In checking out the trailer, Kate found a large pack-rat nest in the trailer, between the outer aluminum skin and the inner wall. Actually, what we call pack-rats here in Sedona are more accurately desert wood rats.

These creatures can be quite troublesome, since they like to make nests under the hoods of vehicles. They gnaw through wires and hoses. One of them chewed through one of the fuel lines in my car a while back – potentially a very dangerous situation – and expensive to repair.

Most of our neighbors don’t think twice about the solution to this problem. Kill them! But, if, as we do, you like to think about minimizing suffering for all beings, this is not a comfortable choice.

And, if you’re present to life, and really “see” these creatures fully, it’s hard to do. They are actually very appealing. OK, we find them downright cute, but I believe there’s more to it than that. If we really “see” all the life and vitality in any creature, whether an ant, a wood rat, or even a cockroach, I believe we will see it differently from the common definition of “pest”.

A couple of years ago, we shooed a mother pack rat/wood rat from her nest in the engine compartment of my car. Kate was dismayed to see her then frantically scurrying around looking for a new home, with two babies hanging from her teats as she ran around. We didn’t know it until later, but she found refuge in the engine compartment of a friend’s car. We got a call from him later, saying that he had found two baby pack rats in their garage! They had survived a trip down a winding mountain road, and needed some place to call home. The mother, at this point , was nowhere to be seen.

So, Kate took on the challenge of nursing these two baby rats to survival. This included getting them to suckle on a syringe with a flexible rubber tip, massaging their digestive tracts so that they would have bowel movements, and keeping them warm.

One thing we weren’t prepared for was how appealing these little creatures were. It’s common knowledge by now that we are genetically programmed to see the young of mammalian species as “cute”, to ensure the protection and survival of as many young as possible.

It may seem like a stretch, but I believe that we can extrapolate this type of “kill them” thinking to other sentient beings – namely, our fellow humans. Instead of the messy, frustrating and time-consuming work of reaching agreements, we can simply see them as “other”, or less than human, and – kill them. That still seems to be the means for solving disputes in many parts of the world. And these are definitely not limited to threats to our survival – it could be, simply, that someone has a different religion from us. Or, that they have access to natural resources that we happen to want.

Sometimes the problem (to which the solution is killing) is completely fabricated. Take the genocide of the Jews by Nazi Germany in the years 1933- 1945. There really was no “problem” that could be objectively identified. It was simply an issue of “otherness” in the extreme – and of that otherness being massively exaggerated and distorted to the point where “true believers” in the Gestapo were able to see Jews as both subhuman, and also a threat to the survival of all Germans.

I believe this is a necessary step in killing humans – to see them as less than human – whether they’re Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Christians, Muslims, criminals, etc. And that labeling helps us do just that.

And yes, I know this diatribe against all killing could sound hypocritical from someone who eats meat. It’s something I struggle with. And, I think the subject of predation is different from extermination – whether of a cockroach or a person. I guess we all have a line we’re willing to cross. Kate will kill mosquitoes, and so will I. I’ll go a step further and kill the occasional cockroach. It’s certainly easier than giving them a new homeland outside the walls of our house…

So how do we solve the conundrum of our packrats who’ve taken up residence in our Airstream? We want to sell the trailer, and we don’t want to kill the rats. Selling it with the nest intact is not a possibility. What would you do?

I know this is certainly true for me – when I think of single-mindedly pursuing my goal of “teaching what I’m learning” via the Lifetools workshop, and my coaching and counseling work, it’s the fear of financial hardship during the transition from my current “living” to doing the Lifetools work full time that holds me back.

Compounding this is past experience. There have been a couple of times in my life when I simply couldn’t stand my job situation any more, and “jumped off a cliff” to doing something else I imagined I would find more fulfilling. Each time, while things “worked out” in the end, I experienced severe financial hardship during the transition. So, the survival-oriented part of my consciousness screams a “don’t do it!” warning every time I contemplate taking a risk like this.

