​Twelve-year old-responds to terrorism
 
Often my adopted niece  or nephew calls to ask if I will help them with their homework.   I can be pretty sure that one or both of their parents have suggested that they call me because the homework assignment required more time and thought than they could give it on a particular day. 
 
Thus, I was not surprised when Paul called to ask if he could come over.   He told me the assignment was for each of the students in his ethics class to bring in an outline of how they would approach stropping the terrorist attacks.  After everyone in the class has a chance to respond, the class would vote on which approach to adopt or decide to come up with some other options. Although this might seem an unusual assignment for seventh graders it was not unusual for their teacher to challenge them and their parents with tough adult issues.   I had  been thrilled when I found  that the school Paul and his sister Sam attend was going to require an ethics class. The sub-title was Problem Solving.   I did not have an ethics class until I got to college and that was only required for those of us majoring in philosophy.
 
I know that Paul will be coming directly from school.  I have a fruit bowl, crackers, peanut butter and a large glass of milk ready for him.
 
I also know that Paul has just come from soccer practice and, thus, do not plan any post-classroom physical activity.  We may, however, need to take Oscar, the sheepdog, for a walk later.
 
I look across the yard and see Paul coming over now.
 
Open the door, I give him a shout out.  Good afternoon.
 
Paul:  (sighs).  Hi Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  Must seem like a long day after having a long Easter break.
 
Paul:  It sure did. I am hungry Uncle Jim.
Me:  I bet you are.  I have your milk and some snacks already set out.
 
Paul:  No Easter candy?
 
Me:  I suspect that part of your tiredness is overdosing on candy yesterday.   The fruit has plenty of natural sugar.
 
Paul:  Ok. I guess.
 
Me:  So, you and I have to come up with a plan to dealing with the terror attacks.   Have you come up with any ideas?
 
Paul:  Yes.  Everyone is coming up with a plan and then we are going to vote on the best plan or if the class cannot agree everyone will come up with another plan.  This is really hard Uncle Jim.  
 
Me:  Yes, it is. It seems as if there are more and more terrorist attacks.  I wonder if we should start with a definition of a terrorist attack which describes recent attacks in Paris, Belgium, Iraq and Pakistan.
Paul: Okay.  I will get the dictionary.
 
Paul gets the Oxford dictionary off the shelf in the kitchen.
 
Me:  Perhaps we should look up the word terrorism since I think the dictionary is just going to tell us a terrorist is one who employs/uses terrorism.
 
Paul:  It does not say much.   It says,  “the use of violent action to achieve political aims or to force a government to act.”
 Me:  I guess we should look up the intent of terrorists. Here is a  site  labeled “terrorism-research.com.”.   What does it say Paul?
 
Paul:  It says, “A terrorist group commits acts of violence to-
     Produce widespread fear
     Obtain worldwide, national, or local recognition for their cause by attracting the attention of the media.
     Harass, weaken or embarrass government security forces so that the government overreacts and appears repressive.
     Steal or extort money and equipment, especially weapons and ammunition, vital to the operation of their group.
     Destroy facilities or disrupt lines of communication in order to create doubt that the government can provide for and protect its citizens.
     Discourage foreign investments, tourism or assistance programs that can affect the target country’s economy and support of the government in power.
     Free prisoners.
     Satisfy vengeance.
     Turn the tide in a guerilla war by forcing government security forces to concentrate in urban areas. This allows the terrorist group to establish itself among the local populace in rural areas.”
 
Me:  That still does not tell us much about the people who are currently responsible for the suicide bombs.
 
Paul:  I am getting even more confused Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  I know.  What do we know about the terrorist?   We know that they claim to be Muslims and that they think that they are doing the work of their God, Allah.
 
Paul: Most Muslims are not terrorists are they Uncle Jim?
 
Me: No, they are not. We know a number of Muslims who are very peaceful. I think you have some in your class and I know Sam has some in her class.
 
Do you think that there are radical people in every religion?
 
Paul:  In class we learned that many in the KKK believed that they were doing the work of God and many religious leaders preached that God wanted slaves.  We also learned that many Christian people believe that it is their duty to make sure women do not have abortions and they stop gay and lesbian people from getting married. Some even believe that it would  be okay to kill gay and lesbian people.
 
Me: That is right Paul. So we know that members of ISIS and some other Muslim groups think that Allah wants them to kill all people who do not worship Allah  in the same way that they do.  If we look up goals of ISIS and similar groups on CNN, Huffington Post or other sites we find that they want to “liberate Muslims everyone” by stirring up “religious hatred” and all Muslims want to join the caliphate.” (cnn.com).  
 
They are like others who have waged holy wars.  Have you studied about Holy Wars Paul?
 
Paul: There have been a lot of holy wars by Christians and others haven’t there been Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Yes, we humans have been killing each other in the name of our religious beliefs for a very long time Paul.   So if the Terrorists are waging a holy war, what does it tell us Paul?
 
Paul:  Well, our teacher says that if someone believes something religiously one cannot argue with them.
 
Me:  I agree with that. One cannot argue with a god. Something might make sense to a god and not make sense to be humans.
 
Paul: So if we cannot have a discussion with the terrorists, what can we do Uncle Jim?  I know you do not believe in violence  but how else will we stop them?
 
Me:  Just a minute Paul.  What else do we know about them?
 
Paul: Well, the holy wars were usually waged by a country or an empire, right Uncle Jim?
 
Me: Very good Paul. That is accurate.   What about the current terrorists groups such as ISIS?
 
Paul:  Their community is spread out all over the world Uncle Jim.  With the internet, the organization can include people from around the world.
 
Me:  Yes, that is very important. Even though some of the leaders are in  particular places, there  are many groups and leaders around the world.
 
Paul:  So just killing people in one place or country will not do much good, will it Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Wow, that is very smart of you to figure that out.
 
Paul:  What else do we know Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  If we look on line, here at cnn.com it tells us that:
     There is no ethic profile
     The average age is 25
     Average IQ is high 
 
Paul:  This gets more confusing. We have not come up with even a beginning plan yet Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  No, but what have we done Paul.
 
Paul:  Well we are finding out more about who these people are Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  Do you think that is important Paul?
 
Paul:  Well, you, mom and dad say that if we want to create a better world we have to get to know each other. It seems as if we are seeing them more as people and not just putting a label on them Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  That is true Paul. Do you think that this needs to be our first step in a plan to deal with these people who we are calling terrorists Paul?
 
Paul:  It sure forces us to think about them as people. Now our subject is how do we deal with the the people who are convinced that their God wants them to kill everyone not like them.
 
Me: Do you think that you can present as a first step in a plan to dealing with so called “terrorists”  - to get to know them as people?
 
Paul:  Do you think that is enough of a plan Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  I think that your teacher will be very pleased.  Shall we write down our goal and what we have learned about them so far?
 
Paul:  Okay Uncle Jim.   I will type and you can help me remember.
 
Me: Great. You have done really well today Paul. I am very proud of you.
 
