In Defense of Empathy

My next book to read is Jeremy Rifkin's The Empathetic Civilization. I'm very excited to get started on it, as everything I've been reading about it seems to confirms some things I've been thinking for a while. I also think there's a lot in it that could be applied to theology. Anyways here's a quote from Rifkin writing about real freedom in his latest piece on Huffington Post.

"Freedom requires that one is treated by others as an end not as a means. One can't really be free in a society where everyone treats each other in an exploitative or instrumental manner. True freedom, therefore, is only possible in a society that lives by the "golden rule." "By doing onto others as we would have others do unto us" we express our support for the optimizing of each other's life. This is the embodiment of what freedom means. A society that lives by the golden rule and embeds it in its laws and public policy is a free society. The golden rule is rarely exercised in authoritarian regimes."

Honestly

It has obviously been a while since I last blogged. Most of the time people go on a blog hiatus because they are really busy and just don't have time. That is not the case for me. I have had time, and plenty of it. Another reason most people quit blogging for a while is because they just don't have anything to blog about. That also is not an issue. I have plenty of things bouncing around in my brain to post on. The reason I haven't blogged is simply because I don't know what I believe about so many things and I A. don't want to blog on my thoughts and feelings at the moment only to look back and regret doing so and B. I often feel I just don't have enough information.

I've also been thinking about my intellectual and spiritual journey. I've come from a conservative back ground and have steadily journeyed leftward. What I don't want to be is a pendulum, and I think, on this blog at least, I have come across that way. I don't want to be a liberal fundy anymore than I want to be a conservative fundy. What I believe to be true, what I think makes the most sense, however, tends to always fall on the left rather than the right. It's just the way it is. I don't only listen, watch and read liberal sources of information. I go out of my way, like listen to Glenn Beck, to get a broad range of opinion. I read columnists like Robert Samuelson and David Brooks-- not liberal guys! -- and often agree with them on certain issues. Yet, at the end of the day, liberals often make the most sense and represent the most moral point of view.

What I've come to realize is that the only thing I can offer on my blog is my honesty. What I write represents how I view the world, and as long as I am listening to all sides and doing my best to make sense of them, then that's all I can do. If I'm wrong then that's o.k. If I mostly agree with one political view then that's o.k. as well. I can only offer an intellectually honest point of view with the information I am given. So that's what I'm trying to do, not offer a liberal or progressive point of view, just mine.

Finally

Is it perfect? No. Is it even that good? Eh, I think it's ok. History was definitely made last night with the passage of the healthcare reform bill, but the bill doesn't do anywhere what needs to be done like ban basic healthcare insurance for profit, like every other developed country has.

The pluses are that discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and other nasty insurance practices will be done away with; thirty some million people in the next four years will have coverage; and healthcare insurance will be mandated. With the first and third items in effect, hopefully we can get some of the people with poorer health off medicaid and medicare and onto private plans. Oh and this plan actually seeks to pay for itself and not add to the deficit. Something that can't be said about Medicare part D which was passed under Bush.

As for the "American people's" feelings. I honestly could give a crap. I don't really care what the polls say. There's been so much disinformation put out there by the fear factory known as Fox News that I don't think most people have the slightest clue what they are talking about. Also most people have insurance that they are happy with, and it seems that unless one has personally been screwed by the current healthcare system one is less likely to be for changing it.

I thought Chuck Todd made a valid point yesterday on Meet the Press. A Democrat and Republican leader were on earlier in the show stating that they could maybe find some agreement on energy and immigration. Todd pointed out that those issues were regional, so we should expect some agreement, as where healthcare is philosophical, so we should expect the intense partisanship we have seen. My feeling is that next year this will be all history, and Americans will be as happy with this legislation as they are with another piece of legislation the Right said would take our freedom away-- Medicare.

Lastly, out of this whole mess also comes proof that pro-lifers do have a real voice in the Democratic party. So much for the Obama is the most hardcore pro-abortionist ever crap.

The Healthcare Summit

I'm watching the healthcare summit. The president has pointed out that where the gov't steps in is to create a baseline standard of care. I've thought this should happen even when I was still a conservative. It seems like an obvious point. I have yet to see a Republican take this point on. Instead I hear from Republicans: "if people pay less then they will get less coverage, and if people pay more they'll get more coverage." But the people paying less are only getting high deductible catastrophic coverage which doesn't do crap for preventative medicine and routine medical needs. And that's a big part of the problem.

