What do they want from us, anyway? Without consumers to lead the charge, an economic recovery will be hard to achieve. And yet everyone agrees that we need to start saving more. So should I buy that coffee maker to stimulate the economy? Or should I save the money in order to “grow” the economy and provide for my own old age? I can’t do both. - New York Times

Is it possible to spend more in order to save more?

It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled, Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. “We are, and always will be, the United States of America.

Some of the same individuals that voted for Barack Obama voted to ban same-sex marriage. While “race” is becoming less of issue in the U.S., the struggle for gay rights continues.

All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another. - Anatole France

Congratulations!

Senator Barack Obama is the first African-American to be nominated by a major American political party for president. Some people will exclusively vote for Obama because he is black while others will look right and vote for McCain because he is not.

Baracka Obama’s mother is from Kansas. Barack Obama’s father is from Kenya. Will some people vote for Obama because he is black and white? If you ask me, race doesn’t matter.

People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote—a very different thing. - Walter H. Judd

Whatever happens, change is good. Not that any kind of change is all for the better, but the fact that we do not live in a static world is what’s good about it. There’s always room for improvement; always room to be better. There’s always chance to do things right if at first you don’t succeed. - Performancing

In the shadows of this picture on a park bench, “Caus” in the statement “Jews Caus War” is spelled wrong. Wars are declared and wars are fought, but not collectively caused by 18 million people who live on many lands not deemed as holy as those found in the Fertile Crescent.

As a Jew living in the U.S., I cannot speak for the various sects of Jews in Israel, but I am deeply bothered by the walls, fences, and barriers that I read and hear so much about. Can you imagine a slogan such as, “Building Barriers to Bring Peace?” I have spoken with Palestinians and Israelis alike, but I have yet to visit the Holy Land—home to Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

Some argue that a two state solution is ideal; others advocate for one. What about no state and something entirely different? It is common knowledge that the international system of states is relatively new, a result of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Today, Palestinians seek a state to call their own; Israel was formalized in 1948.

Palestinians and Israelis are creative and innovative people, sharing a lot in common. The boundary lines that separate Israel and Palestine are socially constructed; they exist because most citizens of the world believe in the nation-state, which replaced multi-ethnic empires. But change is constant, and imagining a world with boundaries beyond the nation state is a possibility.

If you want to be good at something, you have to to be obsessive. You have to do the thing all the time, and when you’re not doing it, you have to be thinking about doing it. Why do you think business people who make millions are so good at it? They’re always doing business. Even when they’re not working, they’re thinking about better ways to do business. Same with the greatest writers and painters. They obsess all the time. Ruby, if you want to be good at writing, you need to be obsessive about it. - Zen Habits

Andrew Sullivan writes:

To blog is therefore to let go of your writing in a way, to hold it at arm’s length, open it to scrutiny, allow it to float in the ether for a while, and to let others, as Montaigne did, pivot you toward relative truth.

Senator John McCain has been trying to reassure the public that he is a Maverick, but in doing so, his Maverick status has become questionable. Mavericks are people who think independently, dissent from time to time, and resist adherence to a group. Few question that Senator McCain has dissented plenty over the years, but is McCain still a Maverick if he has to self-identify himself as such.

McCain was granted the title of Maverick by media pundits, fellow senators, and the public because of his willingness to part from Republican party on key positions. But now that McCain is using his Maverick status for political purposes, many are trying to reign it in. Mavericks are not Mavericks because they say they are or want to be; rather, they are Mavericks because of how others view what they do. If no more Maverick, what then?

Random events (good and bad) happen quite a bit, and you never know how they will influence you months or even years after they happen. Thanks to WordPress, Six Shooter Media, and ThemeShaper, I am writing, sharing ideas, and making new friends.

When I lived in Virginia, I met Lucy by accident at a coffee shop, and we ended up talking politics, work, school, etc… every other week for months. I learned a lot from her, and she probably learned something from me. I started this blog for myself soon after. My next project in the works, Caffeinated Conversations, is all about conversations at coffee shops and cafe’s. This one is for you Lucy.

At a recent McCain rally, a woman in the audience directly asked if Obama is an Arab. Senator McCain set the record straight, and told her, “No M’am”.”

By all accounts, Barack Obama is not a Muslim or an Arab, and media outlets have spoken out to ensure that the public knows this. Some people will continue on believing what they want to believe, but even if Obama was a Muslim or an Arab, who cares? There is nothing in Article Two of the Constitution that says a presidential candidate must be Christian. A Presidential candidate must:

• be a natural-born citizen of the United States
• be at least thirty-five years old
• have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

The youth of America overwhelmingly support Obama, and while his campaign has put millions into advertisements in order to convince the public that Obama is one of us, not one of them, he may be alienating young American Arabs and Muslims who want to believe in the same dream that has brought Obama so far.