 
Written March 28, 2016

​Sacred – affection – logic – God
 
It is Sunday morning.   Since I am frequently a creature of habit – except when I am not – I have spent some hours communicating with friends via email and texts, working out at the gym, reading the newspaper, listening to the NPR program On Being and then reading the transcript of the interview by Krista Tippett with Nathan Schneider, reviewing some of the writings of Saint Anselm and giving some thought to my ongoing discovery of prejudices.     First of all, you, the reader, might not, as I  was not, be familiar with the author, philosopher, spiritual seeker and editor Nathan Schneider.   In his own words:
 
“I’m Nathan Schneider, a writer and editor based in Brooklyn. I published a book each on God and the Occupy movement. Writing articles for a variety of publications, from Harpers, The Nation, and the Chronicle of Higher Education to The New Inquiry and The Catholic Worker keeps my notebooks filled. Editing the online religion magazine, Killing the Buddha, keeps me odd.”
[laughter]
“Waging Nonviolence, a publication I co-founded, keeps me up on struggles for justice around the world. And being a contributing editor at the Social Science Research Council’s online forum, The Immanent Frame, keeps me in touch with the Academy.”
MR. SCHNEIDER: I was born in 1984, and had the chance to experience a really rich slice of American religious diversity and pluralism in that upbringing. That was in Arlington, Virginia, inside the Beltway, in the midst of the political circus, but in a very rich home, with a Jewish father and a mother who’d grown up in the Protestant tradition. And both of them, together, were searchers. And I got to go along with that in the midst of my childhood. “  (Copied and pasted from the transcript of the On Being interview with Mr. Schneider.)
 
When Mr. Schneider was first introduced as being born in 1984 my first thought was that he is very young (even younger than my six-year-old adopted niece Sam or her 12-year-old brother Paul). Wow!  Where did that come from?  One of the strange facts about aging is that time is compressed. When I hear “1984” I hear yesterday. I have to consciously think, “Oh my God, that was 32 years ago.”  It is ironic that on this day on which Christians are celebrating Easter (at least in this time and date zone) I am listening to a man who was about the same age as Jesus was when he died.
 
I am soon awed by the erudite use of the English language, the depth of spiritual insight and the wisdom of the questions which Mr. Schneider is exploring.  I quickly know that this is a peer who is new to me – a peer who combines the youthful curiosity of my adopted six-year-old niece Sam and the maturity of the appreciation of the contradictions which are inherent in all of life.
 
On this Sunday morning I am again missing being part of a community of believers who are always questioning their beliefs. I know that there are groups such as the Unitarians Universalists which invite all who are needing to impose a particular framework on each other.  Yet, I have not connected or allowed myself to connect emotionally with that community.
 
One of the statements by Mr. Schneider strikes a chord deep within me. He says:
 
“And the real power of a lot of these arguments of these so-called proofs, Anselm’s being a particularly vital one, is in the kind of relationship that they’re forging, the way in which they express God in and through an account of relationship between people. A lot of the philosophical language that Anselm uses I realized was also in a letter that he had written to a friend describing his admiration and affection for this friend. This language that is always presented in these textbooks as being a kind of yes-or-no, cut-and-dry logical statement was, for him, a statement of affection. It was still a statement of logic, but you can’t separate that logic from that affection.”
 
It has been a long time since I read the works of Saint Anselm of Canterbury exploring, among others, the question of the proof of the existence of God. I do not recall being cognizant of the relationship for Saint Anselm between affection and logic. Yet, of course, once I think about and remember Saint Anselm, this makes perfect sense.
 
I am also reminded of the love –hate relationship which I and many others have with the organization of the church.  I know that what a Tlingit friend of mine said to me is true, “Out of the Christian church has come both the most passionate and committed leaders for social justice and the cruelest oppressors imaginable.”  Anytime we humans are involved we will find these two powerful sides of our humanness impressed upon the activity or the structure.
 
Mr. Schneider talks of the morphing of the Operation Wall Street movement into the Operation Sandy movement. I did not realize the extent to which the very same persons who were part of the seemingly fizzled out Occupy Wall Street revolution partnered with the organizational church to collect, organize and distribute supplies to those who life had been so affected by Hurricane Sandy. 
 
The church with which these revolutionaries partnered was the same organization which has been reinventing itself since its inception.  Mr. Schneider reminds us:
 
“That’s a really — I think an important connection to draw. The monastic movement formed, in Christianity, at least, right about the moment when Christianity became the religion of empire. It formed in response to the institutionalization of the faith, of this recognition that there has to be something else. There’s another part here that we’re missing when we’re just doing the institution. Institutions will always fail us. And the institution, they felt, was failing them. And I think that’s something that every generation has to confront in new ways.”
 
We know that the etiology of the word church is “community.”  Yet, it is this lack of a sense of community which had led to so many people today finding it difficult to align themselves with a particular religious institution.  As both Mr. Schneider and Mrs. Tippett point out it is the “N-O-N-E-S (those marking none for church or religious affiliation) who are using the internet to connect as a community.     Mr. Schneider acknowledges and discusses concerns about the corporate ownership of the internet which for some limited access and, yet, we are finding ways to connect.
 
On this Easter Sunday morning I am reminded of the statement attributed to Jesus, “When two or three are gathered in my name (in love) there shall I be also.” (Matthew 18:20).  Mr. Schneider suggests that as soon as people gather together it is a sacred gathering.   While many of us may not find in the current structure of the Catholic Church the rituals and traditions which nurture and embrace us in the same way that they do Mr. Schneider, there is no denying that it is this longing for community which is the primary  attraction of the internet  for the radical terrorists, the right-wing individuals determined to limit the rights of GLBT people, women, and many others, and those like Nathan Schneider who are determined to show that non-violence is still a powerful option – that a community  based on love and not hate is possible.
 
There is no denying all of these seemingly disparate groups of people are looking for community and a sense of purpose. The challenge is to non-violently, lovingly acknowledge that common goal and find a way to nurture that goal together through love and not hate.
 
Written March 27, 2016

​Challenges and opportunities of aging
 
Since many of those I know either have relatives who are in their nineties and I, along with my contemporaries, are in or close to seventies, we are having to face the reality that along with new opportunities come the challenges of aging.
 
The concept of what is considered old, especially in the very privileged life with which I have been blessed, keeps changing.  I looked at some photographs of my paternal grandparents who were in their 40s when I was born. They look very mature if not actually old.  The style of dress and their general demeanor says that they are mature elders who deserve respect.  Even those of my friends in their seventies do not now appear as mature and as elder like.  They are stylish, active, physically fit and may be holding a tennis racket, biking or finishing a 5 K.     Many, as is true with me, are still working full or part time.  If asked to pencil in a date for something, they may have to skip ahead a month or so.     As the saying goes, “The times they are a changing.”
 
Yet, much has not changed.  I hear myself and my friends saying the exact same things which I recall my elder grandparents saying:  
·      They just do not make things like they used to.
·      If so and so wins the election, it will be the end of the world as we know it.
·      Young people are so spoiled. They do not know what real work is.
One could go on and on with such examples. The point is that in some ways nothing has changed.  As we age, we insert the CD for aged people and out comes the sayings.
 
