Wade's Weekly

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:37:00 +0000

My Summer of Love

Grow up repressed, uptight, depressed.

Summer 1962

Read the Beat classic,

Ferlinghetti’s “I am perpetually waiting for a rebirth of wonder.”

September

My first day in Berkeley,

Go to North Beach, hang out with the Beats.

October

the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Go to my first protest.

At my student co-op,

Two graduate students

Reinterpret the Christian myths I had rejected in high school.

Spring ‘63

James Baldwin speaks on campus.

Not caring who sees

Leave with tears streaming down my face.

First time I’ve cried since childhood.

Read everything Baldwin has written.

Christmas vacation,

Decide to get involved in the civil rights movement.

The Lucky Stores shop-in,

The Sheraton Palace sit-in,

The Auto Row demonstrations.

Protesting hiring discrimination.

All victorious.

A year in Dallas

Integrate the Piccadilly Cafeteria

Gather canned goods for Mississippi Freedom Summer

Go to the last leg of the march from Selma to Montgomery.

After we stop for gas,

Look over my shoulder

Petrified.

Northaven Methodist Church

Single Adults Group.

Produce “After the Fall” and “The American Dream.”

Take part in an Esalen-style workshop in Austin.

Still a virgin, the foot massage is pure ecstasy.

September ‘65

Return to my student co-op in Berkeley.

Drugs are everywhere.

Read Varieties of Religious Experience,

The Tibetan Book of the Dead,

Timothy Leary’s advice,

Go backpacking in Yosemite,

Drop LSD,

Feel as one with the universe,

Never the same again.

Become immersed in the human potential movement.

Study humanistic psychology.

On weekends hang out on Haight Street,

Make fun of folks on the Grey Line bus tour who gawk at us,

Listen to the San Francisco Sound.

My favorite scene is the Avalon Ballroom on Sunday night.

It seems more authentic.

The Counter Culture liberates me.

Learn how to have fun,

Go with the flow.

June ‘66

Four-day conference on LSD at UC Extension, San Francisco

With Timothy Leary, Richard Alpert, Huston Smith, and others.

Send my notes to Dr. Bob Beavers, my former boss,

Who uses them for a lecture at Southwestern Medical Center.

While walking across the Pacific School of Religion campus,

See a friend from Dallas.

He introduces his companion, the school’s Placement Officer,

Who tells me PSR has an existentialist psychologist on its faculty.

January 1967

The underground newspaper, the Oracle, calls for

"A Gathering of the Tribes for a Human Be-In"

In Golden Gate Park

To unify the political radicals and the hippies.

Already demonstrating against the Vietnam War,

I agree completely.

A wonderful event.

What I remember most

Allen Ginsberg chanting OM

As the sun sets.

That semester, as chair of the co-op’s Education Committee,

Invite Charles McCoy from the Pacific School of Religion to speak.

After the event, we chat.

When he learns of my history with the Church,

And my interest in “coffee house ministry,”

He suggests I apply to PSR.

In my application, I say I want to “organize communities of faith, love, and action,”

To integrate the personal, the spiritual, the social, and the political.

Which is what I’ve been trying to do ever since.

That summer,

200 students, no grades, no requirements.

Someone nominates me to serve as Co-coordinator.

I’m elected.

One event is unforgettable.

A panel discussion on civil rights features Ron Dellums,

Then a city councilman.

During the discussion

From the back of the audience

A young, charismatic black man from Oakland speaks.

He’s furious about police brutality.

His name is Huey Newton.

Less than six months before he and others had formed the

Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.

Read The Politics of Experience by R.D. Laing,

The Courage to Be by Paul Tillich,

Coming of Age in America by Edgar Friedenberg.

Write a paper on those books.

Judy Wheeler from New York comes to research us.

I welcome her.

She buys a case of wine.

Great discussion.

Take her to her hotel.

She invites me to her Greenwich Village apartment.

Hitchhike to New York.

Driving through the Holland Tunnel

Open the sunroof of the VW bus

Stand on the bed

Scream at the top of my lungs.

The first night,

Judy leaves the door to her bedroom cracked open,

But I sleep on the couch.

The second night

She seduces me.

How fitting that I have my first sexual experience

During the Summer of Love

With a woman nine years older than me.

A great introduction to sex.

God bless you, Mrs. Robinson.

Just released, The Graduate nails it.

During the day Judy goes to work.

I write “An Evaluation of the Residence College”

For the student newspaper

As they requested.

It reads, in part:

By the end of the summer, a very large number of students had...come to reject... the dehumanizing, alienating world of higher education,..the emphasis...upon behavioral performance,... [and] the values, worldviews, and procedures undergirding most American institutions ... all woven one into the other….

The entire education experience...seems to be extremely well-designed to graduate reliable cogs in the marvelous machine of unparalleled material progress…. The essence of our critique is that America is spiritually decadent….

Creative expression of one’s true self, whether in art, thought, or personal relationships, is not nurtured…. Inner strength is seen as a threat; so the ground for a stable sense of autonomy is undercut…. Our educators demonstrate little concern for the souls of their students even though they are in the very process of inflicting enormous damage upon those souls….

So much is made of usefulness that man himself is reduced to a mere instrument….

What is needed is encouragement of integrity, rather than dishonesty; ... appreciation of the remarkable breadth of human creativity, rather than merely the powers of the intellect; illumination of the value of freedom, rather than the expediency of submission; nurturance of flexible autonomy, rather than brittle automatons; ... ecstasy, as well as rational self-understanding; education, rather than manipulation; love, rather than mistrust….

At the seminary that fall,

My only chapel service

Consists entirely of the words and music of Bob Dylan.

The school President is not happy.

I did not read from Scripture.

Later that semester,

For my Worship and the Arts class,

A 90-minute piece of total theater

In the sanctuary.

Inspired by Nietzsche.

We call it “A Sort of Modern-Day Dionysian Rite.”

Invite the Berkeley community.

Black out the windows

For the light show.

Poetry,

Music,

Theater.

Two students from UC

Wearing bathing suits

Covered in fluorescent paint

Dance under a blacklight.

The School President thinks they’re naked.

We place mattresses on the floor

Bring out wine, fruit, cheese, and bread.

Invite everyone to get comfortable.

The next day the student body President

Proposes to the School President

A special service

To re-consecrate the sanctuary.

He declines.

1967 ends with great enthusiasm and hope.

1968 hits and reality bites back.

Personally, if I could, I’d go back to 67.

Recent WadesWire.org Posts

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 02:12:00 +0000

My recent posts to WadesWire.org include:

Twelve Steps for Growing Deep Community: Step One
Direct Action by L.A. Kaufman: Forthcoming Review
David Brooks on Pierre Bourdieu
The History and Future of Consumerism
A Thought for Bernie Sanders, by Tom Gallagher
Reflections On My 73rd Birthday
The Miwok Village
Terrapin Crossroads
Mind and Body
A Higher Love
101 Gratitudes
My Videos: 7/26/17 – 8/6/17

Direct Action by L.A. Kaufman: Forthcoming Review

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Sat, 15 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0000

After I finish reading Direct Action: Protest and the Reinvention of American Radicalism by L.A. Kaufman, I’ll post a review of it in a week or so. Despite some differences of opinion with the author, I consider it a valuable book. If you read it between now and then, we could compare notes. One option would be for you to write your comments before reading mine. Then we could share independent reactions.

The release of her book by Verso prompted Rolling Stone to publish an interview with her titled, “How to Take Action – and Stay Sane – in the Trump Era.” The sub-title was “'Direct Action' author L.A. Kauffman discusses how to get motivated and fight burnout, and why "protest works."

Five of the six customer reviews on Amazon give it five stars. NPR also reviewed the book.

Verso’s description of the book reads as follows:

A longtime movement insider's powerful account of the origins of today's protest movements and what they can achieve now

As Americans take to the streets in record numbers to resist the presidency of Donald Trump, L.A. Kauffman’s timely, trenchant history of protest offers unique insights into how past movements have won victories in times of crisis and backlash and how they can be most effective today.

This deeply researched account, twenty-five years in the making, traces the evolution of disruptive protest since the Sixties to tell a larger story about the reshaping of the American left. Kauffman, a longtime grassroots organizer, examines how movements from ACT UP to Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter have used disruptive tactics to catalyze change despite long odds.

Kauffman's lively and elegant history is propelled by hundreds of candid interviews conducted over a span of decades. Direct Action showcases the voices of key players in an array of movements – environmentalist, anti-nuclear, anti-apartheid, feminist, LGBTQ, anti-globalization, racial-justice, anti-war, and more – across an era when American politics shifted to the right, and a constellation of decentralized issue- and identity-based movements supplanted the older ideal of a single, unified left.

Now, as protest movements again take on a central and urgent political role, Kauffman’s history offers both striking lessons for the current moment and an unparalleled overview of the landscape of recent activism. Written with nuance and humor, Direct Action is essential reading for anyone interested in understanding the protest movements of our time.

Verso’s biography of the author is:

L.A. Kauffman has spent more than thirty years immersed in radical movements as a participant, strategist, journalist, and observer. She has been called a “virtuoso organizer” by journalist Scott Sherman for her role in saving community gardens and public libraries in New York City from development. Kauffman coordinated the grassroots mobilizing efforts for the huge protests against the Iraq war in 2003–04. Her writings on American radicalism and social movement history have been published in The Nation, n+1, The Baffler, and many other outlets.

Consider checking it out. I look forward to evaluating it, hopefully with some of you.

Words, Harm, Blame, and Splintering

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:43:00 +0000

by Wade Hudson Tikkun Daily

July 10, 2017

[Jesus] recognized with authentic realism that anyone who permits another to determine the quality of his inner life gives into the hands of the other the key to his destiny. If a man knows precisely what he can do to you or what epithet he can hurl against you in order to make you lose your temper, your equilibrium, then he can always keep you under subjection.

--Jesus and the Disinherited, Howard Thurman

Cruel words can trigger hurt feelings and anger. Individuals who speak those words need to be held accountable and we need to reduce their frequency. But a compassionate response avoids blaming only the speaker. Listeners share responsibility for their reactions, and social conditioning and other factors contribute as well.

The Dalai Lama said:

You have to think: Why did this happen? This person is not your enemy from birth…. You see that this person’s actions are due to their own destructive emotions. You can develop a sense of concern, compassion, even feel sorry for their pain and suffering.

Words do not directly cause harm like a hammer causes pain when it hits my thumb. Cause and effect is a linear dynamic; emotions are immersed in a holistic system. Words contribute to hurt feelings, but how I process what others say is another factor. I am partly responsible for how I respond. I can learn how to react differently.

So I no longer tell people, “You hurt me.” That phrase shifts all responsibility onto the speaker.

It can be more constructive to say, “When you said X, I felt Y.” In that case, the focus is on a single action. That makes it easier to acknowledge a mistake and resolve not to repeat it, which can help heal the relationship.

On the other hand, “You hurt me” focuses on the other. As such, it can be seen as a personal attack, a challenge to who you are at your core. That can make the exchange more heated and lead to a reciprocal, escalating blame game with each party accusing the other, which often degenerates into ad hominem name-calling.

