Mankind

I was watching History Channel's "Mankind: The Story of All of Us" last night, and it's fascinating to see who becomes a great historical figure. Those most worth mentioning were the revolutionaries who shifted power, the great inventors, and the maven explorers. The comments of the great kings were also interesting; their ideas weren't new, but were common across geographical and cultural lines. Most strove to unite vast kingdoms and create peace through unity and domination. But they all go about it in the same old war-mongering way, because of their lust for power. If you were to take that lust out of the equation, there would only be peace and unity, leaving out the domination. In the latest Arab Spring movement, I think it was clear that a common chord was struck all over the world, demanding better leadership. Regime after regime fell in the Middle East, not because some great conqueror was toppling them, but because people saw their neighbors rise up, and felt a unity with them, and a desire to do the same. We each had our own grievances specific to our region, but were united in a desire for greater accountability, less corruption, inequality, and a chance to be heard in a more democratic society. There is never any war between Nebraska and Texas, Massachusetts and Connecticut, etc.; what would it take to make that a true statement of all neighbors? What would it take to make a United States of the World? A common constitution by which we all abide, a common currency, and likely an unacceptable loss of local sovereignty?

I'm also correcting Yin's paper on "The Rich and the Rest of Us," and it occurred to me the author cannot get his mind wrapped around the unimportance of wealth in the first place. By claiming that losing one's money and property can strip a person of their dignity and identity gives far too much power to money itself. It's likely a true statement, and may be how the dispossessed feel, but there is little emphasis on the need for a full paradigm shift, rather than just shifting around in the shallow, materialistic mindset we have now.

2012 Election Night

Just wasted a whole bunch of time babysitting the electoral college vote results to see if I'll be winning the office pool tomorrow. But the one reason I watched the main news networks rather than Comedy Central was to see the concession and acceptance speeches. Romney just gave his concession speech, and I must say, that was the most gracious, genuine concession I've ever seen in a presidential election. He thanked his supporters, lent his support to Barrack Obama, and moved on without looking like he had just been punched in his soul. That's a great way to lose.

One commentator said of Obama's win was that, while he had to admit that though things are not as good as he had hoped, and that this has been an imperfect 4yrs, he also succeeded in convincing the people that he is genuinely on their side. That's an interesting perspective that I definitely agree with, and I like the notion that you don't necessarily have to run on accomplishments, because those are always relative to the times and opportunities, but can really run on core values.

And Obama's speech... somewhat of a long winded thesis, but wow did he bring it home in the second half. He laid it all out: What makes us great is our ability to hold together as such a diverse people; the recovery will not be a one man show, but rather we need to take to heart Kennedy's words; we are not as divided as we make ourselves out to be, "not red states and blue states, but the United States"

Also, Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz... not my favorites.

Invisible Hand Democracy

A few notes from a conversation we had at the Mondragon Co-op documentary viewing:

• The individual has rights to protect him/her self and property against other individuals, power structures and other market participants
• A sole proprietorship would be part of an individual's property and would also need similar protections under the rights of that individual
• If a business had multiple owners, that business would still need protections as the collective property of the owners
• Shouldn't that scale to corporations needing protections?
• Do protections of corporations undermine the protections of the individuals
• Protections grant power to corporations, and in the presence of conflict, yes, this does undermine the rights of individuals, usually in how much money can be thrown at resolving the dispute in court.
• Therefore, corporate rights should be setup separately such that it does not have equivalent protections as individuals
• Invisible hand is a form of democracy, voting with money rather than ballots
• The invisible hand is mob rule; a handful of individuals who are having their rights infringed upon cannot vote with enough money to fight the corporation
• It's worse than normal democracy though, because it's a mix of plutocracy and democracy (more money = more votes). Also, all you can do is not do business with the company (or sue it), which if you never did business with them in the first place is meaningless. If their customers aren't the ones impacted, then why would the company care?
• So if libertarians hate democracy so much, how on earth do they like the invisible hand?
• Is there such a thing as a democratic libertarian?