While many of us are blessed with more active lives into our eighties and, for some of us, even into our nineties, will eventually, if we continue to live, face new issues:
·      When do we consider moving into an assisted living facility or moving a loved one to such a facility?
·      What assisted living facilities are available?
·      If money is an issue, can we bear to put a loved one in a substandard facility?
·      Do we have a real option?  If a loved one has acute Alzheimer’s and is not manageable at home, will we be forced to put them in a substandard home?
·      How do we live with a less than optimal decision?
·      Do we live in a state where it is legal to assist a loved one with suicide/choose when to die when they determine the quality of life no longer warrants living?
·      If we do not live in such a state, should one consider moving to such a state?
·      Are we leaving a mess for her loved ones – financially?  Have we arranged our affairs so that we will not be a burden for others?  For example, do we have just enough money to keep us from getting Medicaid assistance but not enough to take care of us?  Have we borrowed more money, i. e. reverse mortgage, than our “estate” will cover?
·      What “stuff” are we leaving and what instructions have we left for disposing of it?
·      Does anyone in the family really want our stuff and, if not, how much of a burden will be to settle our estate?
·      Do we have a clear, legal power or attorney, living will, will and other such documents?
·      Is our home accessible for a wheel chair?  Can we make it thus? What level of self-care is possible in this home if we are limited physically?
·      Have we left clear directions for funeral, burial, cremation, etc.
·      Do we have a support system in place if we or loved ones require more care? Have we moved to a retirement area which is far away from any family or other support?
·      Have we anticipated how we are going to stay connected to a larger world if we are trapped at home a lot of time because we are caring for an ill loved one?
·      Have we a system for discerning our spiritual purpose for each stage of our life and whatever that brings?
·      Is there another relative for whom we will need to provide care when their caretakers not available?
 
What are the potential spiritual issues?  Consider:
 
·      Are we ready to accept the next stage of our life and part of our spiritual journey?
·      How will be know the difference between acceptance and giving up?
·      What do I want to model spiritually for children or other “young” people at this later stage of my life?
·      Am I prepared for a crisis of faith?
·      Will I be able to grieve loss in a healthy spiritual manner- allowing “natural” emotions - while not pushing away people or my emotions or dumping emotions on others?
·      Do I have a sense of humor and friends/loved one who will lovingly laugh and cry with me?
Written March 26, 2016

​Good news
 
On this Saturday, the day before Christians celebrate  a new vision of the world as symbolized in their faith in the resurrection,  we humans continue to divide  each other into those who are deserving and those who are not deserving.  
 
Often the central message of Christianity is referred to as the good news.  To some this means that those who profess faith in Jesus as “the risen savior” can be assured of an eternal home in heaven.   To some this means that regardless of who we are, what we have done in the past, how much money we have, who we love or any negative labels which have been assigned by individuals or groups, the central message of Jesus is that all are worthwhile and deserving of love.    Pope Francis symbolized this inclusiveness  by washing the feet of the Hindus, Muslims and Christians while reminding  himself and them that even though they have different cultures and religions they are brothers (even though he used the word brother, I know he was including both the eight males and four females whose feet he washed).
 
This week has seen yet more so-called terrorist bombings including the one in Brussels which killed 30 people and injuring more than 300, more alleged potential bombings in Paris, and a bombing in a soccer stadium South of Bagdad which received relatively little attention. 
 
Although it only 9:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning, I have heard negative comments about blacks, Muslims, and  youths who steal  by individuals who seemed to be extoling the power of guns and punishment.  As is often the case, I cannot think of any positive way of offering a different opinion.
 
Who speaks for the Muslims, the youths, the poor, those who are in jail, the prostitutes, or the others who are assigned to the fringes of society?  Who speaks for the 24-year-old young man in North Dakota who was “discovered” working as an Easter Bunny at a mall after being labeled a sex offender for indecent exposure?  Who speaks for the homeless?
 
I am pleased to read that there is a Pride Parade and related events in the Ybor City section of Tampa today.  I am pleased that some heath care clinics serving the poor will include mental health care.  I am pleased to read of a teenager being lauded  and awarded for her effort to fight pediatric brain cancer.    I was excited when listening to some Ted Talks about innovative approaches to enrich our lives of endeavor.  I am encouraged when I listen to this week’s edition of People’s Pharmacy addressing the issues of the high cost of medication. 
 
It seems that as we humans observe various traditions which celebrate new life and new beginnings  we will continue to struggle with the question of who is deserving of not only the luxuries which enrich the lives of many but of the basics.   In fact we will struggle with the same questions which theologians, philosophers, religious and spiritual leaders have been asking since some of we humans moved beyond  the historical point when all of our effort was devoted to getting enough food and fuel for the day. We may attempt to limit this discussion to  who we determined or worthy of being called human beings.  (Again this morning I read an editorial by a Muslim leader, Huma Munir, who suggested in talking about terrorists who call themselves Muslims, “Instead of kindness, they have shown a ruthless spirit that longs to murder people in cold blood. Far from being Muslim, these people don’t even deserve to be called human beings.” (Tampa Tribune, March, 26, 2016, p. 26 “terrorist have rejected Islam” by Huma Munir).  While I  applaud his effort to distance the Muslim beliefs from those who kill in the name of Allah, I think that there is a lot of historical evidence to remind us of the negative consequences of labeling some of us as non-human.
 
The biggest danger is not challenging each other to think more reflectively about this question of who is deserving.   It seems very easy for we humans to – this human at least –  just go along with what is most comfortable.  Often giving our silent assent to the assumptions that some are deserving and some are not is the easiest path.  It is difficult, at best, to find a loving, respectful way to challenge each other to consider the possibility that all of us are deserving. Of course, this would require that we also question the idea of free will  - the idea our brain synapses fire in such a way to formulate what some consider to be logical thoughts independent of history, food, chemicals and other influences.    
 
If I am going to posit that all are deserving of love, respect and the basics of food, shelter, spiritual richness, education and a safe environment, then I have to include those with whom I disagree  - those who do not think all who are deserving – those who think some of us are deserving of punishing and even death.  This is the core problem with positing this theory. In the Christian religion this is the challenge of those of us who think that Jesus does offer unconditional love to all of us.  In the Muslim religion this means that one has to allow for the possibility that love and peace are central.
 
I have baked a huge ring of what is sometimes called Easter bread. It is a braided ring of bread which contains colored hard boiled eggs.  Tomorrow I will take that bread as well as some other homemade rolls to a dinner with friends. Others will also bring food to share.   We will feed each other, which for me, will  signify a renewed commitment to  find ways to invite all I meet to partake of this substance.   In the Christian church this is the symbolism of communion –  Jesus inviting all of us to share in the supper which has been lovingly prepared. Even though some religious institutions have excluded some in the invitation, my understanding is that all are welcome because all are worthy.
 
 
Written  March 26, 2016

​Six-year old Sam learns about the loneliness of friendship
 
It is Good Friday in the Christian tradition which means that my six-year-old adopted niece, Sam, was off school.   I had joined her and her family for Maundy Thursday dinner and church.   Sam had asked if she could come this morning after she and Paul colored and decorated the eggs.  She said she wanted to talk about friendship    

I had made up the hot chocolate and gotten a package of chocolate chip cookies from the freezer. Sam, her brother Paul, and I occasionally spend an afternoon making 12 dozen or so cookies.  What we don’t eat while we are making them we freeze.
 