But to be fair. I would like to see a Democrat address the claim that employers will be more willing to drop people from their coverage and pay the fine because the fine will be cheaper.

Speechless

From Politico--

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day.(Good job Sarah, you read a newspaper) Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --

WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --

WALLACE: But assuming he continues on the path that he going on and we don't have that rally around the flag (ph) --

PALIN: Then he's not going to win.

The prospects of this woman actually being nominated as a presidential candidate is terrifying. Obama should "toughen up", and start a war. Nice. Palin's take on foreign policy sounds like a drunken college frat boy playing alpha male and trying to impress a girl.

And then there's this gem--

Palin, who slammed Emanuel last week for calling liberal activists "f---ing retards," declined to ask conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh to apologize for using the term "retards" on his nationally syndicated show, saying Limbaugh used the word as satire.

"I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people who he did not agree with f---ing retards and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, it's been reported, did say that. There's a big difference there," said Palin, whose youngest son Trig has Down Syndrome.

Palin made the comment after Wallace asked her about this Limbaugh quote: "Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. ... I mean these people, these liberal activists, are kooks."

"Should Rush Limbaugh apologize," Wallace asked.

Palin responded, "They are kooks so I agree with Rush Limbaugh."

I can't even comment on this because I know people who support this woman, and I don't want to insult them. I don't even know what to say. She is an absolute joke. The hypocrisy is just astounding. Just decry Limbaugh's comment! But she can't. And that's how bad it's gotten.

REPEAL DON'T ASK DON'T TELL!!!... later?

I used to support Don't Ask, Don't Tell on the grounds that it would be just weird and gross to shower with openly gay men. I argued that since we don't put men and women in the same bunks and have them shower together, then we shouldn't allow gay men and women to shower with other men and women. Later, however, I changed my mind. For one, I argued that the policy was dumb because gay men and women already serve in the military. The situation already was a reality and there hasn't been any huge incidents that I'm aware of. Two, we have fired many valuable soldiers who just wanted to serve their country like their hetro counterparts, and this is especially troubling since our troops are spread thin. And three, because we wouldn't expect any hetro soldier not to talk openly about his wife or girlfriend, so why should we force gay soldiers to stay silent on the subject of their loved ones. But as of late, I have kind of been on the fence about this issue.

I was listening to NPR today, and they did a story where they interviewed several marines concerning Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Many of the soldiers preferred not to talk about it, one said he was for repealing it, but another said he thought we needed to leave it alone... at least for now. His argument was that soldiers are increasingly becoming more and more stressed. And indeed, suicide among soldiers is up, and many are suffering from PTSD and other psycho-social problems. This soldier believed that if DADT is repealed right now, then we could possibly see another Matthew Shepherd incident. Repealing DADT right now, he said, could be bad for the military, the country, and the gay community.

Yet often times doing the right thing comes with a price. Should we have kept slavery legal because a lot of people died making it illegal? Still, we've lived with this policy for well over a decade, gay people technically can serve in the military, and I have to heed the warning of an individual who has been a marine for a long time and knows what that life is like. So while I'm for repealing it, maybe it won't hurt to wait.

Why I Love the Daily Dish

This is just awesome. I almost peed my pants.

Obama Says F*ck It

SuperNews | MySpace Video

Also, interestingly enough, a libertarian defense of the health care bill.

Another Victory for Plutocracy

Years ago when I took political science we started off our first class discussion on the topic of power. I didn't understand the significance at the time. I thought politics was all about being a conservative or liberal, and I thought we'd be spending our time discussing that. But politics, as it turns out, is really all about power, and so is the rest of life. And just like everything else in politics and government yesterday's Supreme Court decision wasn't really about freedom of speech, like the Right argues. It was about the concentration of power.

Yesterday's decision essentially allows corporations and unions (but let's face it, unions are weaker than they have every been, and don't have nearly as much money as corporations do) to use as much money as they can to create political ads supporting candidates, with the stipulation that the ad identifies who is sponsoring it. Republicans hail this decision as a victory for free speech. They argue that we have an open market place of ideas and anyone should be allowed to pay for any ad supporting any political candidate or view one wants. Add to that the warped idea that corporations are people, and the denial of allowing corporations to do this amounts to denying a person their freedom of speech. The problem is, there are good reasons why we've restricted this.

