Remember Mr. T, the enforcer on the old A Team TV show? You know, the big Black dude with the Mohawk and half ton of bling rumored to be worth hundreds of thousands draped around his neck? Built like a brick outhouse, Mr. T could somekinda kick ass. He could back up his favorite words, "I pity the man; I pity the poor fool who..." What a great model figure for the new Pope, whoever he may turn out to be.
Before the local convent comes threatening to hang me by my genitalia from the nearest steeple, allow me to explain.
Tuesday the Cardinals, most of them anyway, will literally be locked into the Sistine Chapel. They're not allowed to come out until they've elected a new Pope. We on the outside will know they've once again come to that momentous decision when grey smoke begins to billow forth from the ancient chimney erected on the Chapel roof to commemorate the occasion. Thousands upon thousands of nuns, priests, churchmen, churchwomen, and tourists of every sort from all over our shrinking planet will erupt in cheers as they wait to see who appears at the upstairs window as Pope Who or Whatever name he chooses.
Then begins The Great Speculation over whether they have made a momentous or disastrous decision; one that will either move the Roman Catholic Church forward through rethinking the Church's role in the new multicultural, multi-religious millennium, or backward into a new Dark Age of increasing irrelevance to all but the most faithful few. There will be good arguments on either side.
Which is why it's appropriate that the smoke from the chimney will be, not white, but a see-through shade of grey. It hasn't been white for years. Tradition was that when the ballots were taken, if no choice had been made, the guys inside rigged the fireplace to make the smoke black, and vice-versa. St. Peter's, however, has been around a few centuries, and over all those years deposits have built up that render the white smoke a tinted grey. It's a fitting symbol for our new millennium where everything, every moral decision, every ecclesiastical pronouncement, every theology, every economic policy, every political decision is neither black nor white but somewhere in between.
To paraphrase Mr. T, when it comes to being Pope, "I pity the man! I pity the poor fool..!" who has to cope with brining the ancient traditions into a world neither Jesus nor The Twelve could have conceived of in their wildest imaginings. And let's face it; the Church of St. Peter's is in trouble.
Riddled by everything from sex scandals to financial improprieties at the Vatican itself, a shortage of priests, the decline of those entering monasteries and convents and various orders of ministry, the decline of parish attendance, celibacy, to the concerns of the LGBT communities; the new Pope will have a plate full. "I pity the man..!" who gets this job. Then, some guy (well, personally, I would argue that too, but I'm not there) has to do it.
Beginning in the century after Jesus' death (the resurrection is a question of faith, so let's stick to history here), the faithful have been tasked with attempting to live within a creative tension between the past, represented by the Gospels and the teachings of the Church, and the moral and political conundrums of the present.
I would suggest that tradition as valuable as it is, should guide and inform rather than enslave us. Blind obedience to the past is just that, blind. And the blind soon fall into the ditch. The present brings new ethical challenges and, we can always hope, new insights into what it means to be a moral human being. Let's hope the new Pope will be a man capable of keeping one eye on the past and another clearly focused on the radically new predicaments of the present.
For example, take the issue of only men in the priesthood. Let's hope the new Pope catches up with the wisdom of Martin Luther's Reformation and chucks this one out the window when he first appears to the waiting crowd. So what if The Twelve was an old boys club. That was then. This is now. In Jesus' time only men would have been accepted as teachers. Contrary to what in some quarters remains popular belief, Jesus did have women, Mary Magdalene for one, within his inner circle, and was quite probably married as was the custom among Jewish men of the day.
Though much work remains to be done, we have made a bit of progress in the area of gender equality. Of all places, in the church, women should stand on equal footing with men. It's way past time for the Roman Catholic Church to permit, yea, even encourage women to join the priesthood. And I mean a fully endowed with all privileges and powers priesthood, not as second class helpers to their male counterparts.
Face it. For a clergyman to sit across from a female parishioner and dare say, "I understand" may be valid, but only up to a certain point. We need to realize human understanding is limited, defined, informed by and interpreted through our respective gender. There's just no way around it. So let's just admit that and realize that if I can't walk a mile in her shoes then I should bloody well get her to priest of her own gender who can.
