Ask the daisy
Many of us will recall, as a teenager, allowing the daisy or some other plant or flower to decide, petal by petal, whether he/she loves or loves me not. One picks off a petal which stands for “she/he loves” and then one picks off the next petal which stands for “she/he loves me not.”. The last petal decides the question. Many will recall the existential angst over the fear that, in fact, she/she will love me not. Of course, the myth is that this was an exercise solely engaged in by young females, but nearly every male I know has experienced such existential angst and addressed it in an equally unscientific manner.
I was thinking about these sorts of exercises this morning as I contemplated getting a flower or something with many parts so I would know whether a political proposal was good for the majority of the citizens of this nation. This sort of debate and mistrust has been going on for as long as humans have looked to something outside of themselves to bolster or even prove their worth. I recall my grandparents and their relatives and friends arguing over the relative worth of political proposals which select politicians were claiming to be for the good of everyone. The only difference between then and now as far as I am concerned is the amount of information and the variety of means of delivery of particular viewpoints. I can hear a plethora of very carefully considered opinions with the space of an hour or even less. Very frequently all of the those offering an opinion present many facts and figures which makes sense. Then I listen to another very erudite and passionate speaker who presents a different set of facts and figures which often suggest a very different outcome. Bills before Congress are often thousands of pages long. Even if one has access to the entire documents one would be hard pressed to read it, research the potential outcome of proposals and make an educated guess about who is helped and who is hurt by this bill.
We live in an age which has left us jaded and skeptical at best of what any politician tells us. We wonder who is paying for whose campaign? Who really stands to gain?
That has been my feeling after listening to various “respectable” individuals dissect the various health care proposals. I have no idea of who to believe. I could of course, decide to be very partisan about this decision. I do not need a daisy for this. We have two primary parties in this nation We also have a third which is relatively small. No matter which party the person says that they represent (the West Virginia governor ran and was elected under on party and has since changed parties.) we know that it has taken an enormous number of dollars to win the election. We also know that few politicians are running for only one term. They want to be reelected. The reasons may indeed by very lofty, but lofty ideals will not get one elected.
It seems that the daisy system is as scientific as any method for deciding which proposal or candidate for which to vote.
Occasionally some choices are easy. If a party, a candidate or a proposal is or appears to be racist, anti-gay, neo-Nazi, anti-Muslim the choice is clear. I will not vote for that candidate or support that policy. The choice is seldom that clear and even when it is that eliminates only one option.
A few other issues and a choices are very clear. Yesterday, Tuesday, the 27th September, the Saudi Foreign ministry announced that a royal decree has been issued that will allow women in that country to drive by next June. Currently Saudi women legally must have a male driver. This decree is a huge step towards allowing women to determine that they can get from home to work or other destinations by driving themselves. It seems to me that although this change may be very threatening to those Saudi males who are the legal guardians of all women and to the economy of the drivers who make their living from driving women and others, it is clear that there is no moral or scientific basis for not allowing women to drive. Despite the claims of some males that women’s brains may be ¼ as large as male’s brains, there is no scientific studies which validate that claim. Yet, I am sure that between now and next June there will be many arguments put forth which attempt to convince other that this is a Western, anti-religious move which will wreck the core of the fabric of the culture.
The argument will sound very similar to those proposed by many to forbid equal rights to all males and females regardless of religions, gender, marital status, age, education or other social differences or social constructs such as race. The God of one’s understanding will be presented as The God who has created humans to be in different groups with different rights. One can hope that the God of one’s understanding has highly efficient and durable ears to receive all the constant noise of the words which will be delivered as a pretense for worshipping God.
Prayer will not be about praise. Rabbi Abraham Herschel suggests praise is the purpose of prayer. Prayer will be about reminding the God of one’s understanding what “HE” (almost always a male god) intended and what “HE” needs to do to ensure that “HIS” wayward children do not do something as stupid as allowing females to endanger the lives of all and destroy the fabric of culture by driving. After all, if women can indeed make decisions for themselves as well as drive themselves what need to they have of men? If men are not in charge of women and women can do all the jobs that men do except produce and deliver sperm, then the only role for men is to deposit sperm in a cup.
Of course, there is another option. That option is to work as partners with each other regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age, race, culture, religion or other factors. This might even allow for the possibility of the various Gods of one’s understanding to partner. Imagine if they begin to blend with each other and together shepherd their various flocks. Of course, this would require humans and the various Gods of one understanding to posit the radical believe that all people are valued and valuable. All have an important role to play. Whether we are baking bread, comforting someone, planting and harvesting a crop, designing and then building a bridge, scrubbing the floors or driving a car we all are needed and all deserve to have access to food, clothing, housing, heat/air condition, and transportation.
It is ironic that in the day in which we are increasingly looking forward to driverless cars, mass transit and in general less reliance on the human whose ability to focus in limited at best, we may allow women to legally drive in Saudi.
One can hope, of course, that someone does not again propose that decisions about women can and cannot do be made via the daisy method. After all, basing such decision of the fears of the impaired ego of the male is not much different than the daisy method.
