Owning Our Messes

Two years after giant Wall Street banks brought the global economy to the brink of meltdown, we are again witnessing the logical ends of anti-regulatory market fundamentalism. This time we are watching helplessly at thousands of barrels of oil pour into the Gulf of Mexico each day. In the June 3, 2010 issue of Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Paul M. Barrett does a masterly job of discussing the connection between these two cataclysmic events. The upshot is that we have been hearing for decades from our leaders that industry and markets are to be trusted in ways that our government is not, because government doesn't work. This idea has led us to relinquish oversight of industry to the supposedly superior forces of the market, which led quite predictably to the situation in which we now find ourselves.

The logical flaw behind the story of the effectiveness of unfettered markets is so obvious that one wonders how we fell for this story in the first place. The fiduciary responsibility of a corporation is to its shareholders, not the common good. Markets exist to serve corporations and investors (again shareholders), not the common good. The anti-regulatory fundamentalists claim that this doesn't matter, because corporations and markets will act in their own long term interests, which are supposedly aligned with the common good.

However, people across our great land frequently and regularly act against their long term interest for short term gratification (e.g. running up large amounts of credit card debt). Why should we be surprised when corporate leaders do the same, often encouraged by their shareholders? The idea that markets can govern themselves is as specious as the idea of drivers in a city being able to get to where they're going more quickly and safely without any traffic rules or regulations.

The goal facing us now is threefold. First, we must articulate clearly the case for intelligent regulation. Such regulation should be as lightweight as possible, and should seek to align corporate and market incentives with the public good. Second, we must push our leaders to act deliberately and decisively to enact meaningful regulatory measures. The third challenge is longer term: we must articulate in ways that resonate with the public the fact that government is more trustworthy than corporate interests because it is accountable to the public via the political process. Of course this brings up issues regarding the elements that distort our political process, but I'll save those for a later post.

Let's get to work!

The Source of Silence

My father passed away on Thursday, March 18. The outpouring of love from my hometown was overwhelming, healing, and potent. I returned to New York full of gratitude for family and friends.

I am an introvert. This means that I spend energy to be with people, and recharge when I'm alone. So even though I was grateful for the contact with family and friends, I was completely worn out. I was craving solitude and quiet in ways that I have never experienced before.

Yesterday, I went for a walk in Central Park to seek out some peace and quiet. None was to be found. Leafless trees provide very little buffer against the sounds of the city, and my walk was similar to a walk on the street.

Today, I went for a walk in the park along the Hudson River. The day was cool, very cloudy, with threats of rain, so the park was almost empty. The traffic sounds from the west side highway were quite audible, yet they receded as the lights turned red, and my pace began to slow. Still, I didn't feel like I was finding the solitude I was craving.

As I walked slowly out onto the pier at Christopher Street, I realized that a constant swarm of thoughts was running through my mind. The narratives were wild and frenzied, with recriminations and doubts about the past mixing with worries and fantasies about the future. I worried about what I had forgotten to do in the week I was away from the office, what I would eat upon returning home from my walk, what work would be like next week, and how my life would unfold when I am retired and old.

The chatter was a buffer, an attempt for a sad and lonely son to avoid encountering his feelings about the loss of his father. However, it was also toxic. I realized that my wild mind was causing me to miss the solitude and quiet that I desperately needed.

So I calmed down, felt my feet touching the ground, looked at the play of light upon the river. Again and again, I returned to myself, until I was in the moment and real.

I walked north along the river, tears in my eyes, the wind at my back, and saw the buds of spring life etched above me against the gray sky.

Damning Data

The data are rolling in, and the results are conclusive: abstinence-focused sex education doesn't work. A recent study shows that teens who pledge abstinence are just as likely as non-pledgers to have sex, and less likely to use contraceptive methods when they do so. The US has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world, and roughly 1 in 3 sexually active girls get pregnant in their teenage years. We simply have not been giving young people the set of tools they need to take care of themselves and ensure that they don't face unwanted pregnancy.

The policies that led to this situation were formulated during the Bush years and were guided by ideology rather than reason. Take a look at the states with the highest pregnancy rates, along with who they supported in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

The correlation between conservatism and teen pregnancy is due to the fact that conservatives are enamored of poor policies rooted in religious dogma rather than sound social science.

