Thanksgiving Day.
Sitting in the yard,
Drinking Coffee,
Late afternoon.
Bathed in brilliant sunshine,
Watching turkey vultures soar effortlessly on thermals.
Contentment.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Occupy Wall Street
Lots of news media coverage on the Occupy Wall Street protests. One has to wonder whether it can be a sustained effort, or if it is just a fad or the next new thing that lasts for a few months and then is forgotten. One also has to wonder whether it can shift from protest to influencing public policy.
In watching a lot of the coverage, it tends to go towards the idea that these people aren't "normal Americans" - that they are a bunch of socialists, or disorganized hippies, or even Nazis (I have actually heard that, and you don't really have to work too hard to guess which network that was on.......).
There is also a recurring theme that they are engaged in "Class Warfare", and that they want to take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor. As a Presidential Candidate recently said, if you are not rich, or working, it is YOUR fault, not the fault of Wall Street. Pretty interesting comments given the FACT that there are many more job applicants than there are available jobs.
Lastly, the idea that none of these protesters can really articulate what this is about, or that they don't really know what they are protesting for. It is true that there are those for whom this is the case. The media seems to be able to focus in laser-like on these people.
I think all of these ideas miss the point of the undercurrent of what these protests might really be about.
An idea that I got from William Greider several years ago in his book The Soul of Capitalism posits that we have ceded a lot of our "Self-Reliance" to big nameless, faceless organizations. This includes organizations that handle food distribution, fuel distribution, monetary distribution, logistics, infrastructure and a host of other things that it takes to survive in modern society.
When these systems are performing optimally, it is all transparent and not noticeable. When they are not performing optimally, or someone degrades the performance of the systems through greed or incompetence, that is when people try to start to think about looking in detail at the systems.
I believe these protests are about Rage. Impotence. Powerlessness. Insecurity. Fear. We've had to just take all of the things that have happened over the past 3 years.
No explanations, no apologies, no compensation. The people who did this to us are still working in the same places, making the same huge amounts of money, and now getting bonuses again, and for the most part they've never faced any kind of prosecution for what they've done.
Billions of dollars of wealth simply disappeared in a short period of time. Jobs and financial security disappeared, sometimes literally overnight. Homes were lost. Pensions were lost. While there has been minimal, incremental improvement, and statistically, at least for now the recession is over, a lot of those things have not improved in any large measure.
I believe these protests are about the inability to do anything when faced with a large, impersonal system, aided by it's protectors in Washington, that is not functioning optimally.
If you are one person sitting in your living room feeling the anger it is one thing. If you are one of thousands, that is quite another matter.
What fascinates me is a lot of reaction to the protests. A lot of people who are down on the protests and the protesters are people who've faced the same losses. They've faced same financial insecurity. The same impotence. The same fear. And, yet, they choose to face it stoically and without protest.
Why?
Why aren't we ALL not more angry about this?
In watching a lot of the coverage, it tends to go towards the idea that these people aren't "normal Americans" - that they are a bunch of socialists, or disorganized hippies, or even Nazis (I have actually heard that, and you don't really have to work too hard to guess which network that was on.......).
There is also a recurring theme that they are engaged in "Class Warfare", and that they want to take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor. As a Presidential Candidate recently said, if you are not rich, or working, it is YOUR fault, not the fault of Wall Street. Pretty interesting comments given the FACT that there are many more job applicants than there are available jobs.
Lastly, the idea that none of these protesters can really articulate what this is about, or that they don't really know what they are protesting for. It is true that there are those for whom this is the case. The media seems to be able to focus in laser-like on these people.
I think all of these ideas miss the point of the undercurrent of what these protests might really be about.
An idea that I got from William Greider several years ago in his book The Soul of Capitalism posits that we have ceded a lot of our "Self-Reliance" to big nameless, faceless organizations. This includes organizations that handle food distribution, fuel distribution, monetary distribution, logistics, infrastructure and a host of other things that it takes to survive in modern society.
When these systems are performing optimally, it is all transparent and not noticeable. When they are not performing optimally, or someone degrades the performance of the systems through greed or incompetence, that is when people try to start to think about looking in detail at the systems.
I believe these protests are about Rage. Impotence. Powerlessness. Insecurity. Fear. We've had to just take all of the things that have happened over the past 3 years.
No explanations, no apologies, no compensation. The people who did this to us are still working in the same places, making the same huge amounts of money, and now getting bonuses again, and for the most part they've never faced any kind of prosecution for what they've done.
Billions of dollars of wealth simply disappeared in a short period of time. Jobs and financial security disappeared, sometimes literally overnight. Homes were lost. Pensions were lost. While there has been minimal, incremental improvement, and statistically, at least for now the recession is over, a lot of those things have not improved in any large measure.
I believe these protests are about the inability to do anything when faced with a large, impersonal system, aided by it's protectors in Washington, that is not functioning optimally.
If you are one person sitting in your living room feeling the anger it is one thing. If you are one of thousands, that is quite another matter.
What fascinates me is a lot of reaction to the protests. A lot of people who are down on the protests and the protesters are people who've faced the same losses. They've faced same financial insecurity. The same impotence. The same fear. And, yet, they choose to face it stoically and without protest.
Why?
Why aren't we ALL not more angry about this?
Friday, August 5, 2011
Lately
Lately,
I've been wondering,
how we got from a guy walking the dusty roads of Palestine
and teaching,
some of the most perfect ethical teachings ever,
on how to be a holistic, loving human being,
to, what we have today.
Thousands and thousands of Christian Denominations.
Each of them saying
If you don't follow my "brand" of Christianity,
to the letter,
you are doomed to the fires of hell.
Christianity,
Fragmenting, in Schism, Dividing,
breaking apart at the seams.
They can't all be right.
They can't all be wrong.
One group not orthodox enough for another, so they start a new brand.
One group too orthodox for the other, so they start a new brand.
Cries of "heresy" and "apostasy" and "infidel" as routine as doing the laundry.
A lot of energy,
and words,
and thoughts,
expended.
Seemingly very little of it having anything to do with any of what that guy taught.
Meanwhile,
Those on the outside,
looking in to see,
if the teachings of that guy,
and the life of the Christian,
and the love Christians profess for each other and their fellow man is for real
wonder,
What the hell is going on?
I've been wondering,
how we got from a guy walking the dusty roads of Palestine
and teaching,
some of the most perfect ethical teachings ever,
on how to be a holistic, loving human being,
to, what we have today.
Thousands and thousands of Christian Denominations.
Each of them saying
If you don't follow my "brand" of Christianity,
to the letter,
you are doomed to the fires of hell.
Christianity,
Fragmenting, in Schism, Dividing,
breaking apart at the seams.
They can't all be right.
They can't all be wrong.
One group not orthodox enough for another, so they start a new brand.
One group too orthodox for the other, so they start a new brand.
Cries of "heresy" and "apostasy" and "infidel" as routine as doing the laundry.
A lot of energy,
and words,
and thoughts,
expended.
Seemingly very little of it having anything to do with any of what that guy taught.
Meanwhile,
Those on the outside,
looking in to see,
if the teachings of that guy,
and the life of the Christian,
and the love Christians profess for each other and their fellow man is for real
wonder,
What the hell is going on?
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Wow
Just went back and looked and saw that this blog has been inactive for over a year.
A lot has happened over that year. A lot of it seemed to be important at the time that it happened, and some of it still does, and some of it still is important and ongoing, but, I didn't really feel compelled to write about any of it.
Because, it seemed like it was the same tape playing over and over and over and over. Bad economic news. War. Veterans in trouble. More bad economic news. More war. More veterans in trouble.
Still don't really feel compelled to write too much. A lot of things are sad and depressing.
There are plenty of good writers who are detailing these problems. One more or less is really not going to make any difference to anyone.
The economy is still not very good, and we are still in two, no wait, three (or more depending on what you count as a "war" - predator drone attacks in Pakistan, etc) wars.
Washington seems COMPLETELY dysfunctional. There seems to be no leadership there. No creativity. No vision. No audacious thinking. No servant spirit, or real care for their constituents. Only arrogance, anger and raging incompetence.
A lot of what I said through the years I wrote this blog, I still believe, and a lot of it still rings true to me, but, a lot of it sounds kind of hyperbolic and stilted to me now. When I read it, it seems like a different person wrote it.
When I wrote, I wanted to write what I thought was true, and I wanted to write not from the standpoint of trying to not be sensational. For the most part, I think I accomplished that.
On the plus side, I'm still alive. Relatively healthy. Still employed (for today anyway). Still in my house. In a little better financial shape than I was a year ago.
Maybe I'll write something again next year at this time.
A lot has happened over that year. A lot of it seemed to be important at the time that it happened, and some of it still does, and some of it still is important and ongoing, but, I didn't really feel compelled to write about any of it.
Because, it seemed like it was the same tape playing over and over and over and over. Bad economic news. War. Veterans in trouble. More bad economic news. More war. More veterans in trouble.
Still don't really feel compelled to write too much. A lot of things are sad and depressing.
There are plenty of good writers who are detailing these problems. One more or less is really not going to make any difference to anyone.
The economy is still not very good, and we are still in two, no wait, three (or more depending on what you count as a "war" - predator drone attacks in Pakistan, etc) wars.
Washington seems COMPLETELY dysfunctional. There seems to be no leadership there. No creativity. No vision. No audacious thinking. No servant spirit, or real care for their constituents. Only arrogance, anger and raging incompetence.
A lot of what I said through the years I wrote this blog, I still believe, and a lot of it still rings true to me, but, a lot of it sounds kind of hyperbolic and stilted to me now. When I read it, it seems like a different person wrote it.
When I wrote, I wanted to write what I thought was true, and I wanted to write not from the standpoint of trying to not be sensational. For the most part, I think I accomplished that.
On the plus side, I'm still alive. Relatively healthy. Still employed (for today anyway). Still in my house. In a little better financial shape than I was a year ago.
Maybe I'll write something again next year at this time.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
This should be......
a HOLY SH*# moment for every American.
House Resolution 1553 (link and selected text below) states in part (introduced by Louie "Gomer Pyle" Gohmert):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:hr1553ih.txt.pdf
"Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel."
So, representatives of the United States Government are, in fact advocating a military strike on Iran.
Silly us, we all thought this option was "off the table" with the election of President Obama and the ushering out of President Bush and his crew who were eager to shoot at anything in the middle east that moved.
Of course, some will say, "well, the resolution applies to Israel attacking Iran, not the United States".
Any attack on Iran by Israel will be viewed on as an attack on Iran by the United States. If you don't understand and believe that, you are, essentially, a moron.
On paper, it looks great. Israel sends a few planes in, bombs some stuff, and it's all good - never mind that a one time military strike against multiple targets will not stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon if it wants one. In fact, an attack on Iran will most likely accelerate Iran's development of a nuclear weapon to have the deterrent to stave off future attacks.
Some believe that a military strike on Iran will rally the opposition into action to topple the regime. How likely does that sound? Most likely, an attack on Iran by the hated Israeli's will draw the opposition closer to the regime - maybe not permanently, but for a time. When a country is attacked by outsiders, most of the time, the response is to rally around your country and your sovereignty.
What are some other possible scenarios for Iranian responses? Every one by now knows that you cannot stand toe to toe with the United States. Every one by now KNOWS how to fight a war against the Americans (and, the Israeli's). It's called Asymmetric warfare. Most of these actions would most likely be taken by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.
One possible response would be stepped up attacks against US interests in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are countries where there are currently a lot of US personnel (already facing deadly insurgent campaigns), and these are countries which border Iran. Iran could easily flood these countries with stepped up attacks against US soldiers. Bill Lind (a prolific writer on current warfare issues, especially "fourth generation warfare") has argued that because of fragile supply lines that could be attacked, the Army in Iraq or Aghanistan could be literally cut off and destroyed.
Another possible response would be attacks on naval and oil interests in the Persian Gulf. For a snap shot of how that might look, it would be helpful to look at General Paul Van Riper's low tech asymmetric warfare actions as the "bad guy" in the Millennium Challenge 2002 wargame (there is a good chapter in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink on it), where he inflicted DEEP damage on the "good guys".