Rather than say, “I’m not an Arab or Muslim, but American and Christian,” Obama could say, “I’m not an Arab or Muslim, AND there is nothing wrong with being an Arab and/or Muslim.”

I’m not naive; Obama will never say something like this. Obama is a brilliant man who inspires millions, but he is still a politician, and a very good one.

I learned about Blog Action Day 2008 yesterday, which aims to unite the world’s bloggers etc…, asking them to post about the same issue (Poverty) on the same day to raise awareness and foster discussion.

Poverty, like other global issues, has been discussed and will continue to be discussed for many years to come—offline and online. As long as humankind roams the planet, and perceives itself to the be the master of it, poverty in one form or another will exist. Presently, it helps make the world go round.

Poverty is generally defined as a deprivation of common necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, safe drinking water, and may also include the deprivation of opportunities to learn, to obtain better employment to escape poverty, and/or to enjoy the respect of fellow citizens. Civilization, capitalism, and poverty are good friends.

Many agree that education is the “cure” for poverty, but imagine a world without poverty, without organizations like Change.org, Kiva.org, Blog Action Day, and the list goes on an on. Over 11,000 people have signed up at Blog Action Day 2008, and many will contribute their October 15th earnings to organizations such as these that foster poverty reducing change-making efforts, and you may say that participating bloggers are altruistic and progressive in doing so. I’m neither. I’m writing this because I want to change how complex issues are discussed among those who are lucky enough to have time to talk about them.

Altruism is the selfless concern for the welfare of others, and while contributors to this project are without a doubt concerned about people in poverty, I’m not sure if blogging about or making a financial contribution to a cause is selfless. In fact, many people, including myself, will participate in one way or another because it feels good. And if you aren’t hoping to receive more visitors because of Blog Action Day, let me know.

I’m inclined to believe that selfless concern is only displayed when a person does not reflect upon their own actions or how others may perceive them prior to taking them. Selfless concern is jumping in front of a car to save a baby without thinking twice or thinking much at all. Writing an article about poverty and/or making a financial contribution is not altruism; it’s generous and greatly appreciated, but not altruistic.

I am all about dialogue. I am all about an openness towards difference, but once again, “we the educated” are talking about poverty and not including those in dire conditions in the discussion. I wrote this at home, enjoying a cup of Ethiopian Organic coffee. The green coffee beans were cultivated in Dara, probably by locals who will never know about Blog Action Day 2008 or talk about poverty in the same way that many (not all) of us do.

Chris Falzon, my favorite philosopher writes:

The intellectual who speaks on behalf of other runs the risk of perpetuating the domination that prevents these others from speaking for themselves.

The conversation should and will continue on. Many of us want to help others in dire conditions, and we should, but maybe we can do more by helping ourselves, questioning our own actions, our own way of thinking about others, and thus open spaces for people who are less privileged to participate in the conversation.

With the November 4 just around the corner, some people think that members of specific generations should not vote; others feel that grandchildren (especially Jewish grandchildren in Florida) need to talk with their grandparents about their voting preferences.

My car has been broken into a number of times over the last few years; twice since moving to Washington. Common sense suggests that whatever you leave in your car is more secure if you lock your doors. But if you don’t leave anything of value inside, is it possible that leaving your doors unlocked is the way to go?

Yesterday, my friend had both of his cars broken into. Lucky for him, nothing of value was found, and no damage was done. With both cars having doors left unlocked, his windows remained intact.

The same thief broke into his neighbor’s car. The doors were locked, so the windows were broken. I’m not sure if anything was taken, but the owner most certainly had to call his insurance company to make a claim.

Have you ever considered leaving your car doors unlocked to ensure that your windows remain intact?

Life is Good is a company that got popular by making tee shirts with catchy, optimistic, and warm taglines. I bought a few when I lived on the East Coast; my favorite was their “Think Outside the Box” with a graphic of an old-school television with a blank screen. The following is the Life is Good story pulled directly from their website:

In 1989, Bert and John Jacobs designed their first tee shirt. They knew nothing about the business. For five years, the brothers hawked tee shirts in the streets of Boston and traveled the East Coast, selling door-to-door in college dormitories.

They collected some good stories, but were not very prosperous. They lived on peanut butter and jelly, slept in their van, and showered when they could. Chicks were not impressed.