The really maddening part of this is the denial conservatives have regarding the source of the problem. We've spent $1.5B over the last 8 years on abstinence education programs, during which time teenage pregnancy rates started to rise, and their response to the data is to argue for more abstinence-focused education. Like many conservative policies, they've hooked a pithy catch-phrase to the push, claiming that abstinence is the only form of birth control that is 100% effective because you can't get pregnant when you abstain. What they don't say is that it is the least effective approach when used improperly.

My favorite definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. Oh, those crazy conservatives!

Again at Starbucks

I've decided it would be fun (and maybe good for me) to find some humor in the refined orders that I mentioned in my last post. I may write a quick post now and then when I notice eccentric orders at various eating and drinking establishments. I think they point to a need for control rather than being about how things taste (can people really taste whether the milk mixture below is correct or whether there are 2 vs. 2 1/2 pumps of hazelnut syrup in a drink?)

Today's order by a slightly disheveled man at the Starbucks at 23rd street and 8th avenue:

Grande decaf extra-hot semi-dry cappuccino with half whole milk and half 2%.

He then asked if this was the first one that the barista had made today. :-)

Choices

A few days ago, I was in line at one of my many local Starbucks stores. There was a young woman ahead of me who was overly put together. Upon reaching the register, she ordered an "extra hot, venti, no foam, skinny, quad shot latte with two pumps of hazelnut syrup." Then she proceeded to argue with the barista regarding how much the concoction costs. It was very "LA Story."

I found the whole episode both amusing and irritating. The amusing part was that the order was like a parody of a Starbucks order from Saturday Night Live. The irritating part was that it wasn't a parody, and she was holding up a long line and blocking me from my simple drink (a tall coffee). There also seemed to be a sense of arrogance and entitlement, as if the staff was there specifically to meet her exact and refined needs.

I've pondered my reaction to this seemingly innocuous incident and the deeper questions it raises. Am I overly impatient? What does it mean for Manhattan to be increasingly populated by affluent yuppies who can seem demanding and self-centered? Does having the ability to order such a drink represent possibility or a problem? Do I need a better drink that I can order at the Starbucks counter? Or will the economy force us all to start drinking black coffee from Dunkin' Donuts?

What do my readers think?

Dispersion, Attention, and Intention

"We will try not to lose ourselves in dispersion or be carried away by regrets about the past, worries about the future, or craving, anger, or jealousy in the present. "

-- from the 7th Mindfulness Training in the book Interbeing: Fourteen Guidelines for Engaged Buddhism by Thich Nhat Hanh

I've had twelve days off during the holidays. It was a wonderful chance to get some rest, reconnect with New York City, and spend some quality time with David (my partner) and my friends. It also helped me see how rushed and overbooked I have been. I don't think I would have become aware of being so spent had I traveled during the holidays, because I would have been rushed and overbooked!

As a result of this fresh awareness, I've thought about where and how I spend energy. In pondering my use of energy, the word "dissipated" kept coming up in my mind. I looked it up and found two of its definitions interesting. The first is "wasted or squandered." The second is "irreversibly lost; used of energy." I realized that dissipation is rooted in a dispersion of my attention in the present moment. As a result of this dispersion, I lose time and/or energy. I think there are two modes where this loss occurs. First, there is the "I'm so busy!" mode, where my energy is dispersed by bouncing like a pinball from one thing to the next. This reactive ricocheting happens when I don't have a clear and firm intention regarding what is really important. The second is an "I'm so tired!" mode, where I lose time in mindless, unfocused, and ultimately non-refreshing activity, like channel surfing. This mindless moping is also marked by a lack of intention, as well as a deficiency of attention. One of my aims in 2009 is to practice recognizing dispersed and dissipated states of mind, and trying to replace them with a clear intention and a sustained attention to what really matters in the present moment.

In thinking about dissipation and dispersion, I realized that there are a lot of elements of our culture that seek to hook our attention and dissipate our energy. Consumerism, tabloid entertainment, and the frantic pace of work all contribute to a dispersion of our collective energy. As we move forward into 2009, we face unprecedented environmental, financial, and ethical challenges. Meeting these challenges will require serious focus and energy at a societal level. We need to move from dissipating and dispersing modes of ricocheting and moping to energetic and focused action. Could a renewed collective commitment to paying attention and setting strong intentions be the antidote to what ails us?