Attacks on oil interests would have a devastating effect on an already shaky global economy.
It's fairly interesting to me that this House Resolution is not a bigger story.
Have we gotten to the point where we are so ground down from war, and so numb that our leaders are just going to do whatever the hell they want, that we don't want to think through the ramifications of what can actually happen?
At the beginning of our protracted wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot of observers predicted bad things were going to happen - worst case scenarios. The worst case scenarios didn't necessarily happen, but 8+ years of continual war (which has severely gutted our military's capability), several thousand dead Americans, an untold number of Americans broken physically, emotionally, spiritually and financially has been bad enough, especially if you look at it in a "big picture" fashion.
The ramifications and fall out of both of these wars are starting to be really felt, and are going to be felt for a long time.
Eventually, our luck is going to run out and the worst case scenario IS going to happen.
House Resolution 1553 (link and selected text below) states in part (introduced by Louie "Gomer Pyle" Gohmert):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:hr1553ih.txt.pdf
"Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel."
So, representatives of the United States Government are, in fact advocating a military strike on Iran.
Silly us, we all thought this option was "off the table" with the election of President Obama and the ushering out of President Bush and his crew who were eager to shoot at anything in the middle east that moved.
Of course, some will say, "well, the resolution applies to Israel attacking Iran, not the United States".
Any attack on Iran by Israel will be viewed on as an attack on Iran by the United States. If you don't understand and believe that, you are, essentially, a moron.
On paper, it looks great. Israel sends a few planes in, bombs some stuff, and it's all good - never mind that a one time military strike against multiple targets will not stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon if it wants one. In fact, an attack on Iran will most likely accelerate Iran's development of a nuclear weapon to have the deterrent to stave off future attacks.
Some believe that a military strike on Iran will rally the opposition into action to topple the regime. How likely does that sound? Most likely, an attack on Iran by the hated Israeli's will draw the opposition closer to the regime - maybe not permanently, but for a time. When a country is attacked by outsiders, most of the time, the response is to rally around your country and your sovereignty.
What are some other possible scenarios for Iranian responses? Every one by now knows that you cannot stand toe to toe with the United States. Every one by now KNOWS how to fight a war against the Americans (and, the Israeli's). It's called Asymmetric warfare. Most of these actions would most likely be taken by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.
One possible response would be stepped up attacks against US interests in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are countries where there are currently a lot of US personnel (already facing deadly insurgent campaigns), and these are countries which border Iran. Iran could easily flood these countries with stepped up attacks against US soldiers. Bill Lind (a prolific writer on current warfare issues, especially "fourth generation warfare") has argued that because of fragile supply lines that could be attacked, the Army in Iraq or Aghanistan could be literally cut off and destroyed.
Another possible response would be attacks on naval and oil interests in the Persian Gulf. For a snap shot of how that might look, it would be helpful to look at General Paul Van Riper's low tech asymmetric warfare actions as the "bad guy" in the Millennium Challenge 2002 wargame (there is a good chapter in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink on it), where he inflicted DEEP damage on the "good guys".
Attacks on oil interests would have a devastating effect on an already shaky global economy.
It's fairly interesting to me that this House Resolution is not a bigger story.
Have we gotten to the point where we are so ground down from war, and so numb that our leaders are just going to do whatever the hell they want, that we don't want to think through the ramifications of what can actually happen?
At the beginning of our protracted wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot of observers predicted bad things were going to happen - worst case scenarios. The worst case scenarios didn't necessarily happen, but 8+ years of continual war (which has severely gutted our military's capability), several thousand dead Americans, an untold number of Americans broken physically, emotionally, spiritually and financially has been bad enough, especially if you look at it in a "big picture" fashion.
The ramifications and fall out of both of these wars are starting to be really felt, and are going to be felt for a long time.
Eventually, our luck is going to run out and the worst case scenario IS going to happen.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Emerson
I have spent more than a year studying the writings and the life of Ralph Waldo Emerson (since the end of December 2008). I have read a a lot his work and I have read a lot of biographical information on him.
I read that a lot scholars don't think his work was "systematic". I believe that his work was very systematic. I think he was one of the first systems thinkers. I believe he was an early person successful in looking at the whole systems and the interconnectedness of things.
A lot of people think that Thoreau eclipsed Emerson both in writing ability and in fame. While I view Thoreau as a brilliant writer, I view Emerson as being equally as brilliant.
I think Thoreau is for the young and idealistic, and Emerson, while still very idealistic is for the mature, and for those who've been through a bit of life.
I told a friend awhile back that I'd like to be able to write like Ralph Waldo Emerson. He said "who wouldn't".
But, I don't think he got my meaning. I'm not talking about writing as well as Ralph Waldo Emerson - I just don't think anyone could write that well again. I certainly don't believe that in five life times my writing could ever be that good.
I'm talking about writing LIKE him.
Writing about what is important. How to best live a good life. Writing about how all of us are interconnected. The search for God. That kind of thing.
Not so much about specific events (like health care reform, or the wars, etc), but about life.
When you read Emerson's writing, he doesn't usually talk about specific events. Certainly there were some big events in his life, most notably the Civil War and Slavery, and a whole lot of personal tragedy.
Emerson writes not specifically about events a lot of the time - you know the events are happening in the background because you know the history.
The events certainly must be on his mind, and they certainly must be influencing him.
There are always going to be events. One hundred years from now, the events that we have fretted over, and spent so much time thinking about and arguing about (sometimes with a vehemence that borders on hatred) are going to be something for the history books, and something for the people who come after us to study.
The people then will have all new issues.
But, the big questions will always be there no matter the events. In fact, sometimes I think believing in the importance of the events keep us from asking the bigger, important questions. We focus on the events, and think the events to be the important things, and not the questions.
We forget to keep asking the questions. What is the meaning of life? What is my purpose? Am I doing the right things? How can I be happy? Is being happy the most important thing, or is it living a good life? What does living a "good life" mean?
All of these and more.
A lot of the time over the past year, I feel like being able to dip into Emerson kept me sane and grounded.
It certainly was better for my psyche than anything Fox News, MSNBC or anyone else had to say.
I'll close with one of my favorite Emerson quotes, from his brilliant essay Self-Reliance:
"These roses under my window make no reference to former roses or to better ones; they are for what they are; they exist with God today. There is no time to them. There is simply the rose; it is perfect in every moment of its existence."
Emerson goes on to say:
"But man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time"
I read that a lot scholars don't think his work was "systematic". I believe that his work was very systematic. I think he was one of the first systems thinkers. I believe he was an early person successful in looking at the whole systems and the interconnectedness of things.
A lot of people think that Thoreau eclipsed Emerson both in writing ability and in fame. While I view Thoreau as a brilliant writer, I view Emerson as being equally as brilliant.
I think Thoreau is for the young and idealistic, and Emerson, while still very idealistic is for the mature, and for those who've been through a bit of life.
I told a friend awhile back that I'd like to be able to write like Ralph Waldo Emerson. He said "who wouldn't".
But, I don't think he got my meaning. I'm not talking about writing as well as Ralph Waldo Emerson - I just don't think anyone could write that well again. I certainly don't believe that in five life times my writing could ever be that good.
I'm talking about writing LIKE him.
Writing about what is important. How to best live a good life. Writing about how all of us are interconnected. The search for God. That kind of thing.
Not so much about specific events (like health care reform, or the wars, etc), but about life.
When you read Emerson's writing, he doesn't usually talk about specific events. Certainly there were some big events in his life, most notably the Civil War and Slavery, and a whole lot of personal tragedy.
Emerson writes not specifically about events a lot of the time - you know the events are happening in the background because you know the history.
The events certainly must be on his mind, and they certainly must be influencing him.
There are always going to be events. One hundred years from now, the events that we have fretted over, and spent so much time thinking about and arguing about (sometimes with a vehemence that borders on hatred) are going to be something for the history books, and something for the people who come after us to study.
The people then will have all new issues.
But, the big questions will always be there no matter the events. In fact, sometimes I think believing in the importance of the events keep us from asking the bigger, important questions. We focus on the events, and think the events to be the important things, and not the questions.
We forget to keep asking the questions. What is the meaning of life? What is my purpose? Am I doing the right things? How can I be happy? Is being happy the most important thing, or is it living a good life? What does living a "good life" mean?
All of these and more.
A lot of the time over the past year, I feel like being able to dip into Emerson kept me sane and grounded.
It certainly was better for my psyche than anything Fox News, MSNBC or anyone else had to say.
I'll close with one of my favorite Emerson quotes, from his brilliant essay Self-Reliance:
"These roses under my window make no reference to former roses or to better ones; they are for what they are; they exist with God today. There is no time to them. There is simply the rose; it is perfect in every moment of its existence."
Emerson goes on to say:
"But man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time"
Sunday, April 4, 2010
The Church
I write this on Easter Sunday, 2010.
I have been thinking about my stormy relation to the Roman Catholic church, which I joined in 2003 for quite some time.
As a lifelong Protestant (Lutheran) prior to my joining the church, I have struggled with the hierarchical nature of the church almost since day one. I don't know that I'll ever resolve that struggle from an emotional or an intellectual level.
I cannot defend what happened now, nor can I defend what happened shortly before I joined in 2003 (the sexual abuse scandals that rocked the Archdiocese of Boston). I cannot try to defend the Vatican or Pope Benedict XVI or any Bishop involved. In my opinion, they show themselves sometimes to be so far out of touch with what the average Catholic is thinking, and the teachings of Christ, I just cannot believe it.
All I can do on this Easter Sunday is to continue to do what the Apostle Paul instructed me to do in Philippians 2:12-13: "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure"
What drew me to the church was not the Vatican, or the Pope, or the Magesterium, or the hierarchy, or anything like that.
What drew me to the church were prophetic, hard working men and women. Some of them known, some of them not well known. Some of them Saints, and some of them on their way to being saints. Some of them, not ever destined to be saints - at least within the formal canonization process of the church.
People like Saint Francis of Assisi. Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin. Saint Maximilian Kolbe of Auschwitz. Franz Jaggerstatter of Austria. Thomas Merton. The Patron Saint of my Parish, Saint Therese of Lisieux. Mother Teresa of Calcutta. And so many more, including good people I've met in my faith journey.
I could post the reasons why I was attracted to these people's lives and actions, and how that related to my finding a home in the church. But each person has to find these people for themselves.
The people mentioned above, and the work they did through the ages was important. Their examples helped me to enhance my faith, and gave me good examples of how to live out my faith. But, they didn't do it for themselves. They did it for what the church is really about. The central figure of church history. Jesus Christ.
He is the true focus of my faith. I hereby reaffirm that on Easter Day 2010.
Last night I went to the Easter Vigil at my parish. The Easter Vigil is traditionally the Mass where those who have been preparing to enter the church are brought into the church. Last night we had one person come into the church. He was baptized last night, confirmed, and had his first communion.
As I looked around at the people, people who I know, people who I worship with each week, each of us watching a person come into the church, I realized that THIS was what it was about.
Each of us living our faith in a community of faith. Struggling to deal with the sin and ugliness of the world, and sometimes the sin and ugliness of those who are entrusted to be our leaders and teachers in the faith. Being perplexed about it, being angry about it, and sometimes being incredibly sad about it. But also dealing with beauty, and the greatness of the faith.
It is a gift in having those rare moments like last night, where you get a sense of what it is all about.
I realize that my words here are grossly inadequate to explain it all, so I'll close with a great quote from Dorothy Day:
"We have all known the long loneliness, and we have found that the answer is community."
I have been thinking about my stormy relation to the Roman Catholic church, which I joined in 2003 for quite some time.
As a lifelong Protestant (Lutheran) prior to my joining the church, I have struggled with the hierarchical nature of the church almost since day one. I don't know that I'll ever resolve that struggle from an emotional or an intellectual level.
