If you're not speaking out, you're not paying attention

Today's story is a farm bill hammered out in secrecy and planned to be slipped into another bill and voted on without debate.  That, as I recall, is not how policy is supposed to be made in a democracy.  You can read here.
DesMoines Register

The question, to me, is whether I'm willing to take responsibility for knowing what's going on, for educating myself, and for doing something about it.  Emails to legislators work.  Social media helps spread information.  And unless I'm willing to make the effort to be aware and then spread the word, I have no right to complain.

It's hard work.  We can't possibly know all that's going on but we can pay attention to what other people reveal.  Then comes the harder work - getting educated.  Knowing the pros and cons and learning the questions to ask.  And next step is to start talking.  Bring up whatever concerns we encounter - whether they're the environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing, the unhealthy impact of mass production and chemicals on our food supply, the inextricable ties between policy makers and big business, the failure of our educational system and the destruction of the middle class. 

It's good work.  It's essential work.

Radical Term Limits - a simple solution

I interviewed Frances Moore Lappe tonight - an inspiring woman who, forty years ago, wrote "Diet For A Small Planet."  She's been advocating for a more sustainable food system, and a better, more sustainable world, ever since.  Her newest book is "Ecomind- Changing the Way We Think To Create the World We Want."

Hunger, poverty, climate change, war - it all boils down, she says, to the need for a "living democracy."  That means a system that actually is for the people and by the people.  And the way to achieve that, she says, is to get the money out of politics.

I've been thinking much the same thing, and my idea is simple:  Radical Term Limits.  Politics was never meant to be a career.  It was a public service.  Let's go back to that concept.  Here's how:  no one, absolutely no one, can hold political office for more than two terms at any level.  Two terms at a local office, two terms at a state level, two terms at a federal level.  Thank you very much for your service. Go home.  Someone else has to step up.  No multiple offices at any level. 

This has to be accompanied by strict transparency requirements for all donations, disclosure of all interests in any businesses, ironclad restrictions on lobbyists.  But radical term limits is the key.

We'd have to have a lot more people involved in government.  That means we'd better educate our population, because a lot of them are going to have to serve.  No one would be in office long and that would make buying politicians a poor investment.  No political insiders - the turnover is too great.

Job security wouldn't be a worry - there wouldn't be any.  Instead of serving their own wallets and career aspirations, politicians would represent the voters who elected them.  Otherwise, one term only.  And the two term limit would ensure that there would be a sense of urgency to accomplish something.

Radical term limits.  Spread the word.

Maybe We've Got Too Few Hats

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"

How many times were you asked that when you were a child? And how many different answers did you give?

I was thinking about this as I read comments to my post on our overworked American nurses...thinking that it's a shame that people who are drawn to a demanding career, one which requires a certain personality, are then burned out with long hours, heavy schedules and demands that they do more with less.

That sent me down a mental sideroad and I wondered: why did we have to pick just one field?

I know the practical answers; there is training to gain expertise, there is experience which is invaluable. These are things which only come from spending time doing something, learning better ways to do it, seeing problems that crop up over and over again and figuring out how to avoid them. It makes sense.

But why just one thing? Why not just pick a theme?

It's our civilization's way: figure out what you want to do, then spend a lifetime getting better at it. Before the industrial age, there were apprentices. They learned blacksmithing or silversmithing, they apprenticed at money houses and trading companies or with healers and surgeons. It took years to get good at their specialty.

We've continued the one career style with college training, internships, young people who "climb the career ladder." And it was okay for a long time; if you were good at your job, you stayed on that ladder, often with the same employer, for your entire career.

Times have changed. I saw my dad hop from job to job and finally get bounced from a major corporation because, despite the fact that he was the best in his field, he was over fifty. He wasn't high enough on the ladder to overcome ageism.

He reinvented himself; an incredibly brave move that I didn't fully appreciate at the time. He and my mother put everything they had into running franchises they bought from one of the corporations he'd once worked for. It was a success and a failure - they made more money than he'd ever made in his career and they loved running their own business, but an economic downturn ended up drowning them and forcing them to sell.

I have always believed that was more because of my dad's personality than a reflection of the wisdom of taking the risk they took or their abilities. Dad could be abrasive, so when times were tough and he needed a little slack, he seldom got it. But his theme was business - understanding what factors were necessary to weight the odds toward success.