As for celibacy, that should be an option, not a requirement. Both celibacy and marriage are sacred expressions of being together in holy community. Neither is superior to the other. If someone wants to follow in the footsteps of Thomas Merton and become a hermit intellectual living on top of a seven storied mountain that should be his or her privilege. Or if they want to follow Martin Luther, get married to a former nun and have seven kids (now that's Reformation!!), then so be it. Let the individual be free to choose how he or she will live by the teachings of Jesus. The Church should be there to help interpret and guide as best as human fallibility allows, not dictate.
Now, Martin, and Pope Who or Whatever you will call yourself; about all those kids. This idea of no birth control needs to go the way of the dinosaur because if it doesn't then the rest of us and our offspring will follow T-Rex and his buddies down the rabbit hole of extinction.
Neither in the time of Jesus nor that of Martin Luther was the human species in danger of overrunning the planet, despoiling nature of every last resource, poisoning the well water by fracking for natural gas, over fishing the seas--you get the idea. Times have changed. Deal with it. It is the utmost environmental irresponsibility to tell people, for whatever reason, they don't have a moral responsibility, to themselves, their children, and to the ecosystem we're all part of to limit their own numbers. Eighty percent of American Catholics deep sixed this idea years ago. It's time the Vatican caught up with the wisdom of its own people.
Change is always difficult. So here's to hoping the Cardinals have the collective wisdom to bring it on. The next Pope must have the wisdom to bring the ancient teachings to bear upon a post modern world teetering on the brink of self-destruction. Let's hope that, like Mr. T, he turns out to be a real kick ass kind of guy.
The Jawbone
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Jawbone: Guns, Freedom, And the Man in the Middle
Jawbone: Guns, Freedom, And the Man in the Middle: Six mass shootings already, and we're barely into February. Promises to be one Hell of a year. Prompts me to wonder how many more child...
Guns, Freedom, And the Man in the Middle
Six mass shootings already, and we're barely into February. Promises to be one Hell of a year. Prompts me to wonder how many more child-size coffins will we bury between this evening and the night the ball drops once again on Time's Square. But as with all things human, that's going to be largely up to us.
Like millions of other Americans, I watched the recent Senate hearing on gun violence as it unfolded on morning television. Moving from left to right we had Representative Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark. Either by design or fortuitous fate, in the center, in full dress uniform, James W. Johnson, Baltimore County Chief of Police. Bringing up the far right--both literally and metaphorically--Gayle Trott, representing some obscure think tank the purpose of which, I'm told, is to get more women interested in conservative politics--this despite the well-known position Ms. Trott has taken against--yes, that's against--the violence against women act. (Go figure!) And on the far right of my television screen, Wayne LaPierre, current figurehead of the NRA and puppet voice for the gun manufacturers of America. Each and all facing a Senate panel representing the gamut of political opinion on our current debate on the role guns of every type will, or, will not, have in our future.
Well, there we have it. The entire spectrum of opinions on the role guns, and what kind of guns and how many bullets, and, you know.... all the other issues that become involved in this debate; are going to play in our society.
That morning it occurred to me that I was watching something much more significant, of much greater and far reaching consequence than a debate on gun control, or even the second amendment, or the presumed by the gun lobby right to carry an assault weapon of mass destruction with a hundred round clip. All those are surface issues.
This is a debate about the future; a debate about who we are as a people; and, more, what kind of society we are choosing, and we do choose, to move toward. For the decisions on policy we make today are the ways we project our values into the future. Our decisions, personal and political, betray what kind of society we want to create for our children's, children's, children.
Moving from left to right, there were Gabby and Mark Giffords, gun owners, well respected members of their community, themselves victimized by the mentally deranged lunatic with a semi-automatic weapon and high capacity magazine clips. In the center, the representative of law and order, reason, freedom, and responsibility, Chief Johnson. And on the far right, the voices of paranoia run amok; Gayle Trott and Wayne LaPierre, whose only purpose was to convince us that we are rapidly moving toward anarchy; a society Ms. Trott vividly described in her fictional tirade about a mother being attacked in her home, defending her babies with an assault rifle. Women of America, meet Ms. Rambo.