One result is personal fragility. People become less likely to speak honestly, because they’re afraid they will cause harm or be accused of causing harm. That fear gives power to people who are prone to charge, “You hurt me.” Those accusers can then try to manipulate the speaker with guilt trips.

“You hurt me” is like charging a felony rather than an infraction. When “defendants” plead “not guilty” to that felony, “prosecutors” often punish, shun, or excommunicate them. As a result, former allies often splinter over disagreements about tactics.

Faced with that harshly judgmental dynamic, many potential allies withdraw from social engagement and operate in a safer environment with a small circle of friends, which reinforces the splintering.

America’s highly individualistic culture exaggerates the responsibility of individuals. But the primary problem is the System, which includes our institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals. A kind response to mean words takes into account that reality.

I wish I were not so easily offended. I wish others were not so easily offended. I wish that like-minded people did not divide so easily into factions. After all, we need community, not fragmentation.

Blaming individuals diverts energy away from organizing to change institutions and policies. More compassion and less blaming could help nurture a broad-based movement to transform the United States into a supportive community that would enable you, me, and everyone to be all we can be.

++++++++++

The Backfire Effect

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Mon, 22 May 2017 18:08:00 +0000

Dear Subscriber: I very much appreciate the connection we’ve had via Wade’s Weekly. The interest, feedback, and support you’ve shown have been very helpful. I hope we stay in touch. To continue receiving my posts, please subscribe to Wade’s Wire on the homepage.

This is my latest post there: "The Backfire Effect."

Wade’s Journal - May 18, 2017

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Thu, 18 May 2017 21:46:00 +0000

Now that I’m retired from cab driving, I’m more relaxed and look forward to a fruitful future.

My 50-year-old commitment to help organize “communities of faith, love, and action” remains intact. The language we’ve used to articulate the “faith” part has changed over time, but the spirit has not. For the first 20 years or so following that commitment, the spiritual values behind my work were implicit -- until I decided to make those beliefs explicit. Since then I’ve stumbled along: researching, going to workshops, convening workshops, writing, talking, planting seeds, and looking for an open-hearted, compassionate, holistic community to join.

Now I think I’ve found one: Thrive East Bay, a community that’s led primarily -- in a very non-hierarchical, “flat” fashion -- by young people. As is the case with so many young people these days, the members of that community amaze me. They seem far more advanced than my peers and I were at that age. It definitely gives me hope for the future. The Thrive East Bay people I’ve gotten to know a bit personally have been impressive and highly committed to social transformation.

More than a year ago, I met the Thrive East Bay organizer, Joshua Gorman, at a workshop that he and I attended which was convened by the Center for Spiritual and Social Transformation (now the Ignite Institute). He invited the participants to an event sponsored by Generation Waking Up, a project that provides training, mentoring, and support to young people to help “bring forth a thriving, just, and sustainable world.” That event, which was open to people of all ages and whose participants were a diverse mix, was remarkably inspiring. It included poetry, music, and personal sharing from the stage as well as among the audience, who at times milled about and paired up to interact.

When Thrive East Bay began not long afterwards, I went to their first public event, which was held in a Lake Merritt apartment with about 20 people squeezed in. A similar format was employed and I again found it to be invigorating. But my working full-time interfered with sustained involvement.

After returning to one of their events last week, I’m heartened by their growth. And now that I’m free, I plan to participate fully once I return from visiting folks in Seattle and on the East Coast during the next several weeks.

The Thrive East Bay website homepage identifies the group as “a new kind of community” dedicated to “connect, grow, transform.” The About page states:

Thrive East Bay is a purpose-driven community of people committed to creating a flourishing world for all.

We are a new kind of community offering a relevant space for diverse people seeking meaning and connection in our rapidly changing world. Informed by modern science and ancient wisdom, our culture is both secular and spiritual, infused with a deep sense of purpose and interconnectedness, inspired by the arts, and focused on social change.

We welcome people of all ages and backgrounds as we engage in personal growth, shared learning, and collective action.

We host regular Sunday events, small group circles, workshops, and training courses in the Oakland, Berkeley, and wider San Francisco Bay Area.

We are inspired by the following core principles that guide our community:

Thriving Lives - We support each other in overcoming personal challenges and injustice, and creating healthy lives filled with purpose, joy, and expression.
Love In Action - We let love guide us toward compassion, gratitude, empathy, and community amongst diverse groups of people.
Shared Learning & Practice - We seek to deepen our understanding of the world through conversation and critical inquiry, and to grow together through transformative practices and action.
Systemic Change - We unite to build equitable systems where we can flourish as individuals, as communities, and as a planet.

I particularly relate to the fact that they identify “support each other” at the head of their first core principle. I also respond to the fact that in that principle they affirm “overcoming personal challenges,” which suggests a commitment to self-examination. I anticipate exploring with them whether and how they believe that effort includes “modifying harmful social conditioning,” a key concern of mine recently.

I’m also eager to participate in the “Holistic Movement Building” workshop with Kazu Haga and Sonya Shah June 26-29, which aims to

harness the power to change policies and institutions while cultivating the love it will take to transform relationships…. How do we dismantle systems of oppression without replicating those same patterns in our own relationships? How do we heal our wounds while transforming the systems that perpetuate them? How do we better cultivate the relationship between inner and outer transformation?

Kazu and I have had some rich interaction concerning those issues. I’m very encouraged to see that he, Joshua, and others are keeping the holistic-change fire alive!

“Reactance” and How to Talk

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Thu, 18 May 2017 02:23:00 +0000

Dear Subscriber: I very much appreciate the connection we’ve had via Wade’s Weekly. The interest, feedback, and support you’ve shown have been very helpful. I hope we can stay in touch. To continue receiving my posts, please subscribe to Wade’s Wire on the homepage.

This is my latest post there: “Reactance” and How to Talk

Moving to Wade's Wire (first notice)

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Mon, 15 May 2017 21:07:00 +0000

Soon I will no longer be posting here but will only be posting to Wade's Wire, generally relatively short pieces (800 words or so) 3-5 times per week.

To receive those posts via email, visit the home page at http://www.wadeswire.org/, enter your email address in the Subscribe box at the top left, and click Subscribe.

I just posted there "Peter Coyote, Change, and Transformation."

“My Bottom Line” Revisited

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Tue, 02 May 2017 22:19:00 +0000

Facebook just told me that five years ago today I posted “My Bottom Line.” On the one hand, I am disappointed that I'm still seeking the kind of holistic community described in that essay. On the other hand, I am encouraged by various recent efforts to nurture such growth, including invitations that I received today from two allies with whom I have engaged in rich dialog about these matters.

The first invitation was from Kazu Haga, founder of the East Bay Peace Academy. It reads:

Holistic Movement-Building

Tuesday, June 26 - Friday, June 29; 10am-5pm

Taught by Kazu Haga and Sonya Shah

"Power without love is reckless and abusive, while love without power is sentimental and anemic." Dr. King, Gandhi, Chavez and others envisioned a movement that harnesses the power to change policies and institutions while cultivating the love it will take to transform relationships. What does it mean to build holistic movements for justice and healing? How do we build a movement grounded in love without giving up the power and the urgency of now? How do we dismantle systems of oppression without replicating those same patterns in our own relationships? How do we heal our wounds while transforming the systems that perpetuate them? How do we better cultivate the relationship between inner and outer transformation? What do holistic movements for justice and healing look like in terms of real practice and on the ground? This workshop will engage these questions, explore past and current movements, and envision paradigms and practices to build more holistic movements grounded in both justice and healing. This four-day inquiry will interweave theory, discussion, experiential exercises, and a collaborative approach.

Cost $425. For more info, click here.

The second invitation was from Joshua Gorman. It reads:

Join Thrive East Bay for our first monthly 'Root Down' event this coming Sunday as we deepen in community, engage in embodied practice, and nourish ourselves with delicious food and meaningful connections.

Thrive East Bay is a community of people committed to personal and social transformation. We stand together for a world of love, justice, and belonging. Our monthly 'Root Down' events build upon our larger monthly gatherings by providing an opportunity to connect more deeply with inspiring people; to engage in transformative practices that we can carry into our everyday lives; and to share in the power of community in service to a world that works for all.

When: this Sunday, May 7th from 4 - 6pm (please arrive on time!)

Community potluck and connecting from 6 - 7pm

Where: PLACE for Sustainable Living

1121 64th Street

Oakland, CA 94608

(This venue is wheelchair accessible.)

Co-Hosts: Aryeh Shell & Kele Nitoto

Cost: No one will be turned away for lack of funds. There is a suggested sliding scale contribution of $10 - $20 to help us cover our costs. You are invited to contribute what you feel called and are able to.

Potluck: Sharing food together is an essential part of community. Please bring a tasty dish and/or beverage to share with others for the community potluck.

Volunteers: We are seeking volunteers to help with the set-up and break-down of this event. If you are available to arrive early or stay late, let us know at teamATthriveeastbayDOTorg.

Invite a Friend: Please feel free to invite a friend who may value attending.

We look forward to 'rooting down' in community!

In partnership,

the Thrive East Bay Team

As I retire from cab driving, I look forward to having much more time to explore those issues. In particular, I’m interested in finding, helping to create, and publicizing user-friendly methods that activists could use to support one another to modify their counter-productive social conditioning and become more compassionate and effective. My hope is that such methods can be widely replicated, with little or no training required by the participants.

More Dialog on "Patient as Doctor"

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Tue, 02 May 2017 21:39:00 +0000

I wanted to let you know how I chose to use your essay, "Patient As Doctor," in my class. Some background: ...I teach a Professional Foundations of Nursing course to 96 junior nursing students (so they are early in their nursing education and have a varied range of patient care experience). In this course they learn about nursing history, ethics, laws relevant to nursing, the image of nursing, the US health care system and leadership.

In class yesterday, students divided up into 16 groups of 6 students and followed this format:

In your assigned group, designate the following roles:

1 writer
1 timekeeper
1 presenter

Read the essay below and answer the following questions. Be prepared to share at least one of your group's responses with the class.

Patient As Doctor

1. How does this patient's account make you feel?

2. In your opinion, does the US health care system disempower patients?

3. If so, what examples have you seen?

4. What can nurses do to promote patient empowerment within the US health care system?

After their group work, each group had one presenter come up to the front of the room and answer the questions listed above. Students had some powerful responses.

Students felt saddened, uncomfortable, surprised, not surprised and ashamed by your account. They believed that the health care system does disempower patients and some of their examples included: doing to the patient before asking or obtaining consent, not explaining rationale/educating, not providing the patient with options or choices, not encouraging the patient to ask questions, rushing through patient care, and not using an interpreter. They felt that some subgroups are even more likely to be paternalized/disempowered, including the elderly, the disabled, those who do not speak English, and the mentally ill. They provided several inspiring examples of how nurses can promote patient empowerment, giving me hope for the future of nursing and the advocacy of nursing as a counterbalance to the predominant medical model of care.

