I cannot remember a time when I was not fascinated by religion. From the time I could read, I read the Bible, but also books from other religious traditions that were written for children, and later commentary and religious philosophy. I was greatly encouraged in my interest as I grew up in a religious family. My father was a Christian Scientist and my mother a Methodist. We usually attended the Methodist Church. Both my parents and my grandmother, who lived with us quite a bit of the year, believed that every religious tradition had something to offer.
Even now, I read something from the Bible every morning. I rarely speak of this as I am not at all interested in evangelizing, but sometimes I feel I must speak up when I read about people claiming to be Christians, such as Mike O'Neal, the Republican Speaker of the Kansas State House. Mr. O’Neal wrote recently in a widely circulated e-mail: “At last -- I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president,” and then quoted from Psalm 109: “May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." He went on to say, “Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN?” (O’Neal is more famous for his racist insults to Mrs. Obama, for which he did apologize.)
To use Bible quotes to shore up positions on various social issues is not unusual. Certainly all gay and lesbian people are more than familiar with the dubious interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 condemning homosexuality but most may not be as aware of Leviticus 19:19 condemning wearing two different kinds of cloth together. (Death to polyester!) However, to be so utterly mean is unusual and troubling. What is even more troubling is the lack of condemnation for his words from other right wing Christians. Technically calling for the death of the President is a crime and others who have made even indirect threats against the life of a president have been arrested. Certainly he should be immediately asked to resign.
I contrast his Bible verse with the one I read this morning in Deuteronomy 15: 1-3: “At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because God’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed.” The chapter goes on to say, “There need be no poor people among you….” Imagine if this verse were to be quoted widely, and policies created around it: every seven years, no foreclosed homes, no bankruptcy caused by medical bills, no student debt…the list goes on.
The fact is that the Bible can be made to say what we want it to say in order to shore up our own positions. To be religious means to be conscious of our bias as we read and to give that up as much as possible in order to receive the messages that God wants us to hear. One message that all scriptures have in common is the overarching theme that we are to love each other. This is not easy: that’s why it has to be commanded. I am commanded to love even Mr. O’Neal. He is commanded to love President and Mrs. Obama. To say out loud that you are religious means that you can be held accountable to this standard of love. In this election year, I have set for myself a task, which is to speak out from a place of faith when I see a misuse of scripture. In doing so, I must be willing to be held accountable myself and I know I will be found wanting. But the price of not speaking out is allowing vitriol and racism to be promoted under the banner of religion and I cannot let that go by unchallenged.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Wellness
The highly regarded “Wellness Letter” published by the UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, generally publishes articles about blood pressure, smoking, what foods absorb most pesticides, and the like. It is only eight pages, but packed with useful and accessible information. In the most recent issue, the lead story was about PSA tests and the other main story about the nutritional value of garlic, which they call a “foodaceutical.” I highly recommend subscribing, but that is not why I mention this newsletter.
The last page of the newsletter has a column called “The Last Word.” That most recent column looks at the causes of premature death and has this to say, “One overlooked cause is lack of money. More precisely, being poor and/or having less than a high school education—what researchers call low socioeconomic status (SES)—is a health hazard, especially when it comes to heart health.” Of course poor people have worse health because they have worse or no health care, they hold more dangerous jobs, and may live in neighborhoods with more pollution. Lack of access to nutritious food and the cheapness of fast food put poor people at much higher risk for obesity, high blood pressure and cancer. These and others are risk factors that come with or may be caused by being poor. But the article goes on to say that even when poor people decrease their risk factors, they are “still at about 50 percent higher risk than comparable well off people. This means that low SES increases the risk of heart disease independent other risk factors.”
They recommend that health care providers who work with poor people take their SES into account as a separate and major risk factor. And of course they mention that we will need to reduce income inequality to really address this concern.
The Wellness Letter is not the first or only place to mention the relationship between a shortened lifespan, heart health and poverty. But since I read this newsletter to get tips on how to be healthier myself, I perhaps was struck by it more or differently than when I have read about the effects of poverty on health in the past.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy asked a number of nonprofit leaders what resolutions the sector should have for 2012 and this is the one I contributed, in part because of reading this article.