These are two radically different views of the future. One, represented by the Giffords, a responsible society where people may, if they so choose, own such weapons as are necessary to defend their homes. A society governed by law, represented by Chief Johnson. And a society of anarchy, chaos, death and destruction; everyone for him or herself; apocalypse now suburban style represented by the radical fringe of the NRA personified by Ms. Trott and Mr. LaPierre.
So it would seem we have a choice between two visions of the future: one a vision of responsible gun ownership, law and order; and one of anarchy born of a paranoia based upon a survivalist militia mentality. Which will we choose?
Chief Johnson and the Giffords illustrate the more responsible choice. Yes to responsible gun ownership; yes to universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole; yes to the ban on all assault weapons of mass destruction that do not belong in the hands of untrained, inexperienced civilians; yes to the ban on high capacity magazines; yes to law and order and a civil society. No to paranoid militia movements who are convinced they need weapons of mass destruction to defend themselves against their own democratically elected government.
The gun debate is not so much about guns as it is a debate about what kind of society we are going to have, or not have, and, more, how we are going to choose to live together in community. As such it represents both peril and opportunity. We have the opportunity to choose wisely, to decide what kind of weapon a citizen may reasonably be said to require for the defense of his or her home and family.
Or we have the choice offered us by the militia/survivalist movement represented my Ms. Rambo and Mr. LaPierre, along with the extremist wing of the NRA. Arm yourself to the teeth with the deadliest weapons of mass destruction you can get your hands on for the coming war of all against all.
And we need to decide which side we're on; and work to make the vision of our larger society a reality. I prefer the vision offered by Chief Johnson and the Giffords.
Someone should tell the Ms. Trott, Mr. LaPierre, and /the survivalist fringe of the NRA that we are no longer living in Tombstone. Through the rule of law, we are attempting to choose something better.
The Jawbone
Like millions of other Americans, I watched the recent Senate hearing on gun violence as it unfolded on morning television. Moving from left to right we had Representative Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark. Either by design or fortuitous fate, in the center, in full dress uniform, James W. Johnson, Baltimore County Chief of Police. Bringing up the far right--both literally and metaphorically--Gayle Trott, representing some obscure think tank the purpose of which, I'm told, is to get more women interested in conservative politics--this despite the well-known position Ms. Trott has taken against--yes, that's against--the violence against women act. (Go figure!) And on the far right of my television screen, Wayne LaPierre, current figurehead of the NRA and puppet voice for the gun manufacturers of America. Each and all facing a Senate panel representing the gamut of political opinion on our current debate on the role guns of every type will, or, will not, have in our future.
Well, there we have it. The entire spectrum of opinions on the role guns, and what kind of guns and how many bullets, and, you know.... all the other issues that become involved in this debate; are going to play in our society.
That morning it occurred to me that I was watching something much more significant, of much greater and far reaching consequence than a debate on gun control, or even the second amendment, or the presumed by the gun lobby right to carry an assault weapon of mass destruction with a hundred round clip. All those are surface issues.
This is a debate about the future; a debate about who we are as a people; and, more, what kind of society we are choosing, and we do choose, to move toward. For the decisions on policy we make today are the ways we project our values into the future. Our decisions, personal and political, betray what kind of society we want to create for our children's, children's, children.
Moving from left to right, there were Gabby and Mark Giffords, gun owners, well respected members of their community, themselves victimized by the mentally deranged lunatic with a semi-automatic weapon and high capacity magazine clips. In the center, the representative of law and order, reason, freedom, and responsibility, Chief Johnson. And on the far right, the voices of paranoia run amok; Gayle Trott and Wayne LaPierre, whose only purpose was to convince us that we are rapidly moving toward anarchy; a society Ms. Trott vividly described in her fictional tirade about a mother being attacked in her home, defending her babies with an assault rifle. Women of America, meet Ms. Rambo.
These are two radically different views of the future. One, represented by the Giffords, a responsible society where people may, if they so choose, own such weapons as are necessary to defend their homes. A society governed by law, represented by Chief Johnson. And a society of anarchy, chaos, death and destruction; everyone for him or herself; apocalypse now suburban style represented by the radical fringe of the NRA personified by Ms. Trott and Mr. LaPierre.
