Letters from a Young Radical

This discussion is for me an intersection between three seemingly non-related events in my life:

1. Part of an epic discussion where a friend posited to me that one reason Socialism could never work because there are "bad" people in the world who are "just born bad" and aren't worth trying to help or change.
2. My own recent experience with anxiety and panic attacks and a therapist, mother and friends who explain how intensely our emotions and mentality can affect our body and vice versa.
3. The information I've gleaned from the Seeds of Compassion conference with discussions between the Dalai Lama and various professionals who emphasize the importance of a healthy emotional environment early in life.

Personally I'm fascinated, and in large part because of what this information (or the opposite of it) means for the future of humanity. As I suggested to my friend, if some people are "just born bad" (the Nature of "Nature vs Nurture") and not only are they not worth trying to help but unable to change, then there really is no hope for our species learning a better way to live, because there will always be some jerks who are simply born to screw it up for the rest of us. Similar arguments state that we are instinctively violent and competitive as a species. I used to feel as pessimistic, however my sociological studies have given me a great deal more hope.

If we are all largely products of our environment (the Nurture of "Nature vs Nurture") as I suspect, then if we can change the environment, we can change people, and change the world. The fun part of this I realized after reading the Why It Matters section of the Seeds of Compassion website (a highly intriguing read), is that science is telling us that how we turn out is not based on simply Nature OR Nurture, but truly the Nature OF Nurture. In other words, there are biological reasons why our environment affects us so greatly.

It's because of this perspective, for example, that I would hesitate to accuse any homeless person of being in their situation because they lack personal responsibility. I've been told that I'm probably too willing to assume that these people are all victims of the system rather than their own laziness, selfishness or stupidity. I would go a step further to say that I can't even find it in myself to blame a homeless drug addict or a homeless alcoholic for being in their situation. Because I believe that many factors could be responsible for creating someone who perhaps is more prone to addiction than most. Now this is not to say that I don't think personal responsibility is important, or that there aren't people out there who are unmotivated, or selfish, or ignorant. What I am saying is that there are factors in our lives that can affect our grasp of personal responsibility, and there are factors that lead to being unmotivated, selfish or ignorant that I wouldn't consider the "fault" of the individual.

One question I had was what really made up a "good" person or a "bad" person (I personally abhor those words myself, but couldn't explain what they really meant). The Seeds of Compassion website phrased it really well in discussing Social Emotional Development (SED), which is:

...a child’s capacity to identify, understand, experience, manage, and express a full range of positive and negative emotions in a productive way; regulate one’s own behavior such as being able to calm down; being able to accurately read another person’s emotions; develop empathy for others; develop and sustain close, satisfying relationships with other children and adults; and actively explore the environment and learn.

These are qualities which help form a person more capable of not stealing other kids' lunch money or say, murdering thousands of people. The theory goes, if we can find ways to help all children grow up in a nurturing environment where they can understand and develop their emotions, we can make the world a better, more compassionate place.

Studies show that "how a child feels affects how a child learns" (quote from one of the panelists). If certain capabilities are not stimulated early in life, the parts of the brain responsible shut down. From the Why It Matters section again:

...research has found that the critical brain connections that determine emotional, social and intellectual development are primarily formed by attentive care and nurturing stimulation. Parents and other caregivers strongly affect the wiring of the brain through interactions with their infant, toddler, or preschooler. Positive early relationships critically influence a child’s ability to achieve success in school and in life.

One example given at the afternoon panel yesterday described a study of an orphanage which provided very well for the orphans physically (a healthy diet, a warm place to sleep, etc) but lacked a perspective on emotional health. After teaching the staff how to have a more intimate bond with the children and an interest in their emotional and social development, the study went on for some months. What they found was that even though no factors were changed in the children's physical environment, they grew bigger and healthier physically.

Certainly in my own personal experience with anxiety, I've learned that negative thinking and negative emotions can have a big impact on you physically. Most of us can relate to the idea that if you're in a horrible mood, you don't do as well at your job and you really don't feel much like doing your homework.

Shifting gears a bit, I think one cultural factor that makes it hard for the Western world to grasp the concept of factors beyond personal responsibility is Individualism:

Individualism is a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists ... oppose most external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society, the state, or any other group or institution. Individualism is therefore opposed to holism, collectivism, socialism, fascism, communism, communalism, statism, totalitarianism, and communitarianism, which stress that communal, community, group, societal, or national goals should take priority over individual goals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

I'm not sure about the whole history of Individualism, although I do know that it likely complimented the introduction of Capitalism pretty well (ie: "I can be as rich as I want, how I want, I earned it!"). I also know that American companies latched onto it as a marketing technique in the 60's to suck in the youth of the time who were rebelling against the conformism of the 50's. I don't think that individualism is bad per se, I just think rampant individualism without a sense of community responsibility or global consequence is incredibly dangerous and a big reason for our problems worldwide.