Just wanted to share and extend my appreciation of your willingness to let me use your writing in my teaching. I think that is was a very powerful exercise for the students!

Best,

+++++

Interesting and valuable feedback. I’d like to add one more comment in response to this one that someone submitted:

Your article makes a number of good points about our paternalistic system. Whether it is medicine, law enforcement or the media we are treated as if we can NOT make informed decisions on our own.

Again, it’s also about personal responsibility. We are treated the way we allow people to treat us. We have to step up to the plate and choose: accept what we’re told, question what we’re told and then decide, or reject what we’re told. Even these choices are our decision, so to say we’re treated as if we can NOT make informed decisions is a cop-out. The system won’t change just because we blame it. We have to change the way we respond to it.

++

My response:

I agree that we need to affirm and nurture personal responsibility. But why should the patient always have to fight to be heard? Why don't the professionals initiate dialog? Patients are often already stressed out. Fighting or pushing adds to the stress.

I do not believe that I blamed the professionals. As I see it, individual patients are a component of the System. Blame is shared.

It's not either/or. We need not blame the individual either. But often others treat us the way they choose to treat us -- not because we allow them to do so.

In my case, I did resist quite a bit. But when you've got a 103-degree fever and are wiped out by multiple drugs, it's hard to speak up consistently.

Responses to “Patient As Doctor”

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 23:10:00 +0000

The many, varied responses to my report on my recent hospitalization, “Patient As Doctor,” including numerous shares and likes on Facebook, were very helpful. Those comments that resonated with my critique of the health care system as a reflection of the larger society reassured me I am not alone. And the empathy and sympathy that were expressed was healing.

At the same time, however, I appreciated those who offered a different perspective. Generalizations are dangerous. Reality is a mixed bag. It does seem, for example, that Kaiser Permanente, “an integrated managed care consortium,” generally offers better care than is provided by “fee-for-service” institutions that generate greater income by providing more, often unnecessary, services, as is the case at my hospital. And no doubt many people receive good care at that hospital as well.

All of which raises questions about strategic language. If one is not careful, overblown rhetoric can alienate one from one’s audience, making it more difficult to build pressure for positive change. Words matter. What should we seek? Evolution? Revolution? Fundamental reform? Transformation? Creative change? It gets complicated, but those are questions I’ll continue to explore.

In the meantime, here are the responses to my piece, which I posted on multiple platforms:

+++++

Holistic, consultative democratic practices

+++

So sorry about your experience. What you describe is why I don't interact with the medical establishment. They are not a health care system but a medical industry. I object to all the debate around "health care" because that is a misnomer for the medical insurance business which is driven by the profit motive not any kind of caring much less for health. Our society is so deeply devoted to the principle of money over everything that those involved in it cannot see it. I hope you get well soon.

+++

Thank you for posting this. Ridiculous what happens in a hospital

+++

I'm sorry that happened and it's so true. Needs to change.

+++

Being your own advocate is vital.

+++

There are now patient experience departments at every hospital. Send this letter to the CEO and cc the Patient Experience Team at the organization. The organization is measured on these things now for reimbursement as well as accreditation. The CEO will act on this...if not...don't ever go back to that particular hospital unless you have too.

+++

I'm sorry for your ordeal, Wade. What happened to informed consent? I have had a similar bout of illness lately. I agree that our so-called health care system is moreso a medical industrial complex that sometimes is needed and sometimes helps. At Kaiser, which is lacking in many other ways, I have always been informed and asked for consent re interventions. Where did your experiences take place? Worthy of an official grievance!

+++

My sentiments precisely

+++

I go into my doctor's office with a list of questions. I'm lucky to be pretty healthy but the last medical issue I had, I had a specialist thank me for being a proactive patient. She said too many patients don't ask questions.

+++

Wade, I'm glad to hear you are feeling better, but what an ordeal. One person with bad communication I can understand, but an entire system? I agree that your description should go to the hospital admin. I had pneumonia about 4 years ago, and I found not being able to breathe well a very disconcerting sensation, to say the least. In diagnosing it, they kept asking me, "Do you feel exhausted?" And I kept saying "No, I just feel like there's not enough oxygen in the room and opening a window wouldn't help." It wasn't until later when the antibiotic started to work and I *could* breathe better that I felt exhausted. I realized that adrenaline from a very primal panic about not breathing was keeping me from feeling exhausted.

+++

I couldn't agree more with your statement: "...we need to apply holistic principles to every institution, not just health care. If we did, we would “transform the System.” But the world descends into ever more tribalism, materialism, and militarism." Wade!

'Holistic' to me means ‘integrated’. But the reality is that we live in a world where segregation, isolation and antagonism are the rule. "Divide and conquer" rather than "Unite and evolve", that is why 'the System' is broken.

+++

I'm really sorry to hear about this ordeal, Wade. I do agree with the other person who said that Kaiser is a lot better in this regard. I also had pneumonia about ten years ago, and although the active infection went away quickly, I was drained of energy for several months afterwards. I sure hope you don't have to deal with that.

+++

Wade Hudson continue to be proactive about your health; Be well!

+++

Thanks for sharing the story

+++

With you on all accounts! Glad you made it through. Very glad you are using the learning experience to help us and the hospital. Yes, empowerment and education are needed throughout society. Liberating structures as the scaffolding for reconstruction.

+++

i am glad you're doing better despite the poor treatment. Thankfully, my experience with heart surgery and recovery has been significantly more positive.

+++

Regarding what you wrote about your experience in the hospital and the general comments about health care and practitioners. It’s really easy to blame the system — broken or otherwise. But what came to mind for me was where do we as patients/users of the system take responsibility? Do we ask direct questions about why we need a particular treatment or medication, what is it supposed to do, what are the side effects, etc. I do this all the time, and

as a result haven’t had any problems with the doctors I see — including my adventures in the E/R. Our parents’ generation accepted doctors as gods….”they know what’s best, don’t rock the boat” etc. At least that was my mother’s philosophy. If we pay attention to our bodies they tell us what they need if we only listen. Medical professionals are there to help because they MAY have more specific medical knowledge about what’s going on, but we can’t assume their solutions are the only ones. I’ve had medications reduced and even eliminated because I said that’s what I wanted, and so far I’ve survived quite well. And we have to ask and question. I think that’s what the intern meant when he said we are our own best doctors.

+++

Your article makes a number of good points about our paternalistic system. Whether it is medicine, law enforcement or the media we are treated as if we can NOT make informed decisions on our own.

+++

I am glad you are feeling better. Thank you for your articulate analysis. One of my adult daughters has had significant health issues for most of her life and we have had this conversation often as a family. We have come to the conclusion that there is an eerie similarity between the health system and the criminal justice system regarding disempowerment, "professionalism," disorientation and vulnerability. I'm glad you included the hopeful comments by the medical student and your primary care doctor.

+++

Hope you are feeling better. Pneumonia is serious and deadly.

+++

I'm sorry you had to go through this -- sounds like you were on your own during your hospital stay? Your "treatment" / mistreatment by medical professionals is something I’ve also experienced; not as a consumer but as a caregiver / advocate for people in Cambodia's even more wretched and class-based medical system, and then for my dad dealing with shockingly similar attitudes in Virginia. I learned in Cambodia that in order to survive the medical system, every patient must have an advocate. So it seemed natural to take on the role for my father (even though the doctors and social workers thought I was a hostile pain-in-the ass). I'm glad I persevered; on at least one occasion, if I'd left my dad in the hands of the 'professionals' one night and gone home instead, my dad would have died much sooner than he needed or wanted to…. Your primary care doctor sounds like a goddess-send. I believe she's the one who wrote about the healing qualities of gardening / farming, especially through contact with soil? This is a topic I've been exploring recently through workshops in horticultural therapy.

+++

Thank you, Wade. I wish that everyone who has such an experience would flood the media (social and otherwise), the hospital admins, the medical schools, the newspapers and beyond, so that patients would take it into their hands and REFUSE to be infantilized. In many ways we are a country of rebels, but when it comes to doctors and medicine we are amazingly compliant. And, I realize how hard it is for anyone to challenge a system when one is in the midst of illness or emergency.

Thank you for your part of testifying and waking people up. We are trying to do this about advanced directives for emergencies and end of life. What you are addressing affects many more people. Citizen driven research has been making strides. Seems like it could be even easier to move citizen-driven medical practices.

I’m glad you have such a forward thinking primary care person. If that person is in SF, I’d love to know who it is for referral status

+++

hope you are feeling better! many blessings,

Patient As Doctor

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:36:00 +0000

Two days as an inpatient recently reinforced my opinion that the medical system paternalistically infantilizes patients -- a symbolic reflection of how the System itself systematically disempowers people.

A 103 degree fever led me to ER. Soon I was hooked to an IV that pumped something into my blood. They didn’t tell me what it was, give me a drug information sheet about it, seek my consent, or ask me about allergies. Some time later someone dropped a pill into my mouth without telling me what it was. I think it was Tylenol. Then someone stuck a cue tip into my nose without telling me what they wanted to do or why. It was to test for flu, which proved positive. I was also wired up for an EKG. No one told me why or asked for my consent. Later I was taken for an x-ray, which I happened to know was to test for pneumonia, but if I had not known that, I would have been clueless. They also, without telling me why, pumped oxygen into my lungs with a device inserted in my nose and attached a monitor to my finger to read the oxygen level in my blood. It wasn’t until the next afternoon that I learned why or the meaning of various levels of oxygen by doing research with my smartphone. When I asked for a list of all the drugs they were giving me for my various ailments, which included constipation and a urinary tract infection, the list did not explain which drug was for what.

Then the physical and occupational therapists swarmed on me. After chatting some and walking around the ward, the physical therapist told me she wanted to refer me to two weeks at a rehab center. “Ok?” she said. I thought that was ridiculous and remained silent. She repeated, “OK?” I replied, “I understand what you’re saying but I disagree.” I felt like she saw a wounded fish and was trying to reel me in to boost the case for her agency’s budget.

Later I told one of my medical students about that encounter. He said the whole team would discuss it. As he was leaving, he said, “Sometimes the patient is their own best doctor.” After he left, I broke down crying. Hopefully that student bodes well for the future of medicine.

I could continue. There are more stories. But I think I’ve made my point: Society should serve to empower everyone, everywhere, but we fall far short.

Fortunately, however, the drugs cured my fever and I’m recuperating at home, not some rehab center.

++++++

Yesterday I met with my primary care doctor for the first time since discharge and learned that I had pneumonia (a fact no one at the hospital told me!). At the end of our session, I showed her this essay and asked her if she believed I was being fair with my criticism. Before posting it, I wanted her opinion.

Not only did she say the essay makes sense. She asked my permission to photograph it and post it to her Twitter feed!

I often feel like a lonely voice crying out in the wilderness. As I see it, we need to apply holistic principles to every institution, not just health care. If we did, we would “transform the System.” But the world descends into ever more tribalism, materialism, and militarism.

Lately, short of breath, I’ve been discouraged. But my doctor’s response heartens me.

We must nurture a deep commitment to the common good of the Earth Community and find others who share that goal so we can build the critical mass needed to change course. Humanity’s future depends on it.