Life Experiences

Stepping away from practical stuff for a bit here, I was listening to radio lab's show about "diagnosis," and was struck by the comments of a pathologist looking at cancer ridden tissue. She said, "This person should find a beautiful place on earth and just stay there until it's over." And I actually cried just thinking how much I will miss this place when I die; thinking of all the times I've had my breath taken away by a place I could never have imagined; thinking of all the people who've made my life worth living; thinking of passionate moments that move in slow motion in my memory; thinking of the sensation of doing what I didn't think was possible; the joy of sweating; thinking of time with my mom and my sister. I am really going to miss this place when I go, and I wonder if these are the thoughts that go through most people's minds when they pass. I think all of us, in one way or another, experienced life here in a magnificent and unique way in our own minds. I might look at someone else's life and think it wasn't anything special, but I'm sure they have all their accomplishments, sights, and people, that they're not ready to let go of. And I can only wonder how sad it must be to die alone, with nothing really to live for, but fearing death all the same. This really is an incredible place we live in, and it's made more incredible by its transience.

On a similar note, I was watching Maddow last night talking about Ryan's understanding of foreign policy; she said something to the extent of, "you can tell he only learned this stuff for the test, and has no real understanding of the material." That's a familiar concept from school, but so rarely have I thought to apply it in real life. It is something that I struggle with, because in my life, I am careful not to expose myself to too much suffering, so I don't know what it's like to go bankrupt, lose my house, live in the ghetto, live on food stamps, be a soldier, etc. I read about their struggles and needs, but how much can I REALLY understand of those situations? How superficial would my understanding of suffering be? Would I be too insulated from these hardships to be qualified to speak on behalf of anyone going through them? Or would I be more uniquely qualified because I recognize this shortcoming? It seems this should be a humbling reality to anyone intent on making decisions for others. This could easily be brushed off as an unavoidable reality -- we all only have one life to live, and no man could possibly experience/understand everything -- but that's not to say it should ever be forgotten or not taken into consideration.

Foreclosure

I've been having a hard time articulating why I no longer even read my emails about the foreclosure fight, like the whole thing has just become subconsciously abrasive. It's not that I've forgotten why I joined the fight in the first place -- people are legitimately suffering, the refusal of the banks to help those in trouble get back on their feet is mule-headed and crippling our economy, and the practice of predatory lending is particularly insidious, greedy, and unethical. I guess the question that's started to make that argument less relevant is,  what isn't that way these days? Price markups and deception are ubiquitous -- Restaurants charging 3x what they pay for wine, 50x what they pay for soda; the absurd markup in retail on the backs of sweat shops; the calculating deception going on in grocery stores with "everyday low prices" now being labeled as if they were sale items, Apple charging 2x more than competitors because people are sheep and the product is so complex customers really have no idea why they're paying that markup; hell, even I live comfortably because the company I work for operates on a 50% profit margin. And what about all the other commonly accepted forms of theft? Americans lost $92B to gambling in 2007, how much more was swindled by health care providers and insurance companies, how much on vices -- drugs, alcohol, tobacco, porn; how much by the church and charities, how much by producers of products that don't work, how much by our government? All those except money lost to the government is voluntary, as is money lost to foreclosure. The point is, people make terrible financial choices everyday (myself included), so why are we SO up in arms about foreclosure? What makes us think we have the right to renege on this particular form of contract? I'm not saying we don't, just not any more so than we should be exercising our right to break free of other forms of consumer manipulation. If there's one thing Occupy really got right, it's how pissed off we should be about EVERYTHING. But what to do with all that anger?

I heard a great TED talk by Barry Schwartz on appealing to virtue rather than falling back on regulations and incentives. Barry essentially argued that rules and regulations are there to allow us to be mentally lazy, to not have to think on a case by case basis, and because somebody at some point did exactly what they shouldn't have and ruined it for everybody. That's not to say that most of those rules aren't reasonable and there for good reason, but rather that there are alternatives, and that even in the presence of rules and procedures, people ought to be making their own best judgment at all times. We ought to be making role models, and examples of good behavior and the virtuous. I'm sure in my own case, had I had a role model to follow for the benefits of coming in with at least 20% on a house, and banking locally, I wouldn't have such high monthly rates with a bank I'm embarrassed to be associated with. Likewise, I should be smart enough to not let that 20% rule keep me from buying at the most opportune time. The examples in the TED talk were much better than this one, this is just one petty application in my own life. Back to the foreclosure argument, we don't need the government to come in and place heavy handed rules across all banks (which would inevitably crush small and medium sized banks, and make "too big to fail" even worse), we need to make positive examples of those banks that are banking intelligently. Show the alternatives! Maybe instead of screaming and making a scene in front of Wells Fargo and BofA, Occupiers should be doing free advertising for their local banks... in front of Wells Fargo and BofA.