I cannot defend what happened now, nor can I defend what happened shortly before I joined in 2003 (the sexual abuse scandals that rocked the Archdiocese of Boston). I cannot try to defend the Vatican or Pope Benedict XVI or any Bishop involved. In my opinion, they show themselves sometimes to be so far out of touch with what the average Catholic is thinking, and the teachings of Christ, I just cannot believe it.
All I can do on this Easter Sunday is to continue to do what the Apostle Paul instructed me to do in Philippians 2:12-13: "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure"
What drew me to the church was not the Vatican, or the Pope, or the Magesterium, or the hierarchy, or anything like that.
What drew me to the church were prophetic, hard working men and women. Some of them known, some of them not well known. Some of them Saints, and some of them on their way to being saints. Some of them, not ever destined to be saints - at least within the formal canonization process of the church.
People like Saint Francis of Assisi. Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin. Saint Maximilian Kolbe of Auschwitz. Franz Jaggerstatter of Austria. Thomas Merton. The Patron Saint of my Parish, Saint Therese of Lisieux. Mother Teresa of Calcutta. And so many more, including good people I've met in my faith journey.
I could post the reasons why I was attracted to these people's lives and actions, and how that related to my finding a home in the church. But each person has to find these people for themselves.
The people mentioned above, and the work they did through the ages was important. Their examples helped me to enhance my faith, and gave me good examples of how to live out my faith. But, they didn't do it for themselves. They did it for what the church is really about. The central figure of church history. Jesus Christ.
He is the true focus of my faith. I hereby reaffirm that on Easter Day 2010.
Last night I went to the Easter Vigil at my parish. The Easter Vigil is traditionally the Mass where those who have been preparing to enter the church are brought into the church. Last night we had one person come into the church. He was baptized last night, confirmed, and had his first communion.
As I looked around at the people, people who I know, people who I worship with each week, each of us watching a person come into the church, I realized that THIS was what it was about.
Each of us living our faith in a community of faith. Struggling to deal with the sin and ugliness of the world, and sometimes the sin and ugliness of those who are entrusted to be our leaders and teachers in the faith. Being perplexed about it, being angry about it, and sometimes being incredibly sad about it. But also dealing with beauty, and the greatness of the faith.
It is a gift in having those rare moments like last night, where you get a sense of what it is all about.
I realize that my words here are grossly inadequate to explain it all, so I'll close with a great quote from Dorothy Day:
"We have all known the long loneliness, and we have found that the answer is community."
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Social Justice
I have written this blog for almost 3 years.
I have very rarely commented on people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. I have made general comments, especially as to my belief that "media" like this is harmful to the solving of complex problems and to the tenor of reasoned debate in this country.
Once in awhile though, something comes along that is so fundamentally flawed, so egregiously wrong that it must be challenged.
That something is Glenn Beck's assertion that churches that preach "Social Justice" are really only using code words for Communism and Nazism.
When I read about this, and heard about this, I could only shake my head. Criticism of him is coming in from all kinds of different places - and rightly so.
But, in thinking about it, I think a lot of people believe exactly the same way that Beck does about "Social Justice" and helping the poor. To a lot of people, Christians included, to be poor is to be weak and morally flawed. If you are poor, it's YOUR fault.
First, to define "social justice". Remember, Beck says if your church or priest preaches Social Justice, you are supposed to run away - that that really means embracing Communism or Nazism.
This is an excellent excerpt from "Communities of Salt and Light: Reflections on the Social Mission of the Parish" on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website:
www.usccb.org/sdwp/saltandlight.shtml
The introduction of the report has the following to say about Social Justice:
"One of the most encouraging signs of the gospel at work in our midst is the vitality and quality of social justice ministries in our parishes. Across the country, countless local communities of faith are serving those in need, working for justice, and sharing our social teaching as never before. Millions of parishioners are applying the gospel and church teaching in their own families, work, and communities. More and more, the social justice dimensions of our faith are moving from the fringes of parishes to become an integral part of local Catholic life."
Reverend Jim Wallis of Sojourners has logged a lot of time on CNN, MSNBC, etc over the past few weeks answering questions about Beck's comments and the wrongness of them. Reverend Wallis has talked about a time where they cut out with scissors or a knife all of the passages in the Bible that relate to the care of the poor. After the completion of this task, so much of the bible was gone, that from a structural standpoint it barely held together.
I personally do not see how you can reconcile the rapacious, winner take all, consumer driven, "me first" capitalism that a lot of us seem to be living (including those in the churches - and among those, I count myself) with passages like Matthew 25:31-46 which culminates with Jesus teaching in verse 45: "He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me."
Now, of course there will be those people who say that I didn't interpret the scripture correctly, or missed the true message, or whatever. That may be so, and I take full responsibility for that - but, to me, unlike a lot of bible verses, it seems pretty clear cut.
Take care of the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the ill, and those in prison.
It's interesting that when you get into early church history, after Jesus active ministry (Acts), you find that this type of taking care of each other STILL existed. Acts 2:44-45 says:
"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need."
That seems pretty clear cut to me as well.
What happened along the way to change that?
No more to say really. It isn't Communism or Nazism, It isn't something I made up. Or gleaned from Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto.
It's the Gospel, and it's there for anyone to read if they care to.
I'll let the Prophet Micah close it out:
"What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah 6:8)
I have very rarely commented on people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. I have made general comments, especially as to my belief that "media" like this is harmful to the solving of complex problems and to the tenor of reasoned debate in this country.
Once in awhile though, something comes along that is so fundamentally flawed, so egregiously wrong that it must be challenged.
That something is Glenn Beck's assertion that churches that preach "Social Justice" are really only using code words for Communism and Nazism.
When I read about this, and heard about this, I could only shake my head. Criticism of him is coming in from all kinds of different places - and rightly so.
But, in thinking about it, I think a lot of people believe exactly the same way that Beck does about "Social Justice" and helping the poor. To a lot of people, Christians included, to be poor is to be weak and morally flawed. If you are poor, it's YOUR fault.
First, to define "social justice". Remember, Beck says if your church or priest preaches Social Justice, you are supposed to run away - that that really means embracing Communism or Nazism.
This is an excellent excerpt from "Communities of Salt and Light: Reflections on the Social Mission of the Parish" on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website:
www.usccb.org/sdwp/saltandlight.shtml
The introduction of the report has the following to say about Social Justice:
"One of the most encouraging signs of the gospel at work in our midst is the vitality and quality of social justice ministries in our parishes. Across the country, countless local communities of faith are serving those in need, working for justice, and sharing our social teaching as never before. Millions of parishioners are applying the gospel and church teaching in their own families, work, and communities. More and more, the social justice dimensions of our faith are moving from the fringes of parishes to become an integral part of local Catholic life."
Reverend Jim Wallis of Sojourners has logged a lot of time on CNN, MSNBC, etc over the past few weeks answering questions about Beck's comments and the wrongness of them. Reverend Wallis has talked about a time where they cut out with scissors or a knife all of the passages in the Bible that relate to the care of the poor. After the completion of this task, so much of the bible was gone, that from a structural standpoint it barely held together.
I personally do not see how you can reconcile the rapacious, winner take all, consumer driven, "me first" capitalism that a lot of us seem to be living (including those in the churches - and among those, I count myself) with passages like Matthew 25:31-46 which culminates with Jesus teaching in verse 45: "He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me."
Now, of course there will be those people who say that I didn't interpret the scripture correctly, or missed the true message, or whatever. That may be so, and I take full responsibility for that - but, to me, unlike a lot of bible verses, it seems pretty clear cut.
Take care of the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the ill, and those in prison.
It's interesting that when you get into early church history, after Jesus active ministry (Acts), you find that this type of taking care of each other STILL existed. Acts 2:44-45 says:
"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need."
That seems pretty clear cut to me as well.
What happened along the way to change that?
No more to say really. It isn't Communism or Nazism, It isn't something I made up. Or gleaned from Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto.
It's the Gospel, and it's there for anyone to read if they care to.
I'll let the Prophet Micah close it out:
"What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah 6:8)
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Suffering
If one part suffers (talking about the body of Christ), all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy (1 Corinthians 12:26).
Usually when I am compelled to write here it is because something I have read, or heard has jolted me.
The above line from 1 Corinthians jolted me last night at mass, as did this part of the Gospel (Luke 4: 17-21)
"He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring glad tidings to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.
Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down,
and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him.
He said to them,
“Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.” .
We had a visiting Priest last night, and he was with Food For The Poor (www.foodforthepoor.org/). As he said, he was there to beg on behalf of the world's poor children.
The readings were not picked to coincide with his visit (he goes to a different church every week and has to preach whatever the weekly lectionary says), the reading was part of the normal weekly lectionary.
His stories were obviously calculated to tug at the heart and purse strings, which they should have, and, in fact, they did.
For example, he told of a Jamaican mother whose 3 year old died of diarrhea from a water borne disease. The baby couldn't be saved because she couldn't afford a $3.00 jug of pedialyte.
Food For the Poor's area of operation is the Caribbean basin. Obviously the place in the news most lately is in that area - Haiti.
As Father Greg pointed out, Haiti was desperately poor BEFORE the earthquake. He said that 1 out of every 5 children there die of hunger and other things. 1 out of every 5. That should shock us, but I think a lot of times there is so much pain and suffering in the world it does not.
Which brings me to what unsettled me about 1 Corinthians 12:26.
First, it should be said that the response to the earthquake in Haiti has been generous. People have been giving their time and money in large amounts, and that's to be commended.
But, how do we account for a lot of the inaction on the continual misery and suffering prior to January 12th, the day the earthquake happened?
I'm not saying that I'm any better or any worse than anyone else at grasping this or doing anything about it, it just disturbs me. The passage is very clear - If ONE part suffers ALL the parts suffer with it.
That is so impossibly deep and heavy, I can't even start to get my mind around it. I think a lot of the time when a lot of us Christians think about "the Body of Christ", we are thinking about our own local churches, or the people that we know and deal with in our churches on a weekly basis.
But, I don't think that's what this is talking about. I think it literally tells us that if one part suffers, we all should be suffering. A long time ago, when people were insulated, and were not exposed to a large part of the rest of the world, this was probably a little easier.
But, now, we can see the horror from Port Au Prince and other places. What excuse do we have of not knowing of the suffering of our brothers and sisters all over the world?
Stories have been told recently about Christians in Haiti doing the best that they can (in some cases sharing their meager possessions) for their fellow countrymen.
To me, this is humbling and very unsettling.
One point to continually ponder - what does it mean to "suffer" with all the parts of the body of Christ?
How deep are we supposed to go in that suffering? A few, like Mother Teresa and Dorothy Day were called to go all the way. Leaving all they had behind and going to live day to day, year after year with the poor.
But, for the rest of us, how deep are we supposed to go? That is a question that has disturbed me, and a question that will continue to disturb me.
Usually when I am compelled to write here it is because something I have read, or heard has jolted me.
The above line from 1 Corinthians jolted me last night at mass, as did this part of the Gospel (Luke 4: 17-21)
"He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring glad tidings to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.
Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down,
and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him.
He said to them,
“Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.” .
We had a visiting Priest last night, and he was with Food For The Poor (www.foodforthepoor.org/). As he said, he was there to beg on behalf of the world's poor children.
The readings were not picked to coincide with his visit (he goes to a different church every week and has to preach whatever the weekly lectionary says), the reading was part of the normal weekly lectionary.
His stories were obviously calculated to tug at the heart and purse strings, which they should have, and, in fact, they did.
For example, he told of a Jamaican mother whose 3 year old died of diarrhea from a water borne disease. The baby couldn't be saved because she couldn't afford a $3.00 jug of pedialyte.
Food For the Poor's area of operation is the Caribbean basin. Obviously the place in the news most lately is in that area - Haiti.
As Father Greg pointed out, Haiti was desperately poor BEFORE the earthquake. He said that 1 out of every 5 children there die of hunger and other things. 1 out of every 5. That should shock us, but I think a lot of times there is so much pain and suffering in the world it does not.
Which brings me to what unsettled me about 1 Corinthians 12:26.
