The papers and the news media carry another story about a public figure who has this wonderful prefect image who has been caught doing unacceptable things. This time it is a Congressman from New York who is married, with a young son, who was the picture of a very moral and upright citizens who sent a nude picture of his upper half to some woman he met on a Craig List personal ad.
Of course, everybody is shocked, disappointed, frustrated and a bit angry at him. He has ruined another role model for goodness and virtue. "Why can't we all be like him?" was the word around his community. He is such a wonderful representative of our community and our values. And now this.
Here is but another piece of evidence in the debate about whether human beings are basically good or whether we are all flawed and have in us an element of evil. The Christian Theology claims that we were created good and have fallen and we are all tainted by evil. That is why we can baptize babies. Being human, born into the human community, we all have an element of darkness and selfishness in us from the beginning. That there is always a dimension of evil in all that we do. We do good deeds with a small hope that others will applaud us. We love our families as an extension of self-love. "There is none righteous, no, not one." We have a horrible time accepting that and living with that. Remember how shocked we were when we heard Nixon cuss?
The psychologist would remind us that when we repress things they do not go away, but show up in other places. When you try to suppress your fantasies they erupt and come out in other places. Some one once told me that evangelical preachers often are rather rotund and are very dapper dressers because those are the two forms of the sins of pride and gluttony that are acceptable in our society.
There is evil in all of us. It is not helpful for us to pretend to be perfect. There is evil in us. There is little reason to be surprised when evil appears. The only surprise is some times where and how it appears. The congressman was much better looking dressed than stripped.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
An Olympic Swan?
The movie Black Swan has enough to start a lot to discussions. It was hard to tell which scenes were real and which were hallucinations. But the ending of the movie made me think the lyrics of the Whitney Houston song, "One Moment in Time." That song was very much of the culture and media circus around the Olympics a few years ago. All over the radio. "I want one moment in time when I'm more than I thought I could be, When all of my dreams are a heartbeat away and the answers are all up to me." What a dream. What a inspiration. The song goes on to say that you are a winner for a lifetime if you seize that moment in time and make it shine. Nina seized her moment and she made it shine.
There was no attempt to avoid the tough road to that moment. The song knows it is not easy. "I broke my heart, Fought every gain, I faced the pain, I rise and fall, Yet through it all, this much remains - just give me that one moment in time." This is an all consuming dream. "I've lived to be the very best. I want it all. No time for less. I've laid the plans. Now lay the chance here in my hands. Give me one moment in time. And that one moment in time will give you the chance to feel eternity. "And the answers are all up to me. Give me one moment in time when I'm racing with destiny Then in that one moment of time I will be Free."
The movie Black Swan tells of a very determined mother and daughter Nina to be a famous dancer. To dance Swan Lake and to be star of the show. To put it mildly there are issues to be faced. But in the end she has her one moment in time. She opens as the Swan and dances incredibly well. At the end, the crowd is on its feet. She is smiling and says, "She was perfect." The director is over joyed with her work. And yet somehow most of us did not leave the movie with the feeling that this was a comedy and that it was a happy ending.
It seems to me that the Nina, the dancer, is a perfect fit for the One Moment in Time song, and yet something has gone wrong. "Whatever it takes" we say, and look at what it took from Nina. No pain; no gain. Just do it. "There is no substitute for success." So many messages out there. An Olympic Swan just seems to raise questions.
There was no attempt to avoid the tough road to that moment. The song knows it is not easy. "I broke my heart, Fought every gain, I faced the pain, I rise and fall, Yet through it all, this much remains - just give me that one moment in time." This is an all consuming dream. "I've lived to be the very best. I want it all. No time for less. I've laid the plans. Now lay the chance here in my hands. Give me one moment in time. And that one moment in time will give you the chance to feel eternity. "And the answers are all up to me. Give me one moment in time when I'm racing with destiny Then in that one moment of time I will be Free."
The movie Black Swan tells of a very determined mother and daughter Nina to be a famous dancer. To dance Swan Lake and to be star of the show. To put it mildly there are issues to be faced. But in the end she has her one moment in time. She opens as the Swan and dances incredibly well. At the end, the crowd is on its feet. She is smiling and says, "She was perfect." The director is over joyed with her work. And yet somehow most of us did not leave the movie with the feeling that this was a comedy and that it was a happy ending.