To take a detour into financial management, I heard something on a money-oriented radio show on NPR a few months ago which made an impression on me. The guest on the show was talking about savings, and he said that one of the reasons to have savings is so that we feel empowered and able to take risks – to test out a new career, new business idea, etc. This was a big “light bulb” for me. If I had saved enough to have a year’s living expenses, I wouldn’t hesitate right now to move full-time toward my dreams.

So, clearly, as with most things, there are both inner and outer strategies we must employ in order to slay the demon of fear. I believe, as always, that the most effective place to create change in our lives is the internal space, so let’s start there. What “inner strategies” work best in clearing away fear, or moving from fear to faith?

One of the simplest ones is the “what’s the worst that could happen?” exercise. You look at the “worst” possible outcome in as many different scenarios as you can imagine, and then imagine yourself being OK with that. While none of us relishes the idea of being, say, homeless, if you imagine how that might look, in detail, and then “know” somehow that you will be all right. The thing most of us fear the most is death – our physical bodies are programmed to fear it – I think, to ensure the survival of the species. I don’t particularly fear death (in fact, I’m kinda curious about it) but I do fear intense pain or discomfort. That’s my “edge” that I get to work with and look at.

Where’s your edge? What do you fear the most? I’d love to hear from you all about this…

But this is nothing new, and it’s certainly not confined to politicians. Most of the time, when male spiritual leaders and teachers get into trouble, it’s over money, sex, or both. Think Jim Bakker (he did it efficiently, conflating the issues, by using money from his ministry to buy sex from prostitutes).

There’s been quite a bit of coverage recently about sex addiction – it was even a Time cover story earlier this year. But what I have a hard time understanding is when yielding to sexual temptation is part of an addictive syndrome, or disease, and when it’s simply the way we men are wired. Supposedly, our biology is such that we are genetically programmed to spread our seed far and wide – genetically predisposed, therefore, to indiscriminate sexuality and promiscuity. There has been recent evidence that this is true for women, too, to create a healthy variety in the human gene pool, but the studies that look at this have been given much less coverage by the media, possibly because they don’t fit the social orthodoxy of the times, which is that men are simply more piggy than women.

Powerful, prominent, wealthy men simply have more sexual opportunities. As Henry Kissinger famously said, “Power is the best aphrodisiac”. And, it’s hard for men to say no to offers of sex. We’re wired, again, to simply dive in when sex is easily available. And, if it’s consensual, that’s one thing – although I want to look at the whole monogamy issue a little later on. When problems come up is when the easy availability of sex leads to a sense of entitlement – a sense that any woman to whom the powerful man is attracted, should, as a matter of course, have sex with him. This seems to have been the case with Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the hotel maid. And here we have another layer added – that of class – the ruling class taking sexual favors from those of lower social strata. Here are ugly echoes of “droit de seigneur” (although most scholars now agree that this custom was apocryphal).

The Jungians would say that these powerful men are acting from their unintegrated shadow selves – that, because they are not conscious of what’s going on below the surface of their own psyches, the shadow will act “on its own” to make sure its host will “get paid and get laid”, no matter what moral codes are broken along the way.

And here’s the rub, isn’t it? Morality. We have evolved to the point where most of us in European, western “civilized” cultures agree that monogamy is a high moral good. I happen to agree. But, since genetic, physical evolution is relatively slow to change, an inevitable tension is created for most of us between what we are programmed to do physically, and what we choose to do morally. I love my wife, love being married to her, and don’t want to mess up my marriage with extra-marital sex. But sexual temptation is sometimes troublesome to me, even though I typically don’t have any actual opportunities to indulge in extra-marital sex. Imagine how much harder it must be for men in powerful positions when actual sexual opportunities abound.

In the yogic systems, there are seven energy centers, or “chakras” throughout the body. These are also seen as part of our subtle body, part of the pathway through which energy (or “prana”) flows through us. In this system, the second chakra, just above the genitals, symbolizes money, sex and power. So, as a shorthand, I often say that most spiritual teachers and powerful men are brought down by “second chakra issues”.

Carolyn Myss, in her book “Anatomy of the Spirit” takes it a bit further. She posits all the mental and emotional issues represented by each chakra, as well as what she calls the “Sacred Truth” for each one. for the second chakra, she lists the mental/emotional issues as: blame and guilt, money and sex, power and control, creativity, and ethics and honor in relationships.

