​School Bells - Current Affairs   - Grade 8 – Week 33
 
I am eager to hear the thinking of the students and their families about what to do about gun violence in Chicago. Actually, the question was what they would do if they were suddenly in the position of mayor of Chicago.
 
The students are now arriving.
 
Me: Good morning class. Yes, I have cookies.  Amena and John will you please pass out the cookies?
 
(They do so and the cookies are soon consumed.)
 
Me: I am eager to hear your thinking about what you would as mayor of Chicago about the gun violence.  First let me say that per capital – number of people – Chicago does not have the most gun violence in the United States.  It has experienced a significant increase as has other cities.  It is also true that the United States continues to have more gun violence and more guns than other so-called developed nations. Having said that it is also true that 2016 saw the worse violence in Chicago in nearly 20 years.   Just this past weekend there were two gun deaths and 43 were wounded.
 
Abdul:  My mom suggested that the violence is a symptom and not the problem. She said that a lot of people seem to be talking as if the violence is itself the problem.
 
Me:  That is a great point Abdul. Do others agree with his mom?
 
Tom:  My parents said the same thing.
 
Paul:  So did mine.
 
Me:  Who else think that the violence is a symptom?
 
Everyone raises their hands.
 
Me:  Well, I will write that on the board then.   The next logical question is what are the causes if the violence is only the symptom?
 
Ann:  One of the articles we were reading suggested that the historic distrust of the police by many in the community – especially people of color and poor people – is the issue.  This is true not just in Chicago but in many other cities.
 
Me:  I will write that on the board.  What are other problem/issues which you think might contribute to the violence?
 
Paul:  Several people suggested that inequality has contributed.  As some of the old high rise subsidized buildings were torn down, affordable housing less available. Even though some housing was subsidized the landlords got richer but decent housing did not get more available.
 
Me: Great point Paul.
 
Will:  We read that there are not as many large gangs but lots of small gangs and more hurt feelings and power games.  
 
Susie:  I read that with small gangs social media plays a big role.
 
Tom:   We read that they have more police, less affordable housing and fewer assistance programs for counseling, addiction and other issues.
 
Me: This is great. It appears that the new mayor – a member of this class or the entire class – is seeing the problem as a systemic one which is different than viewing violence as the problem.   You will remember perhaps that we talked about the concept of systemic previous. It means that many parts of the system are contributing to the problem.
 
John:  My dad was asking if it would make sense to call in Father Greg Boyle who works with gangs in Los Angeles and Dr. Gary Slutkin.   Dr. Slutkin previously did some work in Chicago and Baltimore didn’t he Mr. Jim?
 
Me:  Very good John. Dr. Slutkin who worked with epidemics in other countries began to look at violence as he would epidemic.  Many people have said that the violence in Chicago and many other cities is mainly in certain areas.  You and your dad are suggesting that the mayor actively consult with people who understand both the pattern of violence and the root causes.
 
Ann:  My folks were saying that a lot of the evidence says that many of the parents do not have the time and energy because of work and other reasons to be active, hands-on parents.  My parents and I think most of our parents in this class spend a lot of time with their children.
 
Me: That is another great point.  Often gangs, even if there is danger, give people a sense of belonging that they are not getting in a family.
 
Susie:  Mom did some consulting with police departments and she said that the police person often complains that the paperwork, the threat of a lawsuit and other factors have affected how the police do their job.
 
Me:  Great point.  It sounds as if we have to start from a position of mutual respect which is how Father Boyle treats gang members and law enforcement individuals.  That, of course, does not happen overnight. It is easy for both side to just point fingers isn’t it.
 
Goodness, we are nearly out of time.  We have obviously not solved the problem of violence by we have come up with a lot of suggestions that we focus less on the symptoms and more on identifying some of the factors which may contribute to the end result of violence.   We have also suggested that there are individuals who know how to look at the overall picture.  I know that if any of us were actually the mayor it would be easy to just put out fires and never identify the cause. Stil, I happen to believe it is possible.  I am also hearing that the problem is not just Chicago but an overall cultural issue which leads to more violence.
 
Great job all of you.
 
How about for next week we focus on what can be done about the fact that many parents do not have the time and energy to be active parents?  Susie, please hand out the assignment.   Will and Ann please pass out the cookies.
 
Ring!  Ring!  Ring!
 
Me:  Have a good week everyone.
 
Class:  Bye Mr. Jim.
 
Written April 17, 2017
 

​Grandma says:   Build Your House on the Rock
 
When Grandma Fannie and Grandpa Ed built their new house following their remarriage, they first laid a very solid foundation.   Although some 66 or so years later, long past the end of their life journey, the house has fallen into disrepair but the foundation is still securely intact.   
 