Tax Reform: What’s Fair?

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Sun, 02 Apr 2017 23:39:00 +0000

How much should various income groups pay in federal taxes? How much federal revenue would be generated by higher rates on the wealthy?

Forget “nominal” rates. What matters are “effective” tax rates -- what people actually pay.

According to the CBO, in 2013, the last year for which detailed data is available, the average before-tax annual income of the top 1% was $1.5 million. With their 34% federal effective tax rate, their after-tax income was $1.0 million.

Those in the 96-99 percentiles averaged $327,000 in pre-tax income. Their rate was 26%. So their after-tax income was $240,000.

The 91-95 percentiles averaged $200,000. With an effective tax rate of 23%, their average after-tax income was $155,000.

For the sake of argument, consider the impact of a graduated tax scheme that resulted in those income groups paying 60%, 45%, and 40% respectively.

That would leave them with after-tax incomes of $628,000, $180,000, and $120,000 -- substantial to say the least.

With their same incomes, the increase in federal revenue would total one trillion dollars.

That would be enough to hire 32 million full-time workers at $15 per hour.

Just saying.

What tax rates would you consider fair? Bear in mind the total local, state, and federal tax burdens as reported in the graphic.

Building a Democracy Movement (3/24/17 Draft)

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Sat, 25 Mar 2017 02:57:00 +0000

James Baldwin stated:

If I’m not the nigger here and you invented him, you the white people invented him, then you’ve got to find out why…. If you think I’m a nigger, it means you need it…. And the future of the country depends on that. Whether or not it’s able to ask that question.

This statement aims to answer Baldwin’s question.

What is it about “the system” that produces “niggers”? And, how can we change that system?

[To read more, click here.]

Donald Trump, America’s Shadow

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Mon, 20 Feb 2017 01:02:00 +0000

If the American people use Trump as a mirror to see our Shadow, we can liberate ourselves from our own base instincts and build on the resistance to Trump to transform the United States into a compassionate community.

According to Stephen Diamond:

The shadow, said celebrated Swiss psychiatrist C.G. Jung, is the unknown ‘‘dark side’’ of our personality–-dark both because it tends to consist predominantly of the primitive, negative, socially or religiously depreciated human emotions and impulses like sexual lust, power strivings, selfishness, greed, envy, anger or rage, and due to its unenlightened nature, completely obscured from consciousness. Whatever we deem evil, inferior or unacceptable and deny in ourselves becomes part of the shadow, the counterpoint to what Jung called the persona or conscious ego personality….

The pervasive Freudian defense mechanism known as projection is how most people deny their shadow, unconsciously casting it onto others so as to avoid confronting it in oneself. Such projection of the shadow is engaged in not only by individuals but groups, cults, religions, and entire countries, and commonly occurs during wars and other contentious conflicts in which the outsider, enemy or adversary is made a scapegoat, dehumanized, and demonized.

Unfortunately, with his blatant “power strivings, selfishness, greed, envy, anger [and] rage,” Trump is an All-American. He’s just more honest about it.

Are you free of those tendencies? I know I am not.

When we deny those realities, avoid confronting them in ourselves, and cast them onto others, it’s easy to demonize Trump and get carried away with our own irrationality.

Trump is a threat. It may well be that he is “crazy like a fox.” There may be a method to the madness that he, Bannon, and Miller exhibit.

He’s discrediting the lamestream media and creating his own reality, which his loyal followers accept uncritically. And he still has a 40% approval rating. That’s a lot of people.

And all he needs is a major crisis, whether manufactured or not, and more violent anti-Trump protesters to boost that base and increase his power.

If we are hateful ourselves, we’ll give cover to the anarchists. Somehow we need to figure out how to deal with those who are prone to violence. Conducting demonstrations with a clear, strong tone of dignified nonviolence would be a great first step.

I remain hopeful that our strong civil society and judiciary will restrain Trump -- if we are thoughtful in how we resist.

The System: Historical Roots

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Sun, 05 Feb 2017 18:25:00 +0000

Human beings are inherently compassionate, cooperative creatures. We need to care for others and be cared for. Those deep, primal, primordial instincts are derived from the bond between infant and mother, both in the womb and in the months after birth.

For two million years, humans lived in hunter-gatherer tribes whose members were equal, cooperative, playful, and peaceful. Compared to modern comforts, conditions were hard, but food and material goods were shared. No “chief” ordered others what to do and everyone participated in group decisions. Those characteristics became deeply embedded in human nature.

In lush, remote areas, tribes perpetuated that lifestyle as modern civilizations expanded elsewhere. When the Spanish began to settle the San Francisco Bay Area in 1774, for example, the region was a virtual Garden of Eden. The fish were so plentiful people just threw rocks into streams to kill them and birds would at times block the sun like an eclipse when they flew. With this abundance, around the Bay, some 40 indigenous tribes with different languages lived peacefully, with only occasional conflicts.

At an early age, children suffer frustration and experience pain, which leads to fear, another deep instinct. Fear in turn often leads to anger. As the ego develops, without proper parenting, that anger can harden into hatred and be expressed destructively. Even worse, especially in modern cultures, the ego can become addicted to the adrenalin rush associated with defeating others in competitive struggles.

That conflict between love and hate, both strong instincts, has played out through human history. But love (with the mother) comes first. It’s deepest, and if fully cultivated, it can be stronger.

Only 12,000 years ago, when the last Ice Age ended and glaciers melted, new seed-bearing plants emerged. Not long after, in various parts of the planet at more or less the same time, humans learned to plant those seeds and grow crops. Eventually, they began to store food in central locations. As control of that food became critical, a few men amassed the power to protect and distribute it. Societies became centralized and separated into classes. Those at the top used physical violence and the threat of violence to impose their will.

With that development of centralized agriculture, ever since elites have dominated class-based societies (including those that later called themselves Communist or Socialist). As the risk of being conquered by outsiders developed, fear of “the other” intensified and ruling elites promoted religious myths and rituals to legitimize their power and help persuade their subjects to obey them. The selective granting of privileges and powers to those who were loyal also encouraged submission.

Over time, fear, hate, and deception became tools of social control. Monarchies rooted in the biological inheritance of wealth and power became commonplace. Most subjects generally supported their rulers, who provided economic security and protection against outsiders.

With the growth of capitalism, the new business class challenged monarchies and pursued political power for itself. Affirming ideals such as “all men are born equal,” they argued that greed and the pursuit of economic self-interest could be harnessed to benefit the common good. The threat of poverty, they said, was necessary to motivate otherwise lazy people to work hard, which was a dark view of human nature. They used fear to support the social order.

During the initial transition to democracy, only property owners elected government officials. Black slaves, indentured servants, other poor whites, and women could not vote. Those restrictions enabled property owners to pass on their advantages to their children. Nevertheless, a somewhat more fluid social inheritance of wealth and power replaced the rigid biological inheritance associated with monarchies.

“Levellers” and others who wanted a more complete democracy threatened to expand the right to vote and redistribute property. Faced with that threat, in the United States, the Founders who wrote the Constitution took measures to protect stability. James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” wrote: “Divide et impera (divide and conquer), the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain (some) qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles."

With those thoughts in mind, the Founders fragmented the nation’s government, divided the federal government into three branches and Congress into two houses, and established the Electoral College to elect the President. For the country as a whole, they divided power between national, state, and local governments. Those divisions made united popular action on a national scale difficult.

Throughout this history, the instinct to love and cooperate with fellow humans remained deeply ingrained. In every major civilization, generations passed down stories of an earlier time of peace, harmony, and prosperity. In Greece and Rome, that period was called the "Golden Age." In the Middle East, it was the “Garden of Eden.”

Some freedom-loving rebels have always resisted centralized societies based on domination and submission. They’ve often tried to establish compassionate alternatives, whether privately in their families and religious institutions, or in small, semi-autonomous alternative societies and subcultures. Sometimes slaves and other oppressed groups have rebelled and sought freedom violently.

Every major civilization has experienced conflict between those two major forces: top-down domination rooted in hate, deception, and fear; and partnership rooted in love, honesty, and faith in the future.

Transform the System: A 16-Point Step-by-Step Program

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:57:00 +0000

NOTE: Following is the first draft of “A 16-Point Step-by-Step Program,” which will be included in “Transform the System: A Declaration.” To my knowledge, no organization of the sort envisioned here currently exists. As stated in the Preface:

A widespread commitment to that goal could help unify a broad array of forces into a “transform-the-system movement.” Various organizations could fight for specific causes while doing so for the sake of the larger cause. We could affirm both/and, within a shared commitment to systemic transformation. We could build momentum by occasionally supporting one another on timely priorities when victories are near. With that approach, we could inspire discouraged, inactive people who want to have a short-term impact. And we could inspire idealists who want long-term fundamental reform.

Feedback is welcome.

A 16-Point Step-by-Step Program

The following presents a scenario for how a coalition to transform the System might develop. These ideas are a “thought experiment.” There’s no assumption they will be fully implemented.

A diverse organizing committee forms with the intent to find or help develop a multi-issue national coalition that:

Helps members undo the System’s divisive conditioning.
Stays together over time and quickly mobilizes large numbers of individuals nationwide to fight for priority issues one at a time.
Promotes a new common purpose for our society.
Aims to help reform all of our major institutions, our culture, and ourselves to serve that mission.

The committee drafts a brief statement of principles to guide its work. To whatever degree it chooses, it draws on material presented in this booklet.
The committee widely circulates that draft, solicits input, and modifies it.
The committee looks for an existing national organization that already embraces the approach presented in that statement of principles.
If it’s unable to find one, it seeks a local branch of an existing national organization, such as a local Democratic Party, that’s willing to adopt the project as a model that could be used to persuade its national body to take it on.
If it’s unable to find such an organization, the committee explores forming a new organization itself with the following methods:

It requests individuals to endorse its principles and pledge to join the organization if and when a certain number of individuals, perhaps 100,000, sign the pledge.
The organizing committee also asks a broad array of organizations to endorse the statement of principles and pledge to mobilize their members for joint actions (perhaps once a month if needed) if and when the organization is launched.
The committee tells organizations with more than a certain number of members that they will be able to designate a representative to the organization’s governing body.
When the individual-member threshold has been crossed, the organizing committee forms a governing body.
The governing body launches the coalition and collects membership dues, which will be the coalition’s only source of income.
The governing body guides the Coalition by adopting written policies and delegating to staff the responsibility for implementing those policies.

Individual members reach out to neighbors who live in the same voting precinct and form a precinct-based club with two or more members.
Those clubs:

Meet at least once a month.
Share a meal.
Organize and convene social and educational activities that enrich members’ lives.
Open meetings with each member briefly reporting on one of their self-improvement efforts.
Discuss how to engage other neighbors in mutual learning dialogs and recruit them to join the club.
Unless its local Democratic Party already engages in year-round precinct organizing and fights for the Party’s national platform year-round, the clubs work together to persuade the Party to do so -- and to persuade the State and national Party to do the same.
Work with other organizations to develop slates of candidates for local and regional elected Democratic Party positions who agree that the Party should engage in year-round precinct organizing and fight for its platform year-round -- and promise to push the state and national parties to undertake that kind of precinct organizing.
During elections, engage in voter education and get out the vote.