Evidence and Honesty

On a recent trip to Amarillo, Texas, I saw a woman driving a car with a bumper sticker that said, "Born OK the First Time." West Texas is a hotbed of born again Christian fundamentalism. It was an act of courage and honesty for that driver to assert that she felt alright about herself without being part of the "born again" herd.

We often have trouble listening to the truths we tell each other about our lives, preferring instead to project our own ideological thinking onto one another. Fundamentalism and other inflexible ideologies plays a big role here. Fundamentalists and ideologues frequently won't listen to and take seriously the religious experience of people from other faiths or no faith, and they also frequently dismiss our current scientific theories. Whether it is the big bang theory regarding the origin of the universe, the notion that abstinence-only education is the best way to stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, or the fact that some people have different personal experiences around religion, the overarching preference for ideologues is to accept ideology over evidence.

In order to build a saner society, we need to learn new ways of speaking and listening to one another. This requires that we become seekers and providers of evidence. We need to cultivate the courage to tell each other about the truths of our experience, and we need to do this in as specific a way as possible. We also need to listen carefully. When people speak from their own experience (which is a form of evidence), we need to be especially cautious about dismissing what they are saying. When the discussion veers away from being evidenced-based to being ideological, we need to be disciplined about asking where the evidence is for the expressed views.

Of course, not everything can be based on evidence. Many acts of creativity require speculation and non-evidential thinking. But I believe that if we can base more of our common life on seeking evidence and honesty in our speaking and listening, we'll build a much better future than any ideology could give us.

Cultivating Gratitude

Today is Thanksgiving, and I'm realizing that holidays carry with them certain assumptions. We believe that somehow we should automatically feel gratitude on Thanksgiving, happiness on Christmas, repentence on Yom Kippur, and patriotism on Independence Day. All cultures have days set aside for specific purposes, and it is easy to believe that these days dictate a certain way we should be or feel. This is a lot to live up to, because our moment-to-moment thoughts and feelings are not under our direct control. This means that sadness on Christmas or worry on Thanksgiving can often be more painful than on a "regular" day.

Is there a different way to look at holidays? Rather than seeing them as days to feel or be a certain way, can we view them as days of cultivation toward a given feeling or way of being? The difference is subtle but pointed. We cannot decide to feel gratitude, but we can decide to sit down and reflect on the good things in our lives. The action of reflection can lead to the arising of gratitude. Or not. It really doesn't matter what comes up. We can trust that the act of cultivation will eventually bear fruit.

The Single Metric Society

We live in a society that equates success with monetary worth. This gives rise to serious problems, because it allows us to undervalue the importance of extraordinary portions of our life that don't have a direct or easily measurable dollar value.

When we hear someone say "she's very successful," it is almost always shorthand for "she makes a lot of money." We never stop to ask about the other dimensions of the person's life. Is she generous? Is she a good friend? Is she loving? Is she honest? The notion that a successful life is comprised of more than financial abundance is something with which almost all of us would agree, but the culture as a whole has reduced success to this simple measure. We have the same single-pointedness when we talk about institutions and organizations.

The detriments of this perspective are myriad. When value is equated with monetary worth, the pursuit of money becomes paramount. Prudence and moderation become bad ideas. The concept of "enough" vanishes. Greed becomes a good idea, because the person with the most money is most highly valued and "successful." Corporations that devour natural resources, spew out tons of toxins, and abuse human rights are admired because of their astonishing profitability. The culture hurtles forward, careening further and further off course in pursuit of money (and the power and fame that come with it.)

Stopping this reckless ride will require a dialog about our values and their true measure. It will be an upstream swim against our culture and the media that aid and abet the "money=success" mentality by providing us with an endless stream of information about the rich, the glamorous, and the powerful. But it can and must be done. Let's start the conversation.

Mormons and Gay Marriage

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." -- John Stuart Mill

These words were published in Mill's classic text On Liberty in 1869. That was almost 140 years ago, yet we are still struggling to realize this simple vision. As reported in the New York Times, the Mormon church helped raise millions of dollars to take the basic right of marriage away from lesbian and gay people in California. They did this in the name of pursuing what they thought was "moral," but in reality they (and others like them) have deprived many people of their own freedom and happiness. This cannot stand. To learn how you can help in the battle for marriage equality, visit http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/. We need everyone, gay or straight, to join the struggle for liberty.