Grandma Fannie often quoted a biblical verse the wisdom of which is found in nearly every culture and religion. She was quoting from the Bible used by Christians.  Specifically, she would read a new Testament passage found in Matthew 7:24-27. The English Standard Version reads as follows:
 
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
Actually, Grandma Fannie and Grandpa Ed’s house was built on the solid red clay prevalent in the part of Oklahoma in which they lived,   This was the same red clay which, for many years, had been used by the local brick factory to create bricks which would be used for building many of the homes. 
Although Grandma Fannie  and Grandpa Ed did apply this wisdom to the building of their house, her primary concern when talking to her grandchildren was, as was true for Matthew,  the spiritual foundation which would serve us in all area of our lives. As a child I was an avid reader although I did think the amount of time which Grandma Fannie expected us to study, pray, attend church and otherwise building that foundation a bit excessive.  Yet, looking back, the lessons she sought to instill in us would serve us well for the rest of our lives.  Often, when making a decision, I think of what Grandma Fannie might have advised.  There were issues which were not addressed directly by Jesus,  his disciples, the minister, or Grandma Fannie, but  there are some basic questions which I know I need to ask myself before I make a decision. These questions include:
·      Would you be proud to share your decisions with God, the minster and most importantly, with yourself?
·      Who will be affected or impacted by your decision?
·      Would you want others, including Grandma Fannie, to make the same decision?
·      Have you prayed about the decision?
·      Are you being honest with yourself and with God?
·      What foundational principles underlie your decisions.
 
Of course, I wish I could say that all my decisions for the past seven plus decades have been made only after carefully considering the answers to these six questions.   Yet, I know that is not true. I have made decisions based on what felt best for the moment or what would gain me the positive attention  or praise of others.  I have also made decisions based on what was the most comfortable or what I feared others might think.   Some decisions were made impulsively without giving any thought to the long-term consequences. Some of these ill-conceived and implemented decisions had pretty positive results in the short term. Some had disastrous results.  As might be true for the house build on sand, if the weather was very mild the house might stand for some time but long term nothing good would come of anything built on the sand of impulse, immediate comfort, or fear of what others might think.

No matter what decisions I make, Grandma Fannie’s voice is always there reminding me to build on the rock of spiritual integrity. 
 
Written April 17, 2017
 

​Sunday musings – Easter Sunday – April 16, 2017
 
My friend Bob sent me a message this morning which said, “Happy Easter to you.  It’s a new beginning, a new day, a new season. A great day to be reborn and move forward.”   Recently Bob, as he begins his fourth decade of having finished law school, took and passed his bar in one state and is preparing to take the bar exam in another state.  Yesterday I was with a group of friends which included a physician who several years ago made a decision to enter seminary and  is now an Episcopal priest, a man who  in his third decade quit his business job and  is now a licensed physician, a woman who I think I nearing her fourth decade and has just graduated from FBI school, a woman in her eighth decade who has just started work at a library in addition to being a master gardener and a retired social worker.  Tomorrow  I will visit with a friend who has in her sixth decade opened a private practice as a therapist/counselor.  My son who just turns 46 has started a new job.   Daily, my friend Becky seems to open herself to new roles.   She has been teacher, administrator, full-time aunty mother, blogger, chief caretaker of many older members of the family and workshop presenter as well as author.  My friend John moves from college professor, actor, director, legal editor to spiritual seeker. It seems as if I am surrounded by courageous, creative individuals who keep opening themselves to rebirth.  They keep stepping outside of their comfort zones and rebirthing themselves.   
 
In the Christian tradition Easter begins with lent, bears witness to the crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and moves on in the Western tradition to seven weeks of Eastertide. In Eastern Christianity, the season of Pascha lasts for 40 days and ends with the Feast of the Ascension.   
 
Whether it is Easter,  the Passover celebration of the Exodus and a new beginning, the invitation by Buddha to let go of one’s attachments or some other ritual, humans seem to have long recognized that either we move forward or backwards.  It was Heraclitus, the pre-Socratic philosopher who long ago  reminded those who could hear that “One cannot step into the same river twice.” – that all is in a constant state of flux. We move forward or backwards.   Sadly, many allow anxiety and other symptoms of fear to prevent them from moving forward. One may numb out with alcohol, other drugs, power, sex, work or other people, places or things until, as we have been reminding ourselves the past three days the suffering is so intense that one is forced to end one’s life or move forward.   Tragically some choose to end their life journey.
 
For some the resurrection is a literal, historic event.  For others,  it is symbolic of the invitation to be intentional about the  dance of rebirth.  Although some rituals are celebrated but once a year, we are called to embrace new possibilities daily.   Some in the United States have been calling to “Make America Great Again” in terms of manufacturing, such industries as steel and coal mining, and in being less global  in our dance of life.  The truths are:
 
·      We cannot move backwards.  For example, many jobs have been automated. We no longer need humans to do many of the jobs which formerly provided a decent wage.  
·      We now know that  not only is the environmental cost of coal too high, the side effects of mountain top mining and such practices as fracking are too high.
·      Like it or not we are a global economy.
·      Life for women, African Americans, Native Americans  and others was not great in past years.
 
Easter and spring reminds us of the example of  the many who have heeded the call to be reborn.   Whether the example of Jesus is accepted as literal or symbolic does not matter.   What does matter if whether we too are willing to move forwards or backwards.
 
The 12-step program of recovery from addiction often reminds individuals of the need to surround themselves with people, places and things which are going to feed their recovery instead of their addictive behavior and thinking.   The same is true for all of us.  Surrounding ourselves daily with people of vision and courage challenges us and reminds us that every day is the day for rebirth.
 
Written  April 16, 2017
 

​To what end?
 
I often ask myself what is my long-term goal?  I may, at times,  discover that my long-term goal and short-term goal are not the same despite what I might be telling myself.  Observing my own behavior may suggest something about my goal. If I “find” myself rushing to get through a task all the while telling myself that I want to do a quality job, I know that I am lying to myself.   If my action says that my goal is different than my stated goal, then I am going to experience some internal dissonance.   
 