The coalition’s national office publishes a list of precinct clubs on the Web so new members can join their local club.
When a few clubs in the same Congressional District (CD) have formed, those clubs select one or two members to participate in a CD action team. Democratic Party members who do not belong to one of the coalition’s precinct-based club may also participate in those CD action teams.
Those self-governing CD action teams may engage in one or more of the following activities, as well as others:

Send representatives to meet at least monthly with one of their Congressperson’s staff, ideally the chief of staff, to explore ways of working together to advance the coalition’s goals.
As a model for the rest of the nation, persuade the Congressperson to convene an open-ended monthly community dialog at the same time each month to enable the Congressperson’s constituents (randomly selected if need be) to ask questions and make statements to the Congressperson.
Persuade the national party to undertake a nationwide Precinct Organizing Project and dedicate itself to fight for its platform year-round.

Each month, the coalition’s national office, after soliciting input from members and conducting straw polls, identifies a timely top priority winnable issue and asks all of its members to communicate with their Congressperson about that issue (which may or may not be an issue being advanced by the Democratic Party).
If their Congressperson resists supporting the coalition’s position:

CD action teams will gather support from other community-based organizations, elected officials, and local governmental bodies.
If necessary, CD action teams may conduct public demonstrations and if needed and feasible, nonviolent direct action.

If their Congressperson supports the coalition’s position, the CD action team works with the Congressperson to raise funds for the national Precinct Organizing Project and takes on other projects to strengthen the Party in other regions.
When that issue has been resolved with a complete or partial victory, a defeat, or a stalemate, the national office undertakes a campaign on another timely issue. Regardless, from the outset, the Coalition will affirm that no victory and no defeat is ever final. The work is never-ending.
The coalition moves toward being a bottom-up, member-controlled organization with the following methods:

After the coalition has operated for two years, each CD action team will be invited to send one or two representatives to a regional advisory body. Each such body will represent 15-20 CDs. The national office will establish a method for maximizing diversity on that advisory body.
Those bodies will meet every three months to evaluate how the Coalition is operating and send advice to the national governing body.
After another year of operating, those regional advisory bodies will select representatives to a diverse national advisory body.
After another year of operating, the national governing body will be selected democratically in a manner that assures diversity, either with a direct vote by the entire membership or by a vote by the regional advisory bodies.

Obama Foundation Input

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Sun, 22 Jan 2017 23:22:00 +0000

Barack and Michele Obama have launched the Obama Foundation at obama.org That site includes a video and the following:

Your Voice

The Obama Foundation is a living, working start-up for citizenship — an ongoing project for us to shape, together, what it means to be a good citizen in the 21st century. The Foundation is based on the South Side of Chicago, and we will have projects all over the city, the country, and the world.

To help us get started, we would love to hear from you. Send us your ideas, your hopes, your dreams about what we can achieve together. Tell us about the people who inspire you and the organizations whose work you admire.

This will be your Foundation just as much as it is ours.

“Because for all our outward differences, we, in fact, all share the same proud title, the most important office in a democracy: Citizen.”

—President Barack Obama

What do you think makes a good citizen?

What ideals or actions come to mind when you think about citizenship?

Share an idea

What makes a good citizen?

Democracy is all about showing up, diving in, and staying at it. But how? Here at the Obama Foundation, we're just getting started on what good citizenship in the 21st century means.

Your thoughts and ideas will make our Foundation a better, more powerful force for good. We can't wait to hear what you're thinking.

Share your stories with us. Tell us what issues you care about. Let us know what people, organizations, and companies inspire you to be a good citizen.

The site also has a form for input that asks:

What do you think makes a good citizen?

What ideals or actions come to mind when you think about citizenship?

With some formatting changes here, my response was:

Stay informed,

communicate with elected officials and fellow citizens,

listen to others respectfully,

be able and willing to collaborate,

join with and organize others as much as you can,

speak your truth,

acknowledge your mistakes and resolve not to repeat them,

consistently work to be a better person,

avoid name-calling,

tap your compassion more deeply,

commit yourself to the common good of the entire human family,

be present and willing to engage in mutually supportive relationships,

be willing to take risks,

don’t worry too much about failure,

overcome tendencies to be arrogant, judgmental, condescending, self-righteous, dogmatic, fearful, hateful, and deceitful.

The ideal action that comes to mind is participating in a Democratic Party that fights for its platform year-round with precinct-based clubs that enable neighbors to support one another in their self-improvement, with each individual setting their own goals. As I envision it, the Party would:

1) form an ongoing coalition with other groups that support its national platform and identify one priority at a time to focus on;

2) encourage its Congresspersons to work with local groups to raise money for that coalition;

3) hold hearings on and solicit input into that platform at least six months prior to the convention;

4) assure that each state party has a governing structure that is at least as bottom-up as the California party

5) tweak the Party’s structure to make it even more democratic (e.g., fewer superdelegates), and;

6) encourage its Congresspersons to facilitate civic participation by publicizing and convening a “community dialogue” at the same time each month, with the Congressperson or their chiefs of staff, that would select speakers randomly and be structured to maximize the opportunity for constituents to make statements and ask questions, as well as enable community groups to circulate literature at tables.

Transform the System: Preface

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:44:00 +0000

NOTE: Following is the latest draft of the Preface for a booklet, tentatively titled “Transform the System,” which is a work-in-progress. I welcome feedback. To review the projected contents, click here.

Preface

Imagine. Forty adults enjoy a picnic on a riverbank. They see small children floating downstream and dive in to save them from drowning, but can rescue only half of them.

A man on a raft passes by and reports that one mile upstream a giant monster is throwing children into the river. He estimates it would take twenty adults to subdue the monster.

The party proceeds to discuss what what path to take through the thick jungle alongside the river. Unable to agree, twenty return to rescuing children, five meditate or pray, five return to eating and drinking, and ten go after the monster. But when the activists find the monster, they can only slow him down.

That scenario is a metaphor for our current situation. If we, the people, united, we could improve national policies and greatly alleviate suffering and injustice. But we’re fragmented, without the power we need.

+++

At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Elizabeth Warren brought the crowd to its feet when she declared, “People feel like the system is rigged against them. And here's the painful part: They're right. The system is rigged."

During the 2016 election, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump echoed that theme and received strong support. Clearly, there’s widespread concern about “the system.” Advertising and popular culture often refer to “the system.” Following are some images that reflect that perspective.

Does that “folk wisdom” have merit? Does “the system” exist? This booklet is based on the proposition that it does.

When most writers discuss “the system,” they only talk about the government and the economy. Other writers only talk about “systems” and propose “systemic reform” in terms of those specific systems.

This declaration takes a more comprehensive, or holistic, view. We assert that “the System” includes all of our major institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals who are conditioned to fit into the System and reproduce it in our daily lives.

Our society is stable because the System, which is self-perpetuating, provides ongoing coherence and stability. The various elements of the System are interwoven. They overlap and reinforce one another. That underlying consistency is what the popular wisdom refers to when it talks about “the system.”

If we understand the System, expose root causes, connect the dots, and clarify how the pieces fit together, it will help us correct injustices that the System inflicts on the disinherited, reverse the dehumanization suffered by the powerful, and eventually restructure the System.

A widespread commitment to that goal could help unify a broad array of forces into a “transform-the-system movement.” Various organizations could fight for specific causes while doing so for the sake of the larger cause. We could affirm both/and, within a shared commitment to systemic transformation. We could build momentum by occasionally supporting one another on timely priorities when victories are near. With that approach, we could inspire discouraged, inactive people who want to have a short-term impact. And we could also inspire idealists who are concerned about the need for long-term fundamental reform.

Toward that end, this booklet analyzes the System, proposes basic principles for how we can move forward, and presents a step-by-step plan for how we can restructure the System and transform the United States into a compassionate community.

A variety of social-change strategies will always be needed. That’s a good thing. This work is neither the final word nor a blueprint. But hopefully it will offer a sensible, useful direction and spark new, better ideas.

Reader Responses, My Comment, and a Quote

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 17:46:00 +0000

In response to Political Correctness in 2016, I received the following responses:

I appreciate your honesty and substance, as usual.

I would love you to have a wide audience as what you say is thoughtful, meaningful, and of use, as well as important.

But all I can do is appreciate hearing your articulation, feeling the support and a “light” in the seeming hopelessness of the darkness descending.

Whether you can continue, or not, I’m grateful for these posts.

I wish you, and all, a miracle of hope and generosity. May it be in our lifetimes, and may our lives make sanity, the welfare of all inhabitants of this planet possible long after we are gone.

+++++

I hope you don’t give up, Wade. But trying to function on the left is really hard. You have the people with a lot of class privilege, mostly but not entirely white. Then you have a lot of other people who become “leaders” by trashing everyone else who isn’t in their particular identity group. How it advances one’s cause baffles me, because if you antagonize your allies you won’t have any. Reading what I just wrote makes me want to give up too.

I really like your honest approach to things, and I think what you have been writing has become more and more insightful. Unfortunately, the truth of the insights makes me, at least, want to give up myself. How can the left accomplish anything when its worldview, in practice, is just as anti-human as that on the right? Who is going to be inspired by this crap? ... Wade, as I wrote elsewhere, I think your thoughtful comments are very important, and I hope you don't give up.

+++++

Good piece -- thanks for sharing.

+++++

Don't lose heart!

That's a really sad story you told, about your angry interlocutor who no longer wants to read what you have to say, or have a dialogue with you. There's a person who's hurting so deeply, that they lash out at even at those who are most likely to listen considerately to them, and even somebody as cautious in making judgements as myself can only think: is that really what a measured and adult response looks like?

+++++

I doubt that you have ever intentionally disrespected that person, and know that you are usually pretty careful to write what you mean, choosing your words to convey quite precise shades of meaning. The only point they make that I would have to agree with is this: guessing what "most persons of" any group - race, colour, class, nationality, religion or sect, political party or side, gender or sexual orientation - just isn't likely to resonate with "most" - or even many - persons of that group. Putting it another way: making a generalisation about how people are likely to think, feel or behave based on (one of) their overt group memberships runs the risk of alienating many of that group's members, because every group is comprised of individuals with (usually) as many points of difference as of commonality.

A thought for you: This may be one of the lessons of intersectionality ... we are all unique in our situations, being at once a member of many different groups that, taken as a whole, often have different default positions or understandings; as individuals, we often have to resolve conflicts between the (majority or default) positions and viewpoints of the various groups we belong to.

For example, if you know that I'm:

an Australian,

a Muslim,

a mathematician,

a husband, father and grandfather,

a teacher and a business analyst

- does this tell you in convincing terms what my position would be on, say,

our military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq?

evolution and creation science?

religious education?

sexual mores and laws, such as the age of consent, abortion, homosexuality or in vitro fertilisation?

I'm confident that, while you could take reasonable guesses at all of these, you'd miss the mark fairly widely on some. More importantly, I'd be happy to tell you if you asked - which means you don't have to guess at all!