By the Fall of 1994, heading home from a long, less-than-fruitful roadtrip, Bert and John were desperately searching for answers to keep the dream alive. Little did they know, the only answer they needed was back in Boston, hanging up on their apartment wall.

Jake’s contagious grin, simple as it was, seemed to express everything the Jacobs brothers believed in. One fateful September day, they printed up 48 Jake shirts for a local street fair in Cambridge, Massachusetts. They laid the shirts out on their rickety card table. By noontime, all 48 of those tees were gone. A star was born.

Soon Jake was introduced to local retailers, and his simple message of optimism was embraced like nothing the brothers had ever seen. As demand for product soared, Jake’s team grew, and the Little Brand That Could began to spread across America.

Today, the New England based brand stays close to its roots, with an emphasis on humor and humility. Through Life is good Festivals, positive products, and a steady dose of ping pong, Jake’s crew does its best to keep the good vibes flowing.

Bert and John developed a very profitable company from scratch, as Life is Good products are sold everywhere nowadays, from REI and Dick’s Sporting Goods to Marshalls.

The “Think Outside the Box” tee shirt that I bought could not have been imagined if it wasn’t for Paul Gottlieb Nipkow, a 20-year old university student in Germany who patented the first electromechanical television system in 1884. I wanted to tell the world or at least anyone looking my way that I was one of those who was thinking outside the once original box, but I wasn’t. Being more concerned about how I saw myself and how others might perceive me, I was actually thinking inside. Attitudes, whatever they may be, are not something you can own; rather, they are embodied in ideas and actions.

There are a few problems with attributing oneself to thinking outside the box. The first is that many of us do a less-than-stellar job of thinking inside the box, and the second is that thinking outside the box can only be attributed to the process by which something was imagined after it’s creation by those looking from afar. Bert, John, and Paul were simply following their passions. It wasn’t thinking outside the box that specifically made them successful, but rather a willingness to fail, and a belief that they would prevail.

Mahatma Gandhi is famous for saying that, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” Rather than talk about thinking outside the box, or trying to convince others that you embody any specific attitude for that matter, simply be it. Trying to think outside the box may bring you back inside.

A few months ago, I worked 70+ hours a week, managing two jobs and a volunteer position. When I was able to set aside a few minutes, I couldn’t help but use my time to prepare for my next set of tasks. When I slept, I dreamed about what would happen if I didn’t complete them. I needed time alone, time to think, and time to imagine. I had to stop and take a break. I finally did.

Philip K. Howard writes:

Smart people spend time alone. They don’t fill their days with appointments from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., as many politicians and executives do. Great science do not emerge from hard logic and grinding hours. It comes from the mysterious resources of the human brain and soul. Inspiration is nurtured by activities like chopping wood and raking leaves, preparing dinner and reading to the kids. These activities soften the rigid pace of the day’s pursuits and allow all our God-given intuition to work its unlogical magic. Only then can we reach our fullest potential. Only then can we leap from thinking to understanding.

During every election, a number of Republicans vote for Democrats and vice versa. It isn’t uncommon for a person to change their mind and even their politics. Change is the only thing that’s constant, but purposefully trying to change the politics of another person is something I try to avoid. When I catch myself doing just that, I have to remind myself that people can’t change people, mostly.

People can forcefully change others from time to time, but I personally don’t want someone to cast the same vote as myself because I manipulated, pressured, or used whatever other means possible to do so. It’s better to simply ask questions and encourage people with various views including one’s own to challenge the assumptions upon which they derive. Falzon writes:

The intellectual who speaks on behalf of other runs the risk of perpetuating the domination that prevents these others from speaking for themselves.

In many situations, our purpose in starting a conversation is to get the other person to change their point of view. There is nothing wrong with hoping for change, as the urge to change others is near universal, but it generally fails.

Trying to change someone rarely results in change because we are more likely to argue with and attack their story, and less likely to listen to their perspective. This approach increases the likelihood that they will feel defensive rather than open to learning something new.

People are more likely to change if they feel understood, heard, and respected. Rather than demand change, ask open ended questions and come from a place of curiosity. People are more likely to change if they feel free not to.

As the 2008 Presidential Campaign continues on, I find it interesting that many people are adamant to have an outsider sitting in the Oval office next go-around, someone who has yet to be tained by Capitol Hill.

Governor Palin, the Republican Vice-presidential nominee is an outsider having spent little time outside Alaska. She has been governor for just over two years and was mayor of her hometown of Wasilla for six. Senator Obama (D) also claims to be an outsider though he has spent the last three years in the U.S. Senate.