Earlier this week I saw a client whose goal is to quit allowing anxiety and addictive behavior to dictate  his relationship with himself and his wife.  A couple of days later he texted to tell me that he was unwilling to attend 12-step meetings because he is uncomfortable at meetings.  I replied suggesting he ask himself whether his long-term goal was comfort  or the health of himself and his marriage.  As far as I know there is no way to do recovery from active addiction without some degree of discomfort.  Change and, in this case rather significant change, is uncomfortable.  In the past he has chosen comfort over recovery and being the person and husband a part of him wants to be.
 
Prior to opening a counseling business in 1990, the other counselors who were going to work in this practice and I spent hours attempting to articulate the philosophy and mission of the business. The decision was to attempt to create a space where it was safe for staff to continue their healing journey and to invite those who would be called clients to continue their journey.  Another goal was to do everything we could to keep expenses low and make it possible to see clients for what they could afford to pay.   We asked clients to look at their budget and pay as much of the full fee as they could. Although we were clear that we needed to pay our bills,  none of us believed that we needed to be wealthy.  As I look back, I certainly did not always behave in a way which was consistent with the stated mission.  I could provide a long list of particular times that I behaved in a manner which was inconsistent with the goals to which we had agreed.  I would like to believe today that my behavior is more often consistent with my stated goals although I know that I must continually strive to be honest with myself and others so that I can identify the behaviors I need to change if there is going to be cognitive and behavior synchronicity.
 
For many  years there was a restaurant in a section of Pittsburgh which was known as a gathering place for those who wanted to meet and talk with interesting people.  It was, prior to the popularity of coffee houses in the United States, a place where one went to be fed intellectually and sometimes emotionally.  One did not go to this restaurant expecting to get quality food. In fact, the food was overpriced, unhealthy and not even tasty. Their stated goal to be a quality restaurant became secondary to the reality of it being a coffee house.  They eventually went bankrupt. They had many customers who only ordered the relatively inexpensive and foul tasting coffee or drank water. 
 
I was reading an editorial in The Intelligencer, the morning of April 13, the author of which asked about the recent decision of the President of the United Stated to bomb sections of Syria, “To what end?”  It was not clear to the writer what the President hoped to accomplish in Syria. Whatever interfering military action the United States or other nations take in Syria is going to affect many parts of the Middle East.  It is not clear that the President has a long-term plan or even a short-term plan which is likely to promote a goal of peace.  
 
It would seem as individuals and as a nation we are vulnerable to an emotional reaction with no clear, realistic goal other than to prove that we are not happy or do not approve of the behavior of another individual, group or nation.  
 
The serenity prayer is a vital part of the foundation of the 12-step programs and is often used by many of us not in a 12-step program. It was, after all, not originally written by or for the founders of the 12-step program.   Yet, these same founders recognized that if one does not keep the focus on what is under one’s control one is going to get very frustrated and fail to achieve the goal of recovery.  
 
My own experience continues to be such that I must continually ask myself, to what end?  What is my long-term goal?  This question is important whether I am talking about physical fitness, emotional fitness, spiritual fitness, professional growth or something as simple as cleaning house.  If my goal is a cosmetic makeover I need to accept the consequences of that short-term goal.  If, on the other hand, I am interested in more than cosmetics, I will have to stay focused on the behaviors which will more likely allow me to achieve long term goals.
 
My friend Becky is very honest and consistent with doing what she needs to do to achieve long-term goals.  Whether she is cleaning house, planning a workshop, addressing a health issue or some other goal she does a thorough job.  On the other hand, if her goal is to give Tiger the cat some quality time while she incidentally changes the bedding,  the bedding change may take a very long time.  
 
Articulating and staying focused on long-term goals may demand painful honesty, and the willingness to experience discomfort.  It may also require an enormous amount of patience.   We may find that the goal we had hoped to achieve is not possible to accomplish at this time or ever.  We must be willing to accept that.
 
This morning I was texting with a friend who asked if my day would be fulfilling.  I replied that it would be as long as I could keep myself out of the way. What I meant is that my stated goal is to help support and guide clients in achieving their goals.  Sometimes I have a goal for clients which may not be consistent with their goals.  Their behavior may clearly tell me that they are not ready to let go of some unhealthy behavior.  It is not my goal or my job to try to force them to achieve what I think is best for them.  If they need or believe they need to  behave in a certain manner, even if I think it will result in a terrible outcome, it is my job to respect their goal.  I may need to guide them in being honest with themselves  but it is not my goal to “insist” they work on my goal for them.  That is me getting in the way. It is important that I be honest with myself.    For many years, I said I wanted to quit smoking cigarettes. The truth was that I wanted to quit smoking cigarettes as long as I was comfortable doing so.  That was not realistic.   I was not willing to suffer the discomfort of becoming nicotine free.   I eventually decided that I was ready and would do what it took to be nicotine free.  I changed my end from being comfortable to becoming nicotine free.
 
This nation of which I am a citizen may need to decide what its end goal is.    Is it to model creating a country in which people are free to pursue dreams which are mutually healthy or is it to focus on making other countries behave in a way we decide is healthy for them?  Can both goals be accomplished?  Is there another possible goal?
 