It seems to me that the Nina, the dancer, is a perfect fit for the One Moment in Time song, and yet something has gone wrong. "Whatever it takes" we say, and look at what it took from Nina. No pain; no gain. Just do it. "There is no substitute for success." So many messages out there. An Olympic Swan just seems to raise questions.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
March of Folly
Barbara Tuchman was a historian who worked very hard at writing history so that the average person could understand it. She did not use a lot of scholarly sources nor did she document her works. Her most famous work was The Guns of August, but the book that I remember best was called The March of Folly. Her observation was that there are moments in history when leaders confront a major situation and despite wise and consistent intelligent counsel the leaders do exactly the wrong thing. She picked the Trojan Horse as her first example. There was massive opposition to bringing the horse inside, but the leaders brought it in. The decision resulted in defeat.
She has other examples such as King George and the American colonies. King George got all kinds of request from the colonies to be more responsive to them. He had lots of advisers in England who spoke against the King's policies of taxation. King George's arrogance and belief in his own power as King continued the polices in a march of folly into the American revolution. He lost.
Barbara's last example was the American policy in Vietnam. She suggested that there were no lessons won from the French. There no education in the Pentagon from the leaders on the ground. There was no listening to the voice of the people who grew more and more opposed to the war. And We lost the war. None of the horrible domino consequences seemed to have happened.
Barbara is dead now, but certainly if the march of folly was going forward in Vietnam the march is continuing in our country even more. We have had the movie the Inconvenient Truth, the movie Food, Inc. the movie, Waiting for Superman, and the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan exposing for us the major fault lines in our society. The response has been to pretend like the problems are not there or just to continue on as if there is nothing wrong.
The March of Folly is to continue to march forward in the same direction that you have been marching even when you have been clearly warned that there is danger ahead. We seem to be marching pretty steadily forward. The only good news may be tht England still exists as a pleasant place and the U.S. may be a pleasant place to be a former power.
She has other examples such as King George and the American colonies. King George got all kinds of request from the colonies to be more responsive to them. He had lots of advisers in England who spoke against the King's policies of taxation. King George's arrogance and belief in his own power as King continued the polices in a march of folly into the American revolution. He lost.
Barbara's last example was the American policy in Vietnam. She suggested that there were no lessons won from the French. There no education in the Pentagon from the leaders on the ground. There was no listening to the voice of the people who grew more and more opposed to the war. And We lost the war. None of the horrible domino consequences seemed to have happened.
Barbara is dead now, but certainly if the march of folly was going forward in Vietnam the march is continuing in our country even more. We have had the movie the Inconvenient Truth, the movie Food, Inc. the movie, Waiting for Superman, and the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan exposing for us the major fault lines in our society. The response has been to pretend like the problems are not there or just to continue on as if there is nothing wrong.
The March of Folly is to continue to march forward in the same direction that you have been marching even when you have been clearly warned that there is danger ahead. We seem to be marching pretty steadily forward. The only good news may be tht England still exists as a pleasant place and the U.S. may be a pleasant place to be a former power.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Not to be Human
When the Republican majority in the House of Representatives was an accomplished fact, the response of John Boehner was to break down and shed tears of great joy and triumph. The response of many of the news agencies was to carry stories about the tears of joy. There were cynical, snarly comments made about “public tears” and Speaker Boehner was forced to defend himself in several television interviews. There seems to be something in the public opinion that does not want leaders to have emotions.
In fact, in this time immediately after an election now is a good time to look at the burden and limitations we, the public, places on the people who we expect to lead us. We may say we want people like us, people we can talk to, people who think like we do, people who share our values and our ideals, but there is also a very narrow and limited range of emotions they are permitted to have.
Some people will remember that before there was a Mitt Romney running for President there was in l968 a George Romney running for the Republican nomination. George had been a public supporter of our war in Vietnam, but during the campaign he honestly confessed that he felt he had been “brainwashed” by the military as to the reality of the war. In fact, most American accepted the military version of what was happening in Vietnam until things fell apart, but the public never considered George any further after his confession. We don’t want somebody like us who could be deceived by experts.
Tears really have been a problem. In the l972 campaign for President Senator Ed Muskie was the leading candidate for the nomination for the Democrats. On a snow afternoon in New Hampshire in front of a newspaper office the strain of campaigning and the dirty tricks of politics were too much. Ed Muskie broke down in tears. His frustration at the attacks on him and his wife flowed out in tears. He was never considered a serious candidate after those tears. No wonder John Boehner wanted to defend himself for his tears. It has been one of the great arguments against a woman president. She will be too emotional.
No trust, no tears. Howard Dean showed us we don’t want anybody with real passion that brings a scream to his lips. We have dismissed a number of high public servants from office because they told some jokes that most of us would have laughed at. We have just defeated Bob Etheridge, in part, because he showed some anger and was not polite to those invaders. There is a pretty serious straight jacket we want to put our public officials in.