So it would seem we have a choice between two visions of the future: one a vision of responsible gun ownership, law and order; and one of anarchy born of a paranoia based upon a survivalist militia mentality. Which will we choose?
Chief Johnson and the Giffords illustrate the more responsible choice. Yes to responsible gun ownership; yes to universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole; yes to the ban on all assault weapons of mass destruction that do not belong in the hands of untrained, inexperienced civilians; yes to the ban on high capacity magazines; yes to law and order and a civil society. No to paranoid militia movements who are convinced they need weapons of mass destruction to defend themselves against their own democratically elected government.
The gun debate is not so much about guns as it is a debate about what kind of society we are going to have, or not have, and, more, how we are going to choose to live together in community. As such it represents both peril and opportunity. We have the opportunity to choose wisely, to decide what kind of weapon a citizen may reasonably be said to require for the defense of his or her home and family.
Or we have the choice offered us by the militia/survivalist movement represented my Ms. Rambo and Mr. LaPierre, along with the extremist wing of the NRA. Arm yourself to the teeth with the deadliest weapons of mass destruction you can get your hands on for the coming war of all against all.
And we need to decide which side we're on; and work to make the vision of our larger society a reality. I prefer the vision offered by Chief Johnson and the Giffords.
Someone should tell the Ms. Trott, Mr. LaPierre, and /the survivalist fringe of the NRA that we are no longer living in Tombstone. Through the rule of law, we are attempting to choose something better.
The Jawbone
Sunday, January 27, 2013
From Cigarettes to Bullets: Congratulations to the Marketing Department
Send congratulations to the marketing gurus for upping their game; they've managed to move up the ladder. They couldn't be satisfied with figuring out more creative ways to market cigarettes, otherwise known as "coffin nails," to children and teens. They've decided to up the ante and go for bullets."Now there's something with real marketing appeal! Bet we'll make a fortune off this gig!"
This morning's New York Times carries an investigative article revealing how gun manufacturers, always in cahoots with the most radical fringe of the NRA, you know, that branch of an otherwise respectable organization that thinks it's perfectly acceptable to put an Uzi in the hands of a twelve year old and send her off to middle school with instructions to, "Remember sweetie, if you see a bad man with a gun, remember to squeeze rather than pull." But I digress. The article reveals how the gun manufacturers have chosen to market their wares to teens. According to the article, one ad even portrays a fifteen year old girl holding an assault rifle implying how great it would be to wake up Christmas morning to find good old Santa had brought you one of these!
This, when, as Nicholas Kristoff pointed out in his New York Times article of December 16, that Americans between the ages of five and fourteen are thirteen times, yea, thirteen times more likely to be killed with a firearm than their counterparts in countries. The only exception is countries where there is all out war. And as Ezra Kline of Newsweek pointed out only a couple of days before in his article, fifteen of the last twenty-five mass shootings in the US involved assault weapons.
The NRAs answer is more guns, and better mental health care. Okay, so better mental health care is a winning idea. Certainly a most needed improvement for our society. But how would we work this out? I mean, are we all supposed to be watching one another now? Which brings me to the question, "Where do you draw the line between thinking your neighbor a bit odd and reporting him or her to the local constabulary as a potential mass murderer?"
Just the other day my local paper carried yet another letter to the editor in favor of arming teachers so that "violence will be answered by violence." The couple had been on one of those evangelical mission trips to Guatemala and were praising the presence of armed troops in the streets on every corner. They felt much safer and hoped for the day that the US would catch up with Guatemala by arming teachers. So lets just turn our schools into free fire zones.
News flash. The troops in the streets of Guatemala are not there to protect the citizens but to suppress and intimidate citizens on behalf of the government. Great. So these yahoos want to turn the US into a third world dictatorship. That will solve a lot of our problems.
Senator Feinstein has proposed a bill banning assault weapons. Unlike the previous bill that has already expired, the Feinstein bill gets specific and bans more than one hundred types of these weapons of mass destruction. It's worthy of our support.
Limit the guns. Limit the slaughter of the innocents.
The Jawbone.