I look out the window and see that she is just leaving her house and will soon be at my kitchen door.
 
Me: Good morning Sam.  Did you and Paul color all the eggs?
 
Sam:  Good morning  Uncle Jim.  Yes, we had a great time. I made one with your face on it. You look really funny.    Look! 
Sam shows me a yellow egg with a purple drawing of an old man with hair sticking out all over and a straggly beard.   Clearly she had fun with this creation.   
 
Me:  That is fun.  Here, we’ll put it in an egg cup and when you and your family come for dinner Sunday we will use it as part of the table decoration.  I guess I will have to make an egg with a picture of you on it too!
 
Sam: Oh no! You will make me look silly!
 
Me: No sillier than you made me look Sam.
 
Sam: Okay. I guess.
 
Me:  Here, Sam, I will pour your hot chocolate.  Here are the marshmallows.
 
Sam:  Thanks Uncle Jim.
 
Me. You are welcome Sam.  You wanted to talk about your friends Ahmes and Yana?
 
Ahmes, is her Egyptian classmate and Yana is her Syrian classmate.
 
Sam:  Yes, Uncle Jim.  Some of the kids have been saying mean things about Muslims again. You know that Ahmes and Yana are Muslims?
 
Me:  Yes.  Did this get worse again after the bombing in Brussels Sam?
Sam:  Yes.  I know we have talked about this before but I do not understand why anyone treats Yana and Ahmes  as if they were responsible for the bombs.
 
Me:  Yes, sometimes we humans blame a whole group or religion don’t we?
 
Sam:  At breakfast dad was showing us the picture of the Pope washing the feet of people from many different religions.  Mom and dad think that Jesus would have been proud of the Pope.
 
Me: Yes, I saw that. Here is the picture and the article.  It says he was washing the feet of Muslim, Orthodox, Hindu, and Catholic refugees.  He said that they are all children of the same God.
 
Sam: So he would not call Ahmes and Yana bad people would he?
 
Me.  No, he would not Sam.  Apparently, Pope Francis thinks the same way that Jesus seemed to think.  Jesus seemed to act as if we are all deserving of love.  Do you think that everyone in the Catholic church agrees with Pope Francis, Sam?
 
Sam:  No, mom and dad said that some people were really mad at the Pope.  Even in school the teacher asked us why we thought that some Catholics were really angry at the Pope.
 
Me:  What did you say Sam?
 
Sam:  I said that my mother, dad, and Uncle Jim think that Jesus taught us to love everyone and not care what religion we belong to but some people do not think that way.
 
Me:  What did others say when you said that?
 
Sam:  Some of he kids said that God would be really angry if the Catholics went to a Muslim moose.
 
Me:  I think they meant Mosque Sam.  Here, let me write it on the board so that you can see the word.   Moose is an animal.
 
Sam:   Uncle Jim, what about the Moose Lodge we saw the other day?
 
Me: You are right Sam.  At any rate here is the word “Mosque” which is what some people call a church and others call a temple.
 
Sam:  Still, why would God be angry if I went to a Mooque? Opps!  (She looks at the board.) M o s q u e?
 
Me:  Well, you,  your parents and apparently even Pope Francis does not think that God would be angry. Some  people, however, think that God only loves those who are a certain religion and worship in a certain way.   Some people think the pope is really a bad pope for  not thinking this way.
 
Sam: We think he is a good Pope, don’t we Uncle Jim?
 
Me: Well, I really like the way he treats everyone.
 
Sam:  Me too, Uncle Jim.  Do the people who killed the people the other day think that God loves everyone Uncle Jim?   
 
Me: No, some Muslims believe that God only loves certain Muslims just as some people believe that God only loves some Catholics.  
 
Sam:  But the Catholics who do not like the fact that the Pope thinks God does not care what religion we are do not set up bombs and kill people do they Uncle Jim?
 
Me: No, not usually although there are some Christians, including some Catholics,  who think that God wants them to treat some others really bad. I was just reading that North Carolina passed a new law making it more difficult for some members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual,and transgender community.  
 
Sam: Some of our friends love people who are the same as them, don’t they Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Yes, that is true.  We – your parents and I – think that God love us all.  We have to remember that there have been times when some Catholics thought that God wanted to kill people who were not Catholics.  There have always been people who thought that God only cares about those who believe that they are the same as them.
 
Sam:  So, when we treat people who are different than we are, we are the same as the people who set up the bombs Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Sam, you always amaze me. You are so bright and so loving. Yes, even though we may not be killing in the name of God when we treat people badly because they are different, we feed the dragon.  Remember the dragon of prejudice? There is the dragon we drew on the board the other day Sam.
 
Sam:  Prejudice is when we treat someone bad just because they are different?
 
Me: Very good Sam. Yes, that is accurate.  Some people are treating Yana and Ahmes as if they are responsible for the bombers.   Yes, you and I know that most Muslims are very peaceful and loving.
 
Sam:  When I say that it is wrong to call Yana and Ahmes names and treat them bad then the other kids call me names.
 
Me:  That is very sad Sam. I am sorry.  Do you think it would be better if you did not defend Yana and Ahmes?
 
Sam:  One day I did not say anything  and I felt really bad all day long.   I did not feel close to Yana and Ahmes and I did not feel close to the kids who called them names. I felt all alone. 
 
Me:  Yes, I can see where that would be a very lonely feeling Sam.
 
Sam;  Even when I defend Yana and Ahmes I feel pretty lonely sometimes Uncle Jim. I not one of the Muslims and I am not part of the group who calls them names.
 
Me:  Yes, sometimes loving others  and defending them can feel very lonely Sam.  Do you think that the Pope ever feels lonely?
 
Sam: I do not think so Uncle Jim. There are a lot of people who love him.
 
Me:  But even when some of the kids do not love you or treat you well Sam you have lots of people who love you.
 
Sam: I know but how come when I am at school I can feel so lonely at times Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Because sometimes when even one other person or a group of people do not like us or treat us badly, we feel all alone even if we know that others love us. When we are around people who are angry or saying mean things we feel as if we are the only one who is standing up for our friends  or classmates.  If me, your parents, grandma, grandpa, Paul, Mamma, Pop Pop, Tommy and Eldon were in the classroom with you, it would not feel so lonely.  Still, even then sometimes when the people our age or in our group do not include us, it feels very lonely.
 
Sam: Being a friend or standing up for what we believe  is very lonely sometimes Uncle Jim.
 
Me: Yes, it is Sam.  I am sure that no matter who we are it can feel very lonely.   I am so proud of you for doing what you think is right.   I think on this Easter weekend the Pope and even Jesus would be very proud of you.
 
Sam: Do you really think so Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Yes, I do.  I know that even if we believe that we can feel lonely at times but as you said if we did not do what we believe is right we would feel worse.
 
Sam:  Thanks Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  You are welcome Sam.
 
Sam:  Bye Uncle Jim. See you later gator!
Me: Goodbye.  Later!
 
