WoodMoor Village Zendo

Are Conservatives Happier?

Before I read the following article I would have shouted Hell No! But check out the following article "Conservatives Happier than Liberals." Also please read T's (Republic of T) post on this article. He does a good job of parsing out arguments about such supposed happiness by Conservatives. Here's a teaser:

"Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person’s tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."

Maybe they are happier at that! Go figure. Funny thing of course is that in order for that claim about conservatives being happier than liberals (if we take the labels at face value) to work, the definition of happiness cannot even be "the reduction of suffering" because apparently conservatives are happier regardless of suffering caused by injustice and inequity.

What if we defined happiness as "a place, or state, where enjoyment is obtained?" Ouch! Makes things worse.

Surely we could, in Buddhist fashion, define happiness as contentment with what one has -- and conservatives would have fared better no? Uh, no. That seems to bring the same share of difficulties as noted in the article.

Ok then, what about using the phrase "Happiness is a how, not a what." This is the "happiness as process" argument, oftentimes heard as: You don't find happiness, you make, and choose, happiness. Well heck, this is precisely what the article is claiming. Conservatives make, and choose, happiness alright, but seemingly at the cost of the happiness of others.

Let us try two other definitions:

"Happiness is contagious...when you reflect happiness, then all others around you catch the happy bug and are happy, too." - Jennifer Leese

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony." - M. Ghandi

Hmmm, conservatives do not fare well by those two definitions either. The first one seems to falsify the article (in the scientific sense) -- conservatives are happier but others are unhappy. The second one, by Ghandi is troublesome because it is too abstract and disconnected from outcomes, from normativity about the content of one's actions. Evil people could be quite happy carrying out their evil deeds, as long as what they think, what they say, and what they do is seen, by them as harmonious and bringing them joy.

In any case, while much difficulty also lies in taking labels of conservative and liberal as concrete... in your experience, has this relationship between conservatism and happiness proven to be the case?

Hillary Humor?

So, is the following from Saturday Night Live such a satirical example of a Reductio ad Absurdum that it skewers mainstream media narratives about Sen. Hillary Clinton and her supporters... or is it to be read straightforwardly as the "logical" conclusion of a campaign marked by the issues highlighted, and all too willing to push in such a direction?

Be forewarned, the funny parts still come at a cost:

My apologies that this embed has advertising at the end.

Terra Runs the Awesome 3000

A quick series of shots of Terra running her first Awesome 3000 fun run here in Salem. The event takes place every year. Terra ran with a special needs group. They ran approximately 300 meters. It was a sight to behold, touching, and inspiring. My little sweetheart just went all out. That's Michi running with her. Phoenix also ran at the Awesome 3000. I'll post those pics later.

National Day of Prayer?

I've commented on this before, but there is more attention paid to this issue out there now, and a movement to change things around:

The National Day of Prayer is primarily organized and planned by a single-perspective group (the National Day of Prayer Task Force, headed by none other than Shirley Dobson, wife of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson) that has framed the event in less than inclusive terms. The Washington Post reports on the controversy surrounding the event and highlights a few, shall we say, less than inclusive rules that the organizers have established:

1) The application form requires coordinators to pledge that the activities carried out will be "conducted solely by Christians while those with differing beliefs are welcome to attend." In short, the event has been framed as a Christian event rather than as a national ecumenical event.

2) Volunteers are also required to pledge that only Christian clergy will officiate.

3) All volunteers have to make a statement of faith that apparently is fairly constraining in its terms if the volunteer is not a conservative evangelical. From the WaPo: "Lisa Crump, manager of local coordinators...says... "A simple application with contact data and statement of faith, confirming your commitment to Christ is all that's needed to get you on the way to becoming a NDP Task Force volunteer coordinator."

4) From the WaPo: "Applicants must indicate whether their lives reflect a belief statement that begins: "I believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of The Living God. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only One by which I can obtain salvation and have an ongoing relationship with God."

They should stop playing that masquerade. If it is to be a National Christian Day of Prayer event, keeping everybody else playing second (or third) fiddle, then that's what they should say. Then again, our government should not support a day of prayer that is not inclusive (I'd rather our government did not advocate for prayer in any way).