If we want good, honest, hard working public officials, is it too much to ask to allow them to be able to laugh, to cry, to be angry, to admit that they get taken in by experts. It is reported that the shortest verse in the Bible is Jesus wept. That cry from the cross, “Why have you forsaken me?” is a pretty loud scream of anger as I hear it. Perhaps it will be a good thing if John Boehner is able to cry. Maybe we need more public figures who show emotions? Maybe?
In fact, in this time immediately after an election now is a good time to look at the burden and limitations we, the public, places on the people who we expect to lead us. We may say we want people like us, people we can talk to, people who think like we do, people who share our values and our ideals, but there is also a very narrow and limited range of emotions they are permitted to have.
Some people will remember that before there was a Mitt Romney running for President there was in l968 a George Romney running for the Republican nomination. George had been a public supporter of our war in Vietnam, but during the campaign he honestly confessed that he felt he had been “brainwashed” by the military as to the reality of the war. In fact, most American accepted the military version of what was happening in Vietnam until things fell apart, but the public never considered George any further after his confession. We don’t want somebody like us who could be deceived by experts.
Tears really have been a problem. In the l972 campaign for President Senator Ed Muskie was the leading candidate for the nomination for the Democrats. On a snow afternoon in New Hampshire in front of a newspaper office the strain of campaigning and the dirty tricks of politics were too much. Ed Muskie broke down in tears. His frustration at the attacks on him and his wife flowed out in tears. He was never considered a serious candidate after those tears. No wonder John Boehner wanted to defend himself for his tears. It has been one of the great arguments against a woman president. She will be too emotional.
No trust, no tears. Howard Dean showed us we don’t want anybody with real passion that brings a scream to his lips. We have dismissed a number of high public servants from office because they told some jokes that most of us would have laughed at. We have just defeated Bob Etheridge, in part, because he showed some anger and was not polite to those invaders. There is a pretty serious straight jacket we want to put our public officials in.
If we want good, honest, hard working public officials, is it too much to ask to allow them to be able to laugh, to cry, to be angry, to admit that they get taken in by experts. It is reported that the shortest verse in the Bible is Jesus wept. That cry from the cross, “Why have you forsaken me?” is a pretty loud scream of anger as I hear it. Perhaps it will be a good thing if John Boehner is able to cry. Maybe we need more public figures who show emotions? Maybe?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Both Ways
There has been another tragic shooting in a public place (this time in Arizona). One of the people shot was a Democratic congress woman who had been the subject of much of the Republican attack rhetoric in November. The shooter was a man with mental problems. The combination of events has produced a great deal of hostile discussion as to whether or not the attack language in politics has any responsibility for the shooting. Democratic talk show hosts have attempted to put the blame on the vicious kind of talk that Beck, "Rush," and others constantly put forth. The Republicans talk hosts have been denying responsibility and pointing to the same kind of language in the Democratic campaigns. Of course, both sides want to blame the other side.
Such events, at a minimum, ought to remind both sides that speech, words, language has consequences. Neither side can blame the other and not accept the their own share of blame. Words have power. The Dr. King speech has left a tremendous beacon of hope for a whole half a century. But if a positive speech like that can have that kind of good, then certainly it must be possible for a constant barge of negative, hostile, mean, incendiary speeches to have negative and horrible consequences. There were good reasons why Jesus says our speech should be rather simple. Our "Yes" yes and our "No" no, and there should be no swearing or expansion on the answers. James talks about the evil that can come from the tongue and how hard it is to control the tongue.
The current debate about the impact of vicious language in the shooting in Arizona is not going to have much effect for it is now clearly wrapped up in the two sides aggressively blaming the other, and neither side willing to see that the claims the make against the other applies to them as well. The arguments that are made cut "both ways." Words have consequences and the words from both sides have been less that sane, reasonable, and limited.
The other issue that comes up is the whole question of gun control as Arizona has almost no gun controls. No license, no waiting period, no background check. To suggest that such rules might have helped prevent this event immediately draws the old maxim, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." But surely society has a responsibility to its citizens to try to protect the citizens from those who are not able to be responsible for themselves. The shooter's past might well have been revealed in a background check. The obstacles in his way to getting a gun may have prevented this event.
In a much broader discussion there is a major division in our society. No one denies that personal responsibility is where blame ought to be placed. Sex education ought to be taught at home. Parents ought to discipline their children. Two parents ought to be raising a child. Those are all agreed. That is the way we think it SHOULD be done. The division in our society comes when it is finally admitted that it is not that way for all people. There are children who learn about sex on the street. There are children who have no parents to teach them. There are single parents. Then the question is does society as a whole have a responsibility for doing what has not been done?