But the reason I'm writing to you is this: to tell you that what you've been doing is more useful than you can know. Sometimes, you are (possibly) too humble! Arrogance and thoughtlessness do NOT spring to mind as adjectives to describe "Wade Hudson"! Know that even the gadfly has its use: it keeps the beast moving ...

+++++

The person who wrote those comments ("Don't speculate on what people of color...") is neither an activist nor a progressive, and he does not speak for people of color any more than you speak for white people. He's a reactionary.

I no longer have tolerance for the type of bigotry that leads so many, in a moment of truth, to reply to comments such as yours by saying such things as "your bullshit" and issuing such emotionally violent insults as "check your white privilege" to someone who is so far removed from the upper class as to make such an insult ludicrous.

Progressives need to understand that identity politics is not a leftist or a progressive movement - it is a rightist and reactionary movement. The 'grey area' has separated into a sharp line and a categorical distinction - in our time in history, the identity-politics left is no different from the Donald Trump right - they are two forms of the same reactionaryism that causes neighbor to hate neighbor and to split and divide by race and gender so that some can be elevated while others are crushed, rather than struggling for a better system together for all.

I urge you, for example, to listen to the speeches of Fred Hampton from the Black Panther party whose anti-racism was fundamentally embedded in what was deeply understood to be the primary struggle of overturning corporate capitalism and materialism and fighting for what he called socialism. The Black Panther party was absolutely adamant about not replacing white elites with some fraction of black elites - by not replacing one oppressor with another - and to them it was very clear that this meant economic oppression. The anti-racist struggle of the Black Panther party was always in that frame, as it must be, because people are not born racist - they are driven by circumstance to be so.

The "African American activist" you quote is so far removed from the true anti-racist activism represented by the Black Panther party that it would be an insult to their memory for him to even claim he understands what the Black Panther party represents.

We have a long, long ways to go. I do not even attempt to engage in the world of leftists because leftism has been overtaken by identity politics. It is simply impossible to try to reason or be honest (as you have been) with leftist culture today. You are bound to run into emotionally violent hatred in response to your efforts - from those who label themselves as leftists, most of all. Attempting to reason with this type of politically-correct reactionary thinking is no more likely to succeed than attempting to reason with a white supremacist group.

It is going to take an ideological tremor carrying the force of an earthquake before there will be any good openings to finally address the real systemic issues facing our world - war, materialism, greed, and spiritual stultification born of waste and decay. "Check your white privilege" does nothing to move us forward - it is pure reactionaryism, pure emotional violence, enforced by a power-hungry culture of "the prestige of self-righteousness". It's about time progressives don't cow-tow to politically correct violence. It is the tragic truth.

+++++

Yes, please speak your truth.

I always appreciate it, even when I disagree with it.

I wish in our culture more people gave, and many more people accepted, unsolicited advice.

+++++

I read your writings. I always have. I’ve read your stories. Ever since we connected over Charter for Compassion.

I’ve sent your links, joined groups you’ve been a member, posted many of your thoughts on social media, encouraged others in the Bay Area to connect with you. I share in your frustrations.

Know that conversations and dialogue can matter. You need not have to have a large pulpit or a growing mailing list to make a difference. I look forward to knowing of all the ways you share your truth…either through a single correspondence or conversation via email or phone…or by one day taking a cab in the bay and finding you as the driver.

Hang in there.

Best wishes to you for 2017.

+++++

Those words of support hearten me. Hopefully they will help me proceed with a better attitude, and perhaps squeeze out more time for productive efforts.

Concerning the last comment, though in context I think it is implied, on reflection I think I should have added a parenthetical comment to clarify the opening sentence. So I’ve edited the post to read: “Trump wasn’t condescending (toward the white working class),” said one of my taxi passengers,...”

Overall, however, I disagree with that criticism. I believe the left does have a problem with “political correctness,” which is why Trump was able to exploit that theme. More seriously, the reluctance to be self-critical on this point reflects a general reluctance to be self-critical.

Since posting Political Correctness in 2016, I’ve read “Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say: How the Language Police Are Perverting Liberalism” by Jonathan Chait in the New York Magazine. It’s a lengthy account of many battles that have been fought on this turf. I found it compelling. But in case you don’t want to read the entire article, I post here the conclusion:

The p.c. style of politics has one serious, possibly fatal drawback: It is exhausting. Claims of victimhood that are useful within the left-wing subculture may alienate much of America. The movement’s dour puritanism can move people to outrage, but it may prove ill suited to the hopeful mood required of mass politics. Nor does it bode well for the movement’s longevity that many of its allies are worn out. “It seems to me now that the public face of social liberalism has ceased to seem positive, joyful, human, and freeing,” confessed the progressive writer Freddie deBoer. “There are so many ways to step on a land mine now, so many terms that have become forbidden, so many attitudes that will get you cast out if you even appear to hold them. I’m far from alone in feeling that it’s typically not worth it to engage, given the risks.” Goldberg wrote recently about people “who feel emotionally savaged by their involvement in [online feminism] — not because of sexist trolls, but because of the slashing righteousness of other feminists.” Former Feministing editor Samhita Mukhopadhyay told her, “Everyone is so scared to speak right now.”

That the new political correctness has bludgeoned even many of its own supporters into despondent silence is a triumph, but one of limited use. Politics in a democracy is still based on getting people to agree with you, not making them afraid to disagree. The historical record of political movements that sought to expand freedom for the oppressed by eliminating it for their enemies is dismal. The historical record of American liberalism, which has extended social freedoms to blacks, Jews, gays, and women, is glorious. And that glory rests in its confidence in the ultimate power of reason, not coercion, to triumph.

Knowing that others feel bludgeoned into tired silence helps me feel less alone, which motivates me to persevere.

Political Correctness in 2016

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 01:17:00 +0000

“Trump wasn’t condescending (toward the white working class),” said one of my taxi passengers, making a point that I failed to make in my 2016 blog posts (though I did write about leftist condescension).

Apparently hardly anyone else made my passenger's point. I just googled the phrase and found no results.

Trump’s supporters felt he respected them, listened to them, spoke their language.

And one of Trump’s main points was his complaint about political correctness, which rang a bell with his supporters. I also failed to fully analyze that point, though in “Countering Racism,” I did quote Van Jones on the issue:

Van urged progressives to really understand the pain being experienced by many white working class people and learn how to speak to it. He described the struggles many suffer, including I believe the erosion of their long-held identity as breadwinner, and then one of their children comes home and tells them, “You are a bigot.” Van said, “That is painful.”

And I did often caution against name-calling and hurling judgmental labels. But, although I linked to Thomas Edsall’s excellent, important “The Anti-PC Vote,” I only commented on his reference to problematic language. On second thought, after Trump’s victory, his piece calls for fuller attention. And considering that it was published on June 1 2016, Hillary should have given it more thought too.

In both the workplace and academia, Haidt argues,

the accusatory and vindictive approach of many social justice activists and diversity trainers may actually have increased the desire and willingness of some white men to say and do un-PC things.

In this atmosphere, according to Haidt,

Trump comes along and punches political correctness in the face. Anyone feeling some degree of anti-PC reactance is going to feel a thrill in their heart, and will want to stand up and applaud. And because feelings drive reasoning, these feelings of gratitude will make it hard for anyone to present arguments to them about the downsides of a Trump presidency.

Trump’s anger at being policed or fenced in apparently speaks to the resentment of many American men and their resistance to being instructed, particularly by a female candidate, on how they should think, speak or behave.

On April 26, Trump wheeled out a spectacularly offensive attack on Clinton, perhaps designed to provoke the response it got. He accused her of playing “the women’s card” when “she has got nothing else going. Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.”

Hillary rose to the bait. Three days later, appearing on Jake Tapper’s CNN show “The Lead,” she countered:

I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak. … I am not going to deal with their temper tantrums, or their bullying or their efforts to try to provoke me. He can say whatever he wants to say about me, I could really care less.

Trump responded on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show on May 2. What Clinton said “was a very derogatory statement to men,” Trump declared. “It was almost as though she’s going to tell us what to do, tell men what to do.” He continued, “It was a real put-down.”

The kind of messages that provoke reactance and a defiant or oppositional response, according to one study, include “imperatives, such as ‘must’ or ‘need’; absolute allegations, such as ‘cannot deny that …’ and ‘any reasonable person would agree.’ ”

...Some people will reject a policy or action that is to their advantage when they feel pushed or forced into making the “correct” decision.

In other words, reactance can foster a totalizing loyalty that does not respond to reasoned fault finding. This might help explain Trump’s seeming immunity to criticism from his adversaries. His followers feel that they have experienced a “diminution of freedom” and believe that Trump can “restore their autonomy.”

He has won a unique admixture of support, based in part on what might be called an anti-rational or irrational loyalty but also in part on his recognition of legitimate grievances among his adherents that many other politicians belittle or deny. This loyalty, as Republican candidates found during the primaries, is far wider and deeper than anyone not sharing it expected.

She has yet to discover a compelling rebuttal to Trump on political correctness,...

One reason is her deeply embedded elitism, which is shared by many, probably most, leftists -- as reflected by the fact that she still has not really apologized for her “irredeemable … deplorables” comment, which fired up Trump’s base. And neither have most of her supporters.

As I see it, political correctness, which was a term originated by Socialists in opposition to the top-down imposition of dogma by the Communist Party, is reflected in the following statement (I don’t recall who the author was) concerning how to respond to Trump:

If you are able to talk about "giving Trump a chance," or to urge "reconciliation" with an authoritarian sexual predator, racist, xenophobic, megalomaniac, anti-Semitic, transphobic, islamophobic, ableist, cheat and liar--you likely have a whole lot of unexamined white, middle and upper class, cisgender, heterosexual privilege and you are exercising it in a way that will further oppress those without your privilege.

The accusation that others, even those who are generally allies, are exercising white privilege merely because they disagree on tactics is common, and, to my mind, troublesome. Yes, those of us who are white, including working-class whites like myself, need to examine our privilege closely and be careful when we offer comments -- as middle-class professionals who are persons of color should examine their class privilege.

The moment during the convention coverage that was most memorable for me was a segment on Samantha Bee’s “Full Frontal,” Her reporter interviewed Republican delegates who repeatedly replied “All Lives Matter” when asked what they thought about the phrase, “Black Lives Matter.” Those responses reinforced the stereotype of white Republican racists. But when the reporter probed, the delegates talked convincingly about how they do not want to be racist and they want to learn more about how to talk with African-Americans without being offensive.

During the campaign, numerous voters were quoted about how they often feel like they are walking on eggshells, worried about offending someone. At time, that leaves them speechless.

I’ve recently had one such interaction that has bothered me a great deal, and still does, leaving me uncertain about what to think. After another police killing of an African-American man, an African-American activist whom I considered an ally, with whom I’d had a number of positive interactions, posted:

I think we are better off without the police. I think we might be safer, happier, healthier if there were no police.... the system we have is not reformable and we are better of with no police than the ones we have now,...