The last page of the newsletter has a column called “The Last Word.” That most recent column looks at the causes of premature death and has this to say, “One overlooked cause is lack of money. More precisely, being poor and/or having less than a high school education—what researchers call low socioeconomic status (SES)—is a health hazard, especially when it comes to heart health.” Of course poor people have worse health because they have worse or no health care, they hold more dangerous jobs, and may live in neighborhoods with more pollution. Lack of access to nutritious food and the cheapness of fast food put poor people at much higher risk for obesity, high blood pressure and cancer. These and others are risk factors that come with or may be caused by being poor. But the article goes on to say that even when poor people decrease their risk factors, they are “still at about 50 percent higher risk than comparable well off people. This means that low SES increases the risk of heart disease independent other risk factors.”
They recommend that health care providers who work with poor people take their SES into account as a separate and major risk factor. And of course they mention that we will need to reduce income inequality to really address this concern.
The Wellness Letter is not the first or only place to mention the relationship between a shortened lifespan, heart health and poverty. But since I read this newsletter to get tips on how to be healthier myself, I perhaps was struck by it more or differently than when I have read about the effects of poverty on health in the past.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy asked a number of nonprofit leaders what resolutions the sector should have for 2012 and this is the one I contributed, in part because of reading this article.
Rather than focus on protecting tax incentives that primarily benefit the well-to-do, and fighting limits to the charitable deduction, nonprofit leaders should concentrate on addressing income inequality and the social problems that creates. Let us resolve to remember who we are: the voice of the common good. Our job is to propose answers to the question of how a country can guarantee all its inhabitants a life of freedom, security, and peace. We are smart enough to figure this out and, at 10 percent of the work force and well over a trillion dollars passing through our coffers every year, we are powerful enough to make it happen. This year, let’s be brave enough to actually do it.Because, literally, lives hang in the balance.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The End of Economic Progress
As we come to the end of 2011, I begin to think about 2012. I like changing over from one year to the next: I get a new calendar (I still use a paper calendar), I throw away or delete all the articles, newsletters and reports I was sent all year and thought I “should” read, but never did. I clean out my closet and give away clothes I didn’t wear and donate books I didn’t read. Anything that the word “should” is attached to (should read, should respond, should call, should look into) gets pitched. I make resolutions, but first I evaluate how well I did on the ones I made for the present year. Then I contemplate all that has changed before resolving how the next year will be different. Each new year is a chance to reinvent my life, a least a little.
This year I will use my process to create some commons resolutions. The information I need to consider can, for the most part, be found in the research of Pickett and Wilkinson, particularly in their stunning conclusion:
“Economic growth, for so long the great engine of progress, has, in the rich countries, largely finished its work. Further improvements in the quality of life now depend on community and how we relate to each other.” The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger
Pickett and Wilkinson looked at a number of serious social problems and asked why these problems were so much worse in some developed countries and not in others? Put more directly: why is the United States the leader in infant mortality, homicide, prison rates, teen pregnancy, obesity, substance abuse? And the answer: Because we are also the leader in income inequality. (See Blog Post on Equality Trust for more details on their study).
A recent Christian Science Monitor reports, “The standard of living for American has fallen longer and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the US government began recording it five decades ago.” They go on to say that real median income is down almost 10% since the start of the recession and inflation has eroded peoples’ buying power by 3.25% since mid 2008.
To truly take in that economic progress has done its work requires sitting quietly for awhile and watching my thoughts swirl around. This is not a small insight and acting on it will require retooling how I think. For example, there is no real need for me to argue against capitalism—all the bad and all the good that it could produce, it has. In the developed world, capitalism is largely over. What this means is that there is no point for a wealthy person in the United States to become wealthier—she will not live longer, nor be less likely to be shot or die of a stress related illness or get divorced or suffer from alcoholism. The quality of life for everyone in the United States is going down and will continue to do so. For poor people (which we have more of every day) a drop in the “quality of life” is disastrous or even fatal.
As a person who makes her living in the nonprofit sector, I must ponder and discuss with others what programs we will create to promote rough social equity that are not about economic growth, what kind of wealth will we need to create in a post capitalist society, and how exactly will we pursue “a quality of life that depends on community and how we relate to each other.”