They ended up worrying far more than they should have had to at their ages, but they finally worked out a comfortable retirement.

My guy has done a million jobs to make ends meet and probably excelled at all of them, as that's what he does. But his theme is music. It's always been about making room in his life to create music. He knew what he wanted before he graduated high school and he's never wavered. I admire that.

What if we asked ourselves what our theme is, instead of what we want "to be"?

I've been a TV reporter, a teacher, a writer and a radio journalist. I've been a freelance PR consultant, a retail clerk and a massage therapist. I've cleaned horse stalls and organized files. My earnings history, according to the social security records, is pretty sad. But I have had a range of experiences and a chance to learn what I like to do and what I'm good at.

My overall career theme has been communications and my astrological inclinations predicted that. But if you'd asked eighteen year old me what I wanted to "be", I'd have told you "I want to own a local newspaper." I saw a romance in that that I will admit still lingers with me. But I also now know the daily ins and outs of it and am less inclined to want to do it. I have stuck with journalism, but done it in different media.

Fifty two year old me wants to be a writer, though I'm conflicted about that, too.

I'd have been a great nurse, but I'd have burned out in six months. I take everything personally. I'd have been a lousy surgeon. I might have been a lawyer but I suspect I'd have been bored stiff before I passed the exams. I'd love to have been an architect but my math skills are non-existent. I'd have been a great veterinarian but suspect I'd have soon turned my clinic into a shelter. I love to rehab old homes, rescue derelict buildings. I love farms, animals and people's stories.

How was I supposed to choose just one career? How does anyone? And why do we have to?



Thoreau proposed that we turn the current system upside down; let young people wander the world and get a sense of what they want, then let them work until they no longer can. Retirement, he believed, was counterproductive for older people who wanted to stay active and useful, while young people desperately need that time before being pressured into choosing a career that could prove to be a colossal mistake in the long run.

I like that.

So here's my proposal: let's restructure our work lives. After college (which everyone should attend if they're interested in something other than a trade), young people should have ten years to wander. Yes, they should work. They should be doing the low-paying jobs, the jobs that require no commitment. There should be a living minimum wage so they can work around the country, around the world, and figure out what interests them. There should be hostels for them in every city, places where they can live independently for low rent. One year of that time should be spent in service - either domestically or abroad.

At age thirty, time to settle down, start your career. That's when most young people get serious about their lives, anyway. Many will choose their road sooner, settle down, have a family. That's okay. They've had the freedom to choose and the space to make that choice. The rest will join them at age thirty. The system is set up to enforce that - no more hostels. Maybe even age restrictions on minimum wage jobs. Time to enter the skilled labor force as a trainee or with the skills acquired during this hiatus.

Age sixty five? Keep going if you want to. Why do we have to retire? We've had elderly presidents, elderly CEOs. If you choose retirement, there should be health care and a healthy social security benefit. But if you choose to work, there should be options that make that attractive. How about flex time? Four day work weeks?
Sweeten the pot to make older, experienced workers interested in staying and sharing their experience with the new workers. Team them up, create a mentoring program within every company.

I just read that 40 is the new 50 in the business world. In other words, at forty, you're old and the young bucks are driving you out. Stupid stupid stupid.

We're doing it wrong and we're doing it wrong all over the world.

When I get my turn at the presidential lottery (in my world, every citizen must serve in political office for one term, and may volunteer to serve one term in higher offices), that's how I'm going to do it.

Do Something

Do you feel overwhelmed by the events of the past few years? Has the recession left you sprawled on the floor, gasping for air? (do you prefer Economic Slump? Depression? Financial S***storm?

Have you lost your home, your job, your health insurance, your retirement savings?
If you haven't, I'm betting you know someone who has.

So what are you doing about it?

I think many of us are just beaten down. We're giving up. We roused ourselves to oust an administration that we knew didn't give a damn about us, hoping that the new president would bring a sea change to Washington. We were hoping for a tsunami. It hasn't happened. In fact, despite the increasing problems and the rising deficit incurred as we throw money at problems, the tide actually went out. We went back into our homes, shut the doors and turned off the news. It was all just too depressing.

But look: the Obama machine roused hundreds of thousands of people to call their Washington representatives to push for health care reform. That reform, declared a dead issue just a couple of months ago, is refusing to give up. And if we can keep it alive, we can push to keep real health care reform alive. We can demand a public option, a national Medicare for all.