The main reason is the issue of corruption by money in politics, not that there isn't already enough of that. If a corporation spends millions on ads supporting a candidate, then that corporation will have significant influence over that politician. Furthermore, a corporation can bribe or blackmail politicians with the threat or offer to spend millions on getting him or her elected. Politicians are already representing the interests of corporations rather than the interests of the people, but now things are only going to get worse. Because let's face it, my letter to my congressman is going to have much less influence than Lehman Brothers letter that includes a 2 million dollar check. What this amounts to is the further concentration of power into the hands of the wealthy few and out of the hands of the people. This decision was anti-democratic and anti-freedom. Which shows that despite all the freedom rhetoric, Republicans don't really give a damn about freedom since the majority of corporate dollars goes to their candidates. Just like they really don't give a damn about judiciary activism, seeing as this decision was a result of that and I have yet to hear a Republican point that out.

So if you hated the amount of political ads that aired in the last election year then get ready, because you ain't seen nothing yet. And just know that most of those ads won't be for candidates that have your interest at heart, but rather for the banks, Wall Street, big insurance and energy companies.

Negro Please!

This whole Harry Reid "scandal" is absolutely absurd, and is nothing more than a symptom of the vile political climate in this country. Was what he said less than tactful? Of course. Did he use an archaic term from a more racially fractured time in American history? Yes, and he probably used that term because he grew up in said period of time. And lastly, is what he said true? I think that if we were honest with ourselves we would have to answer in the affirmative. So he made an off the cuff remark using a racially insensitive word that just so happened to be true. He apologized to the person he made the statement about and that person forgave him. So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that our system is so screwed up that either side will do anything to score cheap political points. The idea that Reid should resign over what he said is ludicrous-- almost as ludicrous as these disingenuous schmucks on the right feigning outrage. And then to make it worse, the arguments Republicans are making about double standards, citing the Trent Lott remarks about Strom Thurmond, further displays their dimwittedness on race matters. Trent Lott lamented that a man who ran on a segregationist platform did not win the presidency. Let me see, saying "Gee Strom, I wish you would have become president and crushed the civil rights movement" is a little worse than Reid's inappropriate comment. But they don't seem to grasp that. The second a drop of blood hits the water, they just swarm. Because really, the truth is that they could give a damn about what Harry Reid said, they just want to take him down and gain power.

And that's a shame, because I really want to believe that there are good Republicans and Democrats who actually do want to work together for the good of the country. But as the Obama presidency has gone through it's first year, I struggle more so every day in believing that. And if I was honest, I would say that one side is worse. Above I said that "either side" will do anything to score cheap political points, and in the past that has probably been true, but the more I pay attention to politics (especially with the last election), the more I see the cheapest, most desperate and underhanded attacks coming from the right. For instance, the right has used everything from fear mongering about government takeovers to fear mongering about death panels to derail meaningful healthcare reform. And I can't help but believe they're now playing the race card to that end as well.

Done!

It's hard to believe that I started blogging almost three years ago. I started doing this as I began my pre-requisite classes for my BSW. I felt that I was beginning a new chapter of my life. I had recently finished a second degree for something I was less than passionate about and only for the purpose of making more money. All along, while I was getting that degree, I was planning on going back to school simply to study what I loved whether I made money from it or not. I was excited to take a college history course, sociology classes and economics. I started blogging at that time to improve my communication skills, and learn to better articulate my thoughts. Yesterday, as I finished the internship I began in August, that chapter of my life closed.

In the past five months I've had some wonderful and challenging experiences. I've experienced moments of great hope for humanity, as well as, increasing cynicism. And blogging has been a significant factor in this experience. For all the times people have knock blogging, I truly believe it's helped me along in this journey. I know that I wrote better papers in a shorter amount of time because I blog. I know that as I worked with patients over the last six months I was able to communicate with them better because I blogged. So now that I'm done with my internship, maybe I'll do it more.

How About Now?

Maybe this will finally get middle-American, populist conservatives on board with health care reform. Just wondering...

Holy Crap!