I intend to ponder this through the Winter Solstice and as the days begin (however incrementally) to grow longer, I will incrementally begin to think of resolutions that allow 2012 to make exponential changes in the direction of rough social equity. The gap between rich and poor is so deep and profound that we must adopt the motto of the 1960’s Apollo 13 mission in our work to change it: “Failure is not an option.”
This year I will use my process to create some commons resolutions. The information I need to consider can, for the most part, be found in the research of Pickett and Wilkinson, particularly in their stunning conclusion:
“Economic growth, for so long the great engine of progress, has, in the rich countries, largely finished its work. Further improvements in the quality of life now depend on community and how we relate to each other.” The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger
Pickett and Wilkinson looked at a number of serious social problems and asked why these problems were so much worse in some developed countries and not in others? Put more directly: why is the United States the leader in infant mortality, homicide, prison rates, teen pregnancy, obesity, substance abuse? And the answer: Because we are also the leader in income inequality. (See Blog Post on Equality Trust for more details on their study).
A recent Christian Science Monitor reports, “The standard of living for American has fallen longer and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the US government began recording it five decades ago.” They go on to say that real median income is down almost 10% since the start of the recession and inflation has eroded peoples’ buying power by 3.25% since mid 2008.
To truly take in that economic progress has done its work requires sitting quietly for awhile and watching my thoughts swirl around. This is not a small insight and acting on it will require retooling how I think. For example, there is no real need for me to argue against capitalism—all the bad and all the good that it could produce, it has. In the developed world, capitalism is largely over. What this means is that there is no point for a wealthy person in the United States to become wealthier—she will not live longer, nor be less likely to be shot or die of a stress related illness or get divorced or suffer from alcoholism. The quality of life for everyone in the United States is going down and will continue to do so. For poor people (which we have more of every day) a drop in the “quality of life” is disastrous or even fatal.
As a person who makes her living in the nonprofit sector, I must ponder and discuss with others what programs we will create to promote rough social equity that are not about economic growth, what kind of wealth will we need to create in a post capitalist society, and how exactly will we pursue “a quality of life that depends on community and how we relate to each other.”
I intend to ponder this through the Winter Solstice and as the days begin (however incrementally) to grow longer, I will incrementally begin to think of resolutions that allow 2012 to make exponential changes in the direction of rough social equity. The gap between rich and poor is so deep and profound that we must adopt the motto of the 1960’s Apollo 13 mission in our work to change it: “Failure is not an option.”
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Irrational Thoughts
POP QUIZ: Who said each of the following?:
The USA is in serious danger of becoming "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists."
“Corporations are people, my friend.”
“What I'm talking about is the order of deportation, the sequence of deportation. It is almost impossible to move 11 million illegal immigrants overnight. You do it in steps."
If you guessed, in this order: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachman, you are right. (From MoveOn.Org, YouTube, the Nation, and the Washington Post.)
I could have put equally crazy quotes in for all the Republicans running for office, most of whom have endorsed adding 2000 miles to the wall between the US and Mexico to the tune of $25 billion, some form of flat tax, and war with Iran.
Gingrich’s quote is the probably the least serious in terms of policy and law, but is the most indicative to me of a dangerous trend in our country, which is to say things in a serious tone of voice that make no sense. He has put together two ridiculous, but also self-cancelling ideas and made them into one thought.
I know that it is possible to have contradictory or nonsensical thoughts—I do it all the time. Just yesterday, I ate a bag of potato chips even though I am trying to lose weight. I read the nutrition label and saw that these chips had 20% of my daily potassium and so told myself they were good for me. I also think my cat understands me and that my dog does not. Or, just last week I said I wanted to read more, but then spent a free evening watching sitcoms.
The difference between me and the Republican front runners is that I don’t believe my irrational thoughts and behavior should be codified into public policy and I am not going to run for office on a Potato Chip platform.
A commons frame calls for rational and respectful conversation amongst people who see each other as valuable and equal members of the human race. To figure out what policies, laws, behaviors and customs will most promote the common good while insuring individual rights requires a lot of discussion. A society based on a commons frame has many gray areas that must be worked out, and probably will have to be worked on for quite a long time.
The current trend toward saying things that make no sense serves a very rational, if evil, purpose: to stop discussion. Who can enter a discussion with someone who thinks a corporation is a person? Who can really talk with someone who thinks that the border between the US and Mexico should be electrified and have a sign on it that says, “This can kill you” as Herman Cain said recently? Or that “compassionate conservatism” is a form of big government, as Rick Perry noted in one of his earliest interviews?