First, it should be said that the response to the earthquake in Haiti has been generous. People have been giving their time and money in large amounts, and that's to be commended.
But, how do we account for a lot of the inaction on the continual misery and suffering prior to January 12th, the day the earthquake happened?
I'm not saying that I'm any better or any worse than anyone else at grasping this or doing anything about it, it just disturbs me. The passage is very clear - If ONE part suffers ALL the parts suffer with it.
That is so impossibly deep and heavy, I can't even start to get my mind around it. I think a lot of the time when a lot of us Christians think about "the Body of Christ", we are thinking about our own local churches, or the people that we know and deal with in our churches on a weekly basis.
But, I don't think that's what this is talking about. I think it literally tells us that if one part suffers, we all should be suffering. A long time ago, when people were insulated, and were not exposed to a large part of the rest of the world, this was probably a little easier.
But, now, we can see the horror from Port Au Prince and other places. What excuse do we have of not knowing of the suffering of our brothers and sisters all over the world?
Stories have been told recently about Christians in Haiti doing the best that they can (in some cases sharing their meager possessions) for their fellow countrymen.
To me, this is humbling and very unsettling.
One point to continually ponder - what does it mean to "suffer" with all the parts of the body of Christ?
How deep are we supposed to go in that suffering? A few, like Mother Teresa and Dorothy Day were called to go all the way. Leaving all they had behind and going to live day to day, year after year with the poor.
But, for the rest of us, how deep are we supposed to go? That is a question that has disturbed me, and a question that will continue to disturb me.
Friday, December 25, 2009
On Retreat, Holy Cross Abbey, 09OCT06, Tuesday AM
It's been awhile since I posted any retreat notes. I meant to post them right away. Don't know if it's even a good thing to do to post them at this late date.
09OCT06 (AM Tuesday): At Mass this AM the Gospel reading was Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42). Martha was upset because Mary wouldn’t help.
Jesus said “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things”
Me too. All of them come to me being here – being away from work, family, etc. and felling a little guilty about getting to be here. Thinking about all who cannot.
Then Jesus says “There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her”
My prayer for today is that I focus on the ONE thing I came here to do. No thoughts of what my future may hold.
Just today.
“Do not worry about tomorrow, tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil” (Matthew 6:34)
These are words that have meant a lot to me. They are hard – I have a tendency to worry. They are hard but comforting.
It is also interesting that prefacing this is the verse that says “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides (Matthew 6:35). More hard words.
I can confidently say that I never do this (seek first his kingdom). Instead I just worry, worry, worry, where it’s all going to come from.
09OCT06 (AM Tuesday): At Mass this AM the Gospel reading was Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42). Martha was upset because Mary wouldn’t help.
Jesus said “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things”
Me too. All of them come to me being here – being away from work, family, etc. and felling a little guilty about getting to be here. Thinking about all who cannot.
Then Jesus says “There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her”
My prayer for today is that I focus on the ONE thing I came here to do. No thoughts of what my future may hold.
Just today.
“Do not worry about tomorrow, tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil” (Matthew 6:34)
These are words that have meant a lot to me. They are hard – I have a tendency to worry. They are hard but comforting.
It is also interesting that prefacing this is the verse that says “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides (Matthew 6:35). More hard words.
I can confidently say that I never do this (seek first his kingdom). Instead I just worry, worry, worry, where it’s all going to come from.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
On Retreat, Holy Cross Abbey, 09OCT05 (PM Monday)
09OCT05 (PM Monday): Most of the day spent getting here. Very pretty site. Retreat House beautiful, chapel beautiful, grounds beautiful. VERY quiet (except for mooing cows).
Hit the library first – not a lot of books – I found one – Engaging the world with Merton, On Retreat in Tom’s Hermitage by M. Basil Pennington. I’ve seen this book before but never bought it.
His goal for the retreat is:
“Some renewing experience of God and Contemplative Time. Some clarity on my vocational question”
Sounds a LOT like the first things I thought about when I came here, or first decided to do this.
Went to Vespers at 5:30, Compline at 7:30. Very interesting. Don’t know if I’ll make Vigils at 3:30AM. Certainly 7AM. I think as Pennington did in his retreat, I’ll build mine around the service times as well.
Was reading Matthew 5 before Compline. How good of a job do we as 21st Century Christians do with any of that? Anger? Adultery? Retaliation? Love of Enemies? Wow. Not too good. It’s all “in your face”.
“Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied”
I want to hunger and thirst for righteousness this week.
God protect my family this night.
Hit the library first – not a lot of books – I found one – Engaging the world with Merton, On Retreat in Tom’s Hermitage by M. Basil Pennington. I’ve seen this book before but never bought it.
His goal for the retreat is:
“Some renewing experience of God and Contemplative Time. Some clarity on my vocational question”
Sounds a LOT like the first things I thought about when I came here, or first decided to do this.
Went to Vespers at 5:30, Compline at 7:30. Very interesting. Don’t know if I’ll make Vigils at 3:30AM. Certainly 7AM. I think as Pennington did in his retreat, I’ll build mine around the service times as well.
Was reading Matthew 5 before Compline. How good of a job do we as 21st Century Christians do with any of that? Anger? Adultery? Retaliation? Love of Enemies? Wow. Not too good. It’s all “in your face”.
“Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied”
I want to hunger and thirst for righteousness this week.
God protect my family this night.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Economies and James
For the last month or so, the weekly Mass readings have focused on the book of James.
For me, this has been an especially gut wrenching time in the word - extremely humbling.
From the week of 6 September 2009 (James 2:1-5):
"My brothers and sisters, show no partiality as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. For if a man with gold rings and fine clothes comes into your assembly, and a poor person in shabby clothes also comes in,and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Sit here, please, ”while you say to the poor one, “Stand there, ” or “Sit at my feet, ”have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs?"
From the week of 13 September 2009 (James 2:14-18)
"If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,and one of you says to them,“Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well, ”but you do not give them the necessities of the body,what good is it? So also faith of itself,if it does not have works, is dead."
And, finally tonight, one of the most hard hitting pieces of scripture I think I've ever heard proclaimed (James 5:1-6):
"Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries. Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten,your gold and silver have corroded,and that corrosion will be a testimony against you;it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud;and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.You have lived on earth in luxury and pleasure; you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter.You have condemned; you have murdered the righteous one; he offers you no resistance."
To me, this last passage sounds a LOT like a description of a lot of people who worked on Wall Street and other places and made a lot of money (and then lost it all) off of innocent investors with risky behavior.
What's interesting to me is that people who are in the habit of interpreting scripture literally and cherry picking verses never seem to talk much about these types of passages. That is because it seems to me to be a scathing indictment of how churches treat people, how individual Christians treat people, and the last passage seems to be a scathing indictment of the type of "Capitalism" that we saw from Wall Street.
A lot of Christians have bought wholly into big ruthless Capitalism and rapacious consumer consumption. They can see no other way to do business, and if you talk badly about it you are known as being "anti-Capitalism".
They seem to believe that it is somehow an entitlement of living in this country. A lot of them even believe that it is a "Blessing of God" for our exceptionalism.
As I've been seeing this (and other passages of scripture that just seem to jump out at me) over the past month, I wonder if we're doing this right, or if we have the right attitude?
Are we, as the body of Christ doing enough? I know that there are a lot of churches and individual Christians who do a lot of good work on behalf of the poor. That should always be celebrated.
But, this seems to be talking more about an attitudinal thing, at least to me it does. It seems to be talking about integrating this attitude into your WHOLE LIFE.
I've talked before about how there is not different "boxes" for the economy - it's all one economy that ties together. I think the same can be said for our life in our faith - it's all one life. There is no "church box" or "work box" or "home box" or "politics box" - it should all be in the same box.
I know that I really don't have any place to talk about this, and the fact of the matter is that I'm no better at this than any of my fellow Christians, so I'm not smugly talking about it - but it has been hitting me very hard as we've been somewhat coldly talking about who is going to get health care, and who is not. I know Church going Christians who say, "well, I pay for my health care, why should I have to worry about anyone else's health care"?
It might just be my imagination, but James seems to have something to say about making distinctions like that.
For me, this has been an especially gut wrenching time in the word - extremely humbling.
From the week of 6 September 2009 (James 2:1-5):
"My brothers and sisters, show no partiality as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. For if a man with gold rings and fine clothes comes into your assembly, and a poor person in shabby clothes also comes in,and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Sit here, please, ”while you say to the poor one, “Stand there, ” or “Sit at my feet, ”have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs?"
From the week of 13 September 2009 (James 2:14-18)
"If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,and one of you says to them,“Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well, ”but you do not give them the necessities of the body,what good is it? So also faith of itself,if it does not have works, is dead."
And, finally tonight, one of the most hard hitting pieces of scripture I think I've ever heard proclaimed (James 5:1-6):
"Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries. Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten,your gold and silver have corroded,and that corrosion will be a testimony against you;it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud;and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.You have lived on earth in luxury and pleasure; you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter.You have condemned; you have murdered the righteous one; he offers you no resistance."
To me, this last passage sounds a LOT like a description of a lot of people who worked on Wall Street and other places and made a lot of money (and then lost it all) off of innocent investors with risky behavior.
What's interesting to me is that people who are in the habit of interpreting scripture literally and cherry picking verses never seem to talk much about these types of passages. That is because it seems to me to be a scathing indictment of how churches treat people, how individual Christians treat people, and the last passage seems to be a scathing indictment of the type of "Capitalism" that we saw from Wall Street.
A lot of Christians have bought wholly into big ruthless Capitalism and rapacious consumer consumption. They can see no other way to do business, and if you talk badly about it you are known as being "anti-Capitalism".
They seem to believe that it is somehow an entitlement of living in this country. A lot of them even believe that it is a "Blessing of God" for our exceptionalism.
As I've been seeing this (and other passages of scripture that just seem to jump out at me) over the past month, I wonder if we're doing this right, or if we have the right attitude?
Are we, as the body of Christ doing enough? I know that there are a lot of churches and individual Christians who do a lot of good work on behalf of the poor. That should always be celebrated.
But, this seems to be talking more about an attitudinal thing, at least to me it does. It seems to be talking about integrating this attitude into your WHOLE LIFE.
I've talked before about how there is not different "boxes" for the economy - it's all one economy that ties together. I think the same can be said for our life in our faith - it's all one life. There is no "church box" or "work box" or "home box" or "politics box" - it should all be in the same box.
I know that I really don't have any place to talk about this, and the fact of the matter is that I'm no better at this than any of my fellow Christians, so I'm not smugly talking about it - but it has been hitting me very hard as we've been somewhat coldly talking about who is going to get health care, and who is not. I know Church going Christians who say, "well, I pay for my health care, why should I have to worry about anyone else's health care"?
It might just be my imagination, but James seems to have something to say about making distinctions like that.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Just a thought about the Town Halls
Went to mass tonight.
This was included in one of the readings (Ephesians 4:30 - 5:2):
All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling
must be removed from you, along with all malice.
And be kind to one another, compassionate,
forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ.
I immediately thought of the Town Hall meetings, and the yelling and the screaming. The intimidation. Even the veiled (and sometimes not so veiled) threats of violence.
Of course they will tell you that they are just "exercising their constitutional rights." They certainly don't have any consideration for the constitutional rights of those who don't hold their positions, and their only reason for being there is to disrupt the meeting. That upsets me quite a bit, but I understand, and have for some time that civil political discourse in this country has become a pathetic joke.
Hearing Saint Paul's words in Ephesians, I'm thinking of something not on a political level.
Now, if you polled most of those people doing the yelling and screaming - are you a Christian?, or do you attend a Christian church? what do you think the answer would be?
My guess is that most of the attendees are "professing" Christians. After all, isn't the mantra "We are a Christian Nation"?
So how can they reconcile their ugly, screeching behavior at a Town Hall Meeting with Saint Paul's writing here? It says ALL bitterness, ALL fury, ALL anger, ALL shouting, etc.
I'm one of those who has the crazy notion that, to the best of your ability and with God's help, this should be part of how you live your life and deal with others 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
It seems to me that if you go there with the INTENTION of doing this, that makes it all the worse.
