Zen and the Relativity of #Risk

1. On September 11, 2001, 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States. Often referred to as 9/11, the attacks resulted in extensive death and destruction: Over 3,000 people were killed during the attacks, including more than 400 police officers and firefighters.
2. On December 14, 2012 Adam Lanza, fatally shot twenty innocent children and six adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. 
3. On April 15, 2013, someone created, carried, placed and detonated two explosive devices at the Boston Marathon, that killed three people and maimed and/or injured more than 100 innocent people.

Shocking examples of life and sudden, unexpected death, in a society that glorifies violence via movies, video games, sermons, political action, and more!

However, every month, the number of people killed by gun violence in the United States equals the tragedy described above as 9/11… that’s right, more than 30,000 gun-related deaths per year (some self-inflicted), or almost 3,000 per month.  And America mostly shrugs, while millions claim rights to keep and bear arms under The Second Amendment.

I’m not judging; only providing facts… you can be the judge.

I find the relativity of risk among people in the U.S. fascinating to observe.   

Few people go about their daily lives exhibiting a great fear of being shot and killed on any particular day.  But, on the other hand, we are willing to walk through airport security terminals half naked in order to achieve a relative mindset of safety.  This, regardless of the fact that the statistical change of dying in a plane crash – 9/11 included – equals that of winning the lottery… i.e. virtually zero!

Around this topic exists a large degree of hypocrisy.  But somehow we have become immune to this character trait in our common observations of religious leaders; political figures; biased media reporting, reporters & topics covered; all complemented by unfiltered Twitter feeds that offer opinion from all manner of often unidentifiable pundits, instantly, in real time.

I purposely chose to headline this post with the word Zen.  In my youth, I was fortunate to be able to read and absorb Robert Pirsig’s bestseller “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.”  If you haven't read this book before, you should.  People who strive to kill other people should also probably read it, but probably won’t.

For the geeks: Zen is derived from the Japanese pronunciation of the Middle Chinese word dʑjen (or the Modern Mandarin word Chán), which in turn is derived from the Sanskrit word dhyāna… which can be approximately translated as "absorption" or "meditative state."

Let’s focus our attention first on absorption.  On April 15^th 2013 I saw graphic pictures of some of the victims of the Boston bombing that I wish I could unsee.  But alas, I have already absorbed that visual content and I’m likely to retain it forever, albeit that I may think of it less and less, over time.

In a meditative state I should always be able to enjoy personal solace for a while, appreciating the people that I love and who love me, all the wonderful things that surround me daily, the fact that I want for so little when others have so much need. 

We cannot always elect what to absorb, but we can certainly control our meditative state.

Freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right under the First Amendment. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

The latter Amendment was adopted in 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.  It may be a little out of date in 2013, perhaps requiring a Constitutional Amendment to make it more current?

More interesting – to me anyway – is the fact that there appears to be a great demographic overlap between religious zealots who cling to the right to keep and bear arms, and those who embrace freedom of religion In the United States.

Arguably, freedom of religion may just as well have been penned as freedom from religion, and such a minor edit may have achieved better results?  After all, Jefferson’s intent was the separation of church and state, and he was a secularist, rather than a believer.  His writings questioning the existence and purpose of a god are well preserved, and readily available for review.

It is ironic then, that some people would support everyone’s right to freedom of religion… unless a particular, fanatical, fundamentalist religious group intends to kill them.  Hypocrisy?  Adaptation of the Constitution (or its Amendments) to suit one’s purposes and/or interpretation is no different to the adaptation of religious scripture for the purposes of suiting one’s own beliefs and/or requirements.

It is possible that these two topics, in combination, may be two of the most significant contributory banes of the United States’ future prosperity.  Ridding generations of a right to own guns and a right to serve any and/or all extra-terrestrial, imaginary beings is probably way overdue.  Unfortunately, this good riddance may require another generation or two, in terms of time.

As was the case 5,000 years ago, during the time the Abrahamic scriptures were written in Mesopotamia, religions zealots are still killing other people in the name of their god, even today.  Fortunately, mad people like Adam Lanza may be an exception to this nuisance and not the norm… otherwise; the proverbial ongoing holy war that is being waged will be allowed to continue in perpetuity, unabated.

Blind acceptance of anything is arguably just as feeble as blind rejection of anything! 

Let's strive to become educated, informed and begin to change our world.  Start with your children, one hug at a time, repeated as often as possible.  Teach and train them well, aspiring to achieve what our (and past) generations had failed at... horribly!

US: from #Greatness to #Dependency?

Historically, for most of U.S. history, farmers, shop owners or entrepreneurs lived an entire life without getting anything from the federal government, except essential services, e.g. mail delivery.

The Heritage Foundation reported that in 2010 67.3 million Americans received either Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Social Security, support for higher education or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions – an 8% increase from the year before.

In 2012 the Wall Street Journal reported that 49% of the population lives in a household where at least one person gets some type of government benefit.

These people aren't necessarily dependent on government; many could live (even live well) without their Social Security check, Pell grant or crop subsidy.  But that's not the point. The problem is that Washington is building a culture of dependency, with ever-more people relying on an ever-growing federal government to give them cash or benefits.

This is a growing and arguably dangerous trend. The U.S. thrives because of a culture of opportunity that encourages work and disdains relying on handouts. The growth of the welfare state is turning us into a country where many expect and see no stigma attached to drawing regular financial support from the federal government.

Consider means-tested social welfare programs. The federal government operates at least 69 programs that provide assistance deliberately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people. The benefits include cash, food, housing, medical care and social services.

Yet when poverty expert Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, examined these anti-poverty programs, he found that only two, the earned income tax credit and the additional child refundable credit, require recipients to actually work for their benefits. It had been three, but earlier this year, the Obama administration effectively set aside the most well-known welfare work requirements, those specifically written into the 1996 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families law. The Department of Health and Human Services announced that states could apply for a waiver of the law's clearly stated work requirements.

Meanwhile, although spending on welfare has been cut in half since it was reformed in 1996, other federal spending on programs, such as food stamps, has soared year after year and decade after decade. Simply put, spending on social welfare programs has exploded.

CNNMoney: The poor do have jobs

Under a culture of dependency, poverty becomes a trap, and recipients get stuck. Long-term welfare recipients lose work habits and job skills and miss out on the marketplace contacts that lead to job opportunities. That's a key reason the government should require welfare recipients to work as much as they can.

Another problem is that we simply can't afford all this spending.

The national debt is greater than $16 trillion, more than the entire GDP of the United States last year.

High as it is, that debt is about to soar. More than 78 million baby boomers are retiring onto Social Security and Medicare in the next 15 years or so. Under Obamacare, Medicaid is set to explode as well. Within just one generation, total federal spending could reach nearly 36% of GDP, and the Congressional Budget Office says debt held by the public could reach nearly 200% of GDP.

That will crowd out virtually all other government spending, including national defense. Future Congresses could impose deep cuts in social welfare programs across the board or raise massive taxes to support these exploding programs. The results would be chaotic and unpredictable.

It doesn't have to be this way.

We can reduce dependency on government and focus benefits on those who are truly needy. All poverty programs should be reviewed to make certain they're helping people instead of harming them. Social welfare programs should help people up, not hold them down.