The ground doesn't feel too cold, but it seems that hell may have frozen over, because Sean Hannity and Michael Moore recently debated on Sean's show and it was.... a really good discussion. If this sort of exchange was the norm for these type of shows this country might just be in better shape. I'm just stunned. And I also couldn't agree more with Moore on this. The borrowers, the average joe's, are to blame for the whole economic collapse?? Really? And the people who have all the wealth, power and smarts in this are only partially responsible? Anyways I found this to be a good, reasoned but passionate discussion, and wish there were more of this on cable news.

Health Care Around the World

T.R. Reid is a journalist who recently traveled the world learning about other country's health care systems. He wrote a book about it, but his findings are also distilled in this article. Reading it just makes me crazy, because it shows that we have no excuse for having our crappy system.

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Culture and Social Change)

The last part of the social organism is not a social institution, yet I think it might be the most important part; it is culture. Culture can be seen as the soul, the DNA or the genes of the social organism. Culture saturates and envelopes the SO, affecting it in every way. It is what the SO looks like; how it behaves; what it values and believes in etc... It is who the SO is at its core. This is why changing the morals, values and ethics of a culture-- because morals, values and ethics are cultural-- is the key to social change.

We tend to overlook the penetrating role culture plays in our lives. We regularly speak of freedom in this country, all the while forgetting how tremendously limited our freedom is. We are, in fact, products of our culture, and this truth is central to post-modern thought. So when one thinks of social change, it is imperative to note that true change only takes hold when there is cultural change. For instance, we may have outlawed slavery, but it still remained in the South in different forms for decades; and even after progress was made in the area of civil rights, harsh and abusive racism lingered on. Additionally, outlawing it didn't happen just on its own, as it may not have even been outlawed if not for huge developments in the economy which came through the industrial revolution. Yet still, religion also played a large role via the abolitionists and other religious movements, as well as, the civil rights movement as lead by Dr. King.

So slavery was defeated by different efforts and changes in different SI's, but one could argue that all of these efforts may have not been enough had they not changed the culture of the U.S. It was major generational shifts in attitudes towards racism that really solidified the progress made by civil rights leaders. And ultimately the religious hope of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech drove, and continues to drive, our SO towards the reality of a post-racial America.

Culture can be seen not just simply as the water we swim in, but as a water that influences us in a multitude of ways, and that we have the power to influence as well.

The last observation I want to make is how culture interacts with relationship and religious hope. Thinking of culture as the soul of the SO makes incredible sense when we begin thinking about the transcendent feelings we get in church worship services, or political rallies, or sporting events. In those moments we tap into the soul, or culture, of a SO sharing the same religious hope as it, and feel like the strangers around us are as close as family. Our souls become one with the soul of the SO. The reality that we are part of one organism becomes an experience we feel deep in our bones.

Culture is the underlying force behind the behavior of the social organism. Imagine being able to extract the DNA from one person and inject it into another. If this were to occur, the individual's entire organism would be transformed. This is essentially what is possible with cultural change. The entire SO can change, and I think this truth is the key to maybe all of our social problems.

Why???

A question I have been pondering this past week is: Why can't we just have a real bipartisan health care reform bill?

The Republicans want tort reform and to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. They argue that tort reform would reduce costs because doctors order unnecessary tests and such to cover their butts in case they are sued. Greater competition, the argument goes will greatly lower costs as well. Fair enough.

The Democrats want greater regulation of insurance companies to make sure they do not deny care based on "pre-existing conditions" and cherry pick the healthy people over the sick. They (and Bill O'Reilly??!!) also want a public option to keep insurance companies honest and create competition. Both sides agree on many cost-cutting measures such as comparative effectiveness, electronic medical records and preventive medicine.

So why not have a bill with all these things?? If we can have a public option, the Dems could say, then we'll support insurance companies competing across state lines etc... Instead it looks like we're going to get more watered-down mediocrity that isn't even going to get Republican support. What a waste.

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (The Family and Religion)

If people are like cells in the SO, then family is the substance that holds the cells together. However, for this analogy to work, family needs a broader definition that I'll call family-quality relationships. What I mean by this is that we tend to compare some relationships (co-workers, friends etc.) in our lives family. "My work place is like one big family" we might say. So the better the quality of the relationship, the more we compare it to "family." Good relationships then, the more family like the better, holds the social organism together. Bad, chaotic relationships tend to tear the social organism apart.