I replied:

I doubt that most people of color would support abolishing the police. Rather it seems that we need to insist that the police live up to their alleged purpose: to Serve and Protect. there are examples of police departments that have done that. Pushing to multiply those examples seems like a more winnable strategy. Working steadily to reform our systems can eventually transform them

He responded:

Don’t speculate on what people of color would support to people of color. It is fucking annoying. Can you check your white privilege for once Wade it is getting so tiring. Go post your confident self righteous strategy thoughts on your own page. I don’t have the patience for your bullshit today. Speak for your fucking self. I have been ignoring your pattern of behavior for a while. quietly deleting your offensive posts without comment, but I am all out of hope and all out of patience for white bullshit. I am not inviting a dialogue. I am setting a boundary. Never post on my page again. You are happy to read but i don’t want to hear what you have to say. ...You have made great sacrifice and I honor that. And the way you relate to me disrespectful of my basic humanity and you have to cut it out. Sorry of the vent but today I just can't take it any more. Love to you….

Those comments disturbed me profoundly and I’ve thought about them a lot. After reading “It’s Not About Race” by John Metta, I thought about them more. Metta reports having been the only person of color in a discussion about race, during which he stated, ““I speak with a lot of emotion, and sometimes that emotion is anger. That should be allowed, because anger is a valid response to oppression. I’m not angry at you as an individual, but at a system of injustice.” Metta then reports that sometime later, a man said that he hoped we could “rise above emotions.” He wanted an “intellectual discussion” using logic so we could “really get to heart of the matter” without getting “derailed by emotions.”

Those remarks led Metta to analyze cultural norms and the need to accept cultural differences. He concludes:

I was angry that a white man was telling me we should “rise above emotions” and “get to the heart of the matter” by talking about race intellectually and avoiding emotions.... Every single thing white people do and say is done in the context of normative white culture, which they don’t have to think about…. Most of the time, they can’t see their own culture, much less someone else’s, meaning they have no idea what the hell we’re talking about anyway. So either we get angry, or we just close our eyes, nod our heads, and say things like “Yeah, using the Socratic method to talk intellectually would probably be a good way for us to discuss systematic racism.”

That essay prompted me to post Shut Up and Listen where I said:

Responding to anger can be difficult. Generally the best response is to listen, ask questions, learn, empathize, and find points of agreement. Unsolicited advice is rarely appreciated, as I’m still learning.

That’s especially true if you are White and the other is African-American. Let’s face it. In this country, race matters. Persistent oppression and White assumptions of superiority charge the atmosphere.

I wrote that though I have never said anyone should “avoid emotions.” How to channel anger wisely is another matter, however, especially in the context of talking about how to be effective politically. And if we want to counter racism, when and how we “call out” people for racist comments is a delicate matter. If we aren’t careful, we can make them more racist.

All this leaves me confused, uncertain, and discouraged. I see the whole world spiraling down into tribalism rooted in rigid identities, labelling, and name-calling. Hillary’s biggest mistake was letting Trump pull her down into the politics of personal destruction and ad hominem attacks, which was given birth by the 1968 Gore-Buckley debates and later the Democratic Party’s attack on Robert Bork. Activists are generally guilty of the same mistakes and fail to see their particular issues as simultaneously reflections of how the System divides, conquers, and oppresses everyone, including its administrators who are dehumanized.

I disagree with Bernie that we need to emphasize class more than race. Each are equally important. I disagree with Hillary’s elitism. And I believe we need a massive, democratic, multi-issue grassroots movement with inclusive leadership whose members are co-equal, with no claim to privilege based on background, including having been relatively more oppressed.

My New Year’s Resolution is: Speak my truth. At the same time, I remind myself: avoid unsolicited advice and precede, and follow, criticisms with appreciations.

I don’t know how much time and energy I’ll have to write, or how much I’ll be motivated because my efforts seem to resonate with only a relative few. I have to drive taxi as much as I can, probably for as long as I can, so I’ll have some money when I’m 95. And absent more support and encouragement, it’s hard for me to push myself to write more than an hour a day.

Maybe the #LoveArmy will indeed prove to be what I’m looking for and I can relax and just be a foot soldier rather than carrying so much of a burden on my shoulders.

Regardless, as I learned recently, “I am good enough (and will be better).” Whether the same applies to humanity remains to be seen.

Putting Christ Back in Xmas

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Sun, 25 Dec 2016 18:23:00 +0000

Santa Claus, the Great Lie at the heart of the American Dream, is symbolic of what’s wrong with America. Children are told, If you’re nice and do what you’re told, you’ll get the gift you want. But if you’re naughty and act outside the norm, good luck. As adults, we learn: if you want a gift or a card, you have to give one. Xmas love is a transaction.

The hypocrisy is boundless. You meet up with relatives you ignore or detest throughout the year and act nice. You obey rules that prohibit authenticity, like “no politics.” You smile and joke and tell stories and go home thinking, Well, that wasn’t too bad.

The season is defined by shopping. After the Church co-opted St. Nick to seduce the masses, Nick has returned the favor with a vengeance. The celebration of the birth of Jesus has become an orgy of selfish materialism. WIIFM, the Internet acronym for What’s In It For Me, sums up modern life. It’s the mantra that complements the lie that both Michelle Obama and Melania Trump tell children: You can grow up to be whatever you want to be. The corollary to that deception is: you get what you deserve.

All that socializing contradicts the teachings of Jesus, who said:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?
Be on your guard against all kinds of greed.

As Bob Dylan said, These days “not much is really sacred.”

When times are tough, I turn for guidance and inspiration to Howard Thurman’s classic book, Jesus and the Disinherited. No wonder Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. carried it with him when he traveled. It’s a wonderful self-help manual for activists!

Thurman affirms:

[The] universality that makes all class and race distinctions impertinent...,
...the simple practice of brotherhood…[with which we] treat others...as human beings,
...the human family [in which each stands] in immediate candidacy for the profoundest fellowship, understanding, and love…, and each person meets the other where he is.

Concerning noxious collaborators with oppressors like tax collectors, he says, “To love them means to recognize some deep respect and reverence for their persons,” though “to love them does not mean to condone their way of life.”

Even with the Roman conquerors, Thurman insisted, “To love the Roman meant first of all to lift him out of the general classification of enemy. The Roman had to emerge as a person…”

For Thurman, the starting point is:

The underprivileged must himself be status free…. Love is possible only between two freed spirits…. There cannot be too great insistence on the point that we are here dealing with a discipline, a method, a technique, as over against some form of wishful thinking or simple desiring…. Such a technique may be found in the attitude of respect for personality.

Does love require “ignoring the fact” that the other has a particular status? Thurman answers:

Hardly. For lack of a better term, an ‘unscrambling’ process is required. [Otherwise] the ultimate fate of the relationship seems to be in the hands of the wider social context. It is necessary, therefore, for the privileged and the underprivileged to work on the common environment for the purpose of providing normal experiences of fellowship…. This cannot be discovered in a vacuum or in a series of artificial or hypothetical relationships. It has to be in a real situation, natural, free.

That perspective reminds me of Buber: As individuals, we can be available for an I-Thou encounter, but for it to happen, it must be mutual.

These reflections lead me to conclude:

If one fully embraces love, that compassion automatically leads to opposing racism, classism, sexism, and other similar forms of oppression.
Without being blind to color, class, gender, and the other specific characteristics of the unique person we encounter, we can set aside those labels, which are drilled into us by society, and be ready to relate heart-to-heart.
When we express our deepest beliefs, it is not necessary to spell out specific examples, such as instances of racism and sexism, that clarify what we affirm, though doing so can help clarify our meaning.
One can fully recognize specific instances of oppression while at the same time seeing them as examples of broader systemic oppression: the urge to climb the social ladder.
All of this requires many-sided awareness, the ability to see reality from various points of view simultaneously, rather than embracing dogma and ideology.

So, on this Christmas Day, 2016, I ignore Xmas and appreciate what I have learned from Jesus: Without crucifixion there is no resurrection. Or, as Bob said, he not busy being born is busy dying.

I would rather participate in a community that celebrates the Solstice.

#LoveArmy on the March

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Sun, 18 Dec 2016 22:14:00 +0000

NOTE: To endorse the #LoveArmy, click here.

On Dec. 16, I received the following email:

+++++

SUBJECT: #LoveArmy on the March

Wade --

Thanks for being one of the first people to join the #LoveArmy! Since we launched last week more than 60,000 people have signed up!

We’d like to start the New Year 100,000 strong. Can you help spread the word?

The #LoveArmy is a platform for legions of people to come together to fight for an inclusive country where everyone counts and everyone matters. We are committed to standing with the vulnerable and to acting out of love, not fear or hate.

Our love is strong, not weak. It is the strongest force in the universe. A mama bear loves her cubs, and you better not mess with ‘em. It is this fierce, powerful love of the people, the planet, and our democracy that propels this movement.

What you can do now:

Tell us about what you want to see the #LoveArmy do.
Start your own #LoveArmy Circle.
Pledge to support groups that are fighting back and defending the most vulnerable.
Pledge to have a #MessyTruth conversation with someone you know.
Donate to support this growing movement.

Next Steps:

We are gathering input from #LoveArmy members to plan for the New Year. Together we will hold teach-ins across the country, come together in large gatherings, and coordinate national days of engagement.

We are working hard to help connect #LoveArmy members to each other. Working together we will generate beautiful and powerful ideas and actions.

We’d love to hear from you. You can email us here, or contact us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for all you do!

Van Jones
Founder and President
The Dream Corps

P.S. Please consider making a donation to support the #LoveArmy. Thanks!

“Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.”

Wade --

Thanks for being one of the first people to join the #LoveArmy! Since we launched last week more than 60,000 people have signed up!

We’d like to start the New Year 100,000 strong. Can you help spread the word?

The #LoveArmy is a platform for legions of people to come together to fight for an inclusive country where everyone counts and everyone matters. We are committed to standing with the vulnerable and to acting out of love, not fear or hate.

Our love is strong, not weak. It is the strongest force in the universe. A mama bear loves her cubs, and you better not mess with ‘em. It is this fierce, powerful love of the people, the planet, and our democracy that propels this movement.

What you can do now:

Tell us about what you want to see the #LoveArmy do.
Start your own #LoveArmy Circle.
Pledge to support groups that are fighting back and defending the most vulnerable.
Pledge to have a #MessyTruth conversation with someone you know.
Donate to support this growing movement.

Next Steps:

We are working hard to help connect #LoveArmy members to each other. Working together we will generate beautiful and powerful ideas and actions.

We’d love to hear from you. You can email us here, or contact us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for all you do!

Van Jones
Founder and President
The Dream Corps

P.S. Please consider making a donation to support the #LoveArmy. Thanks!

+++++

Later that day, I sent the following reply:

Dear Van, Dream Corps, and the #LoveArmy

Thanks much for today’s report. I’m glad to hear that 60,000 people have already signed up for the #LoveArmy.