 
Written  March 25, 2016

​Disenfranchised
 
Along with most of the rest of the world I learned of the most recent bombing outside of a country which is publicly at war early in the morning on March 22, 2016 while I was on the treadmill at the gym. There I was  trying to maintain my health in the safe confines of the gym to which I belong while  across the world  many were attempting  to find out the fate of loved ones while  others were getting treated in Belgium hospitals.  As is now true for most people, the shock was somewhat muted by the knowledge that these events have become nearly common place.   In addition to my thoughts about family members of those who were killed, injured or missing, my thoughts went to the families of those who had committed these terrible acts and then to the relatively young people who had  carried out these acts.  As is always the case, my mind drifted to the images of these young men and women who, not long ago, were the infants being cradled in the arms of their parents and for whom the parent had dreams of happiness and accomplishment.
 
Throughout the days which followed, along with much of the rest of the world,  I heard the reaction of  people from various countries, social classes, and political groups.   Not surprisingly, but sadly, here in the United States there were more calls or demands for restrictions of Muslims. It was as if many, especially those in some parts of the United States, could not wrap their brains around the fact that violent fanatics can use any philosophy or religion to  convince themselves that they have an important purpose for which they will be rewarded by the God(s) of their understanding.   We humans like easy explanations and, thus, are attracted to those who blame a religion,  a law enforcement group, a government,  a group or just the individuals themselves.  
 
One of the seeming facts about this latest series of bombings is that many of the Muslim refugees in Brussels live in a section of the city known as Maelbeek.  It appears that the young people thought to be responsible for these and the Paris bombings lived in this section of Brussels – a section which has been labeled as a ghetto.   At least one of the young men had grown up the recipient of some of the social service programs for the youth in this area of the city. He had played and laughed with the other young boys and girls. 
 
The question on everyone’s mind is what attracts a seemingly intelligent, otherwise kind, loving person to such a radical, violent  life purpose.  To be able to ask this question one has to convince oneself that  the action of this person or group of people is something very different than that of the average, law abiding, civilized person.   We have to “know” that the average person would never commit such a senseless, random act of violence.  They are, in other words, as different as possible from us.  Who then are they? 
 
·      They are terrorists  meaning that they have no conscience about killing “innocent people”  just because these people they kill are different or have different religious rules.
·      They are irrational, uncivilized, barbarians.
·      They are willing to die to fulfill their mission.
·      They do not feel a part of the privileged community or know that that community is seeking false gods of money, privilege, etc.
 
In other words they are much different than the average, civilized, moral person.    They are not like us.  We are:
 
·      Those that never intentionally kill innocent people. We only kill bad people who deserve to be killed or who are collateral damage in our justified wars.
·      Those who are civilized members of the larger community who have worked hard to claim our place.
·      Those who go to war willing to die for our country and the causes of our country even if we have some questions about the justness of the war our country has waged – directly as a solder or less directly as an intelligence agent or the “innocent” one directing drones with bombs from a safe place or  being a member of a police force who has been taught to shoot to kill or a member of a legislative body that decides who is worthy or not worthy.
·      Those who make laws which codify who is worthy and unworthy.
 
Throughout history, religious and political extremism has appealed to those who feel left out, less then or have been labeled as undeserving.   Religious and political extremism also appeals to those who fail to see the moral imperative to worship the God of things, positions, or power.   In the 1970s in this country many people, particularly young people, were disenchanted with what they understood to be the Gods of the military industrial complex, the senseless Vietnam war and the seemingly emptiness of the lives of their parents.  Ironically, many of these  same young people became the very people for whom they had disdain.  Some did establish intentional communities which are still functioning. Some, if not dead, are still numbing themselves with alcohol, other drugs, sex or other addictive behaviors.  Some went on to make significant contributions in medicine, education, the judicial system, technology, the arts, disposal of nuclear waste and other areas.   Some went on to skilled labor jobs which they later lost or, if lucky, eventually retired from.    Many of those later learned the guaranteed health coverage and other benefits would be later taken away.
 
In the United States we continued to increasingly become a nation of law and punishment. We became the so-called developed nation which incarcerated an increasing number of people. Much of this occurred as a result of “the war on drugs.”  A lot of this occurred  as a result of overt and covert racism.  In 2010,  three in 10 black/African American men  at some point were incarcerated in the United States.   Various studies report  statistics close to those which Wikipedia are reporting:
 
The process of gathering and analyzing statistics on the incarceration in the United States of African-American males has been taken by several studies on a specific age group, geographical location, causes of incarceration or simply the upbringing of a child over a course of years. Approximately 12–13% of the American population is African-American, but they make up 35% of jail inmates, and 37% of prison inmates of the 2.2 million male inmates as of 2014 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2014).,[2][3] Census data for 2000 of the number and race of all individuals incarcerated in the United States revealed a wide racial disproportion of the incarcerated population in each state: the proportion of blacks in prison populations exceeded the proportion among state residents in twenty states.
 
This is only part of the story. Not only do we continue to incarcerate more people than any other so called developed nations, we remain, along with the Great Britain, one of the few countries which disenfranchise those who are convicted of a felony.   Many states in the United States deny voting rights to all who are convicted of a felony. Sometimes this is for life. Sometimes one can later appeal to the governor or a state legislator to have their voting rights restored.  In some states, after a sentence  and parole/probation are completed voting rights are restored depending on the nature on the particular felony.  In a couple of states even in prison one retains the right to votes.    The most recent statistics publicly available were for 2010.  Those states with the most disenfranchised voters were:
 
Florida                                     1,541,602                    10.42
Mississippi                                 182,814                      8.27
Kentucky                                     243,842                      7.35
Virginia                                      451,471                      7.34
Alabama                                    262,354                      7.19
Tennessee                                  341,815                      7.05
Wyoming                                     25,657                      5.99
Nevada                                         86,321                    4.24
Arizona                                       199.734                    4.19
Georgia                                       275,866                   3.83
 
In 1960, the number of voters who were disenfranchised due to a felony conviction was 1,762,582. By the late 1970s this number dropped 33% to 1,176,234, but then began to rise.
By 2010 the number of people who lost the vote due to a felony conviction had grown to 5, 852, 180.
This  information was taken from the Sentencing Project’s July 2012 report “State-Level Estimates of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 2010.”
 
The European Convention on Human Rights has determined that disenfranchising individuals is a violation of human rights. The United Kingdom has chosen to not abide by this decision although it is a signatory to the convention.
 
Terrorist organization leaders, physically  violent or non-physically violent, tell recruits:
 
·      You have a holy mission.   If you do action x, God, Allah, your Fuhrer will reward you.
·      You are not like others. You  are special.
·      You belong.
 
As a counselor who is also a certified addiction counselor I have attended many 12-step meetings and met with many individuals struggling with addiction and recovery.  With no exceptions, what one hears from every addict is, “I always felt different. I never felt a part of. For the first time in the room of the 12-step program I feel a part of.”   For those who fully allow oneself to become a member of the recovering community  which requires getting rid of all those secrets that keep one separate, they feel a part of and are almost always successful in their recovery.    They go on to become successful, contributing members of the community.
 
In the Christian tradition, it is Easter season.   The Christian Church hails as its leader, one who says to the person in jail, the prostitute, the tax collector  and the thief, “Welcome home.  You belong.”    Despite the fact that the very human organization of many established churches has since imposed limits on who  belongs, the inclusiveness of Jesus was the original, primary attraction of the Christian church.
 