Religion also needs a bit of redefinition. In many ways, religion has been replaced in our culture with science, and many people do not consider themselves religious at all, including myself. What then is the quality that religion has that still thrives even in, say, an atheist country like China? The answer is hope. Hope is what drives us on an individual level, and it is also what drives the social organism. When we get out of bed in the morning, most of us believe there is some sort of purpose or meaning behind our life, and this feeling is what pushes us forward. Likewise the social organism has a sense of transcendent meaning or hope that drives it through history. Many times this hope is some sort of Utopian future. The Nazis believed they could bring about a Utopian society by destroying what they understood to be inferior races and people. Marxist Soviets believed they would bring about a Utopian, classless society of workers. So whether it be going to heaven when one dies or creating an earthly utopia, religious hope moves the individual or SO forward by providing a belief in a transcendent purpose.

So in sum, the three of the five social institutions function in the social organism similarly to how the nervous, circulatory and digestive systems function in the human organism. Relationship binds humans, which can be thought of as cells, together. And religious hope, a belief in some sort of transcendent purpose, propels the social organism through history, similarly to how our belief in purpose and meaning propel us through each day.

A Quick Comment on the Whacko Right...

For whatever twisted, demented reason, I have been torturing myself by listening to Glenn Beck. His show always happens to be on when I'm in the car and, like staring at the proverbial car crash, I just have to listen.

I honestly feel sorry for conservatives in this country that he is one of their major spokes people. His show is nothing but tin-hatted rants laced with shameless religious rhetoric. I really find it hard to believe that GB actually even believes what he's saying. I can't believe that he's stupid, because he's just not. The guy made it into Yale. And I would believe he's just bat-shit insane, but I can't believe Fox and CNN would let a complete loon have a prime-time show. So I have no choice but to believe he's just being paid to stir up the most ignorant of the right (which unfortunately there seems to be a lot of), and scare people, who wouldn't otherwise care about politics, into thinking Obama is trying to create a fascist dictatorship. Which is sad.

Conservatism in this country is becoming synonymous with nut-jobs and morons. Granted, the left has their nuts, but they're not hosting prime time news shows. Rather than simply trying to present better ideas conservatives are putting forth absurdities like: Obama is forming a secret police with the Peace Corps and Americorps; Obama is going to brainwash the country's children on the first day of school; Obama's creating a shadow government of Czar's; and Obama's gonna pull the plug on grandma.

What's that? This nutjobery is part of the right-wing fringe you say? Witness the resignation of Van Jones, and schools not carrying the president's address because of angry parents. Conservatives have gone to crazytown, and good ones like Joe Scarborough, George Will, David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan need to call this idiocy what it is and elevate the discourse before something tragic occurs.

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Government, Economy, Education)

The government functions as the brain and/or the nervous system of the social organism. Just like our brain regulates and organizes the other systems in order to maintain homeostasis, the government regulates, passes laws, creates programs and budgets in order to maintain socioeconomic homeostasis. It's the government's job to organize society, similarly to how our brain orders our other systems.

The economy and wealth (wealth in it's most general sense) can be viewed as the circulatory system and the blood of the SO. The circulatory system distributes blood throughout the body. Blood functions as the vehicle for oxygen and nutrients for the growth and development cells. This is very much like how wealth functions as the vehicle for the things needed to develop and sustain the SO. Put another way, wealth represents the materials and resources the SO needs to survive, develop and grow; and the economy, like our circulatory system, is how those resources and materials are distributed.

While the government's role is to organize and regulate the economy, just like the brain's role is to regulate blood flow (e.g. when it gets cold, the brain directs blood to our internal organs away from our extremities), it's crucial to point out that the brain needs a healthy blood supply to function properly. Likewise, government needs a robust economy to function. Thus a balance has to be struck so that the government does not over-regulate depressing the economy, but regulates and redistributes enough to maintain socioeconomic homeostasis. When Herbert Spencer argued that the five SI's formed the social organism, he said that this was because of the natural evolutionary process. But as an anarchist and social darwinist, Spencer said that the government must be done away with, so that mankind can reach his ultimate potential and build a utopia. For Spencer, the government prevented this by not letting the poor (read unfit) die off and the rich (read fit) procreate. Many conservatives and libertarians make the same mistake Spencer did by not recognizing the important organizing, homeostatic role of gov't. And while not being social darwinists, many argue for an economic darwinism, emphasizing competition over cooperation.