This morning's New York Times carries an investigative article revealing how gun manufacturers, always in cahoots with the most radical fringe of the NRA, you know, that branch of an otherwise respectable organization that thinks it's perfectly acceptable to put an Uzi in the hands of a twelve year old and send her off to middle school with instructions to, "Remember sweetie, if you see a bad man with a gun, remember to squeeze rather than pull." But I digress. The article reveals how the gun manufacturers have chosen to market their wares to teens. According to the article, one ad even portrays a fifteen year old girl holding an assault rifle implying how great it would be to wake up Christmas morning to find good old Santa had brought you one of these!
This, when, as Nicholas Kristoff pointed out in his New York Times article of December 16, that Americans between the ages of five and fourteen are thirteen times, yea, thirteen times more likely to be killed with a firearm than their counterparts in countries. The only exception is countries where there is all out war. And as Ezra Kline of Newsweek pointed out only a couple of days before in his article, fifteen of the last twenty-five mass shootings in the US involved assault weapons.
The NRAs answer is more guns, and better mental health care. Okay, so better mental health care is a winning idea. Certainly a most needed improvement for our society. But how would we work this out? I mean, are we all supposed to be watching one another now? Which brings me to the question, "Where do you draw the line between thinking your neighbor a bit odd and reporting him or her to the local constabulary as a potential mass murderer?"
Just the other day my local paper carried yet another letter to the editor in favor of arming teachers so that "violence will be answered by violence." The couple had been on one of those evangelical mission trips to Guatemala and were praising the presence of armed troops in the streets on every corner. They felt much safer and hoped for the day that the US would catch up with Guatemala by arming teachers. So lets just turn our schools into free fire zones.
News flash. The troops in the streets of Guatemala are not there to protect the citizens but to suppress and intimidate citizens on behalf of the government. Great. So these yahoos want to turn the US into a third world dictatorship. That will solve a lot of our problems.
Senator Feinstein has proposed a bill banning assault weapons. Unlike the previous bill that has already expired, the Feinstein bill gets specific and bans more than one hundred types of these weapons of mass destruction. It's worthy of our support.
Limit the guns. Limit the slaughter of the innocents.
The Jawbone.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Newtown: Beneath the Surface
More than a half century ago, the desperado stood on the veranda, red cowboy hat pulled down to shield the sun, showing off his fringed vest and chaps, his six-shooters at his side, ready for action. Hey, even at five, I was a cute little guy!
No one thought anything about it. Not my parents or my aunt taking the black and white picture with that old look down through the top view thing Brownie camera we still have around here somewhere. We live in a gun culture. And our indoctrination begins early.
I am not anti-gun. A few years later my father and grandfather would begin teaching me the difference between those toys and the real thing in the fields and forests around the ancestors' farm in Lithia. My first "real" gun was a bolt action .22. We would put the beagles in the car and rabbit hunting we would go.
Guns weren't toys. Somewhere along the way we learned the difference between playing bang-bang in the back yard and safely handling the real thing. We knew after the backyard games were over everyone would get up and go home when Moms called us in for dinner. With the real thing we knew it didn't work that way.
But things have gotten way out of hand. Maybe a deeper look is necessary.
First, we need to admit we live in a culture that glorifies violence, particularly gun violence. Ours is a culture that revels in revenge. Tv shows, video games, and movies are designed to move us to stand up and cheer when some fake hero blows away the bad guys. Mayhem is the order of the day.
The NRAs answer is to arm everyone, even public school teachers. Give everyone a weapon and let's just all go freakin' at it. I really don't think more guns in school or anywhere else is the kind of answer we're looking for. Even Wyatt, Morgan, Virgil, and Doc had enough presence of mind to demand all the cowboys turn in their guns at the edge of Tombstone. Maybe they were on to something.
We certainly don't need civilians having access to assault weapons. An AK isn't designed for deer hunting. No more firearm sales of any kind without proper federal background checks, proper training, licensing. No more gun shows where any escaped felon can buy an Uzi. There is something to the argument that less guns will mean less gun violence. With the possible exception of countries at war, Americans have more guns than anyone else and we kill one another more often than anyone else. But we all know the stats. We've spent the days since Newtown reading them.
I suggest we look a bit more deeply. We tend to define violence as the use of the fist, the knife, or the gun. But that's only just the surface of things; the outward manifesting of something deeper.