It doesn't say to remove those things only when you feel like it, or when you are doing something like this that has to do with "non-church" stuff. It says to remove ALL.
If you are one who professes themselves to be a Christian, your WHOLE life should indicate it.
Shouldn't it?
This was included in one of the readings (Ephesians 4:30 - 5:2):
All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling
must be removed from you, along with all malice.
And be kind to one another, compassionate,
forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ.
I immediately thought of the Town Hall meetings, and the yelling and the screaming. The intimidation. Even the veiled (and sometimes not so veiled) threats of violence.
Of course they will tell you that they are just "exercising their constitutional rights." They certainly don't have any consideration for the constitutional rights of those who don't hold their positions, and their only reason for being there is to disrupt the meeting. That upsets me quite a bit, but I understand, and have for some time that civil political discourse in this country has become a pathetic joke.
Hearing Saint Paul's words in Ephesians, I'm thinking of something not on a political level.
Now, if you polled most of those people doing the yelling and screaming - are you a Christian?, or do you attend a Christian church? what do you think the answer would be?
My guess is that most of the attendees are "professing" Christians. After all, isn't the mantra "We are a Christian Nation"?
So how can they reconcile their ugly, screeching behavior at a Town Hall Meeting with Saint Paul's writing here? It says ALL bitterness, ALL fury, ALL anger, ALL shouting, etc.
I'm one of those who has the crazy notion that, to the best of your ability and with God's help, this should be part of how you live your life and deal with others 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
It seems to me that if you go there with the INTENTION of doing this, that makes it all the worse.
It doesn't say to remove those things only when you feel like it, or when you are doing something like this that has to do with "non-church" stuff. It says to remove ALL.
If you are one who professes themselves to be a Christian, your WHOLE life should indicate it.
Shouldn't it?
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Peace in the Post Christian Era
A few years ago, I bought this book (Peace in the Post Christian Era by Thomas Merton) at a used book sale. I think I got it for a buck. I have only recently gotten around to reading it.
The first several pages of the book explain how the book came to be. It was censored by his order (the Trappists), but, in lieu of "publishing" it, he sent mimeographed copies to a lot of his friends, and other influential people.
The book is about the Christian response to Nuclear War. Written in 1962, there would have been a real, palpable fear of nuclear war, and the real possibility that nuclear war might actually happen, and happen soon (Merton alludes several times in the book to the war happening possibly within 5 years)
We can look back on it now as more of an academic, historical exercise, and not have to worry as much about the stark terror of a nuclear war that could literally wipe out every man, woman and child on earth.
That is not to say that there are still not nuclear dangers, and dangers of other kinds in our world.
One interesting comment on the back of the book comes from Father John Dear:
"Substitute war on terrorism: for "war on communism," and his insights continue to challenge our culture of war and ourselves"
What I wanted to do was put some of the comments from the book, without comment from me (I invite those who read this to take these quotes and possibly apply them to recent events - what if anything do they say to YOU? What if anything do they mean to YOU?). Every Christian has to decide for themselves whether these actually still apply to the United States of America and her condition in 2009:
"Christians therefore have the obligation to treat every other man as Christ himself, respecting his neighbor's life as if it were the life of Christ, his rights as if they were the rights of Christ. Even if the other shows himself to be unjust, wicked and odious to us, we cannot take upon ourselves a final and definitive judgment in his case. We still have an obligation to be patient, and tho seek his higher spiritual interests"
The Christian as Peacemaker (Chapter 4)
"The exceptional violence is now the norm of our thinking, while charity has become exotic"
The Legacy of Machiavelli (Chapter 6)
"Christianity, in a word, is everywhere yielding to the hegemony of naked power"
Religious Problems of the Cold War (Chapter 8)
"If we adopt a policy of hatred, of liquidation of those who oppose us, of unrestrained use of total war, of a spirit of fear and panic, of exaggerated propaganda, of unconditional surrender, of pure nationalism, we have already been overcome by the evil"
Working for Peace (Chapter 10)
"Not only non-Christians but even Christians themselves tend to dismiss the Gospel ethic on non-violence and love as "sentimental". As a matter of fact, the mere suggestion that Christ counseled nonviolent resistance to evil is enough to invite scathing ridicule."
Beyond East and West (Chapter 11)
"It must be admitted therefore that if the gospel of peace is no longer convincing on the lips of Christians, it may well be because they have ceased to give a living example of peace, unity and love."
Christian Perspectives in World Crisis (Chapter 15)
"But the fact remains that a warring and warlike Christendom has never been able to preach the Gospel of charity and peace with full conviction, or full success."
Christian Perspectives in World Crisis (Chapter 15)
"We have to become aware of the poisonous effect of the mass media that keep violence, cruelty and sadism constantly present to the minds of unformed and irresponsible people"
The Christian Choice (Chapter 17)
That's probably enough for one night. There are more great quotes in the book I want to share, some of them quite lengthy. You can either get the book, or check back in a few days. I might put some more quotes on here, but I'm tired of typing now.
The first several pages of the book explain how the book came to be. It was censored by his order (the Trappists), but, in lieu of "publishing" it, he sent mimeographed copies to a lot of his friends, and other influential people.
The book is about the Christian response to Nuclear War. Written in 1962, there would have been a real, palpable fear of nuclear war, and the real possibility that nuclear war might actually happen, and happen soon (Merton alludes several times in the book to the war happening possibly within 5 years)
We can look back on it now as more of an academic, historical exercise, and not have to worry as much about the stark terror of a nuclear war that could literally wipe out every man, woman and child on earth.
That is not to say that there are still not nuclear dangers, and dangers of other kinds in our world.
One interesting comment on the back of the book comes from Father John Dear:
"Substitute war on terrorism: for "war on communism," and his insights continue to challenge our culture of war and ourselves"
What I wanted to do was put some of the comments from the book, without comment from me (I invite those who read this to take these quotes and possibly apply them to recent events - what if anything do they say to YOU? What if anything do they mean to YOU?). Every Christian has to decide for themselves whether these actually still apply to the United States of America and her condition in 2009:
"Christians therefore have the obligation to treat every other man as Christ himself, respecting his neighbor's life as if it were the life of Christ, his rights as if they were the rights of Christ. Even if the other shows himself to be unjust, wicked and odious to us, we cannot take upon ourselves a final and definitive judgment in his case. We still have an obligation to be patient, and tho seek his higher spiritual interests"
The Christian as Peacemaker (Chapter 4)
"The exceptional violence is now the norm of our thinking, while charity has become exotic"
The Legacy of Machiavelli (Chapter 6)
"Christianity, in a word, is everywhere yielding to the hegemony of naked power"
Religious Problems of the Cold War (Chapter 8)
"If we adopt a policy of hatred, of liquidation of those who oppose us, of unrestrained use of total war, of a spirit of fear and panic, of exaggerated propaganda, of unconditional surrender, of pure nationalism, we have already been overcome by the evil"
Working for Peace (Chapter 10)
"Not only non-Christians but even Christians themselves tend to dismiss the Gospel ethic on non-violence and love as "sentimental". As a matter of fact, the mere suggestion that Christ counseled nonviolent resistance to evil is enough to invite scathing ridicule."
Beyond East and West (Chapter 11)
"It must be admitted therefore that if the gospel of peace is no longer convincing on the lips of Christians, it may well be because they have ceased to give a living example of peace, unity and love."
Christian Perspectives in World Crisis (Chapter 15)
"But the fact remains that a warring and warlike Christendom has never been able to preach the Gospel of charity and peace with full conviction, or full success."
Christian Perspectives in World Crisis (Chapter 15)
"We have to become aware of the poisonous effect of the mass media that keep violence, cruelty and sadism constantly present to the minds of unformed and irresponsible people"
The Christian Choice (Chapter 17)
That's probably enough for one night. There are more great quotes in the book I want to share, some of them quite lengthy. You can either get the book, or check back in a few days. I might put some more quotes on here, but I'm tired of typing now.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A LOT of killing
Over 50 people, are now dead in a matter of a few days, in some spectacularly gruesome mass killings at the hands of several different gunmen.
This does not count the murders that happen in every city, on every day of the week, nor does it count those who are deciding to take their own lives on a daily basis.
This article from the Washington Post is titled Some Link Economy with Spate of Killings:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040703979.html
From the article:
"The factor underlying the violence, some experts think, is the dismal state of the nation's economy. Criminologists theorize that the epidemic of layoffs, the meltdown of storied American corporations and the uncertainty of recovery have stoked fear, anxiety and desperation across society and unnerved its most vulnerable and dangerous."
I absolutely do believe that economic conditions could be one causative factor of the recent mass killings, but I just can't bring myself to believe that they are THE causative factor.
When trying to correlate the killing to the economic situation, you have to wonder, did the same kind of thing happen in the Great Depression when 25% of the population was unemployed (as compared to 8.5 or 9% now), and many other dismal statistics towered over the current statistics?
I did not do any in depth digging, but a general check of Depression crime statistics reveals that the crime rate was relatively low in the depression, among all socioeconomic levels, and among all ethnic groups.
It should be said up front that in analyzing these violent acts and their possible causes that I do not ever want to forget the victims, and the pain and suffering that has been visited randomly on their families.
So, what does it all mean?
It means that for whatever reason, in this day and age, people are deciding to kill, and sometimes kill spectacularly. Buy WHY? What is the difference now, as compared to then?
In what I'm about to say, I am not idealizing that time, or "the olden days". I am not one to pine for the good old days, but I do believe there are some fundamental differences now as opposed to then, and some of the changes haven't generally been for the better.
For instance, I believe that generally, families are not as tightly knit as they once were. Then, you would not want to shame your family, or give your family a bad name. Your family also, for the most part would take care of you.
I also believe that for a lot of people, they do not have a sense of place, or a sense of community. Often the themes in these types of shootings are those of a loner, or someone who was "picked on" or made an outcast by the people he lived around. Even those who don't intend to ever go on a rampage may feel isolated, or lonely. As a society, we have isolated ourselves. A lot of people don't "do" church anymore, and a lot of people aren't involved with their communities, nor do they know their neighbors.
I think Mother Teresa had it right when she said "The most terrible poverty is loneliness and the feeling of being unloved."
I certainly think the 24/7 news media, with some of it being very specific opinion related content contributes to a climate of fear, anxiety and agitation. Adding to this, is a general glorification of violence, and saturation of violence which desensitizes us from violence towards other people.
Lastly, the guns aren't responsible for the killing, but they certainly enable a quicker piling up of the bodies. Easy, unlimited access to powerful guns and lethal ammunition certainly does not help the situation.
It was reported that the Binghamton New York shooter fired 98 shots in a minute. That is an incredible amount of firepower for an ordinary citizen to have.
So, what is the answer? I must confess that I really don't know. Certainly, there will be knee jerk reactions - stiffer gun laws will be debated, etc.
I do not think it will change or get any better though, even as the economy improves. I seem to recall that fairly regular mass killings happen in good economic times and bad.
I think it's us. If it didn't happen in any great frequency before, that should tell us something shouldn't it? Or, at least give us something to think about?
In the final analysis, you can't make people go to church, or get involved in community. You can't make family members who are cold and unloving to one another love one another. You can certainly encourage, but you can't make people turn off the 24/7 media that divides and polarizes us as a people.
I think that is the most frustrating part. We are accustomed to thinking that we can snap our fingers and make the problem go away (or throw money at it). But, I don't think this problem will be solved in that way.
And, then, a week from now, or two weeks from now, or tomorrow another one of these killings happen, and we are left to try to again figure it out with fresh feelings of pain and sorrow.
I wish I had some pithy words to close it out. Or some kind of deep, meaningful thing to say that could make it all better.
I don't have that. Every time I think of it all, I just get weary. I even think, what is the point of even writing this right now?
Again, I defer to Mother Teresa.
This is the mantra we should think about when thinking about our neighbors and how we can help each other out. Or helping or identifying that kid who might be in trouble and headed down this road. Or trying to instill a feeling of hope among our friends and neighbors:
"In this life we cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love."