Focusing on end goals is not for those seeking comfort or a softer easier way.  It is hard, spiritually demanding work.
 
Written April 13, 2017
 

​Saturday of Easter weekend
 
I have noticed with myself that there are times when I am so focused on some future event that I completely miss today.  That is certainly often true of holidays or other occasions when there is an event to which I am looking forward or when I am grieving a deep loss.
 I was thinking of that this morning when I listened again to the podcast of the conversation Krista Tippett had with Father Richard Rohr this week.
 Father Rohr reminds the listener that there are two words in Greek for time.  “Chronos is chronological time, time as duration, one moment after another, and that’s what most of us think of as time.  But there was another word in Greek, kairos. And kairos was deep time. It was when you have those moments where you say, “Oh my god, this is it. I get it,” or, “This is as perfect as it can be,” or, “It doesn’t get any better than this,” or, “This moment is summing up the last five years of my life,” things like that where time comes to a fullness, and the dots connect, when we can learn how to more easily go back to those kinds of moments or to live in that kind of space.”
 
I understand Kairos or deep time as those times when not only do the dots connect but one experiences oneself as an integral part  of the universe.  One is, in other words, a tiny, but necessary part of what is connected.
 
When a loved one or even someone we admire and depend on at some level dies we have a difficult time integrating this new reality. No matter how much one might have prepared oneself for the obvious fact that we are all going to die/to end this life journey, or the fact that nothing is permanent, the event happened and one feels lost or  out of sorts. One may not want to accept the reality or feel able to do so.  One may not be able to envision a future without this person or this job or …
 
I have previously talked about the fact that a component of PTSD is that the traumatic event(s) has not been integrated into the mind and life experience of the individual. The person may feel it is disloyal to move on with life and, thus, actively resists integration. 
 
I can well imagine that the mother of Jesus along with the disciples and others on the day after the crucifixion  not wanting to accept that Jesus is dead and not being able to imagine a life without him.  I can also imagine that the families of those Christians in Egypt who were killed this week or even the families and  associates of those allegedly killed by the use of our (the USA) big bomb not knowing how to emotionally accept these deaths.  Even though both groups of people might passionately believe that there is an afterlife or that their loved ones and associates died in the service of Allah/God, they are not immediately going to emotionally experience kairos time.
 
During this three-day period when Christians have chosen to commemorate the death and eventual resurrection of Jesus we come to the day after the crucifixion and burial of Jesus. Easter – the resurrection – is yet to occur.  No matter what one’s believes, it does not see possible that in fact there will be new life; that there will be a time  when one can live in the midst of kairos; when one can again breathe in rhythm with the universe. All the dots are connected.  One no longer has to label the events as good or bad. They just are.  One just is.
 
This is the challenge of this life journey.   At least it is the challenge for me.  In the midst of “boys” posturing with nuclear weapons, in the midst of seemingly rampant addictions to drugs, power, sex, gambling and other people, places and things, in the reality of the massive number of shootings in Chicago, in the midst of an attempt to retreat into nationalism, and in the midst of the knowledge that the false Gods are indeed false we are invited to experience kairos time.  We are invited to be present even before all the Easter dinner preparations are finished; before the eggs are dyed or painted, before the house is sparkling, and before we have integrated the events of Good Friday.
 
As Father Rohr points out we are invited to assume our role as elders – to set aside the frantic search for material or physical success – to be quietly present without knowing or having the proof of East Sunday. 
 
This is the challenge of going forward in this spiritual journey – to be fully and lovingly present as ourselves – as one dot in the universe.   
 
Last night I attended a 12-step speaker meeting with some people I know.  The speaker was a mature woman who has been in recovery from her active addiction for many years. She spoke of going into recovery out of desperation without being able to “know” what awaited her. She had only the knowledge of  the excruciating pain of her active addiction.  She was invited to quit looking outside of herself for contentment while  paradoxically placing herself in the arms of a program which made no sense to her. This was her Saturday after Good Friday.  Today she is living in the mist of Easter.  Easter is not instead of the crucifixion. Easter does not arrive as one end of the duality.  It arrives because of the crucifixion.  That is the mystery and magic of what Father Rohr calls kairos time or deep time.  One leaves behind the simplicity of the duality of one’s youth and accepts the invitation to that which is both X and Y and neither X or Y.   
 
Welcome to Easter weekend Saturday.
 
Written April 15, 2017
 
 

​The gift of suffering
 
In Christian tradition, it is Good Friday, the day commemorating the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross between two thieves.   Just prior to his trial and eventual crucifixion he has asked God if some other way could not be found.  He also, during that prayer, told God that he accepted whatever God thought was necessary.   

One can hardly imagine suffering worse than being nailed alive to a cross in the hot sun.  
 
All religious teachers including the Buddha accept that suffering is a part of life; not only a part of life but a time when we can make a choice – to be with the pain as we pass through it or to run from it by numbing ourselves out in some way only to face  even more suffering at some later date.   In the midst of suffering we have an opportunity to trust that a resurrection will take place.   The resurrection that we experience is not, as Christians believe with Jesus, an actual death and resurrection, but the resurrection of the strong part of us who is able to practice the serenity prayer and focus on reclaiming the part of us which is  able to accept our own humanness – to accept that we, as humans, are enough, and, as humans can be love and can be loved.
 