And yes, of course I am aware of the fraud that goes on in the mortgage industry -- robosigning, using MERS to subvert the public recording process, fraudulent foreclosure proceedings, etc. Except for technecalities in that last point, those arguments don't change the fact that we entered a contract, that the bank bought it (even if they can't PROVE it), and that the foreclosed have failed to uphold their side of the contract.

On this exact same token, banks have the money and the power to do exactly what I'm saying as well. If they don't want to throw an elderly military vet or a dying woman with cancer into the streets, THEY DON'T HAVE TO! The sheriffs do not have to enforce evictions, locksmiths don't have to change locks, etc. All of these people could act out of compassion (albeit at the risk of losing their jobs), if we lived in a culture that could think on a case by case basis. And it wouldn't BE at the risk of losing their jobs if it were either written in -- or better, understood to be in -- job descriptions.

Winners and Peacemakers

I was listening to a story about the bloodshed in Syria, and one of the guests made the assertion that "all men want peace." I immediately thought that can't be true, at least that certainly can't be the first priority of all men. So what is it that puts peace on the back burner? The number one obstacle I could come up with was the desire to win - and that of course includes all the reasons behind a need to win such as pride, anger, vengeance, etc. But what an odd realization, that winning could be the natural enemy of peace. Lefer pointed out that this can't be true on the whole, because often times, after there is victory there is peace. You see decisive victories like ours over Japan in WWII and the peace and prosperity that followed, and surely winning and peace cannot really be opposites. But what we concluded was that in the course of battle, they are -- a sort of transient state. I've often thought nations act with human qualities, like giant fractals of the people therein, and between these nation people there are relationships. In most cases these relationships are largely adversarial, rather than loving, and when we go to war, that certainly shows. In a fight between people who love each other, how often do we hear the sentiment that it is better to be happy than right -- pick your battles and don't let things get out of control. But with an adversary, we'd rather die than let the other win, and that is the sentiment that we see on the global stage. We compete militarily and economically with our adversaries, and why would we ever have the compassion to back down? It seems there's much more wisdom in forming meaningful bonds with other nations, and stop treating each other like adversaries. I know there are efforts to do exactly that, but we generally do so from a very self-interested perspective, and what was is that to form a relationship? We didn't become the dominant species by playing the game of survival of the fittest, we did so through cooperation.

I was also surprised to see this article put out by the Brookings Institute praising the ARRA efforts. I always thought Brookings was more of a conservative think tank than a respectable economic research organization, but I could be mistaken.

Tarahumara

Reading the unusually inspiring book "Born to Run" by Christopher McDougall. I was coincidentally handed this book by my good friend Jed, the second week after I had committed myself to running at least 20 miles per week. I've recently found a passion for running, particularly in San Francisco, where there's much to see and few indomitable hills. I'd never been a long distance runner until I started running in Golden Gate park. One day I discovered that running 6 miles was a breeze when every turn was a new sight. Two weeks later I turned it to 9 miles, then 12, and 13, then Occupy happened and I faded from exercise almost entirely. But the urge to run has overcome me again (now that I am unfortunately 15lbs heavier), and reading this book, I feel like my soul has been stumbling upon some truths that the Tarahumara have already turned into an art form.

1) Running is a joy, not a chore or a means to an end. Yin was able to run 5 miles easily at Bay to Breakers, and Julia survived 8 miles through Cambridge while we chatted. Granted, the joy starts slipping away from me somewhere around mile 10, but I'm working on tearing down that wall. Low friction undies -- a must -- then maybe next time I'll wear the camel pack and maybe a lower friction shirt. But by far my most important discovery for running further is to relax, smile, take in the sights, listen to happier music. Caballo Blanco's first word of advice is "easy," which I think is to ease your state of mind, and believe what you are doing is out of joy, not something that is gruelling.