So regular people cease to discuss politics, stop voting, and do not enter into the commons. We must fight this trend by having as many conversations with as many people as we possibly can, and watching in ourselves for those times when we say or do things that are irrational. It is through sharing our feelings, our history, our facts, that we together can create the policies, laws, structures and procedures that protect and promote everyone’s health and well being. Promoting this kind of conversation is the best way to continue to work for the 99%.
The USA is in serious danger of becoming "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists."
“Corporations are people, my friend.”
“What I'm talking about is the order of deportation, the sequence of deportation. It is almost impossible to move 11 million illegal immigrants overnight. You do it in steps."
If you guessed, in this order: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachman, you are right. (From MoveOn.Org, YouTube, the Nation, and the Washington Post.)
I could have put equally crazy quotes in for all the Republicans running for office, most of whom have endorsed adding 2000 miles to the wall between the US and Mexico to the tune of $25 billion, some form of flat tax, and war with Iran.
Gingrich’s quote is the probably the least serious in terms of policy and law, but is the most indicative to me of a dangerous trend in our country, which is to say things in a serious tone of voice that make no sense. He has put together two ridiculous, but also self-cancelling ideas and made them into one thought.
I know that it is possible to have contradictory or nonsensical thoughts—I do it all the time. Just yesterday, I ate a bag of potato chips even though I am trying to lose weight. I read the nutrition label and saw that these chips had 20% of my daily potassium and so told myself they were good for me. I also think my cat understands me and that my dog does not. Or, just last week I said I wanted to read more, but then spent a free evening watching sitcoms.
The difference between me and the Republican front runners is that I don’t believe my irrational thoughts and behavior should be codified into public policy and I am not going to run for office on a Potato Chip platform.
A commons frame calls for rational and respectful conversation amongst people who see each other as valuable and equal members of the human race. To figure out what policies, laws, behaviors and customs will most promote the common good while insuring individual rights requires a lot of discussion. A society based on a commons frame has many gray areas that must be worked out, and probably will have to be worked on for quite a long time.
The current trend toward saying things that make no sense serves a very rational, if evil, purpose: to stop discussion. Who can enter a discussion with someone who thinks a corporation is a person? Who can really talk with someone who thinks that the border between the US and Mexico should be electrified and have a sign on it that says, “This can kill you” as Herman Cain said recently? Or that “compassionate conservatism” is a form of big government, as Rick Perry noted in one of his earliest interviews?
So regular people cease to discuss politics, stop voting, and do not enter into the commons. We must fight this trend by having as many conversations with as many people as we possibly can, and watching in ourselves for those times when we say or do things that are irrational. It is through sharing our feelings, our history, our facts, that we together can create the policies, laws, structures and procedures that protect and promote everyone’s health and well being. Promoting this kind of conversation is the best way to continue to work for the 99%.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Thanksgiving
Last Thursday, I celebrated my 58th birthday by going to a play called “How to Write A New Book for the Bible” by Bill Kain. Kain is a Jesuit priest and a well known writer. The premise is fairly simple: a man moves in with his mother as she becomes too frail to take care of herself after the death of his father. Over the course of the play, much is revealed about their family. The mother dies, which is bittersweet for everyone because they loved her very much and will miss her, but didn’t want her to suffer, and also now the son can return to his life in New York City. The premise is that the mother and father are as grand as any characters in the Bible and that the Bible is simply a very long story of a very big family. Every family’s story could be added to the Bible.
The idea that each family is of Biblical proportion is intriguing to me, and I think presents some suggestions of what “family” would be like in a fully commons society. First, there would be no secrets and all would be known. The Biblical heroes have serious shadow sides: King David was an adulterer, Noah was a drunk, Jacob was a liar and a sneak, Moses did not want to help his people escape from Egypt, Abraham let the Pharoah think his wife, Sarah, was his sister and let Pharoah take her to his harem, and the list goes on and on. Human beings doing their best, but only sometimes and other times acting pretty badly. Having no secrets would help everyone feel more normal and would result in far fewer lies as there would be nothing to cover up. We would know that love is constant, life saving, joyful but rarely unconditional. Ironically, knowing that would allow us to forgive and move on much more easily. We would, perhaps, find it easier to forgive ourselves and in so doing, create a world in which kindness was commonplace . The cliché of the human family would begin to have real meaning as we looked at each other and saw everyone as a relative.