This week Krista Tippett’s conversation on the podcast On Being is with Richard Rorh, the Franciscan teacher, writer, and founder of The Center for Action and Contemplation.    I urge the reader to listen to this podcast and to consider reading one of his books including his latest Divine Dance.
 
I could talk about many of the ideas and beliefs which Father Rorh shares, but since this is Good Friday, as I listened I was particularly interested in what he has to say about suffering. He says, “… the human ego will (not) give up control and hand over control until it has to. [laughs] Why would we? And, you know, the 12-steppers have discovered this. They call it the first step, the admission of powerlessness. But who of us would take on suffering voluntarily? It pretty much has to be forced onto us.”
 
We humans run from pain or even from what we think might be pain until we are brought to our knees and no longer have the  energy or even the will to run.  We reluctantly face the pain and, if lucky, begin to move through it.    We kick, scream and shout to anyone who will hear us, including the God of our understanding, that we are cannot do this. We cannot stand the pain.  In the 12-step program it is said that if one is sick and tired of being sick and tired one will stop, face the pain, move through it and discover the miracle of resurrection which will happen “if we do not give up just before the miracle.”   At the time we are living in the midst of the pain we are not thinking that with the help of others and the God of our understanding   if we take what Soren Kierkegaard the Danish theologian called the leap of Faith, we shall experience the resurrection – the rebirth of that strong, innocent, trusting child who entered this world knowing that he/she was enough.
 
The paradox is, of course, that without suffering there can be no death and without death there can be no resurrection/rebirth.
 
Whether one believes that the Good Friday and Easter stories are literally true or are a metaphorical truth describing the cycle of birth, growth, death, and rebirth for all of life does not, in my mind matter.   In this life dance we are either going to move forwards or backwards. We can either keep running from  suffering because we believe we are too weak or fragile to face our discomfort or we can trust in that leap of faith and move through what may seem like the excruciating pain of the crucifixion in that hot sun with nothing but vinegar to drink to the resurrection.
 
Father Rorh says that one of his daily prayers comes out of his knowing how vulnerable he is to allowing praise to feed his ego and, thus, to run from his own humanness. That prayer is, “ I ask God for one good humiliation a day, and I usually get it, one hate letter or whatever it might be.”    This prayer comes out of his knowledge or belief that, “” See, I’m convinced that the discovery of a true God and the discovery of the true self are simultaneous journeys, and they feed one another. When you meet the true self, you’re most open to a bigger, truer name for God. When you meet a bigger, truer, more loving God, you surrender to that same identity within yourself.’
 
Today, on this good Friday I will accept that it is safe to face my own suffering which will lead me to the resurrection of all that is good and strong and holy within me. Today I will give thanks not for suffering per se but for the opportunity and the strength to face the suffering which for all of us humans experience on the road to the resurrection.
 
Written April 14, 2017
 

​School Bells  - Current Affairs – Grade 1 – Week 32
Many professionals concerned with the health of children have expressed concern about the apparent reduction in time for play for children.   Many people have also lamented that adults have forgotten how to play or decided it is a frivolous activity for children and only then in limited amounts.
I am eager to hear the results of the discussion about the importance of play between these young scholars and their families.
I hear them arriving now.
Me:  Good morning scholars.
Class:  Good morning Mr. Jim.  Cookies?
Me: No, I am sorry. I will bring some next week.
 I am eager to hear what you and your families think about play and why it is important for children and adults.
Sue:  At first I was thinking that I cannot play like other children because I am in the wheelchair, but my family reminded me that because I am in the wheelchair we have thought more about what I can do to play than some families.  We spend  lot of time exploring, laughing and playing.   I can do a lot from my wheel chair.  Everyone in our family also plays a lot of board games and laughs a lot.
Tara;  I have a little sister.  We call her the little scientist.  Play is the way she discovered what she can do. She also tastes, touches, smells, and looks at everything.  She also is learning how to play with other children and as with the rest of the family.
 