In the middle of the last century, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, writing in, if memory serves me, Moral Man, Immoral Society, pointed out there are two kinds of violence: overt, and covert. The overt violence of the gun, the fist, the knife, he wrote, is but an outward manifesting of covert violence. Covert violence like dehumanizing poverty, for example. Granted, Niebuhr was writing about a much larger scale of violence; the causes of WWII and other armed conflicts. But his work leads me to ask whether the same thing might be true of school shootings.
The authors of Rampage, the Social Roots of School Shootings, published in 2005, would tend to agree Dr. Niebuhr was on to something. The editors of the Jan. 7/14 issue of The Nation do a good job of boiling down this research to its essentials. Shooters are responding to the covert violence of social isolation, bullying, exclusion, ridicule, rejection, etc.--pretty much the stuff experienced by those kids in high school that never seemed to fit in very well. You know, the outcasts.
Nothing like Newtown or Columbine happens out of the blue. There are signs. Increasing withdrawal. Depression. Despair. Acting out on an escalating scale. Hostility to authority and a host of others. Rampage... and studies like it need to become part of our curriculum for teachers, students, clergy, counselors; maybe for all of us.
Though I do think assault weapons should, and will, be banned, by itself that will not solve the problem. But less access may stop a few; and less access to large clips and assault weapons will at least limit the carnage.
But we have to do more. What we need to do is, to paraphrase an old source, become a bit more conscientious about becoming our brother and sisters' keeper. We can educate ourselves to the warning signs. We can summon the courage to speak up before the shooting starts. We can resolve in this new year to reach out to the outcasts among us; to the kids who are silently screaming for help. We can teach our teenagers and young adults to be more sensitive to the kids who don't fit the magazine image of masculine or feminine good looks or dress or sex appeal. We can learn to reach out. Because no one--no one--suffering that much emotional pain has the ability to reach out for help on their own.
These issues are complex. And I have only skirted the surface. They are not easily solved. Answers are multifaceted. But it seems to me that the foundation upon which any real solutions must be built is the simple knowledge taught by all the world's faiths. That the answer to the question, "Am I my bother/sister's keeper?" is supposed to be, "Yes."
The Jawbone.
No one thought anything about it. Not my parents or my aunt taking the black and white picture with that old look down through the top view thing Brownie camera we still have around here somewhere. We live in a gun culture. And our indoctrination begins early.
I am not anti-gun. A few years later my father and grandfather would begin teaching me the difference between those toys and the real thing in the fields and forests around the ancestors' farm in Lithia. My first "real" gun was a bolt action .22. We would put the beagles in the car and rabbit hunting we would go.
Guns weren't toys. Somewhere along the way we learned the difference between playing bang-bang in the back yard and safely handling the real thing. We knew after the backyard games were over everyone would get up and go home when Moms called us in for dinner. With the real thing we knew it didn't work that way.
But things have gotten way out of hand. Maybe a deeper look is necessary.
First, we need to admit we live in a culture that glorifies violence, particularly gun violence. Ours is a culture that revels in revenge. Tv shows, video games, and movies are designed to move us to stand up and cheer when some fake hero blows away the bad guys. Mayhem is the order of the day.
The NRAs answer is to arm everyone, even public school teachers. Give everyone a weapon and let's just all go freakin' at it. I really don't think more guns in school or anywhere else is the kind of answer we're looking for. Even Wyatt, Morgan, Virgil, and Doc had enough presence of mind to demand all the cowboys turn in their guns at the edge of Tombstone. Maybe they were on to something.
We certainly don't need civilians having access to assault weapons. An AK isn't designed for deer hunting. No more firearm sales of any kind without proper federal background checks, proper training, licensing. No more gun shows where any escaped felon can buy an Uzi. There is something to the argument that less guns will mean less gun violence. With the possible exception of countries at war, Americans have more guns than anyone else and we kill one another more often than anyone else. But we all know the stats. We've spent the days since Newtown reading them.
I suggest we look a bit more deeply. We tend to define violence as the use of the fist, the knife, or the gun. But that's only just the surface of things; the outward manifesting of something deeper.