While Republicans and Democrats claim that their respective “outsider” candidate will be able to reform and transform Washington because of their status, isn’t it true that either would become insiders upon their election?

Governor Palin and Senator Obama can only claim outsider status if they stay outside, but both want in. Both are willing to lose whatever outsider status they currently claim to have in order to be in the White House. That’s okay with me, but it seems that outsiders become insiders upon winning the vote.

I set up Google Alerts to notify me when anyone uses the term open to difference, and I quickly found it in the title of an article at Harvard Magazine called, “Open to Difference - Three alumnae rabbis help redefine an ancient calling.”

This article explores how female rabbis, who would have been banned from the rabbinate just a few generations ago, are pressing forward. Today, nearly one-third of the rabbis working in the United States are female.

Though the stories of Toba Spitzer, Jennifer (Kirsch) Flatté, and Julia Andelman differ, they have changed the rabbinate and Judaism in significant ways, challenging norms that were held onto for centuries. For example, these and other female rabbis have introduced and legitimized new prayers and blessings for particularly female life-events. Even more controversial is that Rabbi Andelman, who feels strongly about the detrimental impact of hierarchy, stands at the same level as her congregation when she leads services rather than on a raised platform looking down on them.

Some congregants have had a difficult time accepting female rabbis, leaving their place of worship in response. Others have embraced the different perspectives and new ways of thinking that female rabbis bring to their congregation.

Many years ago when I attended temple regularly, I didn’t think twice when a female rabbi in training stood before us during Friday night services. Though provocative today, few will likely think twice about female and male rabbis standing side by side in years to come.

Numerous organizations are advocating for new policies and for the end of the Iraq War or occupation (whatever you choose to call it). Protests have been organized from time to time and criticism of the Bush Administration has become common place. Liberals and even some conservatives want change. But can an organization or even an individual change the world with nothing more than a candle in the hand?

Andrea Ayvazian writes:

A reporter interviewing A.J. Muste, who during the Vietnam War stood in front of the White House night after night with a candle, one rainy night asked,”Mr. Muste, do you really think you are going to change the policies of this country by standing out here alone at night with a candle?” Muste replied, “Oh, I don’t do it to change the country, I do it so the country won’t change me.”

Sometimes, not allowing the country to change you is in fact contributing to changing the country.

Organizations have been created and studies have been conducted to foster improved relations among different generations, as they are thought to be less united than years past. Retirement communities where residents must be 55 years of age or older ensure that like-minded older adults or at least people with similar interests, socioeconomic backgrounds, and education live behind the same gated fence together. These regulated and age segregated communities, which may foster an increased sense of security (physically and physiologically) are commonplace and popular in states such as Arizona and Florida.

A recent article titled, “The Big Sort” in the Economist explores how some people in Texas recently decided to start a new community restricted to 100% Ron Paul supporters. The decision to live in neighborhoods where people share similar points of view is becoming less unusual, as more conservatives are choosing to live near other conservatives, and liberals near liberals.

According to Mr. Bishop, author of The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart:

We now live in a giant feedback loop, hearing our own thoughts about what’s right and wrong bounced back to us by the television shows we watch, the newspapers and books we read, the blogs we visit online, the sermons we hear and the neighbourhoods we live in.

I understand that some people prefer like-minded neighbors; those who reflect their own ways of thinking. I see how the clustering of homogenous groups, those who are less likely to be exposed to contrary points of view, become more extreme and more harsh towards those with views different from their own. Liberals who go out of their way to isolate themselves from conservatives and vice versa are more likely to assume that their counterparts have views more radical than what they may actually be.

However, will the lack of communication between conservatives and liberals and/or young and older adults tear America apart? Not necessarily.

While some conservatives and liberals seek to isolate themselves, others move in the opposite direction, wanting to learn from others, and possibly changing their party affiliation altogether. In a similar fashion, some older adults seek age-isolated retirement communities, but others seek to rejuvenate themselves by surrounding themselves with younger generations.

Forcing people to talk to each other is no different than forcing people to isolate themselves from each other. Nevertheless, when social conditions (e.g. economic recession) require that liberals and conservatives along with young and old work together to realize common goals, communication will transpire. Or maybe not.

If you’re not happy with my driving and give me the finger, I’ll wave back.

I’m not sure when I started doing this, but I enjoy watching how people respond to my wave since they assume that I’ll be returning with the finger as well. I give them what they least expect. It seems to anger some that I respond this way, but others quickly lower their finger and place their hand back on the wheel.

Thank you for letting me in and not slamming into my bumper.