Does society have a responsibility to protect the citizen from a person with mental problems from getting a weapon? Does society need to teach in school sex education. Who provides and gives discipline when parents fail to do the job? Are we our brothers and sisters keeper?
In Arizona, I have heard them saying that we need to get back to "Frontier Justice." Everybody with a gun on her hip and the right to use it as quickly as possible? Somehow I am not sure that is what Jesus has in mind for the kingdom of God.
Such events, at a minimum, ought to remind both sides that speech, words, language has consequences. Neither side can blame the other and not accept the their own share of blame. Words have power. The Dr. King speech has left a tremendous beacon of hope for a whole half a century. But if a positive speech like that can have that kind of good, then certainly it must be possible for a constant barge of negative, hostile, mean, incendiary speeches to have negative and horrible consequences. There were good reasons why Jesus says our speech should be rather simple. Our "Yes" yes and our "No" no, and there should be no swearing or expansion on the answers. James talks about the evil that can come from the tongue and how hard it is to control the tongue.
The current debate about the impact of vicious language in the shooting in Arizona is not going to have much effect for it is now clearly wrapped up in the two sides aggressively blaming the other, and neither side willing to see that the claims the make against the other applies to them as well. The arguments that are made cut "both ways." Words have consequences and the words from both sides have been less that sane, reasonable, and limited.
The other issue that comes up is the whole question of gun control as Arizona has almost no gun controls. No license, no waiting period, no background check. To suggest that such rules might have helped prevent this event immediately draws the old maxim, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." But surely society has a responsibility to its citizens to try to protect the citizens from those who are not able to be responsible for themselves. The shooter's past might well have been revealed in a background check. The obstacles in his way to getting a gun may have prevented this event.
In a much broader discussion there is a major division in our society. No one denies that personal responsibility is where blame ought to be placed. Sex education ought to be taught at home. Parents ought to discipline their children. Two parents ought to be raising a child. Those are all agreed. That is the way we think it SHOULD be done. The division in our society comes when it is finally admitted that it is not that way for all people. There are children who learn about sex on the street. There are children who have no parents to teach them. There are single parents. Then the question is does society as a whole have a responsibility for doing what has not been done?
Does society have a responsibility to protect the citizen from a person with mental problems from getting a weapon? Does society need to teach in school sex education. Who provides and gives discipline when parents fail to do the job? Are we our brothers and sisters keeper?
In Arizona, I have heard them saying that we need to get back to "Frontier Justice." Everybody with a gun on her hip and the right to use it as quickly as possible? Somehow I am not sure that is what Jesus has in mind for the kingdom of God.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Pascal's wager and Global Warming
Once again on the first day of the new year, 2011, I saw a rant about how global warming is all part of some Democratic scam to steal profit, success, and power from corporations. There is, to quote them, no scientific evidence to support the claims of Global Warming. Now that in itself seems rather strange because I have read lots of scientists who conclude that there is Global Warming, but I might be willing to accept in principle that there is no conclusive proof for Global Warming. Even as there is no conclusive proof for half of the things we do based on our current scientific information.
But it seems to me that the question of Global Warming could very well benefit from applying Pascal's Wager about the existence of God and Heaven. Pascal was a French mathematician and theologian. He proposed the following argument. If we "wager" that there is a God and Heaven, and live with that faith, and die and there is a God and a Heaven, then you win. If you wager that there is not a God and a Heaven, and you die and there is a God and a Heaven, you lose. If you wager that there is a God and a Heaven and you die and there is no heaven and no God, then you have lose. If you don't believe in God and a Heaven, and you die, and there is no God and no heaven, then you may win the wager, but you are still dead and no place to go. So the only good wager is to believe there is a God and a Heaven and see what happens. It is the only wager that has a possibility of winning.
If that wager is applied to Global Warming and we begin to make changes that are shaped by that conviction then we may some positive changes in our lives which are good even if we discover that Global Warming is not as serious as some fear. If we wager that there is no Global Warming and do nothing and there is Global Warming happening, then there are going to be very serious negative consequences. The wager that there might be Global warming benefits us even if it turns out to be unnecessary. The wager that there is no Global Warming happening will bring more of the same for society now or worse.
The wager that Global Warming may be happening and making changes as a result of that conviction is the wager that has a win-win either way it happens. The wager that it is not happening has a negative outcome and a neutral (life goes on as currently being lived)outcome. It seems wise to me to wager that Global warming is happening.
