Go West, Young Man!

Horace Greeley, the influential nineteenth-century newspaper editor and political reformer, made the phrase above known to millions of Americans--and it remains known to us today.  By many accounts, he wrote it largely in connection with the copper rush to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (an area west of the bustling northeast corridor where Greeley lived and worked).  I think of these famous words today because I leave for the UP in a few hours, partly to lead a retreat, and partly to spend some time alone kayaking, hiking, and horseback riding.

What is it about "Going West" that holds so much appeal?

Greeley's full quote is as follows: "Washington is not a place to live in. The rents are high, the food is bad, the dust is disgusting and the morals are deplorable. Go West, young man, go West and grow up with the country."

If we treat "Washington" as a metaphor for urban life, then the impulse to go west becomes much more understandable. And, in over nearly two centuries, it is just as relevant.

Many of us crave a simplicity and serenity that is virtually impossible to achieve in the modern city. We're too busy trying to make money to pay our rents or mortgages to focus on character, let alone community; we're too wired in to electronic gadgets to be self-aware; we're too preoccupied with our narrow social orbits to feel linked to nature, with its awe-inspiring beauty and mind-blowing vastness.

Yoga doesn't cut it for me. Give me mountains, trees, and lakes any day. Give me the West. Get me the hell out of here so that I can feel truly alive.

People Are Pissed

Not every expression of outrage is equivalent, but there is plenty of anger fueling the souls of men and women around the world. From the streets of London, Hama, and Tel Aviv; to the floors of Congress and Wall Street; to households and board rooms from the United States to Greece, Italy, and elsewhere--people are pissed.

Some of these expressions of anger are motivated by a deep, indignant desire to change corrupt governments, institutions, and societies; others are simply base and destructive criminal outbursts.  Yet the question remains: Why all this anger?

In his studies of animals, Konrad Lorenz wrote not only about the famous "flight or fight" response (when an animal is confronted by an adversary or opponent); he also described the link between frustration and aggression (when an animal is faced with adversity or challenge). Today, we human animals are acting out in very similar ways.

People the world over are frustrated and enraged by the geo-political and economic uncertainties all around us; by the horrific challenges of war, poverty, hunger, and changing climates; by new technologies that promise salvation but (too often) add only more confusion and complexity to our lives. The center is not holding. We are being tossed, turned, and tormented by a new world order that we don't fully fathom because it is still going through its own birth pangs. And we are not happy about it.

Welcome to the new millennium. Stick close to your family and friends, because it's going to be one hell of a ride.

Murdoch Mania & the Media

The ripple effect from the hacking and bribing scandals connected to Rupert Murdoch's media empire continues to spread across continents. It has led to public apologies, arrests, resignations, and today even a suicide. More negative and damaging fallout is a mathematical certainty.

But there's a deeper story here. This unfolding, almost epic narrative is about more than the dangers that can occur when one person or corporation becomes too powerful. It is about more than hubris, corruption, and intimidation. It is about the role, and excessive impact and influence, of media--in all of its outlets and forms--in our world.

There is much excitement still about the enormous growth of "social" media, even as the "traditional" forms of media (newspapers, magazines, books) are in a state eclipse. What is so enticing? Information is not knowledge. Yet, like fast food, we can quickly swallow sound-bytes and passively digest data: emotional outpourings from hacked phones, lurid posts on Twitter, and gaffes from politicians are far sexier to most of us than serious debate and discourse on the issues that actually affect our societies.

So turn off your iPad for the day. Ignore Facebook for a few hours. Let the talking heads on CNN and Fox blabber on to themselves about the Casey Anthony trial.

They need you more than you need them.

Slouching Toward Cupertino

As I noted in my last post, we are all living through truly historic times. Whether it is the geo-political situation, the economy both here and abroad, climate change, advances in science and medicine, or any other number of areas, there are some real game-changers emerging. We have not slouched into this new millennium; seismic events have hurled us into and through its walls.

Yet how many of us have spent any serious time thinking about, reflecting on, and assessing these many and varied changes?  It seems that the concurrent rise of technology has turned us into a nation of addicts. After years of resistance, I bought my first smart phone a couple of months ago, an iPhone, and I must confess that I, too, have become addicted to it. But I have also become so dependent on the device that I can see how easy it is to lose one's perspective on the outside world. And how can we change the world if we don't fully understand it? How can we understand it if our eyes are glued to our iPads? Do these new and amazing gadgets make us happier and more fulfilled human beings, or do they make us even more narcissistic than we already are?

What is at risk, I fear, is the total collapse of community itself. Without honest reflection and moral assessment, we will become a nation of self-absorbed individuals, a collective of gadget-dependent cocoons who interact with each other in virtual rather than actual ways.