Sidebar: It’s interesting to me that she lists “creativity” as one of the attributes of this chakra. It does seem that creative people have somewhat higher libidos than the rest of us. Also, I know from personal experience that, if my sexual side is “shut down”, I don’t feel particularly creative…

The “Sacred Truth” for this chakra, in her system, is, “Honor One Another”. This makes sense to me, intuitively. Let me see if I can explain my thinking on it…

There is a theory in “new thought” of “New Age” thinking that posits that money and sex are two of the densest forms of energy that we get to deal with. While this is the kind of the thing that’s obviously impossible to verify, again, it makes a certain kind of intuitive sense to me. In this worldview, dense forms of energy, and issues that relate to them, are said to bring up or stimulate any unresolved psychological/emotional issues in us. They also are said to require a high degree of awareness if we are not to be unconsciously ruled by them, and require a high degree of clarity when we make agreements that relate to this issues.

In the mainstream, we tend to agree about the fact that money, it it’s to be handled effectively and fairly, requires this level of clarity in agreements. That’s why we carefully craft contracts which deal with money (especially with large transactions).

With sex, it seems a little fuzzier. There’s the central social institution of marriage, of course, where the agreement about sex is pretty simple – only have sex with your spouse. Beyond that, it gets a lot fuzzier very quickly.

Pat Allen, a well-known psychotherapist who runs a popular Los Angeles lecture series on relationships, maintains that, just with money issues, we need contracts about sex and sexual relationships. And, she maintains, these contracts need to deal with two issues – namely, duration and exclusivity/monogamy.

For example, in her world, a contract in this area could be – “this is just for tonight, and I am a polygamous or polyamorous person”. That would be one extreme, and, if both partners truly accept that arrangement, she sees no harm in it. The other end of the spectrum is the contract of marriage, where the term is “the rest of my life”, and monogamy is the agreement with regard to the exclusivity portion. Where things get messy is when one of the partners makes an assumption that is different from the understanding of the other partner. Sex without a contract very often leads to this kind of confusion.

As we evolve, I believe that versions of rape (the most brutal and basic level of sex without a contract) such as those allegedly perpetrated by M. Strauss-Kahn, are going to become increasingly less tolerated. In the past, the patriarchal systems of governance and jurisprudence would often turn a blind eye to these issues, primarily because (I believe) the unacknowledged belief operating in these institutions was that women have less value than men.

Hopefully, as we men grow and evolve, we will come to have a greater respect for all women – all our sisters. But, to do so involves healing our own shadow selves, and freeing ourselves from the inner legacy of millennia of patriarchy and domination.

Most of us “use” one of two main strategies when we’re angry – we’re repress or suppress our anger, or we release it directly at the person or thing which triggered the feeling of anger. Reminder – suppressing is consciously “stuffing” a feeling, repressing it is something that has become so familiar and habitual that we are no longer conscious of doing it at all.

Neither of these two strategies works particularly well. The most common, “socially acceptable” strategy is either suppression or repression. This will have two negative effects – first it will be debilitating, both emotionally and physically, for the one experiencing the anger. Second, it will tend to “leak” out in ways of which we are not conscious – little snide “digs” at the other person, or, more subtly, just a feeling that we project and which poisons the atmosphere. We all feel anger coming at us, whether it’s overtly expressed or not.

Plus, anger unreleased and unexpressed becomes resentment, and to quote Carrie Fisher, “Holding resentment is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die”. So, we poison ourselves with anger which is inwardly held.

This strategy can also lead to something a therapist friend of mine calls “gunnysacking”. That’s where we carry a large, imaginary emotional gunnysack around with us, and into which we put every little bit of anger we experience, while showing no outward sign of it. When the gunnysack is full, we will then use the whole thing to bludgeon the other person. This is the source of those explosions from “out of the blue” that we sometimes experience from people.