Me; I hear you saying that for your sister, play is a time when children are creative in exploring there physical abilities, how to problem solve, and how to deal emotionally with their environment and other people.
Sofia:  My parents said that sometimes it is better not to think about something and while they are playing they think of how to do something.   
Steve:  My uncle was here for the weekend and we talked about this.  He is  a scientist and is looking of a cure for cancer.  He says that they spend all day looking at different things.  He said it is like play.
Me; It sounds as if sometimes we have to let our mind wander to find a new way to think about something.
Tommy:  When I am doing homework and I get frustrated sometimes my dad tells me to take a play break. When we start homework again I try something new. He says  that if we do not play we keep trying the same thing over and over again. He says that he does this at work too.
Me: Your dad sounds as if he is  a wise man who knows the value of play for adults.
Tommy:  When grandma and grandpa come to dinner they get big frowns all of us are so silly.  Mom says that they forget how to play.
Me:  Yes, when I was doing some training in California we adults had to go to a place to play. It was on the back of a barge (You know the kind that carry coal and other stuff on the Ohio river and is pushed by a little boat.).  On this barge was a little house with swings, boxes of costumes and other toys.  At first some of us felt silly and were shy about playing.  After we played we were better at solving problems together.   When we did not have a play break we sometimes got very serious and could not solve problems well.
Sam:  We are silly a lot at our house and your house Uncle Jim.  When we get too serious and start getting mad you always tell us to take a play break.
Ahmes: At first when we got here it was hard to laugh and play.  We were very serious.  Now we play more.
Me: That is great Ahmes.  I wonder if the word play has gotten a bad reputation.
Sam:  The word sounds as if we are acting like babies and not growing up.
Me; I think that is true for a lot of us.  Yet, you and your families seem to be saying that play is essential for our health and for doing a good job at work, in school and at home.
Tommy:  Politicians do not seem to play much. They are very serious.  We were watching some argue the other day.
Me; That is true. Do you think they would get more work done if they took play breaks more often?
Class:  Yes.
Susie:  Mr. Jim, will you send a note home to our parents and tell them we need more play time instead of always doing homework or chores.
Me: Always?
Susie:  Well, not always.  
Me:  Perhaps we need to find a way to make homework and chores more playful and still get the work done.
Sue:  When I am folding laundry the cat wants to play. Sometimes it takes a long time but I finish.
Steve: Mom and dad are really silly when they are fixing dinner.  Sometimes dad makes funny animals with the vegetables.
Me:  Yes. We do have to get some chores done and we have to do a good job but we can also have fun a lot of the time.
This has been a great discussion. I am so proud of all of you,
Time is up.  Next week I am going to recommend that we talk about how to help each other when something makes us sad. Talk with our families about how adults do this.
Tara, will you please pass out the assignment?
Ring! Ring!  Ring!
Me:  Have a great week.
Class:  Goodbye Mr. Jim.
 
 
Written April 12, 2017
 

​School Bells – Current Affairs – Grade 8 – Week 32
 
Today should be a particularly interesting discussion. The question of whether more weapons keeps one safer is certainly one about which many people feel passionate.  These young people will be among those future leaders who will have to make decisions about such issues.
 
The future leaders are now arriving.
 
Me:  Good morning class.
 
Class:  Good morning Mr. Jim.   No cookies?
 
Me: No, I am sorry. Seems as if I have time to make enough for every other week.  I will do my best to make some this Easter weekend.
 
I am eager to hear what you and your family members think about the question of whether more weapons keep individuals,  communities or  nations safer.
 
Will:  Martin Luther King Jr.  believed that a non-violent approach was the most effective.
 
Will:  Can I read a quote from something he wrote Mr. Jim?
 
Me:  Yes, please do Will.
 
Will: “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral; begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So, it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” (1967, Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?. p. 67.)(patheos.com)
 
John:  But what if the person or persons who hates kill you and your family or threatens to kill?   You have to stop the bad person.
 
Will:  I agree that it is very confusing.  I asked my dad and he said that sometimes you do what is right even if people die.
 
Ann: Will, are you suggesting that we should not have used violence to stop Hitler his troops?   Do you think that the president of Syria or Russia is going to be nice if we are nice?
 
Will:  My mom says that if we refuse to be violent that something will change – maybe not immediately.
 
Me:   What is the difference between being passive and being non-violent?  Was Martin Luther King, Jr. passive?  Does everyone know what I mean by passive?  Let’s review the definition.  Paul, will you look it up please?
 
Paul:  Here it is Uncle Jim.   It says:
 
1.      Accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance.
2.    Denoting a voice of verbs in which the subject undergoes the action of the verb (e.g. they were killed as opposed to the act form he killed them).
3.    (of a circuit or device) contacting no source of electromotive force.
 
Me:  Could it be said that Martin Luther King, Jr. was offering resistance?
 
Will:  He was very clear that it was important to stand up against injustice.
 
Ann:  But didn’t people still get hurt and die?
 
Amena:  My dad thinks that just having lots of weapons but not using them will stop some of the violence.
 
Me:  If one person or nation has lots of weapons do other individuals or nations then decide that they need more weapons?
 
John:  My mom suggested that having a president such as Mr. Trump who wants more weapons and might use them makes more people afraid and likely to use their weapons first.
 
Abdul: It seems as if the more violent the terrorisst are the more violent we and other nations are.
 
Tom:  Is the choice between not being violent and dying and being violent?
 
Will:  I have another quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.  May I read it?
 
Me:  Yes, please do.
 
Will: (reading) “Cowardice asks the question – is it safe? Expediency asks the question – is it politic? Vanity asks the question – is it popular? But conscience asks the question – is it, right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.” (From a speech, A Proper Sense of Priorities, February 6, 1968, Washington, D.C.) (patheos.com)
 
Me:  Can anyone think of an author who suggested the same thing?  We have studied this author.
 
Susie: Was that the one about the African American man, Bigger Thomas?
 
Me:  Yes, the book was Native Son by Richard Wright.   What do you remember about Bigger Thomas?
 
Ann:  The police thought he had killed the mother and were threatening him.
 
Me: Do you remember what he said?
 
Ann: Something about it not being a big deal if they killed him?
 
Me:  Very good Ann.  As I recall he said: “Ain’t nothin you can do except kill me and that ain’t nothin.”    Why did he say killing him was nothin?
 
Paul:  Because we are all going to die anyway?
 
Me:  Precisely.  Of course, the suicide bombers can use the same logic. They think that Allah will be pleased if they kill the infidels.   The Reverend King would say that no matter how they justified violence it would just cause more violence.
 