I think we need to encourage a greater interest in the social-emotional development of our children in schools, at home, in hospitals and centers of social work. I think we need to look at those who are suffering not with suspicion but with compassion and look for holistic ways to help rather than considering it "their problem". I think we need to be open to looking at every person's situation in life and ask how it happened, and be open to questioning the system which helped create their situation. I think we need to consider the possibility that we can create a better world by teaching our children positive values, by being willing to bring these studies into the home and make the personal political, see the personal problem a social problem.

If we only consider personal responsibility (or biological bad luck) as factors in human success, we may as well just give up. I find this perspective very dangerous, and it simply can't fit in my worldview if I'm looking to change the world for the better.

Athletes who take Tibet stand 'face Olympic cut'

I understand the argument that "politics should stay out of the games", if only out of respect for the mind-blowing amount of work it takes to get to the Olympics, and the intense concentration and ideal mindset required to pull off a medal. I hope for the sake of the athletes, that everyone has what they need to perform at their best.

At the same time, I think its ludicrous to claim that people sporting Free Tibet accessories are engaging in an act which would offend or distract anyone except perhaps some athletes and the Host Itself. I suppose it could be considered "just polite" to not insult your Olympic host, but the Tibet situation is such an obviously public problem, I would assume the IOC (International Olympic Committee) would have thought of that before deciding to have the games in Beijing.

I don't know anything (at all) about how the IOC decides where to have the games, or who benefits in what way. I assume, as always, that there is some financial benefit, probably for a select few (I dunno does any of the money go to China's poor? Please let me know). Naturally, it makes sense to stamp out the deviants if they're going to ruin the deal for those who benefit.

I'm personally really excited about this happening, despite the obvious problem for many involved. You know that something is going to happen. One person, or tons of people (wouldn't that be lovely!) are going to take some kind of stand here. I think it's unavoidable. It'll be tense, and exciting, and the first person that gets expelled from the games is going to become a martyr. This whole thing has given huge media attention to the Free Tibet cause.

Can you believe they're rioting in Tibet? What a statement that is, when a culture that is typically nonviolent decides it's had enough.

Looking at the Olympics as a place where all nations of the world can come together in unity, leaving our quarrels and politics behind us, begs an important question: Why do we have quarrels and politics we need to leave behind us? Why are Earth's countries fighting each other? Why are we killing each other? Why are there so many poor? Why isn't Tibet free?

And if this whole thing is about unity, why should we ignore the problems in the world rather than open our eyes to them? If anything, the Olympic Games should represent a place where we can gather to overcome our differences by relating to people our leaders usually claim are our enemies. If all we do is come together for friendly competition only to go home and return to the routine of hating and killing our neighbors, what have we learned? What's the point?

Seeds of Compassion, April 11th - 15th
FRIDAY, APRIL 11 – DAY OF REVIEW AND LEARNING

From Knowledge to Compassion Action: What We All Can Do
His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be joined by leaders in compassion and empathy to discuss how parents and educators can bring compassion into the lives of children and families.

I'll be going to this event at Seeds of Compassion tomorrow! This convention has tons of really intriguing panels and speakers. Lucky for us, they're webcasting something for all 5 days. It's really great timing for me, as I've been having this slightly epic discussion on Nature vs Nurture. The theme of this convention is "providing the fundamental foundations for happiness and success in children, their lives and the society they live in", and helped me realize that it's not just one or the other, Nature OR Nurture, it's the Nature OF Nurture. There is a scientific basis for the assertion that our environment while growing up has an incredible impact on us, rather than, as a non-religious friend of mine said, the idea that "some people are just born bad and aren't worth trying to help".

You can see how much I'd be set off by such an individualistic statement. In any case, I'll take notes at the discussion (if I'm not going all buddhist fangirl on His Holiness), and post more on this topic later, including more of my thoughts on the epic discussion.

I have to say, I find it horribly ironic that at a rock concert attended by hundreds upon hundreds of angry, misunderstood, hormone-ridden, rebellious teenagers, that a fight breaks out between two adults. Good job guys, great role modeling.
Yeah, the kids are alright.

I apologize that this isn't a well thought-out or well researched post, it's more a reactionary post about someone who obviously has issues and isn't therefore really worth my analysis. All the same, the personal is the political, so I'm on this.