This does not count the murders that happen in every city, on every day of the week, nor does it count those who are deciding to take their own lives on a daily basis.
This article from the Washington Post is titled Some Link Economy with Spate of Killings:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040703979.html
From the article:
"The factor underlying the violence, some experts think, is the dismal state of the nation's economy. Criminologists theorize that the epidemic of layoffs, the meltdown of storied American corporations and the uncertainty of recovery have stoked fear, anxiety and desperation across society and unnerved its most vulnerable and dangerous."
I absolutely do believe that economic conditions could be one causative factor of the recent mass killings, but I just can't bring myself to believe that they are THE causative factor.
When trying to correlate the killing to the economic situation, you have to wonder, did the same kind of thing happen in the Great Depression when 25% of the population was unemployed (as compared to 8.5 or 9% now), and many other dismal statistics towered over the current statistics?
I did not do any in depth digging, but a general check of Depression crime statistics reveals that the crime rate was relatively low in the depression, among all socioeconomic levels, and among all ethnic groups.
It should be said up front that in analyzing these violent acts and their possible causes that I do not ever want to forget the victims, and the pain and suffering that has been visited randomly on their families.
So, what does it all mean?
It means that for whatever reason, in this day and age, people are deciding to kill, and sometimes kill spectacularly. Buy WHY? What is the difference now, as compared to then?
In what I'm about to say, I am not idealizing that time, or "the olden days". I am not one to pine for the good old days, but I do believe there are some fundamental differences now as opposed to then, and some of the changes haven't generally been for the better.
For instance, I believe that generally, families are not as tightly knit as they once were. Then, you would not want to shame your family, or give your family a bad name. Your family also, for the most part would take care of you.
I also believe that for a lot of people, they do not have a sense of place, or a sense of community. Often the themes in these types of shootings are those of a loner, or someone who was "picked on" or made an outcast by the people he lived around. Even those who don't intend to ever go on a rampage may feel isolated, or lonely. As a society, we have isolated ourselves. A lot of people don't "do" church anymore, and a lot of people aren't involved with their communities, nor do they know their neighbors.
I think Mother Teresa had it right when she said "The most terrible poverty is loneliness and the feeling of being unloved."
I certainly think the 24/7 news media, with some of it being very specific opinion related content contributes to a climate of fear, anxiety and agitation. Adding to this, is a general glorification of violence, and saturation of violence which desensitizes us from violence towards other people.
Lastly, the guns aren't responsible for the killing, but they certainly enable a quicker piling up of the bodies. Easy, unlimited access to powerful guns and lethal ammunition certainly does not help the situation.
It was reported that the Binghamton New York shooter fired 98 shots in a minute. That is an incredible amount of firepower for an ordinary citizen to have.
So, what is the answer? I must confess that I really don't know. Certainly, there will be knee jerk reactions - stiffer gun laws will be debated, etc.
I do not think it will change or get any better though, even as the economy improves. I seem to recall that fairly regular mass killings happen in good economic times and bad.
I think it's us. If it didn't happen in any great frequency before, that should tell us something shouldn't it? Or, at least give us something to think about?
In the final analysis, you can't make people go to church, or get involved in community. You can't make family members who are cold and unloving to one another love one another. You can certainly encourage, but you can't make people turn off the 24/7 media that divides and polarizes us as a people.
I think that is the most frustrating part. We are accustomed to thinking that we can snap our fingers and make the problem go away (or throw money at it). But, I don't think this problem will be solved in that way.
And, then, a week from now, or two weeks from now, or tomorrow another one of these killings happen, and we are left to try to again figure it out with fresh feelings of pain and sorrow.
I wish I had some pithy words to close it out. Or some kind of deep, meaningful thing to say that could make it all better.
I don't have that. Every time I think of it all, I just get weary. I even think, what is the point of even writing this right now?
Again, I defer to Mother Teresa.
This is the mantra we should think about when thinking about our neighbors and how we can help each other out. Or helping or identifying that kid who might be in trouble and headed down this road. Or trying to instill a feeling of hope among our friends and neighbors:
"In this life we cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love."
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Information. Or lack thereof....
I came across this piece by Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post yesterday called Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In. Interestingly enough, the piece echoes a lot of the themes I wrote about in my last blog (TV).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033103318.html?wpisrc=newsletter
In the piece she says:
"The unknowableness of current circumstances, combined with a lack of trust in our institutions, may partly be to blame for our apparent info-insatiability. People sense that they need to know more in order to understand an increasingly complex world."
I think William Greider, in his book the Soul of Capitalism puts it just as well, when he says:
"One recognizes a deepening dependence on the mysterious new machines and on the complicated organizations of modern economic life, which are operated by distant systems of decision making, themselves opaque and mechanical."
He goes on to say that:
"One paradox of the information age is that, while we are able to find out instantly so many more things than the ancestors could ever know, the anchor of self-knowledge-who we are and where we fit in, what we count for in this new scheme-seems to be weaker."
I have said for awhile that we live in a "Just in Time" world. When all the systems are operating well and in the background, we never think of them. When they start to falter, we suddenly want to know why, and what we can do about it.
I think that people sense that they need to know more as Ms. Parker says. I think it is similar to our ancestors wanting to know more about farming. Or fishing. Or whatever craft they had chosen.
The difference is, they, for the most part found the information. The ones who did not, did not survive. It was really that simple.
We search for the answers, but, I don't think we're going to find them any time soon. ESPECIALLY in the circus that counts for the media. Unfortunately, I think the big organizations who run the JIT system don't WANT you to have too much information on them. In a lot of cases, I have come to believe that the systems have become so complex, that even the "experts" don't fully understand them.
On one side of the political spectrum, we are told that the future of the earth is a dry, waterless, foodless, husk, teeming with too many people and not enough of anything else. On the other side of the spectrum we are told that the future is that of Orwell, Big Brother, Socialism, perhaps even Communism. Terrorists and bad guys behind every tree and mail box waiting to snuff out your life.
The truth MUST be somewhere in the middle. Contrary to a lot of conservative pundits, that is where most of America resides. Some slightly to the left of the middle, some slightly to the right. We must shepherd our resources, and make our industrial systems more environmentally friendly. We also must remain diligent about our security. We didn't in the years leading up to 9/11 and paid the price. But to live in fear all the time of both specters is not at all healthy.
In the very middle of those media poles, we have what is known as the Mainstream Media (although those on the right would debate this and say the MSM are decidedly pushing leftist agendas). For the most part, the Mainstream Media is looked down upon and in some cases vilified by those on the extreme information poles.
For me, they seem to be more worried about filling 24/7 worth of coverage. Most of this coverage vacillates between sappy, human interest stories, and dire coverage of dire situations. For instance, today, the big story was the First Lady touching the Queen of England - was that appropriate? Was that out of protocol? Who cares? A little bit of it is good. 24/7, not so much.
Nothing about their coverage stimulates me into any kind of deeper thought. I simply go there to find out, for the most part, basic information about world events.
As I've said before, one needs to have a balance. Too much information, and you go crazy - it is literally all you think about. Not enough, and you are ignorant, in a world that needs no more ignorance.
So how do we find the answers?
I think that is different for everyone. For some it will be a reading of the classic literature. Others it will be found in discussion and dialogue. Others will be found in a philosophical mood. For others it may be a combination of the three (and in a previous blog, I wrote about Robert Greenleaf's tasks of a competent leader - to be a historian, a contemporary analyst and a prophet all at the same time).
The answers are NOT going to be found on the churn that is 24/7 news cycles though. THAT much I'm sure of.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033103318.html?wpisrc=newsletter
In the piece she says:
"The unknowableness of current circumstances, combined with a lack of trust in our institutions, may partly be to blame for our apparent info-insatiability. People sense that they need to know more in order to understand an increasingly complex world."
I think William Greider, in his book the Soul of Capitalism puts it just as well, when he says:
"One recognizes a deepening dependence on the mysterious new machines and on the complicated organizations of modern economic life, which are operated by distant systems of decision making, themselves opaque and mechanical."
He goes on to say that:
"One paradox of the information age is that, while we are able to find out instantly so many more things than the ancestors could ever know, the anchor of self-knowledge-who we are and where we fit in, what we count for in this new scheme-seems to be weaker."
I have said for awhile that we live in a "Just in Time" world. When all the systems are operating well and in the background, we never think of them. When they start to falter, we suddenly want to know why, and what we can do about it.
I think that people sense that they need to know more as Ms. Parker says. I think it is similar to our ancestors wanting to know more about farming. Or fishing. Or whatever craft they had chosen.
The difference is, they, for the most part found the information. The ones who did not, did not survive. It was really that simple.
We search for the answers, but, I don't think we're going to find them any time soon. ESPECIALLY in the circus that counts for the media. Unfortunately, I think the big organizations who run the JIT system don't WANT you to have too much information on them. In a lot of cases, I have come to believe that the systems have become so complex, that even the "experts" don't fully understand them.
On one side of the political spectrum, we are told that the future of the earth is a dry, waterless, foodless, husk, teeming with too many people and not enough of anything else. On the other side of the spectrum we are told that the future is that of Orwell, Big Brother, Socialism, perhaps even Communism. Terrorists and bad guys behind every tree and mail box waiting to snuff out your life.
The truth MUST be somewhere in the middle. Contrary to a lot of conservative pundits, that is where most of America resides. Some slightly to the left of the middle, some slightly to the right. We must shepherd our resources, and make our industrial systems more environmentally friendly. We also must remain diligent about our security. We didn't in the years leading up to 9/11 and paid the price. But to live in fear all the time of both specters is not at all healthy.
In the very middle of those media poles, we have what is known as the Mainstream Media (although those on the right would debate this and say the MSM are decidedly pushing leftist agendas). For the most part, the Mainstream Media is looked down upon and in some cases vilified by those on the extreme information poles.
For me, they seem to be more worried about filling 24/7 worth of coverage. Most of this coverage vacillates between sappy, human interest stories, and dire coverage of dire situations. For instance, today, the big story was the First Lady touching the Queen of England - was that appropriate? Was that out of protocol? Who cares? A little bit of it is good. 24/7, not so much.
Nothing about their coverage stimulates me into any kind of deeper thought. I simply go there to find out, for the most part, basic information about world events.
As I've said before, one needs to have a balance. Too much information, and you go crazy - it is literally all you think about. Not enough, and you are ignorant, in a world that needs no more ignorance.
So how do we find the answers?
I think that is different for everyone. For some it will be a reading of the classic literature. Others it will be found in discussion and dialogue. Others will be found in a philosophical mood. For others it may be a combination of the three (and in a previous blog, I wrote about Robert Greenleaf's tasks of a competent leader - to be a historian, a contemporary analyst and a prophet all at the same time).
The answers are NOT going to be found on the churn that is 24/7 news cycles though. THAT much I'm sure of.
Monday, March 30, 2009
TV
"We shall stand or fall by television-of that I am quite sure" - E. B. White, 1939, One Man's Meat, essay Removal
I was discussing Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 with a friend today. I've read the book a few times, and always thought it was a meaningful, entertaining book. I learned something new today though (always a good feeling of a day well lived). I had always been taught that the book was about the evils of censorship.
But, the friend I was discussing it with, sent me this small Wikipedia bit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451
"Bradbury has stated that the novel is not about censorship; he states that Fahrenheit 451 is a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature, which leads to a perception of knowledge as being composed of "factoids", partial information devoid of context, e.g., Napoleon's birth date alone, without an indication of who he was."
I'm not writing this blog right now about the evils of television. I like television as much as the next guy, and watch probably too much for my own good.
I'm writing because that little bit of information gave me a chill, given the proliferation of a new kind of shrill television entertainment.
Back on August 1, 2008, I wrote my own piece about this type of new "media" (http://tuesdayramblings.blogspot.com/2008/08/knoxville.html):
"I believe that the proliferation of shows like Limbaugh, etc prove just how shallow we've become as a people, and despite how much we say we want to debate and understand the issues, we really just want to make all the issues a simple x = y event.