John:  My uncle is a member of the group called The Oath Keepers who believes that people such as Martin Luther King, Jr. just want to keep guns away from citizens so they cannot defend themselves.   A man by the name of Elmer Rhodes who started the group is reported to have said that Hitler could have been stopped by police and military if they had refused to obey orders.
 
Me:  So folks such as those who are members of The Oath Keepers and even some members of the National Rifle Association think non-violence is a way to make the ordinary person more vulnerable/unprotected.
 
Tom:  What about Gandhi and the Salt March? That was non-violent and some believe it was very effective in helping to stop British Imperialism.
 
Me: Where did you read that Tom?
 
Tom: We were looking at a web site called (he reads off a card) “wagingnonviolence.org”
 
Me:  I am again impressed by how much thought and effort you and your families have devoted to this topic.  Obviously, we have not proven that one method is the best approach but we have demonstrated that there are very thoughtful, good people who are thinking about and discussing this topic. 
 
Ann: My mom keeps saying that she is proud of us for learning to ask questions and to really think about issues.
 
Me:   I agree with your mom.   Time is nearly up.  For next week I am recommending that we spend time with our families talking about what we would do about gun violence if we were the mayor of Chicago?      Susie please pass out the papers with the assignment on it.  Thanks.
 
Ring!  Ring!  Ring!
 
Me: Have a good week everyone.
 
Class: Goodbye Mr. Jim
 
Written April 12, 2017
 

Grandma says:  Say what you mean but don’t say it mean.
 
This morning some word, action or sound triggered the memory of this sage advice with which Grandma Fannie gifted her grandchildren.   I was not listening to, reading about or consciously thinking about the rhetoric of politicians or that of cyber bullies, but once this memory visited I thought about how easy it can be to “slip” into meanness when attempting to get a point across.   I experienced an example just a few minutes ago. I was talking with a very kind and patient technical person who is employed by the company which manufactures the laser printer I use.  What she told me to do was not working and it felt to me as if she was convinced I was not following her simple instructions. I had to be very intentional about kindly telling her that I was doing exactly what she told me to and it was not working.  It would have been easy for me to respond to her in an unkind manner.  I am well aware that I am sensitive to anyone implying that I am stupid or incapable of following simple instructions. I am also well aware of the etiology of this sensitivity. It dates back to my childhood which was a very long time ago. All the mean things I wanted to say to the person who often accused me of being stupid,  I now want to say to anyone whose behavior triggers that old memory.
 
I suspect that early experiences are responsible for many of the mean ways that we communicate with each other. Rather than dealing with old, often hurtful messages which we bring to a current experience we lash out at a person who has no idea of our history. If indeed they said something unkind, saying something unkind back to them is not going to accomplish anything other than keeping  what I call a tennis game of mean or hurtful words flying back and forth.
 
Obviously if one’s intent is to problem solve or accomplish some positive goal being mean, spiteful, hateful, sarcastic, or otherwise unkind is not likely to result in any positive outcome.  
 
Grandma Fannie the schoolmarm wanted her grandchildren and our cousins to learn to communicate in a way which accomplished some goal other than sparing with another person.  She seemed to firmly believe that the world would be a better place if we could say what we meant but say it in a way which allowed the other person(s) to hear.   She was convinced, even without the backup of sophisticated blind studies, that being mean would almost always result in more meanness and would not lead to any worthwhile results. 
 
She was clear and often demonstrated that it was important to be assertive – to say what one meant. For example, she kept the books for she and her husband, my grandfather.  It grandpa overspent and “borrowed” a nickel (worth much more in those days) she was clear that he needed to pay it back. The accounts need to balance so that the bills could be paid.  If she had an opinion about some issue which she considered important to the family, the church or the community she was not hesitant about expressing that opinion.   She had little tolerance for failure to speak up when an issue was important to her.  Yet, I cannot recall that she was ever mean in how she said something.  Certainly, she did not tolerate meanness is her grandchildren.  
Perhaps others experienced her differently but this is my very private memory.
 
A state politician recently said something about a colleague which I heard as very mean spirited. The next day he was applauding the same person. His way of explaining the sudden shift was to say it was just politics.  Really!   It does seem, at times, that we can blame meanness on the normal dance of politics, tiredness, alcohol, or the behavior of another but I do not recall ever being so mentally challenged that I thought such excuses would be accepted by Grandma Fannie.  Perhaps I did try and quickly discovered that it was a “no go.”  I knew or so it seems to me that I was responsible for what I said. If my goal was to be mean Jesus need not concern himself because Grandmas Fannie would very kindly, but clearly,  let me know that meanness was not consistent with the values which were important to our family.   If one made a mistake the goal seemed to be problem solving rather than either punishment or shaming.   
 
Grandma Fannie had a way of communicating which was very clear and which did not invite arguing or talking back.  If she said that such and such behavior was not acceptable to her or Jesus, one knew that one did not offer an alternative opinion.
 
I do not know if it is now more socially acceptable to me mean. Sometimes it seems like that but then I remember the bullying, the racism, the sexism and the homophobia which I experienced as a child.  If I read about the political behavior of that time I find many examples of mean statements about one’s opponent.  True, there was not 24/7 news coverage but clearly one could not avoid knowing that many people were very critical and often just pure mean. 
 