Releasing our anger without restraint is the other common response – for example, yelling at the object of our anger, or perhaps even physically lashing out. While this is often seen as “healthier” for the person who is angry, it can be extremely unpleasant and traumatic for the recipient, and even lead to post-traumatic stress disorder. This is something I’m still dealing with, as a legacy of the many abusive exchanges I engaged in with my father when growing up.

Ever since the late sixties, there has been a movement within the psychological profession that has held that “getting the anger out” is helpful. But more recent research has shown this not to be true. Techniques such as deep breathing, or tensing and relaxing muscles, have been proven to be much more effective in calming angry feelings than things like primal scream therapy, or hitting a pillow.

This has always made intuitive sense to me, and now, with my study of “new thought”, it makes even more sense. I believe that one of the metaphysical laws is “what you focus on expands”. So, if you keep focusing on your anger, it’s going to keep expanding…

So, next time you get really angry, take several long, slow, deep breaths before doing anything else. I’ll be breathing along with you…

Seriously though, I’ve been struggling with this for years, and it doesn’t seem to get much easier.

I recently “attended” a teleconference about this given by the NVC Academy (http://nvctraining.com/) that I found very enlightening.

For those not aware of it, Non-Violent Communication, or NVC, is a “language” or way of communicating developed by psychologist Marshall Rosenberg. It’s a language based on feelings, and universal human needs.

One of the biggest things I learned in the class is the fact that every habit serves to meet some need, or constellation of needs, in us. For example, one woman in the class was interested in quitting smoking. The trainer had her identify what basic human needs were met by her smoking. They were powerful – things like belonging, autonomy (from her parents when she started smoking) and relaxation.

The trainer encouraged her to identify ways in which those needs could be met in other ways. For example, the need for relaxation could be met by meditation, or breathing deeply, or some sort of exercise. The need for belonging could be met by calling a friend. Etcetera…

For me, the habit that is hardest to shift (“break” feels a bit violent to me) is the one of my morning routine. “Normally”, I would turn on my computer, make my “to do” list for the day, and launch my email program. So I immediately launch into my day of “shoulds” and “have to’s”. The emails start flooding in, and I start responding.

The problem with this for me is that I have a commitment to myself to do things that support my transition from “making a living” to living a life of meaning. That means, for example, doing things like this to support my Lifetools career, and a life of meaning – which for me, means helping people heal and grow, and disseminating what I regard as positive information.

So, if I just launch into the business tasks associated with my “day job”, I’m not keeping my commitment to myself, and I end up feeling sad and guilty, and full of regret.

So now, my new “routine” is this. First thing after breakfast, I practice my flute – even if it’s only for ten minutes. Then I write in my journal. Then I write something in my blog. So, right now (write now?) it’s Monday morning, and I’m feeling the discomfort of shifting a habit.

From working with my therapist, I know that this habit comes, essentially from trying to please my father, something which is rationally absurd, since he’s been dead for 12 years, and I had little contact with him before that. But, he lives on in my consciousness, as most of our parents live on in most of our minds. You see, the kind of work I do at the moment to “make a living” – owner of a small marketing communications business – would have brought approval from my Dad. The other work Lifetools and music (my calling)that I’m moving towards, would have not.

And here’s a confession. It’s now Thursday morning, and I skipped Tuesday and Wednesday. Slippery things, habits – there’s always the temptation to “slip into something more comfortable”.

Oh well, time to remake the commitment continue creating this new habit.

Also, what I call “the second law of metaphysics” is the assertion that “What you focus on expands”. So, for example, if you are focusing on what you are grateful for, more of the things that engender gratitude will show up in your life. Conversely, if you’re constantly focusing on the things that aren’t working (financial struggle, for example) then more of that will show up too…

And now there’s scientific evidence that our moods also affect the way we look at things, which, by inference, means that our moods affect the things we look at, too…

A recent issue of Science Daily contained a report on a University of Toronto study provides the first direct evidence that our mood literally changes the way our visual system filters our perceptual experience — suggesting that seeing the world through rose-coloured glasses is more biological reality than metaphor.