If "x" happens it is because of "y". And so much the better "y" is black, Latino, an immigrant, on welfare, or whatever.
We are in deep trouble as a country. Watching Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh will not help us solve our problems which are extremely deep and widely systemic."
That is just as true today as it was back in August 2008. Maybe more so, given the continued deterioration of the economic situation.
I believed then, and believe now, that this is the main purpose of the Hannity's, the Limbaugh's, the Glenn Beck's and the Lou Dobbs (and, to be fair, some on the left as well - to sow fear about their fellow Americans on the right side of the spectrum):
"Fear is their stock and trade, and fear is what they want to sow. Oh, they wrap it up quite righteously saying they only want to "spread the truth". But at the bottom, it's fear they want to spread.
For there is power in making people afraid."
There is amazing power in fear. There are also great ratings, and a LOT of money to be made.
What constantly amazes me is that people will sit at home and watch these shows (mostly middle, working class people), or listen to them on the radio, and actually believe these "talking androids" have something in common with them, or that they think like them, or that they somehow have their interests at heart.
If you make $10 to $20 million dollars a year and wear $1000 dollar suits to work, then, yes, they probably do have your interests at heart.
They seem to always "magically" know what their viewers or listeners are thinking. That is not because they necessarily believe in these issues deeply (or understand them at all).
It is because they have great demographics people, and great production people. It is because they pander like the slickest politician to their audience for, you guessed it, RATINGS.
I still believe what I wrote back in August, with regard to the solution:
"The final solution is to turn them off and ignore them. Read a book. Talk to your wife and kids. Go to the library. Love your neighbor as yourself as Jesus taught us.
Anything but feeding off of those parasites."
How about actually talking to your neighbor, even though he may be diametrically opposed to what you believe in? How about reading a book about ideas that are diametrically opposed to those you believe in.
A few years ago, I read Senator Paul Wellstone's Conscience of a Liberal. At the time I read it, I agreed with almost nothing in the book and several times I wanted to quit reading it, or set it on fire. But over the next few years, the ideas worked on me, and I thought about them a lot. I'm nowhere near as Liberal as Senator Wellstone was, nor do I think I ever will be. But, I got an understanding of some things I didn't have an understanding of before.
To turn the TV off and work on something that is not passive was sound advice then, it is sound advice now, and it will be sound advice tomorrow.
I was discussing Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 with a friend today. I've read the book a few times, and always thought it was a meaningful, entertaining book. I learned something new today though (always a good feeling of a day well lived). I had always been taught that the book was about the evils of censorship.
But, the friend I was discussing it with, sent me this small Wikipedia bit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451
"Bradbury has stated that the novel is not about censorship; he states that Fahrenheit 451 is a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature, which leads to a perception of knowledge as being composed of "factoids", partial information devoid of context, e.g., Napoleon's birth date alone, without an indication of who he was."
I'm not writing this blog right now about the evils of television. I like television as much as the next guy, and watch probably too much for my own good.
I'm writing because that little bit of information gave me a chill, given the proliferation of a new kind of shrill television entertainment.
Back on August 1, 2008, I wrote my own piece about this type of new "media" (http://tuesdayramblings.blogspot.com/2008/08/knoxville.html):
"I believe that the proliferation of shows like Limbaugh, etc prove just how shallow we've become as a people, and despite how much we say we want to debate and understand the issues, we really just want to make all the issues a simple x = y event.
If "x" happens it is because of "y". And so much the better "y" is black, Latino, an immigrant, on welfare, or whatever.
We are in deep trouble as a country. Watching Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh will not help us solve our problems which are extremely deep and widely systemic."
That is just as true today as it was back in August 2008. Maybe more so, given the continued deterioration of the economic situation.
I believed then, and believe now, that this is the main purpose of the Hannity's, the Limbaugh's, the Glenn Beck's and the Lou Dobbs (and, to be fair, some on the left as well - to sow fear about their fellow Americans on the right side of the spectrum):
"Fear is their stock and trade, and fear is what they want to sow. Oh, they wrap it up quite righteously saying they only want to "spread the truth". But at the bottom, it's fear they want to spread.
For there is power in making people afraid."
There is amazing power in fear. There are also great ratings, and a LOT of money to be made.
What constantly amazes me is that people will sit at home and watch these shows (mostly middle, working class people), or listen to them on the radio, and actually believe these "talking androids" have something in common with them, or that they think like them, or that they somehow have their interests at heart.
If you make $10 to $20 million dollars a year and wear $1000 dollar suits to work, then, yes, they probably do have your interests at heart.
They seem to always "magically" know what their viewers or listeners are thinking. That is not because they necessarily believe in these issues deeply (or understand them at all).
It is because they have great demographics people, and great production people. It is because they pander like the slickest politician to their audience for, you guessed it, RATINGS.
I still believe what I wrote back in August, with regard to the solution:
"The final solution is to turn them off and ignore them. Read a book. Talk to your wife and kids. Go to the library. Love your neighbor as yourself as Jesus taught us.
Anything but feeding off of those parasites."
How about actually talking to your neighbor, even though he may be diametrically opposed to what you believe in? How about reading a book about ideas that are diametrically opposed to those you believe in.
A few years ago, I read Senator Paul Wellstone's Conscience of a Liberal. At the time I read it, I agreed with almost nothing in the book and several times I wanted to quit reading it, or set it on fire. But over the next few years, the ideas worked on me, and I thought about them a lot. I'm nowhere near as Liberal as Senator Wellstone was, nor do I think I ever will be. But, I got an understanding of some things I didn't have an understanding of before.
To turn the TV off and work on something that is not passive was sound advice then, it is sound advice now, and it will be sound advice tomorrow.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Thoreau
I just finished The Thoreau You Don't Know: What the Prophet of Environmentalism Really Meant by Robert Sullivan http://www.amazon.com/Thoreau-You-Dont-Know-Environmentalism/dp/0061710318/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238114242&sr=8-1)
I have always been a fan of Walden and Thoreau's other writings. I first read Walden in high school, and have read it once or twice as an adult. I have also read a few biographies of Thoreau over the years.
In 1991, I visited Walden - it was a pretty neat experience. Nothing spiritual, or life changing, but, it did mean a lot to me. Sullivan writes about his visit to Walden towards the end of the book (basically the last section, after he is done recounting Thoreau's life and work). To me, this part of the book seems contrived - it was not my favorite part, and I think he could have worked snippets of his visit in the book - but, that's just me.
Lately, as I have mentioned I have been reading a lot of Emerson. This Thoreau book was interesting in that it had a lot of information on Thoreau's and Emerson's relationship, as well as information about Emerson. At times Thoreau worked for Emerson. At times, Thoreau's writing style exasperated Emerson. As Thoreau got older and more established, their relationship became strained.
One thing that was EXTREMELY interesting, was the cultural, political, and financial situation during the time Thoreau came to prominence. Sullivan discusses the panic of 1837 (which becomes a full blown depression), then recounts another economic downturn in 1857. The descriptions of these downturns sound eerily like our current day downturns. Emerson and Thoreau both wrote during those times, and the conditions had to color their writing and thinking.
I was also interested in the discussion about HDT being, what amounted to the CEO of his family's pencil business. He was an innovator at the time with regard to pencils - now, they'd be featuring him in Wired or Fast Times magazine. I was also interested in his well respected work as a surveyor. And of course, I was interested in the discussion of his development as a writer.
In reading the Amazon customer reviews of this book, you get your typical Thoreau "experts" who downgrade this book (I think maybe they are mad that Sullivan is trying to make Thoreau more palatable to popular consumption, and taking him out of the realm of the experts who are constantly dissecting his life and writing. I also suspect they don't like it because it's not a "scholarly" biography - which, the author makes quite clear that it is not to be) - they recommend in some reviews reading a "real" biography, Robert Richardson's Henry Thoreau: A Life of the Mind. It is a good book, but it is NOT a quick read (dry, academic), overly interesting read like this one.
Overall, it didn't really change any of my opinions about Thoreau. I had learned when I was younger that Thoreau was not a recluse at Walden, nor did he live a monastic cloistered life at Walden. He spent time in town. People liked him, and I think for the most part, he liked people.
Thoreau has always seemed to me to be an eccentric, or someone, to paraphrase his classic line, who marched to the beat of his own drummer.
I think these days we need more eccentrics who know how to think in patterns and can see relationships. We need people who are keen observers and reporters, which, Thoreau was. We need men (and women) who can think differently about the world, and articulate their feelings about it in an inspiring way as Thoreau did.
Maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.
I have always been a fan of Walden and Thoreau's other writings. I first read Walden in high school, and have read it once or twice as an adult. I have also read a few biographies of Thoreau over the years.
In 1991, I visited Walden - it was a pretty neat experience. Nothing spiritual, or life changing, but, it did mean a lot to me. Sullivan writes about his visit to Walden towards the end of the book (basically the last section, after he is done recounting Thoreau's life and work). To me, this part of the book seems contrived - it was not my favorite part, and I think he could have worked snippets of his visit in the book - but, that's just me.
Lately, as I have mentioned I have been reading a lot of Emerson. This Thoreau book was interesting in that it had a lot of information on Thoreau's and Emerson's relationship, as well as information about Emerson. At times Thoreau worked for Emerson. At times, Thoreau's writing style exasperated Emerson. As Thoreau got older and more established, their relationship became strained.
One thing that was EXTREMELY interesting, was the cultural, political, and financial situation during the time Thoreau came to prominence. Sullivan discusses the panic of 1837 (which becomes a full blown depression), then recounts another economic downturn in 1857. The descriptions of these downturns sound eerily like our current day downturns. Emerson and Thoreau both wrote during those times, and the conditions had to color their writing and thinking.
I was also interested in the discussion about HDT being, what amounted to the CEO of his family's pencil business. He was an innovator at the time with regard to pencils - now, they'd be featuring him in Wired or Fast Times magazine. I was also interested in his well respected work as a surveyor. And of course, I was interested in the discussion of his development as a writer.
In reading the Amazon customer reviews of this book, you get your typical Thoreau "experts" who downgrade this book (I think maybe they are mad that Sullivan is trying to make Thoreau more palatable to popular consumption, and taking him out of the realm of the experts who are constantly dissecting his life and writing. I also suspect they don't like it because it's not a "scholarly" biography - which, the author makes quite clear that it is not to be) - they recommend in some reviews reading a "real" biography, Robert Richardson's Henry Thoreau: A Life of the Mind. It is a good book, but it is NOT a quick read (dry, academic), overly interesting read like this one.
Overall, it didn't really change any of my opinions about Thoreau. I had learned when I was younger that Thoreau was not a recluse at Walden, nor did he live a monastic cloistered life at Walden. He spent time in town. People liked him, and I think for the most part, he liked people.
Thoreau has always seemed to me to be an eccentric, or someone, to paraphrase his classic line, who marched to the beat of his own drummer.
I think these days we need more eccentrics who know how to think in patterns and can see relationships. We need people who are keen observers and reporters, which, Thoreau was. We need men (and women) who can think differently about the world, and articulate their feelings about it in an inspiring way as Thoreau did.
Maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Foresight
There has been a lot of positive economic news lately. A lot of people have been thinking and feeling that the recession will end sooner than later.
But, as I have been writing about in this blog, what happens if the recession ends tomorrow? Or a month from now? Or Summer? Or late 2009 or early 2010? Did we learn anything? Are we going to be any different, or live any differently than we did before?
When crisis passes, instead of doing a "lessons learned", and being humbled, we tend to go back to the bad habits. We tend to take on an air of hubris and invincibility. We tend to perennially believe that we are above the cycles of history and that these kinds of things can never happen again.
I happen to love the writing and thinking of Robert K. Greenleaf. Greenleaf was the coiner of the term Servant Leadership (and a GREAT introduction to Greenleaf's life and thinking is contained in Robert K. Greenleaf: A Life of Servant Leadership, written by Don Frick, as well as Greenleaf's book of essays Servant Leadership, A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness)
In his seminal essay The Servant as Leader, written in the 1970's, Greenleaf has a section called "Foresight-The Central Ethic of Leadership".