In the middle of the last century, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, writing in, if memory serves me, Moral Man, Immoral Society, pointed out there are two kinds of violence: overt, and covert. The overt violence of the gun, the fist, the knife, he wrote, is but an outward manifesting of covert violence. Covert violence like dehumanizing poverty, for example. Granted, Niebuhr was writing about a much larger scale of violence; the causes of WWII and other armed conflicts. But his work leads me to ask whether the same thing might be true of school shootings.
The authors of Rampage, the Social Roots of School Shootings, published in 2005, would tend to agree Dr. Niebuhr was on to something. The editors of the Jan. 7/14 issue of The Nation do a good job of boiling down this research to its essentials. Shooters are responding to the covert violence of social isolation, bullying, exclusion, ridicule, rejection, etc.--pretty much the stuff experienced by those kids in high school that never seemed to fit in very well. You know, the outcasts.
Nothing like Newtown or Columbine happens out of the blue. There are signs. Increasing withdrawal. Depression. Despair. Acting out on an escalating scale. Hostility to authority and a host of others. Rampage... and studies like it need to become part of our curriculum for teachers, students, clergy, counselors; maybe for all of us.
Though I do think assault weapons should, and will, be banned, by itself that will not solve the problem. But less access may stop a few; and less access to large clips and assault weapons will at least limit the carnage.
But we have to do more. What we need to do is, to paraphrase an old source, become a bit more conscientious about becoming our brother and sisters' keeper. We can educate ourselves to the warning signs. We can summon the courage to speak up before the shooting starts. We can resolve in this new year to reach out to the outcasts among us; to the kids who are silently screaming for help. We can teach our teenagers and young adults to be more sensitive to the kids who don't fit the magazine image of masculine or feminine good looks or dress or sex appeal. We can learn to reach out. Because no one--no one--suffering that much emotional pain has the ability to reach out for help on their own.
These issues are complex. And I have only skirted the surface. They are not easily solved. Answers are multifaceted. But it seems to me that the foundation upon which any real solutions must be built is the simple knowledge taught by all the world's faiths. That the answer to the question, "Am I my bother/sister's keeper?" is supposed to be, "Yes."
The Jawbone.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
And So This is Christmas
President Obama is decisively ensconced in his second term. With a slight few more Progressives, Democrats retain control of the Senate. The House remains in the hands of the loyal opposition, but, thankfully, with a few less reactionaries. So this is Christmas 2012. And we are standing in shit rear-end deep to a tall giraffe.
I'm going easy here. This is an excessively tall giraffe.
We have serious problems and we need serious people from both sides of the aisle to solve them. Yet with every passing news cast we are entertained by herds of psycho-pathetic lemmings blindly charging toward the fiscal cliff. Barring the intervention of, say, a particularly vicious large dog that just plain doesn't care for stupid beasts governed by herdspeak that will stand at the edge and bark back the fury tide, the carnage will be considerable. One could argue that we would all be better off if we just let the idiots go over. Problem is they're dragging my economic well being behind them and for the life of me I can't figure out a way to cut the rope.
To say the working people are getting screwed over is an understatement. As I write this, around 10k of my brothers and sisters are gathering at the Michigan capital to protest the governor's signing the Republican right to work for less pay law. And this in an age when executive pay has risen by 275% to the workers measly 18%. Heads have rolled for less than this.
But it's not just the workers. 22% of children live below the poverty line. That works out to around 15.1 million kids. We were always fortunate enough to put something under the Christmas tree for our girls. I can't imagine being a parent, out of a job for a year or more through no fault of his or her own, trying to figure out how to explain to a six year old why they didn't get that $200 video game. So the next time you get a chance, toss a little something into the Toys for Tots bin or write a check to a local organization that's going to help out these families. And as my grandfather was fond of reminding me, "Never pass by a Salvation Army kettle son. Folks need our help."
8.2 million of us are involuntarily part-time workers. We'd like full-time work but, say the bosses, business isn't good enough, despite record profits in some sectors, like the home improvement company I work for--part-time.
There are more systemic concerns. Our highways are plagued with potholes large enough to swallow a Volkswagen. It's not a bad idea to increase your speed when heading for a bridge; if it starts to crumble beneath you the extra speed may help you make it over, EvilKneval style. And this tidbit just in: our electrical grid ranks 32 in the world, just behind Slovenia, for reliability. Stock up on batteries and candles. Air out your sleeping bag and make sure the air mattress doesn't leak. You next camping trip could be to your family room.