“Good and bad moods literally change the way our visual cortex operates and how we see,” says Adam Anderson, a U of T professor of psychology. “Specifically our study shows that when in a positive mood, our visual cortex takes in more information, while negative moods result in tunnel vision”.

The U of T team used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine how our visual cortex processes sensory information when in good, bad, and neutral moods. They found that donning the rose-colored glasses of a good mood is less about the color and more about the expansiveness of the view.

The researchers first showed subjects a series images designed to generate a good, bad or neutral mood. Subjects were then shown a composite image,featuring a face in the centre, surrounded by “place” images, such as a house. To focus their attention on the central image, subjects were asked to identify the gender of the person¹s face. When in a bad mood, the subjects
did not process the images of places in the surrounding background.

However, when viewing the same images in a good mood, they actually took in more information — they saw the central image of the face as well as the surrounding pictures of houses. The discovery came from looking at specific parts of the brain — the parahippocampal “place area” — that are known to process places and how this area relates to primary visual cortical responses, the first part of the cortex related to vision.

“Under positive moods, people may process a greater number of objects in their environment, which sounds like a good thing, but it also can result in distraction,” says Taylor Schmitz, a graduate student of Anderson’s and lead author of the study. “Good moods enhance the literal size of the window through which we see the world. The upside of this is that we can see things from a more global, or integrative perspective. The downside is that this can lead to distraction on critical tasks that require narrow focus, such as operating dangerous machinery or airport screening of passenger baggage. Bad moods, on the other hand, may keep us more narrowly focused, preventing us from integrating information outside of our direct attentional
focus.”

Personally, I think this is fascinating stuff. I think it also relates to the “negative spiral” effect we experience when in a bad mood.

When we’re in a bad mood, our focus is literally, and metaphorically narrower, so we’re less likely to experience anything in our periphery that could create a more positive state in us. And so the feedback loop continues. We feel bad, we think negative thoughts, we see less, and we feel bad all over again.

Also, according to Esther and Jerry Hicks, authors of the Abraham material, one of the tenets of “the law of attraction” is that the more we are able to align our vibration and our state of being with the flow of well-being constantly flowing from Source, the better we will resonate with that which we wish to attract, and thus be more “magnetic” to it.

So, what are you looking at right now? Is it making you feel better or worse?

Maybe it’s time to put on the rose-colored glasses. Hey, it couldn’t hurt…

“God is Love”. This thought/idea cuts through all the theological theorizing and gives us a simple criterion for assessing whether we are acting in a spiritual manner.

So, the question, “is this a loving act?” is a useful one to use when we hear a news item about a spiritual or religious group doing something or other. So, feeding homeless refugees may be a loving act, but beating up an abortion doctor probably isn’t. Likewise, stoning an allegedly adulterous woman under Shariah doesn’t meet the criterion of spirituality, nor do the Crusades against Muslims.

The other question I find useful is “what would love do?”. I try to remember this one, especially when I’m upset for any reason, but it’s easier said than done.

The other thing that most spiritual teachers don’t seem to talk about much is that it’s virtually impossible to feel (and thus to be) loving when we are angry, or scared. So, in my opinion, tools that help bring us back to center, or to balance, are incredibly important. These include breathing exercises, looking at the thoughts that lie behind the reaction, and physical exercise.

In the long term, however, even these tools don’t go far (or deep) enough. The source of any upset is usually some wound that we sustained (or “created”) at some time in our past – usually our early childhood. When we’re upset, this wound is triggered, and we move into fear/hurt, which usually translates into anger. So, I believe that the only way to become truly loving, in all circumstances, is to heal our inner wounds.

Easier said than done, right? Absolutely. The traditional method of doing this is to go into psychotherapy, and I have nothing against the therapeutic professions (I’m in therapy again/now, and loving it). The only problem to me (as someone who has done years of therapy) is that most of the time, it seems slow to me.

And, therapy itself is changing. Many practitioners re including new techniques and technologies into their practices which identify and heal old wounds far more quickly than the traditional forms of “talk therapy”. That’s good news for those of us who want to get on with our healing and get happier.