Math Atheist

Everything is Waiting for You, David Whyte

Here's the poem I sent this week in my weekly email reminder for the Willamette Mindfulness Practice Group:

At the end of the semester, with countless deadlines, lots of work left to do, the urgency everything seems to gain, it is easy to forget that there is a flow to things, an interconnection to all that is, and that we are part of it all. I love the following poem by David Whyte. In the first line it reminds us perhaps of one of the most critical insights: "Your great mistake is to act the drama as if you were alone." A wonderful call to mindfulness. Join us tomorrow to talk about how we can nurture mindfulness through developing that sense of connection to everything that is:

Everything is Waiting for You
by David Whyte

(After Derek Mahon)

Your great mistake is to act the drama
as if you were alone. As if life
were a progressive and cunning crime
with no witness to the tiny hidden
transgressions. To feel abandoned is to deny
the intimacy of your surroundings. Surely,
even you, at times, have felt the grand array;
the swelling presence, and the chorus, crowding
out your solo voice. You must note
the way the soap dish enables you,
or the window latch grants you freedom.
Alertness is the hidden discipline of familiarity.
The stairs are your mentor of things
to come, the doors have always been there
to frighten you and invite you,
and the tiny speaker in the phone
is your dream-ladder to divinity.

Put down the weight of your aloneness and ease into
the conversation. The kettle is singing
even as it pours you a drink, the cooking pots
have left their arrogant aloofness and
seen the good in you at last. All the birds
and creatures of the world are unutterably
themselves. Everything is waiting for you.

If you want to hear David Whyte do a reading of this poem, follow this YouTube link.

48% Increase in Hate

A bit of news from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

"Racism is a serious problem in America. We've identified 888 organized hate groups — a staggering 48% increase since 2000."

I still meet people that tell me that racism and other forms of hate are not a serious issue in the U.S. any more. Go figure. Listening to the media recently, especially with coverage of the Presidential campaign, it would appear as if race is the mildest of issues in Presidential politics, or that somehow we've entered a post-racial period in U.S. politics.

And of course, it is not all about race. These hate groups are pretty diverse in their hating, displaying particular animosity toward homosexuals, jewish folks, African Americans, immigrants... you name it.

48% increase. To what do we assign that increase? Many claim that it is the result of the anti-immigrant discourse we've seen in the last few years. Goodness knows I've encountered enough nativism. Still, the hate is far more pronounced than that. And yet, the dominant narrative in the U.S. is about how we are a welcoming, tolerant, forgiving, redeemed nation when it comes to our past and our current attitudes. Forgive me if I don't subscribe to that thesis.

I know it is difficult for some to realize the extent to which such numbers make a difference in the lives of those who find themselves targets of that hate, but I feel it to my bones and, as long as I don't open my mouth I can usually "pass" for non-Latino (given that some folks have an idea of what a Latino/a is supposed to look like). So, as I travel across the U.S. this Summer, guess what? This issue will be a predominant one in my mind. Oh, I try to be mindful, and I try to be optimistic, and I will practice every day with this particular concern. But I've already told my wife that I am not keen on spending the night in some places, and I certainly will scrutinize our route and potential stops. This is not paranoia, in my world, my experience, and that of family and friends, we call it safety.

Pennsylvania Primary

Whew! The Pennsylvania primaries are over. Maybe. I think we are going to see much of the same intensity in Indiana. Not necessarily a bad thing in my book. As expected there is tons of spin from both sides, and the MSM (mainstream media) is making all sorts of predictions about the next states. Indiana is described as the next "battleground" state (I'm not a big sports fan, but I prefer sports metaphors to war metaphors. Wish they would use something else).

One thing keeps bugging me. Read this excerpt from The New York Times:

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama’s campaign was left struggling to explain on Wednesday why he had once again been unable to leave his opponent on the mat, as well as his troubles gaining the backing of white working-class voters. But Obama campaign officials were able to point to at least one unyielding reality on their side: he still possesses a lead in pledged delegates that will be almost impossible for Mrs. Clinton to erase.

We've been hearing this, and will continue to hear it for the rest of the campaign. What does it mean? Unfortunately, in my mind this means that the reality of Race in the U.S. is a huge factor in this campaign. For all that Obama has tried to de-center Race as central issue (and smartly so), his campaign still has to contend with that issue and with the difference it makes for so many. Looking closely at the media analysis of demographics in Pennsylvania, and in particular that demographic predicted to vote for Hillary, and adding the comments from exit polls, what do we get? Obama did not do so well with older white folks. And yes, in particular older white folks, with a lower level of education, in poorer parts of the state. These voters are more likely to say that race is an important consideration in their voting decision -- and have said so. The same relationship obtained in Ohio, and will shape the race somewhat also in Indiana.

Much work still to do.