I, for one, will take a flesh-and-blood embrace over a text or an e-mail any day.

Weiner's Wiener & the Tragicomedy of Our Time

At a time when we are witnesses to revolutions, wars, and the consequences of climate change (i.e., hard news) the media has chosen to pander yet again to our baser desires and has trumped most of the important stories with tales of Anthony Weiner's junk shots.  I'm not sure which is more pathetic--Weiner's lame and juvenile behavior, or our insatiable interest in it.

Martin Luther King was a womanizer.  Gandhi treated his family like crap.  Yet despite their very real personal flaws and imperfections, these men were able to achieve great things.  Does the fact that Rep. Weiner used his Twitter account to send pics of his pecs to female admirers show poor judgment?  You bet, and I feel sorry for his pregnant wife.  He's a schmuck.  But his poor judgment only relates to his personal life.  It has no bearing whatsoever on his legislative skills or accomplishments.  Clinton is another fine example.  He acted like an idiot with Monica Lewinsky, but in my view that had nothing to do with his abilities as President.

I have had enough of our collective voyeurism.  We are living through a momentous period in history, and who knows how things will ultimately unfold.  There could be very dark days ahead--or bright and hopeful ones.  Let's get our heads out of the reality-TV mindset and refocus our attention and energy on what really matters.

Who Needs Foreskin, Anyway?

I just watched some weirdo from the Bay Area debate Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on CNN about the issue of circumcision.  Using a very conventional and worn-out approach, Shmuley defended the practice by highlighting its merits from a medical and physiological perspective--it helps to prevent HIV infection, it enhances the sexual experience for both men and women, etc.

While I am on his side, Shmuley is all wrong.

It is precisely in its primitivity, the tribal character of the brit ritual--with its blood, pain, and mystery--that the power (and hence the validity and relevance) of circumcision lies.  The "hygiene" or "medical" argument is not the correct tactic to use against radical, dogmatic secularists who decry the "barbarity" of our millennia-old ritual; rather, a defense of circumcision should rely on what it has always relied on: fidelity to tradition, a link to our ancestors, the spirituality of the experience.

Muslims practice circumcision as well and have for many centuries.  Do we see them retreating like weasels behind the perceived protection (and supposed validation) of modern science?  Do they feel the need to make justifications and apologies for their ancient religious observances?

Hey, fellow tribespeople: Where is our backbone?

I've witnessed and participated in brit milah rituals from Brooklyn, New York to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, and without fail, they have been some of the most moving spiritual moments in my life--as well as in the lives of the families and communities themselves.  Sure, it's discomforting to watch a baby cry; nevertheless, like the howl of a ram's horn during the Days of Awe, that cry awakens something so deep, so profound, and so transformative in the souls of all those who hear it that its psycho-spiritual power is impossible to deny.  And its practice would be totally myopic and inane to reject. 

Easy, Spartacus: Obama on Israel and Palestine

Let me first state that I agree with most of what President Obama had to say recently about the dire need for a two-state solution.  I concur with the idea that, in the end, some sort of territorial arrangement will have to take place that both ENSURES THE SECURITY of Israel and that also involves LAND SWAPS to make certain that such an objective is realized.  Too many people have failed to highlight this critical element in Obama's speech.  He did NOT advocate a unilateral return of the entire Golan Heights, the Jordan River Valley, or every single inch of the West Bank.

I think that it was a misstep, however, to talk about "pre-1967 borders" in a public and internationally-televised speech from the White House at this volatile and very uncertain moment in the region.  That's the reason behind a lot of the reactionary freaking out that we're seeing right now--as well as Netanyahu's patronizing, professorial rebuke as he sat by the President's side.  Obama, true to his nature and clearly emboldened by the killing of bin Laden, made a big, brash foreign policy statement that was somewhat reckless; Netanyahu, true to his nature, responded with typical arrogance and without any mention of the vital land swap point.  I think that President Obama made up for a good deal of his policy-wonk cockiness in his speech to AIPAC, where he more clearly spelled out his position and also--and necessarily--brought up the total impossibility of negotiating with anybody who considers Hamas (a terrorist organization which strives to destroy Israel) to be a "peace partner."

So now let's all take a deep breath.  Abbas, show some guts and get rid of Hamas once and for all; Bibi, get over yourself and start taking seriously what everyone knows has to happen.

Rodney King was wrong--we CAN'T all get along.  Fine.  So let's get down to the nitty gritty business of talking through territorial issues, ensuring security, and reconfiguring the region into two viable and peaceful nation-states.  Barack and Bibi have puffed their chests long enough.