Grandma Fannie did  her best to teach her grandchildren and any other child who arrived in her sphere of influence or physical presence to “Say what you mean and do not say it mean.”  As it was then, it is still sage advice which I personally want to remember.
 
Thanks, Grandma Fannie.
Written April 10, 2017

​Bottom up – Top down
 
Since it is Saturday, the regular reader of this blog might correctly assume that I have now listened to this week’s podcast of On Being at least two and possible three times. That would be an accurate assumption.  This week’s podcast is part of a gathering at which the goal and title was “Repairing the Breach”.   The Podcast features a conversation between the host of On Being, Krista Tippett, Heather McGhee, president of the public policy organization Demos and Matt Kibbe, president and chief organizer of “Free the People”.  Mr. Kibbe’s books include, Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto and Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff:  A Libertarian Manifesto.  I have not read any of his books nor have I read any of the articles of Ms. McGhee which has been published in The New York Tikes, The Hill and The Nation.  
 
I want to encourage the reader to listen to this podcast. I think both of these guests and Ms. Tippett raise questions which we all need to be discussing.    The three people during the course of this conversation demonstrate how to have a meaningful, mutually respectful, discussion in which they address questions to those with whom they disagree and to themselves.  One of the questions which Ms. Tippett asks is “… what can you see that is good in the position of the other, and what troubles you about your own position and the position of your group?”  This question, in my opinion, identifies the core of both self-respect and respect for others.     What appears obvious to me is that both Ms. McGhee and Mr. Kibbe have essentially the same goal or creating a mutually respect community.  One of the questions Mr. Kibbe raises which struck an important chord in my own thinking is whether change comes about from the bottom up or the top down.
 
The United States Congress and the legislative bodies of many states including that of West Virginia are now meeting. These representatives of the body politic are considering legislation which about state and national budgets and various law, programs and in the case of the national body appointments of individuals to key leadership positions such as the Supreme Court.  I have been not only cognizant of the divide between fractions but, especially, in the state legislative, of the number of new or revised laws which are being considered.   While I am happy to see, some laws easing the attempt of government to regulate the behavior of people, I was not surprised to see that there are also some proposals to increase punishment for certain types of behavior or to begin to punish behavior which has not previously been punished.   One example is a bill proposing to make sharing naked photos of individuals without their permission and with intent to harm (I have not seen the final wording.) a crime.    I agree that it is very mean spirited, unkind, and just plain wrong to attempt to share what was very private with the general public, a boss, a family member or others with the hope that the person will suffer negative consequences.  Do we, however, want to legislative one more behavior.  I certainly understand the reasoning.   When us humans do not make decisions, which are respectful of other or which result in serious emotional, physical, harm to a person or to the entire community I want to do something to protect the person or persons harmed.   The goal of the law often is to punish the person who behaved in an unkind and/or harmful manner.  Sometime the goal is to protect the person from their own behavior. Again, the thinking is that if we promise or threaten punishing it will deter future behavior of the individuals or others.   Some laws are passed just because us humans have decided that certainly behavior is displeasing to the God of one’s understanding and it is our job to act as God’s agent in stopping or punishing that behavior.  Sometimes, a law is enacted because we are just plain mad at the offender because he or she has offended our sensibilities. 
 
Enacting of law whether it is the guarantee of health care or the protection of the abused child or adult, is a top down approach.  Individuals such as Mr. Kibbe are in favor of a bottoms up approach.  He says that: “Well, I think the American experiment is premised on the idea that there are some fundamental rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and those are very important to Tea Partyers and Constitutional Conservatives and Libertarians. But those are negative rights. It’s the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It’s not the right to an affordable healthcare plan or a college education. And those are fundamentally different things.”  One could and many do argue that health care and a college education may be necessary in order to have life, maintain the liberty to take care of self and to pursue happiness.  In fact, one can and many do wax on eloquently and very convincingly for many thousands of words and may, in fact, convince others that this is the case.  One can use basically the same argument to justify the many laws criminalizing certain behavior.     Mr. Kibbe might then argue that the sum total of the laws does not result in greater freedom or more mutual respect in the overall body politic.  If fact, he and other Libertarians might argue that, in fact, the top down approach impeded life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for man. 
 
I have elsewhere argued that criminalizing a wide range of behavior and punishing for often long periods of time does not create a safer, more just, or more free society.    Others can and do argue, more eloquently, just the opposite.
 
Yet, the goal which both Mr. Kibbe and Ms. McGhee are recommending is, I believe, essentially, the same.  They are both recommending that we do all we can to respect each other and create the conditions which make it more likely that we will recognize our common humanity and, thus, our common goals. 
 
If I am accurate, the primary question then becomes whether a top down or bottom up approach is more likely to help us attain this goal.  Neither one is suggesting that we focus on whether a particular behavior is offensive to us, whether any approach will guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to everyone in the society, or whether any approach will create a community of saints. They are both suggesting that we quit focusing on symptoms and look for causes.   Both would suggest that the recent contentious and often divisive presidential election as well as the outcome of that election point to symptoms. They were not and are not the primary problem.
 
It will be interesting and challenging for me to give more of my thought and research to whether a top down, bottoms up, or a mixture of the two approaches will more likely bring about a society which is more in line with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
 
Again, I am indebted to Ms. Tippett and her guests for inviting me to think outside of my often-tiny boxes. 
 
Written April 8, 2017