The bottom line is that it’s easy to be loving when we’re feeling good, and our partner, companion, colleague or friend is feeling the same way. When either of us is tired, ill, frustrated, stressed, broke, or hungry, it’s not very easy at all.

Jesus said,“Love thy neighbor as thyself”. We’ve heard it so often that I think we forget to read it or hear it accurately. It’s the “…as thyself” part that I find interesting, and which doesn’t seem to get much airtime in traditional Christianity. Self-love, or self-care, is an integral part of any spiritual practice, I believe, and Christianity is no exception. It’s virtually impossible to truly love anyone else – especially not your enemy – if you can’t love yourself.

So, let’s remember the question…”what would love do?”. It’s helpful in bringing us back to our spiritual center.

My goal is to be “in love” all the time – with myself, with my wife, with my neighbor, with life, with my enemies, and with my cats. I’m nowhere near that goal, but I’m still enjoying the journey…

“Pick an Orgasm, Anny Orgasm”

“Make your rod staying!”

“Don’t let them take your home”

“Seex Without End”

“Do you need help falling in sleep…”

“Finally, Fit Into Those “Skinny Jeans” for the Winter Season”

“Sixty min. is all it takes to earn twenty grand in thirty days”

So far, we’ve got sex, shelter, money, and appearance. Most of them fit into the two most basic levels Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs.

Now, spammers, however you may feel about them, don’t send out messages that don’t work. So, what this says about us is that the messages that are most likely to get a response are those which address basic needs such as sex and survival. I find this just a little discouraging. Here we are, supposedly in the middle of the greatest expansion of human consciousness in human history, and all we seem able to think of are the most basic elements of our physical existence.

Actually, I must admit, when I’m not frustrated by the sheer volume of spam I get, that I actually find them quite entertaining. And, I find reading them with a thick, fake Russian accent helps make them even more amusing – especially when the grammar seems to fit the accent – such as “Make your rod staying!”, or “Do you need help falling in sleep…”. I must admit that falling in my sleep doesn’t sound that appealing – one is likely to wake up with all sorts of minor cuts and bruises…

And, I know that judging the level of enlightenment of my fellow humans is not going to do much for me, especially when I remind myself of the maxim that “all judgment is self-judgment”. I guess, when all is said and done, if we don’t have the basic stuff covered, it’s hard to think about the higher levels of our universal needs, such as self-actualization.

What if, however, we were to turn Maslow’s pyramid on its head, and posit that the most important human needs were in fact the ones at the top? That means that we would have to have a tremendous faith in the belief that, if we put our spirituality first, the universe, or God, will take care of our other needs.

My wife, Kate, and I just attended a seminar by a noted Jesus scholar, Stephen Patterson, entitled “Jesus Unfiltered”, and one of the things he pointed out was that what Jesus talked about was some pretty uncomfortable stuff for most of us. He basically said, if you’re serious about “the kingdom of heaven on earth”, forget about the material world –give it up, and come and follow me in practicing this radical spiritual path. And, especially, don’t worry about who your peers are, because they’re going to be thieves, beggars, prostitutes and tax-collectors. Now, in first-century Judea, apparently, these were some pretty rough characters, likely to steal your purse while you’re listening to what your teacher is saying.

Hmmm…how did we get from spam to Jesus? Oh yes, the hierarchy of needs…

Well, I’m not quite ready to give up my mortgage, and our cats, and our refrigerator full of food. I do, however, want to look at what things in my world tell me about myself – and that includes Spam…

This is the time when we all wake up with the earth, whether we feel it or not. It’s time to tune in to what Dylan Thomas called, “…the force that through the green fuse drives the flower.”

I think it’s appropriate, on this earth day, to look at our relationship with the earth and the natural world. Inidigenous people all over the world have always regarded the earth as a source of nourishment — not just of our bodies, but of our spirits and our souls as well.

So, how aware are we of the rhythms and cycles of the earth, and their effect on us? The different angle of the sun’s light filtering through our windows as the world turns on its axis? The change in temperature, the different sounds as birds and other animals change their behavior with the seasons?