This week we have possibly the largest family holiday in the USA—Thanksgiving. It is one of biggest days for domestic violence programs, for drunk driving citations, accidents and travel delays. A holiday of extremely dubious origin, it has become a time to simply have four days off in a row because unlike the birthdays of famous dead people, Thanksgiving can’t be moved to a Friday or a Monday.
I am not a big fan of Thanksgiving, but have come to accept it as something that most non-Native American people celebrate and some even enjoy. This Thanksgiving I will do my best to focus on being a member of a family that belongs in the Bible and use this holiday as a way to practice living a commons life as my current life. I’ll let you know how it goes.
The idea that each family is of Biblical proportion is intriguing to me, and I think presents some suggestions of what “family” would be like in a fully commons society. First, there would be no secrets and all would be known. The Biblical heroes have serious shadow sides: King David was an adulterer, Noah was a drunk, Jacob was a liar and a sneak, Moses did not want to help his people escape from Egypt, Abraham let the Pharoah think his wife, Sarah, was his sister and let Pharoah take her to his harem, and the list goes on and on. Human beings doing their best, but only sometimes and other times acting pretty badly. Having no secrets would help everyone feel more normal and would result in far fewer lies as there would be nothing to cover up. We would know that love is constant, life saving, joyful but rarely unconditional. Ironically, knowing that would allow us to forgive and move on much more easily. We would, perhaps, find it easier to forgive ourselves and in so doing, create a world in which kindness was commonplace . The cliché of the human family would begin to have real meaning as we looked at each other and saw everyone as a relative.
This week we have possibly the largest family holiday in the USA—Thanksgiving. It is one of biggest days for domestic violence programs, for drunk driving citations, accidents and travel delays. A holiday of extremely dubious origin, it has become a time to simply have four days off in a row because unlike the birthdays of famous dead people, Thanksgiving can’t be moved to a Friday or a Monday.
I am not a big fan of Thanksgiving, but have come to accept it as something that most non-Native American people celebrate and some even enjoy. This Thanksgiving I will do my best to focus on being a member of a family that belongs in the Bible and use this holiday as a way to practice living a commons life as my current life. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Voter Suppression
Today, we share some news from our friends over at Nonprofit Vote. They were highlighted in a recent article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy as a key resource for voter engagement in the nonprofit sector.
Read "Legal Efforts to Suppress Voting Should Draw More Concern From Charities." (PDF)
From the article: “Every other foundation and nonprofit, regardless of its mission, needs to understand and act on the threat to its ability to serve society when the basic premise of democracy in America is at risk.”
Read "Legal Efforts to Suppress Voting Should Draw More Concern From Charities." (PDF)
From the article: “Every other foundation and nonprofit, regardless of its mission, needs to understand and act on the threat to its ability to serve society when the basic premise of democracy in America is at risk.”
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Path Wanderers
After spending a fair amount of time at Occupy Oakland (“fair amount” being relative to me who almost never goes to demonstrations), I decided that I must do something entirely for the commons which would not be controversial. I chose to join a work party this weekend with a wonderful all volunteer organization called Berkeley Path Wanderers. Their membership dues of $5 per family insure that anyone can belong. They create, expand, maintain and repair the 140 stairways and public paths that run throughout the city of Berkeley.
I went to the designated site where we were installing stairs up a steep hill to connect one set of paths to another. I learned how to clear the space for a three foot long railroad- tie style step, make sure it was level and the right distance from the next step. It was harder than it looked and each step took about 25 minutes to install accurately. Fortunately I had a great partner who had installed many stairs and was generally very handy.
It was a beautiful fall day and the people were very nice and welcoming. But as for my wish that this would not be controversial, alas, no such luck. The leader of the work party told those of us who were new that at some point, a woman at the top of the hill would come out on her balcony and yell at us. She does not want this path installed near her house. We were instructed to ignore her. Many people have tried reasoning with her and every attempt to engage her makes her yell more. Sure enough, about 20 minutes after we started she came out on her deck and said, “You are in violation of Berkeley City Code 92436.5” and then, for emphasis, “Point 5!”. My stair partner said, “Point 5—that’s scary. Point 4, not a big deal.” We laughed. I looked up just to see what she looked like and she screamed, “Didn’t your mother teach you any respect? What about my privacy? You are invading my privacy!” I looked down quickly and got back to work.