Education and information are to the SO, as the digestive system and food are to the human organism. Information is brought into the social organism from the outside like food is brought into the body from the outside. Info is then processed into curriculums, theories, formulas and technology and combined with wealth to increase the growth and development of the SO. It is also worth noting that just like there is bad food and good food which can damage or develop cells, there is bad and good information which can damage or develop the cells, or people, of the social organism.

To summarize, in the human body, the blood keeps cells alive by acting as a vehicle for nutrients and oxygen. Likewise, the social organism uses information in the form of technology for its development and growth which flows throughout the SO via the vehicle of economy and wealth. Thus info and knowledge come into the SO and is processed by its education system which turns said info into formulas, theories and technology. This technology is then distributed by the economy with the gov't organizing the whole thing. Of course, this is incredibly simplified, but this provides a rough sketch at how these SI's function like our own organ systems.

These three SI's operate on a relatively objective level, while the remaining two SI's and culture operate on a much more subjective level. I think it's important not to view one group as being more important than the other for all of them are in constant interaction, affecting one another and creating the whole SO.

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Intro)

For the past few years I have struggled to formulate a way to explain how I see the world. What I have had are chunks and pieces of things I believe, but not a way to put them all together into one complete picture or worldview. I was envious of people whom, even though I believed it was a mistake, bought into and ideological system, because at the very least they could explain their view of the world in an orderly and systemized way. I, on the other hand, believed in a theory here and a theory there, but overall felt all over the map. However, now, I am hoping that this has finally changed.

Over the course of my years reading and thinking and blogging I, like many other thinkers and writers, have been trying to view the world in a way that transcends liberal and conservative, and religious and secular. And I believe that I have found a way to do this that makes the most sense, at least to me. This is my first attempt at really putting what's been going on in my head into words, and I'm doing this as much for myself as for anyone interested in reading. A lot of what I'll say isn't new, but the way I am going to present it is (or at least it is to me). So with that, I will begin.

I'll start by saying what I've pointed out on my other blog-- that all reality is made up of things are whole, yet are also parts e.g. atoms, molecules, cells etc. all the way up to us. And just like the rest of reality, we indeed make up something as well-- society. Or still more accurately, we make up the things that make up society-- social institutions. The five social institutions (SI's) are the institutions that have made up every civilization ever studied, and they are: Government, Economy, Education, Family and Religion. This is incredibly significant, and is no coincidence. Spanning all cultures, human beings, when forming a society always have the same basic institutions. With that said, if we think of society like one big organism, or social organism (SO) as coined by Durkheim, then would it not make sense that SI's function and work together just like other systems within an organism (e.g. our organ systems) do?

If the answer is yes, then it becomes clear that it is a mistake to, as people often do, champion one's preferred SI as the solution to all of society's ills. For example, in left v.s. right debates, the left often insists that government involvement or social programs are what is needed to fix society, while the right argues that less government involvement with the free-market is what is needed. Thus one sided argues for government while the other for the economy. Yet, in other debates one might often hear the preservation of the family as the key to fixing society. Still in other circles, you'll find education being touted as the cure-all for society's ills. And finally, and more frequently, I hear that the church as the solution. The church, the argument goes, has ignored its role at taking care of the poor, the sick and the widow and handed that responsibility over to government.

However, in viewing society as an organism, all of these parts come together, and each SI becomes integral for social change and betterment. It is reductionistic to focus upon one SI, for the SO is more than the sum of its parts. Indeed, I think it is possible that some SI's mirror our own organ systems functioning very similarly in the SO, and that the best lens for comprehending society is to view it how we would any other organism. Thus, arguing that one SI be removed or tremendously minimized to fix social problems, is akin to arguing for the removal of one of our own organ systems to cure our body.

The question of how I think the SI's function in a SO, will be discussed from here on out. I have virtually this whole series done; I just need to edit sections before I post them. Government, Economy and Education will be next, with Religion, Family and Culture after that.

To Anybody Still There...

I've been incredibly busy adjusting to my new life as a full-time pharmacy technician and a part-time social work intern. I do have a gargantuan post in the works though, that I am eager to finish. I hope to have it done by Thursday, but we'll see.