If we are going to decrease terrorist activity it is not going to be by demonizing Muslims, those who are attracted to Terrorists organizations, those who live in the Ghetto of all the Maelbeeks of the world, and those who have been convicted of a felony. It is going to be because we honestly believe that they are sacred, valuable members of the larger community.    Building walls, disenfranchising even more people,  responding to name calling with more name calling and  excluding our political opponents will, in the long run, guarantee an increase in  terrorists cells no matter what one labels them.
 
(I am indebted to Bryan Stevenson and the work he is doing as outlined in his Ted Talk: We need to talk about an injustice.)
 
Written March 24, 2016
 

​Does just equal common sense?
 
A person I know who happens to be a former client wrote telling me that a judge had lectured him in court about how angry he was at him and the fact that he was now going to give him what he deserved. As it happened, the person had just come from being the guest of a federal prison on essentially the same group of charges.  This man, while in a transition house facility had allowed another resident to use his laptop. This person had downloaded child pornography on the laptop. When it was discovered he and the person who used his laptop were charged. Both of these men ran to avoid being sent to prison.   The man who wrote to me was already on probation and, both by running and having child pornography on his computer he had technically violated his probation. This man in is his sixties and has a number of serious medical conditions including diabetes, heart problems, and other related issues.   He used his time in Federal Prison to improve the library system, to look at his own choices, and to examine his historic relationship with fear which for years prevented him from getting the help he needed to deal with his own history of being acutely sexually abused and used by his mother beginning at a very young age.  There is no doubt in my mind that this man is not currently a danger to himself, to any child or anyone else.  Yet, the state in which he was living while in the transition house facility is spending a lot of money to keep him in prison for another four years.   This is not an isolated case.  I have worked for/with many men and women who have gone to prison because the community, via judge, prosecutor, parole or probation officer was angry at them.  This cost the taxpayer a lot of money and, in most cases, does not lead to the person becoming a healthy, contributing member of the community.
 
Adam Foss, a prosecutor with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office in Boston thinks the current system more often helps to create a lifetime criminal than it does to help the person make new choices. He is particularly interested in young people.  In his Ted Talk he recounts the case of a young high school student, Christopher, who faced the possibilities of being charged with and convicted of multiple felonies. This young man needed money to apply and attend college as soon as he finished his senior year in high school.   He made an understandable but stupid decision to steal and sell 20 laptops from Best Buy.  He could have been charged with multiple felonies. Instead, Mr. Foss, who was then a young prosecutor understood that if convicted he would not only spend time in prison where he would have to learn to function in that system, but would, when released be restricted in what jobs he could pursue, what education he could pursue, what housing he could get and thus restrict his ability to become a contributing member of the community.
He says:
“Yet most prosecutors standing in my space would have arraigned Christopher. They have little appreciation for what we can do. Arraigning Christopher would give him a criminal record, making it harder for him to get a job, setting in motion a cycle that defines the failing criminal justice system today. With a criminal record and without a job, Christopher would be unable to find employment, education or stable housing. Without those protective factors in his life, Christopher would be more likely to commit further, more serious crime. The more contact Christopher had with the criminal justice system, the more likely it would be that he would return again and again and again -- all a tremendous social cost to his children, to his family and to his peers. And, ladies and gentlemen, it is a terrible public safety outcome for the rest of us.
 
When I came out of law school, I did the same thing as everybody else. I came out as a prosecutor expected to do justice, but I never learned what justice was in my classes -- none of us do.
…
See, I never arraigned Christopher. He never faced a judge or a jail, he never had a criminal record. Instead, I worked with Christopher; first on being accountable for his actions, and then, putting him in a position where he wouldn't re-offend. We recovered 75 percent of the computers that he sold and gave them back to Best Buy, and came up with a financial plan to repay for the computers we couldn't recover. Christopher did community service. He wrote an essay reflecting on how this case could impact his future and that of the community. He applied to college, he obtained financial aid, and he went on to graduate from a four-year school.”
…
He says that one night this past summer of 2015 he was at a community event.
 
“I noticed across the room, a young man waving and smiling at me and approaching me. And I recognized him, but I couldn't place from where, and before I knew it, this young man was hugging me. And thanking me. "You cared about me, and you changed my life." It was Christopher. “
 
This young man is now a bank manger making more money than Mr. Foss.
 
Mr. Foss is very clear that the one issue which was not discussed at law school was the meaning of the term justice.  What is just?
 
What this example points to is the fact that we, the community, could benefit ourselves and all those we are now incarcerating and labeling for life, by re-examining what we mean by the term crime and the term justice.
 
In a previous blog I have discussed the fact that, despite some serious thought and study, I have yet to arrive at a satisfactory (to me) definition of justice.   Certainly I know what the dictionary says. I also know what passes for justice in the U. S. judicial system and I know how we, as a country seems to view justice.  I also have some difficulty with the frequent use of the terms crime and criminal. 
 
When I look up the definition of the word crime, I find terms such as illegal, immoral, or mistake.   When Mr. Foss was beginning his Ted Talk he asked members of the audience if any of them had ever shoplifted or gotten into a fight as a child (even with a sibling). Of course lots of hands went up.  Yet, few in that audience had a criminal record.  Everyone in the audience would have had to admit to doing something which was hurtful to another person and something which was potentially life threatening.     We have all not been paying close attention at times when driving and “almost” hit someone or treated someone with enormous disrespect or been deliberately hurtful.  We have all failed at times to speak out about the action of someone representing this country or turned the other way when we did not want to get involved.  We have driven when our blood alcohol level would have tested above the legal limit or used (one time only of course) an illegal drug, or used someone sexually while professing the opposite just because we were horny.  In short, we have committed acts which were illegal, immoral or a “mistake.”
 
We have in this country imprinted countless individuals with the label of sexual offender just because we were angry at them and not because they are dangerous sexual predators.  I have previously mentioned that I have had clients labeled as sexual offenders because they had sex with underage prostitutes who lied about their age or clients who were a few months past the legal limit of having sex with a certain-age teenager.  We do not arrest and prosecute every adult who dates and later marries or does not marry a 15-year-old. Sometimes we do and sometimes we look the other way or give someone a “good talking to.” 
 
Countless individuals to whom I have talked have had a private business and, when people paid cash, have failed to report every penny of their income. That is clearly illegal. Should we be more vigilant in insuring that these people are sent to prison even if the amount on which they failed to pay taxes is much less than it would cost to prosecute and incarcerate them for a year or more?
 
How Mr. Foss handled the case of Christopher has very positive results.  Best Buy got most of their money back. The cost to the judicial system was minimal.  In fact, if we add in community service the community might have immediately gained more than it spent.  In the long run he is a productive, tax paying, self-supporting member of the community.  Who wins?  What is just?  Suppose that the approach Mr. Foss took with Christopher only works in 10% or 20% of cases.  Is this worth it?   What percentage of people spending time in prison come out and reoffend? Statistics vary. In some studies, it is between 18% and 59 %. In some studies, the lowest rate of reoffending – 18% - is with those who have spent more than 10 years in prison.  Is this because those who spend more than 10 years in prison are broken, better at not getting caught or because they become long-term, tax paying, contributing members of society?  This information is not as readily available.
 
