Even in Death, Forming a More Perfect Union
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 07:14It was a beautiful hot summer morning. The white clouds had piled up in the deep blue sky without a threatening tint of grey yet. The songbirds added their commentary as flies buzzed nearly and in the distance a lawn crew started their buzzing machines.
A large group of people gathered in the carefully manicured grass next to a gaping hole in the ground. The crowd was filled with dignitaries. The Lt. Governor, a former Lt. Governor. a former Secretary of the State, and a former State Senator who was now the head of the state Democratic Party. There was a State Representative, many activists and far more that I did not recognize.
My mind drifted to that great quote from the movie Norma Rae.
Also present were eight hundred and sixty-two members of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers and Cloth, Hat and Cap Makers' Union. Also members of his family. In death as in life, they stood at his side. They had fought battles with him, bound the wounds of battle with him, had earned bread together and had broken it together. When they spoke, they spoke in one voice, and they were heard. They were black, they were white, they were Irish, they were Polish, they were Catholic, they were Jews, they were one. That's what a union is: one
Yes, the union was there. There may have been representatives of one local or another, but it was the more perfect union that was there. These were people who had worked side by side
to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It's how I had met Win, the mourning husband, as well as many of the others gathered to note the passing of his wife.
Traditions were observed and family members spoke. A woman sang a show tune from South Pacific that she had often sung with now deceased sister.
Dites-moi Pourquoi La vie est belle. Dies-moi Pourquoi La vie est gai, Dites-moi Pourquoi, Chere Mad'moiselle, Est-ce que Parce que Vous m'aimez?
Why is life beautiful and gay? Because of the love we have for one another; even in death.
There were the comments about the different deaths. The death of the body and the death of being forgotten. Carol was well remember at the service and my mind went to "Samuel Mendelsson: A Man Who Must Not Be Forgotten". It is a book about a man who died in the holocaust which was given to me by his great granddaughter.
The Kaddish was recited and my thoughts went to Allen Ginsburg's poem of the same name
Strange now to think of you, gone without corsets & eyes, while I walk on
the sunny pavement of Greenwich Village….
We formed two lines as the mourners passed between us, on their way back to their daily lives. But first, we all gathered for food. As one friend once said to me, all of Jewish history can be summed up in the phrase, "We faced great odds. We prevailed. Let's eat."
So as we ate, we talked about the great odds we continue to face in forming a more perfect union, the struggles for justice and domestic tranquility, and how we can best promote the general welfare.
Rest in Peace, Carol. Your life is well reflected in your loving husband, siblings and children.
Liability, Reputation Risk and Moral Hazards at the Beach
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:45Liability, Reputation Risk and Moral Hazards at the Beach
Yesterday, I headed over to the Country Club of Woodbridge to swim some laps and get a little rest and relaxation with my family. It was packed there. When we arrived, we could only find one seat beside the pool which wasn’t taken. I swam my laps, splitting the lap lane with a friend who also does many laps in the pool. I noticed lifeguards sitting in locations where they hadn’t been in previous years. There must have been half a dozen lifeguards on duty.
Things have sure changed a lot since my family and I joined the club shortly after the town took it over when the previous club went bankrupt. In those days when I swam laps, I was the only person in the pool being watched by the only lifeguard on duty. While I don’t have specific data, it appears as if the town took a risk in taking over the club and that risk finally started paying off as more people use the facility and the community becomes an even more desirable place to live.
Our lives are made up of risks. Every day we take risks based on calculations about possible outcomes. We might consider various liabilities our actions might produce. We might consider reputational risk, especially if our name is tied to some organization. We may encounter moral hazards when we take risks without considering the larger impact of our actions.
All of this came to mind recently, as I read stories about Tomas Lopez, a lifeguard for Jeff Ellis & Associates in Florida who was fired for aiding in the rescue of a person outside of the area he was supposed to be watching. A company supervisor was quoted on CNN as saying "We have liability issues and can't go out of the protected area," The Jeff Ellis website talks about ‘Aquatic Risk Management”, and friends who have worked as lifeguards for Jeff Ellis here in Connecticut have commented about how they are all about the liability.
