a vote and you think Palin knows enough because she knows as much as you. Well can't argue with a rock. If you recognize she may not know a lot about "stuff" but you don't care. I ask... do you pick your doctor based on whether they express the anger you feel. Do you want your boss at work to feel she/he is a victim of powerful forces arrayed against the company because it is a real american company. Do you want help with your taxes from someone who is not aware of all they legal ways you can reduce your taxes ? What disturbs me most is the assumption by many of her supporters that the shares and expresses their anger, fear, frustration, victimization and that is reason enough to support her as a leader. Certainly a leader must understand and even better feel what her/his followers feel, but there is a level of competaqnce about the functions of leadership without which failure is almost certain.
You have to know how to staqrt a car, how to work the steering wheel , brakes, and gearshift, and you have to know the rules of the road or you will crash.. Sarah Palin does not know enough of that to bew effective and if elected her followers will either have to expend a great deal of energy explaining why her failures are not her fault or come to realize, leadership requires more than shares feelings with followers, a =whole lot more

advice to Sarah Palin

Roger Simon at Politico offers seven bits of advice Sarah Palin should follow to get the Republican nomination for President in 2012. All his advice focuses on creating an image which the hard conservative base would support. Unfortunately while simon's advice may be sound politically, wouldn't the country be better off if he gave her some adive on how to be a better chief executive. She seems to conduct herself in Alaska as a disorganized amateur who doesn't hve a clue how to organize or lead. We just had 8 years of both bad policiy and incompetant leadership. Didn't we learn the best intentions are useless if the leader doen't have a clue what leadership and management are all about?
Someone give this Woman advice how to lead than we can concern ourselves if her policies make any sense.

Briilant, Typical, Typically Brilliant

Pres. Obama's speech made two fundemental philosophical points, one polictical, one religious. As a democracy we can move forward by identifying those areas of agreement and working on them. Whatever we feel about abortion almos t all of us would welcome better prenatal support, better options where adoption is in the picture, and better support for single woman who are parents and for their children. Those goals are supported by the vast majority of voters. There is enough to do here to occupy most of or energy and passion. He did not fudge the fundemnetal differences that exist amongst us, but encouraged a respectful debate. It is certainly easier to grant respect and earn respect when you have worked hand in hand with those you have a fundemental disagreement with. Many of us beleive in God. As our president has said, none of us can credibly claim we know the will of God to a certainty. But all of us who beleive can and should struggle to - do right as we are given the light to see what is right. While all of us must recognize we see as we can, and none of us can see the mind of God. Humility about what his will is for each of us is the sign of true acknowleddgement that God is above and beyond our poor ability to know and to understand.

The Dinner

It must be the combination of the dead pan delivery and the self deprecating 1000 watt smile which comes about 3 beats after the comment which makes me laugh out loud, I feel as though I am shearing an inside joke with the President of the United States. It is as though he is saying with that swmile, just between us, I wasn't serious just now, I was kidding, I can't help but laugh cause what I said was funny. He is such a likable human being and that just comes straight thru the screen.

sometimes the small things signify

This morning Pres. Obama, VP Biden and Sen. Arlen Spector held a joint news conference. In welcoming Sen Spector to the Democratic Party. Pres. Obama mentioned the significance to Sen Spector of the Senator's father. How his father had been a force driving Sen Spector to serve and achieve in the public arena. As the three were leaving the podium, an open mike caught the Senator thanking the President for mentioning the Senator's father. It is that kind of human sensitivity, caring and insite into the emotional construct of collegues which will greatly help the President move his agenda forward. The public also sees this. His personal "likability" is significantly greater than agreement with his policies, all the polls show. How completely different than a Pres. and VP who seemed to know very little about what others thought or felt, and did not care either. Is this a difference between Republicans and Democrats? Well Reagan was the last likable Republican, and Pres Clinton was famous for his ability to empathize. Maybe as the Rebpulican party becomes more and more rigid, racially homogenized, and separated from the real world it will also know and care little for what anyone feels, or thinks. If you beleive gay marriage is the end of our country. If you beleive the idea of free markets is more important to people than jobs and homes, if you beleive our place in the world is to bully allies and use the military against those we disagree with, perhaps the only people who will join you also do not know or care what anyone else thinks or feels.