No matter what the outcome, how are we, as a community, going to define just?
 
It seems that nearly everyone agrees that we are spending far too much money on convicting and incarcerating individuals in the United States with too few positive results.  Yet, many of those same individuals would say that we have the most just judicial system in the world. Yet, it seems not to work well. In fact, it seems to work less well than systems in countries which incarcerate fewer people.
 
The first question Mr. Foss as a young attorney asked himself was whether some actions made sense – common sense?  Did it make sense to label people such as Christopher as convicted felons who should permanently be denied access to many jobs, housing or other educational opportunities? 
 
I have no idea what is just.  I do know that technically most of us have broken laws.  Many of the laws we have broken are not felonies but many, if not all of us, are capable of committing a felony.  
 
The point is that the labels, although we employ them often, are not very helpful.   I am not convinced that we will ever agree on what is just. We may agree on what is technically a crime although we might disagree on who is a criminal.    I do know that our current system of punishment is often because we are angry at people and not because we think that the person, such as Christopher, are destined to be career felons.  It is expensive financially, emotionally and spiritually to everyone in the community. 
 
Mr. Foss is recommending and I am seconding him that we apply the rule of common sense in our judicial system.  Does our purpose, our action make long term sense?  Who potentially benefits?  Is the only benefit for the emotional benefit of the members of the judicial system who are angry?
Do we really want a system based on the emotions of those in charge?
 
What is just? Who do we want to label as criminal?
 
Written March 22, 2016

 Breaking Trust
 
Trust is, of course, a really important issue in any relationship – personal or business. 
 
Yesterday I attended a production of “Same Time Next Year.”  This  play by Bernard Slade is about two married people who meet, have a one night stand and then begin to meet once a year for the next the two  dozen years.  By the end of the play, the wife of the man has died and the husband of the man is ill.  Much has, of course, changed during the course of the once-a-year relationship.   It is interesting in this day of the internet that the play takes place before instant messages, email and other forms of  internet communication or even before cell phone communication was available.   Thus, there was no communication between the visits.   It was as if all normal life stopped for these two individuals for one weekend a year.   I suspect that was part of the attraction and, thus, the popularity of the play and the movie.  It seemed as if that there was no possible way that the respective spouses could have known about the relationship.   They did not meet close to home, take any gifts or mementoes back to the home they shared with their spouses and children.  Yet, the man finds out, after the death of his wife, that she had known about the relationship for about ten years prior to her death.  He finds this out from the best friend of his wife. 
 
On the surface no one was hurt by this once a year relationship. They are careful about birth control.  Neither have a sexual relationship with anyone other than this person and their spouse. As far as we know neither of the spouses are having a sexual relationship with another person.   There did not, therefore, seem to be any danger of sexually transmitted disease.    They are both devoted to their respective spouses and families all the other weekends of the year.  Yet, both do admit to feeling very guilty about this secret relationship.  Still, the  connection they experience is so strong that they continue for those two dozen years to meet one weekend a year.
 
The twelve-step programs for recovery from addictive behavior states that “We are only as sick as our secrets.”  Obviously, no one believes that we should always tell the truth.   If we think that someone is overweight, unattractive, or we do not find some  new piece of art or some other endeavor particularly noteworthy, we will not tell them unless, of course, they really want one’s “honest” feedback.  If our spouse or partner fix a meal on which they have spent a lot of time and it is “terrible” we will not tell them that unless, of course, there is some other overriding reason to do so. 
 
No, the sort of secret which can really adversely affect our own health and the health of our important relationships is that which  (1) violates a very basic part of the social or business contract we have with someone or (2) denies what the other person with whom we have an important relationship strongly suspects or knows to be true.  In both instances the secret/lie is going to result in emotional distance. In the second instance it is also going to result in the other person doubting himself or herself.   I call the later “crazy making.”   For example, I was in a romantic relationship with a person who was very emotionally unavailable for quite some time.  To be fair, I was having a difficult time before this person pulled away.  A situation had occurred with a family member which left me very sad and worried.   My romantic partner was well aware that I was struggling and that I did not have as much as usual to give.    This person with whom I was in a committed relationship found another person with whom they could have an intimate relationship. This new relationship was both sexual and emotional.  When I found out about the new relationship I was both relieved and really upset. I was, of course, sad, since I loved this person and expected to spend the rest of my life or however long we both lived, together.  Sadness weighs one down but it is an emotion I know how to get through.  The worst violation was one of trust -  feeling for weeks as if I could not trust my own perception or experience.   On numerous occasions I had asked this person what was causing the distance.   This person denied that there was any distance. This made me feel  doubt my own experience of the relationship.   This is what I call crazy making.
 
Many people growing up in an alcoholic family report that  the family dynamics often feel crazy.  Anne Lamott talks about  how she felt as a child in an alcoholic family.  As a child she would  ask about something which happened and her mother would deny that it had happened or say, “Oh we were just drinking” as if  any behavior which occurred while her parents were drinking had not really occurred or one was not responsible for it.  The children were, however, always responsible for their behavior.
 
All of us are, at times, going to inadvertently or without thinking through our intended behavior, say or do something which violates the trust of those we care about – something which is experienced as violating trust no matter what our intentions.  We may have not done something which another person felt as if they had a right to expect us to do.   All we can do is to make amends and do our best to not repeat that sort of behavior.
 
When addictive behavior of any type hijacks our mind and, thus, our behavior, we are  always going to violate the trust the other person has placed in us. This is one of the consequences of active addictive behavior which cannot be avoided and which makes addiction such a destructive illness. One treatment/recovery from active addiction can change this behavioral pattern.   Certain mental illnesses can also make it difficult, if not impossible, for one to honor the trust in important relationships.
 
I am not, in this blog, attempting to offer an opinion or pronounce a judgment on any particular behavior. The intention of this brief blog is to share my understanding of how secrets affect trust and, thus, the very core of the any important relationship.   As I have mentioned, we  have to make allowances for the fact that we are all human.  At the same time part of the health of relationships is dependent on all of us doing our best to honor the trust which has been placed in the relationship. If we have an untreated issue such as addiction or mental illness we need to do our best to seek out effective treatment.
 
Written March 21, 2016

Falling into place
 
I sit waiting.
Silently sensing the pieces of my thoughts
gently drifting
like the avatar on their way 
to chat with Na’vis
 
Paul writes to the Romans “We know that God
causes all things to work together for good to those 
who love God.”
 
How it is possible that
the devastating imprisonment of our souls
in chains and napalm fresh from waterboarding
could lead to justice.
 
“Ahh” you say. “Justice is not the goal.”
 
Nikki (Giovanni the poet) talks 
of the power of the women bringing
her people together on the slave ships 
with the common language of 
the hum. 
The hum which morphed into the spiritual 
which morphed into strength 
which morphed into power 
 
That hum which came from the oblivion of objectification
and brought back to life the soul which not even those who bought and those who sold could steal.
 
We reach for the stray pieces of the chicken, 
a piece of onion, the withered carrot, the wrinkled potato, 
any greens which are lying flat from the absence of moisture, 
a generous helping of water, 
a bit of salt and pepper and many spoonfuls of love
Allowing them for the next hour to playfully anoint each other.
 