The fact is that we are not in violation of anything—in fact the city of Berkeley loves Path Wanderers because they do so much work and they pay for everything. All the tools, the wood for the stairs, the storage shed where everything is kept between work parties—all paid for by volunteers who also do the work. A cross section of the public is maintaining a certain kind of public space through private donations with the blessing and protection of local government. To me, this in an ideal arrangement. It is the totally appropriate use of private donations and volunteer energy. The paths can be maintained by volunteer time and money for the sake of everyone in the community who likes to walk. Many of the paths are wheelchair accessible and most have benches along the way so you don’t have to be a big hiker to benefit from this work. Since they are throughout the city, there is almost no one who doesn’t live near a path.
I asked if the work parties often had trouble with neighbors. Not surprisingly the answer was no. Most people are glad to have a path near the house and certainly glad to have an existing path maintained or upgraded. However, sometimes people really object to the idea of the public being able to walk by their house and look in their yard or windows. The tensions between private and public, and the width and depth of the liminal space between those is the topic of many commons discussions. What belongs to me alone? What must I share? What must others share with me? How much more do I have when I share? Am I ever willing to have less so that others can have more?
After the work party, I walked by myself for awhile and enjoyed being alone. We often say “less is more” and there are many instances in which that is true. But also, “more is more.” The more public space there is, the stronger the social safety net, the more engaged people are in their communities, the more we all have, both for each of us alone and for everyone.
I went to the designated site where we were installing stairs up a steep hill to connect one set of paths to another. I learned how to clear the space for a three foot long railroad- tie style step, make sure it was level and the right distance from the next step. It was harder than it looked and each step took about 25 minutes to install accurately. Fortunately I had a great partner who had installed many stairs and was generally very handy.
It was a beautiful fall day and the people were very nice and welcoming. But as for my wish that this would not be controversial, alas, no such luck. The leader of the work party told those of us who were new that at some point, a woman at the top of the hill would come out on her balcony and yell at us. She does not want this path installed near her house. We were instructed to ignore her. Many people have tried reasoning with her and every attempt to engage her makes her yell more. Sure enough, about 20 minutes after we started she came out on her deck and said, “You are in violation of Berkeley City Code 92436.5” and then, for emphasis, “Point 5!”. My stair partner said, “Point 5—that’s scary. Point 4, not a big deal.” We laughed. I looked up just to see what she looked like and she screamed, “Didn’t your mother teach you any respect? What about my privacy? You are invading my privacy!” I looked down quickly and got back to work.
The fact is that we are not in violation of anything—in fact the city of Berkeley loves Path Wanderers because they do so much work and they pay for everything. All the tools, the wood for the stairs, the storage shed where everything is kept between work parties—all paid for by volunteers who also do the work. A cross section of the public is maintaining a certain kind of public space through private donations with the blessing and protection of local government. To me, this in an ideal arrangement. It is the totally appropriate use of private donations and volunteer energy. The paths can be maintained by volunteer time and money for the sake of everyone in the community who likes to walk. Many of the paths are wheelchair accessible and most have benches along the way so you don’t have to be a big hiker to benefit from this work. Since they are throughout the city, there is almost no one who doesn’t live near a path.
I asked if the work parties often had trouble with neighbors. Not surprisingly the answer was no. Most people are glad to have a path near the house and certainly glad to have an existing path maintained or upgraded. However, sometimes people really object to the idea of the public being able to walk by their house and look in their yard or windows. The tensions between private and public, and the width and depth of the liminal space between those is the topic of many commons discussions. What belongs to me alone? What must I share? What must others share with me? How much more do I have when I share? Am I ever willing to have less so that others can have more?
After the work party, I walked by myself for awhile and enjoyed being alone. We often say “less is more” and there are many instances in which that is true. But also, “more is more.” The more public space there is, the stronger the social safety net, the more engaged people are in their communities, the more we all have, both for each of us alone and for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