We can change this country if we are willing to open our doors, step outside and start making noise. We Are The Tidal Wave.

I'm coming to like Michael Moore a lot. He doesn't just turn a video camera and kleig lights on our nastiest secrets, he really believes that an outspoken electorate could turn this ship around.

Yes, we're a divided country. Yes, it's an uphill battle against legislators who are
more interested in their own careers and importance than serving the people who pay them.

But we are their bosses. We hired them and we pay them. And if you don't like how things are going, you have a seat on the board of this country. You have a vote. And if you seek out people who are willing to make noise with you, you can roar.

Conservatives know this. My issue with them is when they lie to win more people to their point of view.

Don't lie. Speak the truth. The pro-business policies that have ruled this country for decades are destroying us. Business is essential, but not at the price of the people who support it. Policies must be based on what is good for the PEOPLE...WE The PEOPLE.

Moore has a fifteen point action plan. It makes sense. What will you do?

MICHAEL MOORE'S 15 POINT ACTION PLAN

The Leadership Theory

Is what's wrong with the world the fact that the wrong people are in charge?

Bear with me here; that would seem pretty obvious but I'm getting at something else.

Why are the wrong people always in charge? Why does it seem that the outstanding leaders, the best thinkers, the truly idealist and compassionate people are not the ones who assume roles of political leadership?
In fact, as soon as they assume any type of leadership, doesn't it seem to distort them into something new, something less than they were?

I think I've hit on something here. I really do. It has a few components. Run through it with me and see what you think.

What may be ailing our world is that humans, by nature, are a species in which the personalities most interested in being leaders are the ones who shouldn't be in that role. They have holes in their psyches which get filled by being in charge. They need that sense of importance so badly that they're willing to put up with anything: political campaigns, character assassination, even physical danger. These are damaged people who are trying to feel whole and once they achieve their position of power their psychological cracks don't fill. Those cracks are constantly aggravated by challenges to their sense of worth, their sense of entitlement, their sense of self. They are always struggling to defend their position, a position that helps quiet that inner voice that tells them they're not good enough. So why would they listen to an opposing viewpoint? That view is a threat to their very existence.

Listen to the screaming over health care reform that drowns out any discussion. Consider partisan politics.

See where I'm going? It gets worse.

Idealistic people, people who want to take an active role in helping others, fall into a different trap when they're put in charge. Once in control, they can develop a God complex. They are suddenly on a mission and they come to believe that anyone who differs with their views is differing with the mission. It becomes "My way or the highway." They see criticism of the work or the way it's done as a personal criticism. They come to identify completely with the cause and they become the cause. They are, in their minds, the central, vital ingredient and no one can ever appreciate them enough.

I've seen this one in action. People who work really hard doing something truly admirable who are monsters - abusive, demanding, unappreciative, insecure and paranoid. It is sad because they want to do something good. But they've become something bad.

And what of what I believe is the vast majority of the human race, the decent people who don't want to do any harm, will help if they can but just want to live their lives in a way that makes them feel good about themselves? They don't want to be in charge. They don't want to fight. They'll pitch in and help if they're needed but otherwise they leave the spotlight to those that crave it.

They should be the ones in charge. But only for a short while.

Power corrupts. It's true. And that's where I begin to believe America got it wrong. The longer you have power, the worse the effect. Term limits should be in effect for everything. Not just political office, where it's absolutely vital, but even in corporations. I'm serious. I think a CEO should have to step aside after four years, take a commensurate cut in salary and take a position as an advisor to the new CEO. Imagine the brain trust that could result as capable people moved up through the ranks every four years.

And for the government, no more career politicians. It wasn't how it was supposed to work and it doesn't work. The Senate is full of angry old men and few junior Senators delighted with what will probably be a career gig. Two terms is plenty for a president, for a Senator and two terms should be enough for a Congressman. Right now, seniority is rewarded with influence and some legislators try to use that influence for good. But seniority also means extensive outside influence (corporate money) has time to assert its control as the expense of campaign after campaign taxes all but the wealthiest representatives.

Are there exceptions to the rule this theory creates? Maybe. But I wouldn't count on it.

Human beings may have the ability to lead and even the inclination. But it's time we admitted we don't do it without messing up.