For the first time ever, a "plus sized" (size 16 which is fairly average) model has made it into the
final round of the Miss England beauty pageant. Chloe Marshall! I think beauty contests are despicable in the first, but I figure if we're going to have them, it would be better if they included a wider interpretation of "beauty" (particularly after the revealing fame of Miss South Carolina last year). Generally people seem to be open to Chloe as a new and welcome interpretation (following Dove's recent campaign more people have been widening the definition), however I read one editorial (from the same source, although there are many articles about Chloe on the net), and I just wanted to punch this lady.

Yes, I know, it's a gossipy "news" source and this lady is just some random person but STILL! She tries to make the case that Chloe is a bad role model for girls because she "promotes obesity" and claims that the other stick-thin contestants are not overweight but even healthy. While it's true that obesity is a big problem in Western societies right now, it's also true that models have died from trying to attain this perceived perfection.

This woman, Monica Grenfell, is obviously a fat-hater. She's the type of person that looks at all overweight people as lazy, non-motivated and all around useless. I know people like this. She chalks Chloe's body size up to "eating too much", completely ignoring that some people are just larger and some people are just smaller, because of their GENES or other characteristics about their system. I find it odd that she could be a dietician while lacking basic biological knowledge like that.

My favorite part:

"As a judge on last year's Miss England contest, I was hugely impressed, not just by the beauty but by the skills dedication and determination of the contestants.

For example, most had raised huge sums of money for their favourite charities. They shone out as young women to be admired.

But can the same really be said of Chloe?

At 5ft 10in, Chloe should have a body mass index, or BMI, (indicating her levels of fat) of 20. Hers is 26.03."

To translate, she's saying that the contestants from last year had skills, dedication, determination, and social consciousness. Meanwhile, Chloe is just fat. She says nothing about any of her other qualities, ANYWHERE in her editorial, and uses the term "fat" 10 times while using the far less insulting term "overweight" only 4 times. Attacking the model with vicious terms like that really outs Grenfell as having not just a concern but a disgust for people who are overweight.

So apparently there's an "obesity epidemic". While I will absolutely not argue with the fact that Western nations, likely America in particular, have a BIG problem stemming from the marketing success of fast food, junk food and drinks, and chain restaurants, I also wonder if our definition of a healthy weight isn't based off of cultural ideals promoted by advertising rather than actual medical facts. According to the BMI (which was apparently recently proved as being no proof at all), I'm OBESE. Seriously! For those of you that know me, do you think of me as OBESE? I mean when I think obese I think 400lbs with serious health issues. I'm as healthy as can be according to the doc. Sure I think I'm over the natural weight for my body, and I know how I got there, but seriously, obese?!

In my opinion, this dietician is just a minion of the status quo and has completely internalized the backwards notions of health present in our society. Course, that's just me. I could be wrong. I am obese, after all.

There's so many people saying what I think out there that I feel really superfluous making any post about it myself. All the same, I should try to keep this updated to provide a continuous narrative on the young radical perspective.

There's a lot of drama between the two Democrats, Clinton and Obama. I, and others, find this really unproductive and potentially a really bad thing for the Dems come election time. I'm still putting my money on Obama, but it's the principal of the thing. We need a big change right now, why all the infighting? I think it's despicable and really says to me that this really isn't about change, it's about who gets the prize.

To reiterate on a previous post, I'm really glad to see so many people excited over Obama, the Change Agent, regardless of my not being impressed with his nonplans for this Change. This excitement over Obama's rhetoric I'm hoping means that people are now willing to get involved in mass movements for change, and I'm hoping if Obama wins, that his fans are willing to hold him to his promises and more, rather than waiting for him to wave his magic wand.

All this stuff about Billary drives me nuts. It's not about him. Listening to an older lady on NPR this morning say how she likes Hillary because she was "a lady" about the whole infidelity issue. She "was silent when she should be, and stuck up for her husband when she should". Basically this lady likes Hillary because she didn't dump Bill after that fiasco. Now I don't give a crap about his personal life and I don't think it should ever have had any bearing on his presidency (hello you wanted to impeach him for fellatio and Bush gets nothing?), but I do think she should have kicked him to the curb. I don't think this has anything to do with her potential presidency either, but I do think it says a lot about her possible desire to pander to the family values crowd.

Meanwhile, the majority of folks are getting mixed up in the details of who did what between the Dems, bunches of other people are taking steps back and saying hey, this is a little stupid. Me, I'm taking two steps back and saying I really don't care about any of this, because none of the candidates are people I would trust to make the changes that we really need in this country and in the world. I want to think someone like Obama has the People's interests in mind, but the system just isn't set up to facilitate that. They all have obligations to the ruling class.