But it seems to me that the question of Global Warming could very well benefit from applying Pascal's Wager about the existence of God and Heaven. Pascal was a French mathematician and theologian. He proposed the following argument. If we "wager" that there is a God and Heaven, and live with that faith, and die and there is a God and a Heaven, then you win. If you wager that there is not a God and a Heaven, and you die and there is a God and a Heaven, you lose. If you wager that there is a God and a Heaven and you die and there is no heaven and no God, then you have lose. If you don't believe in God and a Heaven, and you die, and there is no God and no heaven, then you may win the wager, but you are still dead and no place to go. So the only good wager is to believe there is a God and a Heaven and see what happens. It is the only wager that has a possibility of winning.
If that wager is applied to Global Warming and we begin to make changes that are shaped by that conviction then we may some positive changes in our lives which are good even if we discover that Global Warming is not as serious as some fear. If we wager that there is no Global Warming and do nothing and there is Global Warming happening, then there are going to be very serious negative consequences. The wager that there might be Global warming benefits us even if it turns out to be unnecessary. The wager that there is no Global Warming happening will bring more of the same for society now or worse.
The wager that Global Warming may be happening and making changes as a result of that conviction is the wager that has a win-win either way it happens. The wager that it is not happening has a negative outcome and a neutral (life goes on as currently being lived)outcome. It seems wise to me to wager that Global warming is happening.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Stuck in the Middle With You
There is more and more evidence that our current educational efforts for our young are failing. The recent report of the results of math and science competition with the world is but the most recent. The drop out rate, the poor performance on end of grade tests, the number of parents home-schooling, and the impact of technology on the learning styles of the coming generation all are major factors in the discussion.
What is also more and more evident is that we are all stuck in the middle with old ideas. The Republican philosophy seems to be pushing for two different solutions. One is the return of neighborhood schools which would result, most likely, in the re-segregating the schools. Most neighborhoods that I see are single ethnic groupings. The other direction that the Republicans talk about is vouchers for parents. This would give parental choice to families but would result in leaving the public schools with the neglected and ignored children.
But the Democratic Leadership does not seem to have any new or better ideas or programs. They talk about pushing for excellence and for new approaches but they are politically tied historically to Teachers Unions which have resisted changes and especially resisted the demand for competency in teaching. They refuse to support or offer ways to evaluate teachers' performances. It is the duty of Unions to work for its members and so Teacher's Union are for protecting the teachers and their first focus is not the education of the student.
There seems to me to be a major need to re-examine the whole educational system. How can we get all of our children to the place of reading and basic math. We need the ability to say that all students will achieve a certain level of skill before moving forward. Nobody gets passed the third grade until they can read, write, and do math at that level. That means pulling out those that do not pass first grade standards at the first grade. It means holding back a second grade child until they can do second grade work. It means a lot of remedial and special attention in these early grades. It may mean that the population of elementary schools will shoot up wildly.
There is a need to develop more educational tracks besides Hard knocks and college. More service skills are needed. Not every child is college material nor wants to be college educated, but almost all work now requires some kind of education beyond high school. Most education needs cooperation of others. It is not apparent that we as a nation are getting our value from our investment in education. We need some people to find away to think outside of the limits of the Republicans and the Democrats and to think about how to prepare our youth for the new world they will be living in.
What is also more and more evident is that we are all stuck in the middle with old ideas. The Republican philosophy seems to be pushing for two different solutions. One is the return of neighborhood schools which would result, most likely, in the re-segregating the schools. Most neighborhoods that I see are single ethnic groupings. The other direction that the Republicans talk about is vouchers for parents. This would give parental choice to families but would result in leaving the public schools with the neglected and ignored children.
But the Democratic Leadership does not seem to have any new or better ideas or programs. They talk about pushing for excellence and for new approaches but they are politically tied historically to Teachers Unions which have resisted changes and especially resisted the demand for competency in teaching. They refuse to support or offer ways to evaluate teachers' performances. It is the duty of Unions to work for its members and so Teacher's Union are for protecting the teachers and their first focus is not the education of the student.
There seems to me to be a major need to re-examine the whole educational system. How can we get all of our children to the place of reading and basic math. We need the ability to say that all students will achieve a certain level of skill before moving forward. Nobody gets passed the third grade until they can read, write, and do math at that level. That means pulling out those that do not pass first grade standards at the first grade. It means holding back a second grade child until they can do second grade work. It means a lot of remedial and special attention in these early grades. It may mean that the population of elementary schools will shoot up wildly.
There is a need to develop more educational tracks besides Hard knocks and college. More service skills are needed. Not every child is college material nor wants to be college educated, but almost all work now requires some kind of education beyond high school. Most education needs cooperation of others. It is not apparent that we as a nation are getting our value from our investment in education. We need some people to find away to think outside of the limits of the Republicans and the Democrats and to think about how to prepare our youth for the new world they will be living in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)