My take on this is that this part of being awake — or part of our mindfulness practice, if you want to put it more formally. And, I also believe that this has great implications for the earth itself. The more aware we are of our natural world, its effect on us, and our effect on it, the harder it is do do things that are environmentally harmful. It just doesn’t feel right…

There are a number of factors in the way we currently live that make it challenging for us to be in tune with the earth. The increasing technological sophistication we have (literally) at fingertips tends to keep us at a physical distance from nature. The increasing busyness of our lives means that it’s harder to take time to simply “be” in nature. And the increasing urbanization of the world’s population means that most of us are more out of touch with the earth than at any other time in our history.

There have been times when I’ve been so consumed with my thoughts, while driving around Sedona, that I will realize that I’m not even seeing the dramatic red rock country I’m driving through. This is akin to meditating, and realizing that one is lost in thought.

The other problem is that our understanding of the challenges facing the earth is not visceral enough — it’s too intellectual. Bless Al Gore for his slide show, and for the film, and, it could have been a lot more emotionally arresting, to say the least.

Photographic Artist Chris Jordan turns the statistics of consumerism into palpable (and powerful) images in his photo series. Jordan’s latest project, Running the Numbers: An American Self-Portrait, seeks to make tangible statistics about our country’s consumption that involve such large numbers that they are difficult to fully fathom on the page. “Our minds are just not wired to be ableto really comprehend and make meaning of, and feel, numbers that are that huge,” Jordan explains. “I think there’s this worldwide cultural craving for a more sensible approach to our consumption.”

For example, in “Running the Numbers,” Jordan recreates George Seurat’s famous painting “Sunday Afternoon on La Grande Jatte” using 106,000 aluminum cans, the number used in the US every thirty seconds. He’s got beautiful images of things like plastic bags, plastic bottles and batteries, all arranged in visually appealing ways, and masterfully shot.

It’s jaw-dropping stuff (go to http://www.chrisjordan.com/) and makes the staggering amount of waste we generate more “real” to us.

So, whatever your “schedule” today, and whatever the weather’s doing where you are, I encourage you to go outside, find a patch of earth that isn’t paved over, take off your shoes, and connect with your mother. If you think prayer makes a difference, say a prayer for the health of the earth, and for those of us who are misguidedly trashing her. I’ll join you…

As an immigrant (33 years ago) and recent naturalized citizen of the U.S., I’ve been confused for years about why “tax” is such a dirty word in American politics. We have the lowest tax rate of any developed country, and it shows. We don’t have much decent mass transit, our education system sucks, and our infrastructure is crumbling. And, don’t get me started on health care again!

In most industrialized countries, people pay higher taxes, but they get more for it. What’s wrong with universal health care, for example? Or an efficient, wide-reaching mass transit system. There are simply some things that don’t work that well as private enterprises. Take health care, for example. in my opinion, it’s absurd to have the profit motive enter into health care, and more importantly health insurance. If I’m sick, I’m unlikely to get health insurance, because I’m no longer a good risk. If I’m too sick to work, I won’t be able to pay the premiums in any case, so I won’t have any health insurance, and I won’t be able to get any treatment. It’s really a Kafkaesque system.

Let’s look at another area where private doesn’t really work — mass transit. All other industrialized countries have realized that it’s virtually impossible to have a rail system that makes a profit. Britain discovered that the hard way. OK, British Rail wasn’t the greatest before it was privatized, but it was better than Amtrak, now it’s more expensive than driving! Plus, none of the companies can agree on who needs to maintain and repair the track.

I guess I’m saying I’d rather pay slightly higher taxes and have universal health care, a decent infrastructure, good schools, better education, and effective mass transit.

There are some things (quite a few actually) that private enterprise is just not that well suited to do. As a businessperson myself, I know this. Businesses tend to have a shorter-term focus than governments, and they exist to make a profit. The profit motive often doesn’t translate well into supplying large-scale necessary services. That’s where government comes in.

And sometimes, they can actually do a pretty decent job with our tax money. Take the case of Medicare, where the administrative costs are approximately three percent of revenue. For private health care provider organizations, the costs are roughly ten times that — about thirty percent of revenue. And we complain that our health care costs keep going up!