Yet this focus on the bottom line instead of the good of the community provides a useful illustration of reputation risk. It will be interesting to see if municipalities that contract with Jeff Ellis & Associates to provide life guard services will rethink their contracts.
Back at the Country Club of Woodbridge, we’ve got some great lifeguards, a great pool director, and all of this is in the context of an effort that goes beyond a short sighted view of the bottom line to a longer term view of the greater good. I hope to get a few more laps in real soon.
Note: A statement on the Jeff Ellis & Associates website says:
It has been incorrectly reported that Jeff Ellis & Associates was involved with the firing
of a Lifeguard in South Florida.Jeff Ellis & Associates is an Aquatic Safety & Risk Management Consulting firm. Jeff
Ellis & Associates does not own, operate or manage aquatic facilities.Jeff Ellis & Associates does not have a contract with the City of Hallandale Beach. Jeff
Ellis Management is a separate company that provides facility management services and
does provide service to Hallandale Beach.
The logo on the Jeff Ellis Management website includes the text "Jeff Ellis & Associates". This looks like hair splitting spin by someone to trying to mitigate against the damage done to the Jeff Ellis empire.
Group Dynamics of Electoral Campaigning
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 07/04/2012 - 06:55Here is another one of my longer blog posts thinking about what it means to run for office. It has also been submitted to the Bethwood Patch.
Recently, I wrote a blog post about being a participant observer in electoral politics. I'm running for State Representative in the 114th Assembly District in Connecticut, which includes all of Woodbridge, much of Orange, and the eastern side of Derby. Since that blog post, I've been very busy with tactical aspects of my campaign and haven't been writing as much as I would like.
This morning, I'm taking a few minutes to reflect on an aspect of running for elected office that I haven't found a lot written about, group dynamics.
I've had a long interest in group dynamics, especially as it relates to online communities and to group psychotherapy. It's a topic I've studied for over a decade and I'm a member of a mailing list of group psychotherapists.
So, let's try to look at this from a group perspective. I'm a member of a very large, non cohesive group. It is made up of about 15,000 members. It is the registered voters in the 114th assembly district. Like any large group, there are interesting subgroups to look at. There are the registered Democrats, the registered Republicans, the unaffiliated voters, and those that are registered with less known political parties.
There is the group of people who vote in primaries, the group of people who vote in municipal elections, the group of people who vote only in presidential elections, and the group of people who don't get out and vote at all.
I have chosen, perhaps because of some valence, to take up the role of candidate. For my friends with a group relations bent based, I am perhaps engaged in what Wilfred Bion would refer to as Basic Assumption - Pairing. My opponent and I are engaged in a discourse representing different views of how our community should move forward. The rest of the group watches, perhaps adding comments here or there, and hoping that the person whose views most closely match theirs prevails. We are seeing this dynamic intensify in U.S. politics as politics becomes more and more polarized.
The subgroup of those who are politically active and are hoping my views will prevail show a wide range of reactions. Some have contributed the maximum amount of money permissible to my campaign. With the Citizens Election Program in Connecticut, that is $100. They have spent time helping me get my message out. They express frustration that I have not been raising enough money, that I have not been contacting enough voters, or that I have not stayed closely enough to my message. They have high hopes for my campaign, and nothing will be enough to satisfy them until I get elected. Others, who are politically active and that I've hoped would be more involved in the campaign have resisted my requests for assistance and have expressed frustration at my repeated requests.
My job, assuming I get elected, will be to represent all of the people in the district. Not just those who share my views, or not just those that hold specific expectations of me.
At times, I hold the frustrations of my most ardent supporters, the weariness of my least enthused supporters, and I try to maintain the participant observer role in such a way that I might transform local politics.
How do we move away from basic assumption - pairing thinking, while at the same time holding fast to our hopes and dreams? How do we find common ground while seeking to differentiate ourselves from our opponents? How do we keep campaigning at peek performance without burning out?
These are the questions I struggle with as I campaign. Part of my stump speech is, don't vote for me because I have all the answers, parroted from party leaders or talking heads on cable television. Vote for me because I'll ask the tough questions. How do we understand the group dynamics of electoral politics and shift them to more of a working group behavior is just one of those difficult questions.
Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:22Well, June has proven to be a very busy month. I probably wrote less blog posts in June than I have in very many months, and it's been a week since I've put up a blog post.
Now, it is July. The weather is sweltering and I'll be heading to the pool soon. Work has been very busy, and when I'm not busy there, I'm busy at home with the campaign.
I have at least five events for this coming week that I can think of, although I hope some of them will provide some writing material.
So, it is summer time, a time where the pace of life should be slowing down, but it seems like it isn't yet for me. I had breakfast on the porch. Fiona went and picked blackberries and checked on how the fig tree is growing. Wesley hunted in the grass near the pond. My guess is that he was stalking a frog based on his sudden movements.
I did get to church this morning. In spite of the heat, it is a beautiful day. It made me think of heading out to church at the shore, years ago when a bunch of friends of mine would all head to the shore together. There is something slow and reflective about church services in the summer, especially if you can go in shorts and not sweat too much in the pews.
July will also bring my birthday. Fiona will head off to Cape Cod, and who knows what else will transpire. Yet it is good to stay focused on the simple pleasures of life; the childhood invocation of luck for a coming month, and perhaps those rabbits also moving languidly in the heat.
Ralph Waldo Emerson and Originalism
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 20:37This week, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on one of the most politically charged cases in our lifetimes, the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. There have been lots of discussions about what most people think, what the implications of one ruling or another will be, and when we can expect a decision.
One means of interpreting the Constitution is based on a theory called 'Originalism'. This is broken into two branches, original intent, and original meaning and they beg a question. Did the framers of the constitution originally intend for people to base hundreds of years of jurisprudence on a literal interpretations of their texts.
Some of the current justices seem committed to originalism, and I would submit that this reflects poorly on their own intellectual capabilities, or at least their belief in themselves. I would also submit that it goes contrary to the spirit of the great American experiment.
I can see how some can be drawn to this form of legal fundamentalism, and believe it is not far removed from the fundamentalism of some Christians and for that matter the fundamentalism of some Muslims, especially those that wish to wage jihad against America.
As I flew to Arkansas for a conference this week, I spent a little time re-reading Ralph Waldo Emerson's great essay, "The American Scholar". One of my favorite quotes of Emerson is in that essay,
Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon, have given; forgetful that Cicero, Locke and Bacon were only young men in libraries when they wrote these books.
A little later on, it is followed by the quote,
Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst.
It made me think of the whole 'originalism' debate. With that, not mere accepting the views of Emerson, but building upon them into an ongoing discourse about The American Scholar as it relates to our American Experience, it seems like a paraphrase is in order.
Meek Supreme Court Justices sitting in their chambers, believing it their duty to accept the views which Jefferson, which Adams, which Madison, have given; forgetful that Jefferson, Adams and Madison were only men in politics when they wrote this text. Constitutions are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst.
This is not to say we should completely abandon the text. Instead, we should engage in discourse around the text, so that the original underlying intent can be maintained.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare and security the blessings of liberty are noble goals, and they may best be achieved, not be pursuing a literal interpretation of what the framers wrote, but by seeking to understand how in every generation we need to form an even more perfect union.
This needs to be done, not by splitting hairs about the interpretation of the commerce clause in such as way that it promotes the welfare of the newly declared persons of our country, the corporations, but in broadly seeking whether the laws are truly establishing a general welfare for all the people of our county.
This gets to how Constitutions are the best of things, well used. When they broadly seek to maintain and enhance the general welfare of all people, they are well used, and the best of things. When they are narrowly interpreted to promote one small group or class of citizens, such as extremely wealthy conservatives at the expense of the general population, as it seems the Roberts court continually does, they are among the worst.
Somehow, I don't expect that much from our current Supreme Court, and I suspect that history may end up looking at the Roberts Court as being not that much different from the Taney Court.
For Chief Justice Roberts' sake, I hope he learns from history, not only the history of Jefferson, Adams, and Madison, but also from the whole scope of American history from Ralph Waldo Emerson to Roger Taney, that his legacy might not be as bad as Taney's has become.