There is absolutely NO question, that the situation we are in is due to a direct lack of Foresight (and Leadership), by several, including those in Washington, in the companies that melted down, those in regulatory agencies, and others (i.e. The Fed, World Bank, etc).
Listen to what Greenleaf says about Foresight:
"The failure (or refusal) of a leader to foresee may be viewed as an ethical failure, because a serious ethical compromise today (when the usual judgment on ethical inadequacy is made) is sometimes the result of a failure to make the effort at an earlier date to foresee today's events and take the right actions when there was freedom for initiative to act."
Those who did have the foresight to predict the consequences of the risky behavior of the banks and other institutions (and they WERE out there), were often called negative, or pessimistic, or the implication was that they didn't know what they were talking about. The good times, in essence, were going to roll on forever.
As we move forward, we need to start thinking about the next trap doors and pits that we could fall into. What is the next "bubble"? What will crash next? Where are the holes and weaknesses in the economy, and in capitalism in general that need to be looked at and fixed?
Certainly what happened at AIG, Bear, Lehman, Freddie and Fannie, etc, can NOT be allowed to happen again. But there again, we need to strike a real balance between absolute iron fisted control, and the fostering of the entrepreneurial spirit.
Greenleaf, gives us a prescription as to how we are to look at these things:
"One is at once, in every moment of time, historian, contemporary analyst, and prophet-not three separate roles. This is what the practicing leader is, every day of his or her life".
Perfect. How many of us know how to do that? How many of us are taught to do that? How many of us even think about that?
In the final analysis, we know that there are a LOT of problems in America that will need to be tackled. Problems with infrastructure. Problems with health care. Problems with education. Problems with the growing gap between the richest and the poorest. These are huge problems that are going to take innovative solutions, and dynamic leadership from the type of leader with Foresight that Greenleaf imagines.
Perhaps the best "mission statement" moving forward comes from Greenleaf's very definition of those that Servant Leaders are leading (a lot might think these things are "Utopian" and would never work in the "real world" or in the "rough and tumble world of business". For those, I suggest you check out http://www.tdindustries.com/servantleadership.aspx, and http://www.tdindustries.com/index.aspx?Menu=P, and http://www.tdindustries.com/news.aspx?Menu=N, and while you are at it take a look at this seriously impressive list of projects: http://www.tdindustries.com/CategoryListing.aspx):
"The best test, and difficult to administer, is this: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?"
Moving forward, I'm optimistic. I'm filled with hope for America. I think we can do this.
I'm excited to start. Tomorrow. As Jesus said in Matthew 6:34 (a passage which has virtually carried me forward over the past several months), "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day."
But, as I have been writing about in this blog, what happens if the recession ends tomorrow? Or a month from now? Or Summer? Or late 2009 or early 2010? Did we learn anything? Are we going to be any different, or live any differently than we did before?
When crisis passes, instead of doing a "lessons learned", and being humbled, we tend to go back to the bad habits. We tend to take on an air of hubris and invincibility. We tend to perennially believe that we are above the cycles of history and that these kinds of things can never happen again.
I happen to love the writing and thinking of Robert K. Greenleaf. Greenleaf was the coiner of the term Servant Leadership (and a GREAT introduction to Greenleaf's life and thinking is contained in Robert K. Greenleaf: A Life of Servant Leadership, written by Don Frick, as well as Greenleaf's book of essays Servant Leadership, A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness)
In his seminal essay The Servant as Leader, written in the 1970's, Greenleaf has a section called "Foresight-The Central Ethic of Leadership".
There is absolutely NO question, that the situation we are in is due to a direct lack of Foresight (and Leadership), by several, including those in Washington, in the companies that melted down, those in regulatory agencies, and others (i.e. The Fed, World Bank, etc).
Listen to what Greenleaf says about Foresight:
"The failure (or refusal) of a leader to foresee may be viewed as an ethical failure, because a serious ethical compromise today (when the usual judgment on ethical inadequacy is made) is sometimes the result of a failure to make the effort at an earlier date to foresee today's events and take the right actions when there was freedom for initiative to act."
Those who did have the foresight to predict the consequences of the risky behavior of the banks and other institutions (and they WERE out there), were often called negative, or pessimistic, or the implication was that they didn't know what they were talking about. The good times, in essence, were going to roll on forever.
As we move forward, we need to start thinking about the next trap doors and pits that we could fall into. What is the next "bubble"? What will crash next? Where are the holes and weaknesses in the economy, and in capitalism in general that need to be looked at and fixed?
Certainly what happened at AIG, Bear, Lehman, Freddie and Fannie, etc, can NOT be allowed to happen again. But there again, we need to strike a real balance between absolute iron fisted control, and the fostering of the entrepreneurial spirit.
Greenleaf, gives us a prescription as to how we are to look at these things:
"One is at once, in every moment of time, historian, contemporary analyst, and prophet-not three separate roles. This is what the practicing leader is, every day of his or her life".
Perfect. How many of us know how to do that? How many of us are taught to do that? How many of us even think about that?
In the final analysis, we know that there are a LOT of problems in America that will need to be tackled. Problems with infrastructure. Problems with health care. Problems with education. Problems with the growing gap between the richest and the poorest. These are huge problems that are going to take innovative solutions, and dynamic leadership from the type of leader with Foresight that Greenleaf imagines.
Perhaps the best "mission statement" moving forward comes from Greenleaf's very definition of those that Servant Leaders are leading (a lot might think these things are "Utopian" and would never work in the "real world" or in the "rough and tumble world of business". For those, I suggest you check out http://www.tdindustries.com/servantleadership.aspx, and http://www.tdindustries.com/index.aspx?Menu=P, and http://www.tdindustries.com/news.aspx?Menu=N, and while you are at it take a look at this seriously impressive list of projects: http://www.tdindustries.com/CategoryListing.aspx):
"The best test, and difficult to administer, is this: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?"
Moving forward, I'm optimistic. I'm filled with hope for America. I think we can do this.
I'm excited to start. Tomorrow. As Jesus said in Matthew 6:34 (a passage which has virtually carried me forward over the past several months), "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day."
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wow. This is something
I read this piece in Newsweek today:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/188141
It was titled "The Biggest Thing to Fear Is Fear, American consumers are in better shape than you think.
I have been thinking along these lines for quite some time. It is OUR turn to decide what the economy does. Not Wall Street. Not the big banks. Not the Government. Those are the facts.
The only reason we don't believe that is that we've been beaten down and convinced for so long that someone else is in charge. Someone else HAS to be in charge, or else it just won't be right.
No one is in charge. YOU are in charge of your own life. Isn't that what living in a FREE country is all about? It should be. Are you really free?
I posted in December 20, 2008:
"When the economy does recover (and it WILL recover eventually in some form - but maybe not with huge annual growth from here on out), what will we have learned? Anything? At the end of it all, will the banker still have the power, or will ordinary Americans have taken back the power?
Let's hope it's ordinary Americans."
I posted on January 10, 2009:
"I said in my last blog, when talking about Peter Maurin, that it was time for us to take back the economy. WE decide whether we get to have hope. WE decide whether we get to spend money again. WE get to decide whether people are hired or not. Not exclusively the government, not the media."
Now, today, look at the quote from this piece:
"Looking to Wall Street to lead the recovery is ludicrous; its confidence is shattered and its balance sheets are in turmoil. Even looking to Wall Street to identify the recovery is asking too much; its analysts are hysterical and they are legitimately fearful for their future employment. That means this time markets may lag behind the recovery. Instead, real economic activity, and the steady, gradual spending recovery of Main Street will lead the way."
Wall Street is not going to go quietly of course. For a long time, they've been able to dictate the specifics of the economy. They have been in charge. They believe they still are. I do not believe this. A lot of the time now, to me, they are acting like a spoiled, whiny child, not getting his way in the toy aisle of the Target Store. Look at MEEEEEEE!!!!! Pay attention to MEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
I have this delicious fantasy. My fantasy is that some brave Americans are taking counsel of their fears and are out there deciding to buy things. Hire people, etc. Taking the attitude that a few of my friends have taken, that they are "not going to participate in the recession". Taking the attitude that some other people I've met have taken that they are going to live their lives with hope and not fear and anxiety.
Then, when the economic indicators hit, and they show improvement (http://mast-economy.blogspot.com/ is a great place to see some of these measurements in a somewhat systematic fashion), Economists are "puzzled" and wonder if the improvements will be sustained.
Some of that is happening now.
I'm starting to realize that one of the great blessings of my life is having two parents that were older than all of my friends parents. Both my parents lived through the depression (my Dad was born in 1919, and my Mom was born in 1925), and my Dad served in World War II.
I saw that they and their parents and siblings lived through so much. They had nothing to start with. Then, the depression and the war came and they had less than nothing. And, compared to them, we've been through really, not much of anything.
Yes, the pain is real. Yes, the loss is real. I don't mean to dismiss that or demean that. But to look at the "Greatest Generation" is to see that you CAN come out on the other side.
How will the history books judge THIS generation, when our time of testing came?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/188141
It was titled "The Biggest Thing to Fear Is Fear, American consumers are in better shape than you think.
I have been thinking along these lines for quite some time. It is OUR turn to decide what the economy does. Not Wall Street. Not the big banks. Not the Government. Those are the facts.
The only reason we don't believe that is that we've been beaten down and convinced for so long that someone else is in charge. Someone else HAS to be in charge, or else it just won't be right.
No one is in charge. YOU are in charge of your own life. Isn't that what living in a FREE country is all about? It should be. Are you really free?
I posted in December 20, 2008:
"When the economy does recover (and it WILL recover eventually in some form - but maybe not with huge annual growth from here on out), what will we have learned? Anything? At the end of it all, will the banker still have the power, or will ordinary Americans have taken back the power?
Let's hope it's ordinary Americans."
I posted on January 10, 2009:
"I said in my last blog, when talking about Peter Maurin, that it was time for us to take back the economy. WE decide whether we get to have hope. WE decide whether we get to spend money again. WE get to decide whether people are hired or not. Not exclusively the government, not the media."
Now, today, look at the quote from this piece:
"Looking to Wall Street to lead the recovery is ludicrous; its confidence is shattered and its balance sheets are in turmoil. Even looking to Wall Street to identify the recovery is asking too much; its analysts are hysterical and they are legitimately fearful for their future employment. That means this time markets may lag behind the recovery. Instead, real economic activity, and the steady, gradual spending recovery of Main Street will lead the way."
Wall Street is not going to go quietly of course. For a long time, they've been able to dictate the specifics of the economy. They have been in charge. They believe they still are. I do not believe this. A lot of the time now, to me, they are acting like a spoiled, whiny child, not getting his way in the toy aisle of the Target Store. Look at MEEEEEEE!!!!! Pay attention to MEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
I have this delicious fantasy. My fantasy is that some brave Americans are taking counsel of their fears and are out there deciding to buy things. Hire people, etc. Taking the attitude that a few of my friends have taken, that they are "not going to participate in the recession". Taking the attitude that some other people I've met have taken that they are going to live their lives with hope and not fear and anxiety.
Then, when the economic indicators hit, and they show improvement (http://mast-economy.blogspot.com/ is a great place to see some of these measurements in a somewhat systematic fashion), Economists are "puzzled" and wonder if the improvements will be sustained.
Some of that is happening now.
I'm starting to realize that one of the great blessings of my life is having two parents that were older than all of my friends parents. Both my parents lived through the depression (my Dad was born in 1919, and my Mom was born in 1925), and my Dad served in World War II.
I saw that they and their parents and siblings lived through so much. They had nothing to start with. Then, the depression and the war came and they had less than nothing. And, compared to them, we've been through really, not much of anything.
Yes, the pain is real. Yes, the loss is real. I don't mean to dismiss that or demean that. But to look at the "Greatest Generation" is to see that you CAN come out on the other side.
How will the history books judge THIS generation, when our time of testing came?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)