2) The other words of wisdom from Caballo Blanco had more to do with form, "Light, smooth, and fast." The first two are of particular interest to me, because I wear flip flops every day, and noticed when I am out of shape my steps are loud and careless, and it would be a good exercise for me to consciously mind my steps more, mind the weight, lift the sandal but don't let them flap carelessly. Just like in surfing, you don't have to paddle hard, you paddle smoothly. If your body is light, and your movements are smooth, fast will follow.

3) Not directly related to the book, I've also been dabbling in eating far more vegetables, but far less in general. I tend to get half or quarter pound servings of veggie salads at Raley's, and a piece of fruit, and that might be all I eat in a day, and I'm not starving when I go to sleep. I only do that a few days a week due to my lifestyle, but we'll see where this goes. Scott Jurek is a full vegan and the world's greatest ultra marathoner. Ultra coach, Scott Vigil advised his athletes to eat as if they were poor. I also learned that chia -- yes, as in the chia pet -- is a super food that rivals quinoa for nutrients, and I'm dying to get my hands on some and try it out.

4) The ultimate discovery in this book goes well beyond diet, training, footwear (or lack there of), or running. The big discovery of the Tarahumara is the kindness and love that they extend to those around them. They are not boastful, not confrontational, competitive only as a form of comradery, have no form of money, only do what is kind to do to each other, and run from trouble. On Scott Vigil's walls are the advice to "practice abundance by giving back," "Improve personal relationships," and "Show integrity to your value system." When was the last time you saw what you would call real integrity in the world around you. Paul Ryan just went up and gave a speech full of more lies than truths, making Clinton's exaggerations look like gospel truths by comparison. Slick Willy is our cornerstone of integrity, super. But I know I need work on all three of those categories. I am not chock full of giving, strong personal relationships, or even integrity really.

In the world of sports, we've all been taught to push hard, fight, dig deep, compete, etc., but where was the advice to love what you're doing. In The Sandlot, the main character says, "Just have fun, you would've caught that ball if you were having fun." or something to that extent. When I was watching the Olympics, I wrote down that loving what you do is a must, or you will not be great at it. Going over Maslow's hierarchy of needs I saw accomplishment listed as one of the level 4 needs. If you must be great at something to feel accomplished, and must love what you do to be great at something, then how on earth are ordinary people supposed to ever feel a sense of accomplishment just going through the motions of everyday life. My mom has always been a great teacher because she makes learning exciting -- she gets kids to love what they're learning -- but the only other teacher I've seen that same spirit in is Mr. Kinavey. Is the lack of that sort of teaching where the failure to find passion comes from? Or is it that what we are passionate about often is not a lucrative profession? There are a select few who can be passionate about being a doctor, engineer, trust fund manager, etc. Or is the problem a societal one, in that we do not experience a truly loving and giving culture in the fast paced world we live in. Where have those values of Christianity gone to? Why have we been left only with the obsession to live immaculate lives -- no gays, no abortion, practice abstinence, etc -- and let values like compassion for others fall by the wayside. Jesus didn't say stop sinning, he said your sins are forgiven. That's not to say we shouldn't strive to live virtuous lives, but more importantly, lead by example, tend to your own morals and spirituality, but strive to be compassionate to others. This to me seems the opposite of the fallacy of composition situation, where rather than doing what's right for oneself at the expense of the whole, doing what's right by oneself is more conducive to allowing others to find the best within themselves.

The world is ready for a paradigm shift, and if the Tarahumara have shown the best shoes of all are practically nothing rather than the over-engineered, arch-supporting, hundred dollar, heel padding super shoes, then maybe a lack of integrity and strict adherence to the social experiments of Saul Alinsky are not as universally true as they appear to be today. We were talking at the beer discussion group tonight about how sometimes great shifts are preceded by mountains of lies denouncing the truth of the future. Before Japanese cars took over the market, American car manufacturers denounced them as crap, when the electric light bulb came about England was one of the last to get it because the lamp oil industry was so strong there, and in Ayn Rand's fictional account of course the universities and "science experts" were all opposed to the Riordan super metal. In all these cases, results spoke for themselves, and I think that can happen in the world of politics. We're already seeing less polished politicians like Chris Christie taking center stage, and I think it's only a matter of time before those whose statements are not intended to be "factual statements," such as John Kyl sink into oblivion.