In reply to your request, I would like to see the #LoveArmy:

Organize Congressional Action Teams. Based in each Congressional district, #LoveArmy teams engage regularly with their Congressperson’s staff, develop relationships with them, brainstorm possibilities together, and communicate #LoveArmy recommendations to them when the #LoveArmy develops such recommendations.
Convene Community Dialogues with Elected Officials. Persuade elected officials and/or their chiefs of staff to convene open-ended monthly Community Dialogues to receive input from and report to constituents. Structure those forums to insure that the official does not dominate them. Use an outside moderator.
Unlearn negative conditioning. The #LoveArmy needs to encourage its members to engage in critical self-examination and support one another in efforts to overcome tendencies that undermine effectiveness. As you said years ago at an Alternet.org book release party, Van, “We need to be less pro-fessional and more confessional.”
Develop a positive vision for systemic reform. Interest in “the system” is increasing. But when most people talk about the system, they usually only talk about the economy and the government. My colleagues and I are developing a more comprehensive analysis that sees the System as consisting of all of our major institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals. From that perspective, we present a path to systemic transformation. We welcome help with writing our statement of principles, “Transform the System: A Call to Action.” The latest draft will always be at https://goo.gl/fSX9Cc.

Those are some suggestions for your consideration off the top of my head.

I look forward to contributing to the #LoveArmy as best I can. Next Tuesday I’m hoping a Circle of like-minded people comes together with me as a participant.

Please let me know if you have other ideas concerning how I might help.

Yours,

Wade Hudson

+++++

The next day, I sent the following:

SUBJECT: Controlling ExxonMobil

Dear Van and the #LoveArmy;

Considering that "anti-American" ExxonMobil has operated contrary to U.S. foreign policy in Chad (and elsewhere?) and has lobbied to change U.S. foreign policy concerning Russia contrary to the national consensus, can the #LoveArmy push to assure that ExxonMobil is loyal to the U.S.? If so, how? A shareholder resolution directing the Board to operate consistent with U.S. foreign policy and to refrain from lobbying to change U.S. foreign policy? Demonstrations at ExxonMobil gas stations and at the corporate HQ in Irving, TX near Dallas/Fort Worth?

Just some food for thought.

Yours,
Wade Hudson

Van Jones Launches #Love Army

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 01:04:00 +0000

For many years, I've been looking for a holistic community focused on national policy that I could join. During those years, I’ve encouraged Van Jones and others to organize one. Now Van, the prominent CNN commentator and long-term organizer, has launched the #LoveArmy and I’m jazzed!

It's very close to what I've been proposing. I no longer have to try to help start one myself!

My Bay Area friends who want to participate in a #LoveArmy Circle with me are invited to let me know. Folks outside the Bay Area are encouraged to form their own.

Here's the #LoveArmy description of a Circle:

#LoveArmy Circles are groups of 2 or more people working together to solve our common problems. You take action in your own way, on a local level. We provide structure, support, and keep you connected to a large community of people doing similar work. To be part of Dream Corps’ #LoveArmy Circles, all you have to do is bring two or more people together and stay connected to the Dream Corps.

#LoveArmy Circles can be a group of friends, a few colleagues, an existing book club, moms group, or study group, a civic organization, your family, a collection of neighbors, etc. Some of you may build on existing groups and others may pull together something new for the first time. All are welcome no matter your background, political leaning, or experience.

Get together in these small circles regularly - it could be once a week or once a month. Whatever works for you. Then, each month, we’ll come together in a virtual meeting to learn from each other, share ideas and coordinate our efforts.

The #LoveArmy is a Dream Corps project, whose home page highlights “LOVE + POWER,” which probably refers to Dr.King’s famous statement, “Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.”

The #LoveArmy clearly envisions taking collective action. One of the three forms of involvement they list is “Love in Action,” which is described as “coming soon.” And on their invitation to join, they declare, “Join the #Love Army: Fight Different. ... We will be coordinating regular actions and bringing people together in large and small gatherings.”

The #LoveArmy’s parent organization is the Dream Corps, whose Core Values are:

SOLUTIONS: We advance solutions that inspire action, serve justice, and improve people's lives. Our solutions honor life and amplify the voices of those left behind in the current system. By turning to each other, instead of on each other, we act in solidarity, create unlikely partnerships and open unexpected doors.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: We lead with empathy. We are committed to the growth and well-being of all people, especially the marginalized and mistreated. We see personal transformation and systemic transformation as interlinked and interdependent. We serve a movement that extends far beyond our own organization. We are committed to creating the conditions for all people to be free.

SOUL: We cultivate presence, conviction, and love. How we do what we do matters. Authenticity, depth, and passion matter. We celebrate culture and creativity. We honor the immeasurable. We operate from a place of fierce and unconditional love that is rooted in relationship and connection. We believe in magic. We are awake and alive in this work.

I italicized those two sentences -- “We see personal transformation and systemic transformation as interlinked and interdependent….How we do what we do matters.” -- because they strike me as particularly important.

The #LoveArmy website declares:

We’re approaching not only a new year, but a new era. The stakes are high. Many of us feel disconnected, disoriented, and dispirited.

The #LoveArmy will come together to make sure everyone knows they are not alone, and that if we stand together, we are powerful.

This is the moment to see ourselves as leaders!

ARE YOU READY TO FIGHT FOR A BETTER FUTURE?

I am!

Race, Class, and Systemic Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Lee Hudson) — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 02:25:00 +0000

Can compassion-minded activists justifiably talk about human rights without also talking about civil rights? Can we justifiably talk about what it means to be human without talking at the same time, in the same sentence, about race, class, gender, and the other pigeonholes that the System uses to divide and conquer? Or can we first affirm universal principles, and then later, time or space permitting, oppose specific forms of oppression? Might we build a broad coalition based primarily, most fundamentally, on universal principles, while also, secondarily, affirming the rights of people whom the System classifies and oppresses based on certain arbitrary characteristics? In order to mobilize the white working class, do we need to emphasize economic issues more than social issues like race?

Many post-election commentators are saying that class is more important than race. Robert Borosage for example has argued, “Clinton [talked] about removing barriers, with constituency-specific agendas, rather than focusing on a populist economic message that would lift all (emphasis added).” Borosage concluded, “Democrats better learn how to sing from Bernie Sanders’s gospel….”

Bernie’s post-election message is: “One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics,” which, according to wikipedia, “refers to political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify.”

In The Guardian, Heather Long says, "As I re-read King's addresses, I can't help but think that if he were alive today, he would be preaching and organizing first and foremost about income inequality.... The most pernicious problem in society today is the haves and have nots."

On NPR, Mark Lilla cited as a positive example a man who reported:

I belong to a bowling team with black and Latino coworkers. And when we get together and we talk about politics … we don't talk about Black Lives Matters. We talk about what matters to our families. We talk about jobs, and we talk about the fate of the country. That is America, and you can reach those people.

In his “The End of Identity Liberalism” essay in the Times, Lilla objects to the proposition that “we should become aware of and ‘celebrate’ our differences.” He argues that “the fixation on diversity” has encouraged people narcissistically “to keep this focus on themselves” and that “younger journalists and editors [believe], that simply by focusing on identity they have done their jobs.”

Lilla criticized Clinton’s campaign for

calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop. This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don’t, those left out will notice and feel excluded.... Fully two-thirds of white voters without college degrees voted for Donald Trump, as did over 80 percent of white evangelicals.... Those who play the identity game should be prepared to lose it….
National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality.... We need a post-identity liberalism,... As for narrower issues that are highly charged symbolically and can drive potential allies away, especially those touching on sexuality and religion, such a liberalism would work quietly, sensitively and with a proper sense of scale.

But as Steven Shults posted on Facebook, “You can draw attention to the plight of the poor without pitting the issue against other issues. This is not a zero sum game. (It's not a game at all.).” It’s not either/or.

As I see it, Clinton’s mistake was not her calling out to specific constituencies. Rather, it was not calling out to more of them -- as examples of a larger problem. Society systematically labels, ranks, and discriminates against countless categories of people. It’s systemic. The problem is the System, which serves to divide and conquer.

If one has only a sound bite, it’s not feasible to present a long list of examples. But in a standard stump speech, it is.

Economic populists, however, want to heavily emphasize economic issues and reject that intersectional approach. Intersectionality” argues:

We should think of each element or trait of a person as inextricably linked with all of the other elements in order to fully understand one's identity…. The classical conceptualizations of oppression within society—such as racism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and belief-based bigotry—do not act independently of each other. Instead, these forms of oppression interrelate, creating a system of oppression that reflects the "intersection" of multiple forms of discrimination…. Socially constructed categories of differentiation interact to create a social hierarchy…. There is no singular experience of an identity. Rather than understanding women's health solely through the lens of gender, it is necessary to consider other social categories such as class, ability, nation or race, to have a fuller understanding of the range of women's health concerns…. Seemingly discrete forms and expressions of oppression are shaped by one another…. [This] analysis is potentially applied to all categories (including statuses usually seen as dominant when seen as standalone statuses).

Or you could use Bob Dylan’s “Chimes of Freedom” to make the point:

Flashing for the warriors whose strength is not to fight
Flashing for the refugees on the unarmed road of flight
An’ for each an’ ev’ry underdog soldier in the night...
Tolling for the rebel, tolling for the rake
Tolling for the luckless, the abandoned an’ forsaked
Tolling for the outcast, burnin’ constantly at stake...
Striking for the gentle, striking for the kind
Striking for the guardians and protectors of the mind
An’ the unpawned painter behind beyond his rightful time...
Tolling for the tongues with no place to bring their thoughts
All down in taken-for-granted situations
Tolling for the deaf an’ blind, tolling for the mute
Tolling for the mistreated, mateless mother, the mistitled prostitute
For the misdemeanor outlaw, chased an’ cheated by pursuit...
Tolling for the searching ones, on their speechless, seeking trail
For the lonesome-hearted lovers with too personal a tale
An’ for each unharmful, gentle soul misplaced inside a jail...
Tolling for the aching ones whose wounds cannot be nursed
For the countless confused, accused, misused, strung-out ones an’ worse
An’ for every hung-up person in the whole wide universe

It’s not easy to talk about intersectionality. Some may believe that I as a white man have no right to do so. But partly because what I have to say, I believe, echoes what I’ve learned from people of color such as Howard Thurman, Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr., James Baldwin, and Mahatma Ghandi, I feel compelled to speak.

To transform the System, we need to set aside labels and affirm our universal humanity, while also opposing specific forms of oppression. The various identities the System inculcates in us overlap and reinforce one another. In that way, the System is integrated, combined into a whole. We can better transform that System with communities that are integrated in the same way -- that is, communities whose members acknowledge and accept their multiple identities. From that perspective, if one talks about class one generally needs to also talk about race, and vice versa. However, it is also justifiable at times to go deeper and talk only about our essential humanity. One can hope for the emergence of a broad vision that inspires a massive human rights movement that also affirms civil rights.

I’m not fully comfortable with that approach. It may be wrong. But for now that is the perspective affirmed by the latest draft of the Holistic Transformation statement of principles. I envision that additional publications will address specific forms of oppression.

Criticisms and suggested changes for that work-in-progress are welcome.