A Distorted Reality is Now a Necessity to be Free

Twenty-eight has been the most emotional, searching year of my life to-date.  I woke up one morning with a mild anxiety attack about money - the first time I've ever freaked out to that level about something. I was/am fully employed in a well-paying,  professional job, making nearly twice what I was making just 3 years ago, so what gives? Well, I've recently accrued more debt than I ever imagined without having a house to blame, and I've entered full out adulthood I realized.  I fought it every step of the way this year.  Adulthood is a good place for someone my age to be, but anyone who is an adult can appreciate why I would fight it.  Waking up afraid the timing of my direct deposit would sync up with my automatic payments so as to avoid a multitude of $30 overdraft fees.  Failing to fall asleep because I just got home after spending some surreal hours living someone else's suburban, steak house life to realize you can really care for someone and it not be right for you.  Standing, shaking as emotions get the better of you and your rational brain can't explain why you can't stop sobbing even though you know you shouldn't be.  Falling into a rut so slowly you see it engulf you, but wanting the comfort of its familiarity and confirmation over dealing with adulthood and life.  I'm two months from 29, and I'm still standing... dare I say thriving despite adulthood laying its claim on me.  I'm out of the rut, and cautious about falling into another one.  I still am living paycheck to paycheck despite being a professional now.  I still don't fully understand my emotional self.   But, what's 29 for if not to see how this all is going to work itself out?

I listen to MPR's Current online at work. It's my nod to my homeland, and I just haven't bothered after two years to find a local station I like in Boston. I'm lazy. Anyway, I hear this song that isn't just good filter for life in a cubicle, so I check out the band: The Pipettes. Hmm, I like what I hear. So, when are they on tour because I can't find the song about running away with the milkman on anything but a 4 track cd, and I'm cheap and want my money's worth. Turns out they'll be in Boston in a month. Good, I'm in.  Wait, they're playing with three more bands? $15 and I'll probably get five Pipette songs? Again, I'm cheap. So, now I have to check out the other bands... Monster Bobby is interesting, worth the cash. I'll go to the show. I'm too lazy to check out the other two bands in advance.

 

 

Yet, the American government refuses to raise its revenues to fund the $9 billion/month we're spending on average on the war in Iraq.  True we're cutting away some of our domestic spending in an effort to get the government's budget in the black, but what seems pretty obvious to me is those who bear these burdens are the same - future generations (i.e. posterity.) Friedman has an op-ed in the New York times Sunday on this subject that helped me realize that this is ultimately why I have such a distaste for politics in America.

 

I abhor the short-term tactics of the two-party system which has sliced and diced our voting districts for their benefit (i.e. gerrymandering) that have left this country seemingly crippled to stand up for itself and demand accountability from government servants. The war in Iraq has been a mess from the start from misinformation from top government officials to a lack of support in terms of changeover and equipment for our troops once in battle. Not to mention, we have not raised revenue to pay for this war; rather borrowing ahead on the credit of our children. The same credit we have squandered by not making the difficult decisions regarding healthcare and social security that has left people my age with this knowing feeling that although we pay into the safety net we better make damn sure we build our own because we will never collect under the current system.  Not to mention that it's possible in my lifetime that we run out of affordable oil and gas, yet politicians today refuse to call on our auto industry to make vehicles at least as efficient as those in China.  But what does it matter what you borrow from future generations if the United States continues to be so arrogant as to believe coming up with a goal by 2009 is making serious headway on climate change?

 

I wonder how long my generation and those younger will sit idly by and watch our future squandered. I wonder how my parents sleep at night realizing they are leaving little option for their grandchildren. I thought Americans prided themselves in building a better future for their children. It is time Americans explain and are held accountable for these decisions.

 

Three days prior to President Bush hosts his own climate change talk, the UN opened today a climate change summit saying: "we must act internationally now." President Bush disagrees that this global problem should be addressed on the global stage, and has chosen not to participate in the UN summit.  Bush proposes nations set their own limits. He's at least returning to his early campaigning days where he recognized climate change as a problem that needed addressing, but why is he so afraid to be held accountable (which is really just a figure of speech when it comes to the U.S. at the U.N.) to the world for limiting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions?

 

The New York Times report suggests an interesting twist by a popular terminator may have undermined some of the wind under Bush's sails. Swarchenegger batted clean up after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (South Korea) called for global action. Schwarzenegger claimed California would pull the United States along, and stated that the time has come for an international pact that embraces both poor and rich countries. Condoleeza Rice is scheduled to present the U.S. perspective at the UN climate change summit later today.

 

Up Next:

 

Global Meltdown: Bush v. Schwarzenegger

I thought it was bizarre that none of the major news sources in the US carried prominent news stories about President Bush's call for a two day meeting on climate change with international representatives in the US. I caught the story on the BBC where it was the headline of the website. I am a Minnesotan, and I especially appreciate the attention that was given to one of our major highways literally falling from the sky. However, this was several days later and the bridge story wasn't really developing, so why did it take precedence over Bush finally sitting down to talk climate change? I'll touch on what I think at the end of this blog.

 

Bush plans to address the conference. What will the leader of the largest polluter contributing to climate change say? China and India have been invited. China poised to surpass the US in greenhouse gas emissions. India close on their tail.  Why is Condoleeza Rice the facilitator? What role will the International Panel on Climate Change play? What about Dick Cheney and his fossil fuel lobby?

 

 

As for why the bridge instead of the meeting....

 

1. The bridge was a tragedy with vivid imagery and connections/implications nationally regarding the safety/reliability of our aging infrastructure.

 

2. A call for a meeting is not a meeting is not an announcement of action.

 

3. Understanding of risk and magnitude is difficult to understand on climate change. The risk is high and the magnitude is astronomical. Aging infrastructure carries risks, but I would not consider them as high and the magnitude of impact not as great. However, it's much easier to get your mind around "what if a major bridge in NYC fell tomorrow" than "what if the temperature continues to increase at this rate."

 

That's my two cents. You can read the NYT's blurb on the meeting here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/washington/04brfs-DETAILSOFMEE_BRF.html