She should drive. She should not drive. A woman physician or engineer or attorney is capable of diving. She is not, She…
Written September 27, 2017
Many of us will recall, as a teenager, allowing the daisy or some other plant or flower to decide, petal by petal, whether he/she loves or loves me not. One picks off a petal which stands for “she/he loves” and then one picks off the next petal which stands for “she/he loves me not.”. The last petal decides the question. Many will recall the existential angst over the fear that, in fact, she/she will love me not. Of course, the myth is that this was an exercise solely engaged in by young females, but nearly every male I know has experienced such existential angst and addressed it in an equally unscientific manner.
I was thinking about these sorts of exercises this morning as I contemplated getting a flower or something with many parts so I would know whether a political proposal was good for the majority of the citizens of this nation. This sort of debate and mistrust has been going on for as long as humans have looked to something outside of themselves to bolster or even prove their worth. I recall my grandparents and their relatives and friends arguing over the relative worth of political proposals which select politicians were claiming to be for the good of everyone. The only difference between then and now as far as I am concerned is the amount of information and the variety of means of delivery of particular viewpoints. I can hear a plethora of very carefully considered opinions with the space of an hour or even less. Very frequently all of the those offering an opinion present many facts and figures which makes sense. Then I listen to another very erudite and passionate speaker who presents a different set of facts and figures which often suggest a very different outcome. Bills before Congress are often thousands of pages long. Even if one has access to the entire documents one would be hard pressed to read it, research the potential outcome of proposals and make an educated guess about who is helped and who is hurt by this bill.
We live in an age which has left us jaded and skeptical at best of what any politician tells us. We wonder who is paying for whose campaign? Who really stands to gain?
That has been my feeling after listening to various “respectable” individuals dissect the various health care proposals. I have no idea of who to believe. I could of course, decide to be very partisan about this decision. I do not need a daisy for this. We have two primary parties in this nation We also have a third which is relatively small. No matter which party the person says that they represent (the West Virginia governor ran and was elected under on party and has since changed parties.) we know that it has taken an enormous number of dollars to win the election. We also know that few politicians are running for only one term. They want to be reelected. The reasons may indeed by very lofty, but lofty ideals will not get one elected.
It seems that the daisy system is as scientific as any method for deciding which proposal or candidate for which to vote.
Occasionally some choices are easy. If a party, a candidate or a proposal is or appears to be racist, anti-gay, neo-Nazi, anti-Muslim the choice is clear. I will not vote for that candidate or support that policy. The choice is seldom that clear and even when it is that eliminates only one option.
A few other issues and a choices are very clear. Yesterday, Tuesday, the 27th September, the Saudi Foreign ministry announced that a royal decree has been issued that will allow women in that country to drive by next June. Currently Saudi women legally must have a male driver. This decree is a huge step towards allowing women to determine that they can get from home to work or other destinations by driving themselves. It seems to me that although this change may be very threatening to those Saudi males who are the legal guardians of all women and to the economy of the drivers who make their living from driving women and others, it is clear that there is no moral or scientific basis for not allowing women to drive. Despite the claims of some males that women’s brains may be ¼ as large as male’s brains, there is no scientific studies which validate that claim. Yet, I am sure that between now and next June there will be many arguments put forth which attempt to convince other that this is a Western, anti-religious move which will wreck the core of the fabric of the culture.
The argument will sound very similar to those proposed by many to forbid equal rights to all males and females regardless of religions, gender, marital status, age, education or other social differences or social constructs such as race. The God of one’s understanding will be presented as The God who has created humans to be in different groups with different rights. One can hope that the God of one’s understanding has highly efficient and durable ears to receive all the constant noise of the words which will be delivered as a pretense for worshipping God.
Prayer will not be about praise. Rabbi Abraham Herschel suggests praise is the purpose of prayer. Prayer will be about reminding the God of one’s understanding what “HE” (almost always a male god) intended and what “HE” needs to do to ensure that “HIS” wayward children do not do something as stupid as allowing females to endanger the lives of all and destroy the fabric of culture by driving. After all, if women can indeed make decisions for themselves as well as drive themselves what need to they have of men? If men are not in charge of women and women can do all the jobs that men do except produce and deliver sperm, then the only role for men is to deposit sperm in a cup.
Of course, there is another option. That option is to work as partners with each other regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age, race, culture, religion or other factors. This might even allow for the possibility of the various Gods of one’s understanding to partner. Imagine if they begin to blend with each other and together shepherd their various flocks. Of course, this would require humans and the various Gods of one understanding to posit the radical believe that all people are valued and valuable. All have an important role to play. Whether we are baking bread, comforting someone, planting and harvesting a crop, designing and then building a bridge, scrubbing the floors or driving a car we all are needed and all deserve to have access to food, clothing, housing, heat/air condition, and transportation.
It is ironic that in the day in which we are increasingly looking forward to driverless cars, mass transit and in general less reliance on the human whose ability to focus in limited at best, we may allow women to legally drive in Saudi.
One can hope, of course, that someone does not again propose that decisions about women can and cannot do be made via the daisy method. After all, basing such decision of the fears of the impaired ego of the male is not much different than the daisy method.
She should drive. She should not drive. A woman physician or engineer or attorney is capable of diving. She is not, She…
Written September 27, 2017
RSS Feed