If the cupboard is feeling especially generous it may yield the ingredients for a little cornbread which we mix with the strength of one who knows
we shall overcome.
 
The pieces of our life fall together.
 
It is not about the falling together of the just, the fair, or even the pleasurable.
 
It is about the hum which creates the common language which melds our souls into the angels who lift up the suffering of the weak.
 
We open our arms to hold the pieces of our life until the grief has fallen into the dust of those who died too young.
 
The tears and the dust form the mud.
The mud spawns the pot which brews the new life.
 
All things fall into place.
 
 
 
Written March 20, 2016
 

A Blank Slate
 
For many years I have attempted to be more aware of my many opinions and the dogmatic truths which have  lodged themselves in my brain. Despite daily efforts to identify and question them, it continues to be an onerous process.  More and more I have to admit privately and publicly that I know nothing despite the fact that I can wax on for long periods of time.   While this ability may have made it easy to do well in such subjects as philosophy, psychology and theology it hasn’t made spiritual growth easy.  In fact it often gets in the way.    A little over a year ago, when I quit one of my part-time jobs, I decided that instead of writing a blog every couple of weeks I would write daily.  I knew that this would require me to devote several hours daily to allowing new information or possibilities to challenge all those opinions and dogmatic truths.    
 
For some time prior to this decision, whenever I was choosing books to read or attending workshops I would look for those which most increased my level of discomfort either because of the content, the speaker or the activity, i. e. dance. The discomfort could arise because I would have to face the fact that I did not really know much about many subjects I might talk about in conversations.  The discomfort might arise because  I was “sure” that the person  whose work I was reading or listening to represented a group with whom I had nothing in common.    It was much more comfortable listening to or reading someone or about something which aligned with what I already believed.  Yet, that comfort was soon overlaid with boredom and a gnawing suspicion that part of the story was missing.  It did not present, as Paul Harvey used to say, “the rest of the story.”
 
Thus, with this in mind, I began to develop a routine.  I got up, as usual, and spent an hour doing emails and texts, some of which might “tickle” my mind.  Then I would leave for the gym. While there, first I would listen and watch the morning news while I was on the treadmill, and then I would listen to two or three Ted Talks on my smart phone.  When I finished, if I did not have an early morning client, I would read the local newspaper, respond to some emails and then begin to write.  By this time, many ideals or bits of information had challenged those opinions and truths stored in my brain.  No matter what I found myself writing -  sometimes just that the muse had nothing to say – I found that I had to “fact check” nearly everything I thought I knew.    This is what make the process of writing the blog so time consuming.   I can type pretty fast but by the time I type, cross out or delete, retype,  look up, retract or cross out, delete or correct some more several hours have passed.  
 
This morning I followed the same process although fresh on my mind was the joy I felt in the memory of listening to Mark and Barbara perform at her CD release event in Gainsville last evening.   Individuals who perform as musicians, actors, or artists have played a significant role in my life since I was a small child listening to my father play the accordion or my cousins play the guitar and sing.  
 
I choose Ted Talks very randomly by subjects  which challenge me. Only occasionally do I choose one where the presenter is already familiar to me.    The first one I chose this morning was a Ted Talk by Arthur Brooks, who I found out is  a French Horn Player, an academic who initially dropped out of college to travel and play music, later got a PhD, was raised by very liberal parents in Seattle who, when he was home for a Christmas  visit at age 27, had the following conversation with his mother:
 
“And -- There was, however, one awkward conversation about my lifestyle that I want to tell you about. I was 27, and I was home from Barcelona, and I was visiting my parents for Christmas, and I was cooking dinner with my mother, and we were alone in the kitchen. And she was quiet, too quiet. Something was wrong. And so I said, "Mom, what's on your mind?" And she said, "Your dad and I are really worried about you." And I said, "What?" I mean, what could it be, at this point? And she said, "I want you to be completely honest with me: have you been voting for Republicans?"
 
He is now head of a conservative think tank, has written several books and talks a lot about the virtues of the free enterprise system and “compassionate conservatism.”   
 
At some level it is not surprising that the other Ted Talk I arbitrarily chose this morning was by “Tshering Tobgay (born 19 September 1965,. a Bhutanese politician who has been the Prime Minister of Bhutan since 2013. Tobgay is leader of the People's Democratic Party,[1] and was also the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly from March 2008 to April 2013.”(Wikipedia)
 
Prime Minister Tobgay talks about the commitment in his country to not only be negative carbon negative but, “So our economy is small, but here is where it gets interesting. Education is completely free. All citizens are guaranteed free school education, and those that work hard are given free college education. Healthcare is also completely free. Medical consultation, medical treatment, medicines: they are all provided by the state. We manage this because we use our limited resources very carefully, and because we stay faithful to the core mission of GNH, which is development with values. Our economy is small, and we must strengthen it. Economic growth is important, but that economic growth must not come from undermining our unique culture or our pristine environment.”   
GNH refers to Gross National Happiness.    Later I found that:
 
In April 2008, Brooks published a survey and analysis of U.S. happiness research entitled Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America—and How We Can Get More of It.[8] Drawing his title from the Bhutanese measurement of national well-being, Brooks argues that despite the fact that the United States is one of the few countries in the world to enshrine happiness in its credo, happiness tends to get discounted in public policy in favor of other priorities. Brooks reviews survey data to understand the contours of how happy individual Americans are and how individual happiness translates into nationwide satisfaction.” (Wikipedia)
 
I had no idea that these two individuals who initially seemed very different politically and economically were influencing each other and that both have the same basic goals.
 
Again I was reminded of a song by Malvina Reyolds and performed by Pete Seger and many others,  I had not thought about for some time:
 
Little Boxes   
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky,1
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one 
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
And the people in the houses
All went to the university,
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and lawyers,
And business executives,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
And they all play on the golf course
And drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children
And the children go to school,
And the children go to summer camp
And then to the university,
Where they are put in boxes
And they come out all the same.
And the boys go into business
And marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky 
And they all look just the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
 
Both Mr. Brooks and the people and policies of the tiny country of Bhutan challenge  us to leave our little boxes or labels and begin to explore learning from each other and working together to solve the very real needs which confront us.  As Mr. Brooks points out just since the time he was a boy the rate of starvation has been greatly decreased. He thinks, however, we can do better.   He challenges us to consider the following possibility:   “Capitalism is not just about accumulation. At its best, it's about aspiration, which is what so many people on this stage talk about, is the aspiration that comes from dreams that are embedded in the free enterprise system. And we've got to share it with more people.”
 
It is not my intention to extol or promote the works of Mr. Brooks or that of Prime Minister Togbay in this brief paper.  It is my intention to not “throw out the baby with the bathwater” so to speak.  Are there some aspects of capitalism and the free enterprise system which combined with some of what seems like the socialist policies of Bhutan which can more creatively solve of the issues all three of us want to solve.?  I again know that I need to rethink what I thought  I know about capitalism,  a free enterprise system, becoming carbon negative and many other approaches to how we humans can live in community and take care of each other without destroying the spirit which often leads to creativity  and GNH.
 
Written March 19, 2016