Setting the Bar
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,336
I’m writing this as a general response to those who believe that supporting the likes of Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein is a waste of time and votes.
Whenever we voice our opinion, vote, spend our money or make personal decisions about how we live, we are setting the bar on what happens to the world we live in relative to those decisions. Sometimes what we most want to see happens requires that we set the bar higher than we truly believe or expect the outcome to rise to.
For example- radical environmentalism: Dave Foreman, who started the original Earth First! movement admitted, after he left that organization, that he and other early founders of that group intentionally set the bar higher than could likely be reached. They believed that a radical approach to environmentalism would give more credence to the more middle-of –the-road organizations such as The Sierra Club. He was right. Although Earth First! was a turn off for the average person, that original group did achieve its objective: The Sierra Club and other less radical environmental organizations became and still are household terms and some important progress on environmental issues followed. (Not enough, in my opinion but again, something is better than nothing).
And the people involved in these kinds of actions are not just loud-mouthed radicals. Many professional scientists, naturalists, politicians and activists are highly skilled, highly trained, highly intelligent people who are working very hard to set the bar high in politics and environmentalism with the hope that forward progress is made in rational leadership and constructive progress is gained in social and environmental issues.
Bernie Sander probably never expected to become president and Jill Stein certainly understands her chances are slim to none, so why should we give them support? Because we need to raise the bar above mediocrity and what these people and others like them are trying to do is raise the bar to a very high level with the hopes that doing so will raise the bar elsewhere above the mediocre and inadequate. Too many people are dying needlessly and too many species are disappearing rapidly before their time. We are incurring far too much serious injury to the ecosystems that support us and all other life. War and violence are increasing throughout the world. The status quo is not doing it's job to solve these problems in a timely manner.
Leaving the bar at a mediocre level is not solving these problems. Yes, a little progress is made here and there but not enough and not quickly enough. With regard to climate change and species die-off, I firmly believe science has proven that. The continued escalation of war and violence in the world is strong evidence of that. The looming threat of a pandemic due to over-use of antibiotics is further evidence. Etc.
We get to choose how high to set the bar. What transpires by our actions will affect the lives of future generations and other life on the planet and so I would hope we choose wisely and quickly.
I have nothing to gain by saying all this, but my extended family kids and grand kids do as do the many species that will die before their time as the coming years unfold.
Whenever we voice our opinion, vote, spend our money or make personal decisions about how we live, we are setting the bar on what happens to the world we live in relative to those decisions. Sometimes what we most want to see happens requires that we set the bar higher than we truly believe or expect the outcome to rise to.
For example- radical environmentalism: Dave Foreman, who started the original Earth First! movement admitted, after he left that organization, that he and other early founders of that group intentionally set the bar higher than could likely be reached. They believed that a radical approach to environmentalism would give more credence to the more middle-of –the-road organizations such as The Sierra Club. He was right. Although Earth First! was a turn off for the average person, that original group did achieve its objective: The Sierra Club and other less radical environmental organizations became and still are household terms and some important progress on environmental issues followed. (Not enough, in my opinion but again, something is better than nothing).
And the people involved in these kinds of actions are not just loud-mouthed radicals. Many professional scientists, naturalists, politicians and activists are highly skilled, highly trained, highly intelligent people who are working very hard to set the bar high in politics and environmentalism with the hope that forward progress is made in rational leadership and constructive progress is gained in social and environmental issues.
Bernie Sander probably never expected to become president and Jill Stein certainly understands her chances are slim to none, so why should we give them support? Because we need to raise the bar above mediocrity and what these people and others like them are trying to do is raise the bar to a very high level with the hopes that doing so will raise the bar elsewhere above the mediocre and inadequate. Too many people are dying needlessly and too many species are disappearing rapidly before their time. We are incurring far too much serious injury to the ecosystems that support us and all other life. War and violence are increasing throughout the world. The status quo is not doing it's job to solve these problems in a timely manner.
Leaving the bar at a mediocre level is not solving these problems. Yes, a little progress is made here and there but not enough and not quickly enough. With regard to climate change and species die-off, I firmly believe science has proven that. The continued escalation of war and violence in the world is strong evidence of that. The looming threat of a pandemic due to over-use of antibiotics is further evidence. Etc.
We get to choose how high to set the bar. What transpires by our actions will affect the lives of future generations and other life on the planet and so I would hope we choose wisely and quickly.
I have nothing to gain by saying all this, but my extended family kids and grand kids do as do the many species that will die before their time as the coming years unfold.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
Comments
You can't just smoke a fattie and everything is ok.
First you love Bernie, now it's Stein.
Too much love hurts.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Re: "First you love Bernie, now it's Stein": Bernie dropped out, Jill didn't. Supporting a candidate does not mean I "love" them. Doesn't even mean I expect them to win. Just pushing the bar up a little. I will live with the mediocre winner like the rest of us will. Meanwhile, keep on pushin'!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i have seen some of what you have said about me and then edited to a "."
ignoring it showed that you are not as serious of a trump supporter as you let on. as i suspected all along.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Since the bar has been set.
I like Trump.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
No good for Hillary and her man-suits, but great for others...for some men. Their TIE.
Just strikes me as strange, but yeah...we're all hypocrites in ways.
I still wear a tie now and then not because I have to any more but because I can.
But of course all of this is irrelevant to the subject of the thread.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I believe that the question of the existence of god or gods, supernatural beings is a scientific question. Whereas other scientists will say it has nothing to do with science and that science and religion occupy two quite separate magisteria and don't overlap.
I think they do overlap and attempt to answer the same kinds of questions at least somewhat.
The difference is that religion gets the answers wrong.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
On that note when I die and I "meet god" I would ask him which one are you?
Are you Zeus, Thor, Bayle, Morpheus, Yahweh etc and why have you taken such extraordinary measures to conceal yourself?
or
much like the wizard of oz, obfuscation conceals her/his non existence.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Every single one of us, the devil inside.