Evidence is mounting that all those ads from the natural gas people telling us fracking is safe are outright lies. Check out Elizabeth Royte's feature article in the December 17 edition of "The Nation." In "What the Frack is in Our Food?" she recounts incidents of dead cows, deformed calves, befouled drinking water, and contaminated soil were chemicals used in the process to extract natural gas could well make their way into our food chain. And the FDA as yet is not monitoring any of this. Bon apetite!
So this is Christmas, 2012. Traditionally a time of hope and expectations of something better. But neither hope nor solutions fall from heavenly skies. If there is hope it will come from within the rank and file of workers who are mad as hell and who just plain aren't going to put up with shoveling shit for the top 2% or the fascist corporations who tried to buy every politician in sight. It's time to turn this around.
Signs are good that a turn around just might be coming. It's been a long, long time since this many people have taken to the streets to make their voices heard. And to the voting booth. Despite, thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision that allowed democracy to go to the highest bidder; the people fought back with good old fashioned grass roots organization. And we beat the bosses at the polling places. As James Carville said of the billionaires in a recent "Rolling Stone" interview; "never have so many paid so much to get so little."
There are other promising signs. A fledgling movement to amend the constitution to abolish all corporate money in politics. Maybe we should call it "the people's amendment." For the first time a majority of House Democrats will be made up from women and minorities. The states of Washington and Colorado have taken the first steps in getting rid of our ignorant, always doomed to fail, antiquated drug policies by legalizing recreational use of marijuana. Stopping it is impossible. So why not treat it like booze? Regulate it. Tax it. And toss the extra cash into the public coffers. Uncle Sam could use a bit extra.
So this is Christmas; and there is hope. So I'm hoping to head for D.C. on Inauguration Day with a few friends. Sure, it's an historical day. The second inauguration of the country's first Black president, itself a sign that something dramatic has changed. The face of the people's government is no longer all white or even all male or all Christian or Jewish or whatever have you. A good sign that we are finally beginning to live up to the inclusiveness we profess to believe in.
But I'm not going to endure massive crowds, long walks, and god only knows what kind of port-a-potty lines to support the regime I voted for. I'm going to say, with voice and presence, I, and we, are here not merely to support, though that is important. We are here to push, to raise some hell along with some expectations. It's time to turn words and ideas into policies and concrete actions. Get the corporate brigands' cash out of politics. Provide jobs. Make sure those down on their luck aren't sleeping in the street and that our children have a roof over their heads and can at least set down to a plate of beans and wennies a couple times a day. Fill in the potholes and fix the damn bridges. Make sure when I flip my switch the lamp comes on.
November 6th, the people gave their stamp of approval to much of the Progressive agenda. But we are not stopping here. We're going to bring the full-court press. Get it done. Ignore us at your peril.
The Jawbone.
I'm going easy here. This is an excessively tall giraffe.
We have serious problems and we need serious people from both sides of the aisle to solve them. Yet with every passing news cast we are entertained by herds of psycho-pathetic lemmings blindly charging toward the fiscal cliff. Barring the intervention of, say, a particularly vicious large dog that just plain doesn't care for stupid beasts governed by herdspeak that will stand at the edge and bark back the fury tide, the carnage will be considerable. One could argue that we would all be better off if we just let the idiots go over. Problem is they're dragging my economic well being behind them and for the life of me I can't figure out a way to cut the rope.
To say the working people are getting screwed over is an understatement. As I write this, around 10k of my brothers and sisters are gathering at the Michigan capital to protest the governor's signing the Republican right to work for less pay law. And this in an age when executive pay has risen by 275% to the workers measly 18%. Heads have rolled for less than this.
But it's not just the workers. 22% of children live below the poverty line. That works out to around 15.1 million kids. We were always fortunate enough to put something under the Christmas tree for our girls. I can't imagine being a parent, out of a job for a year or more through no fault of his or her own, trying to figure out how to explain to a six year old why they didn't get that $200 video game. So the next time you get a chance, toss a little something into the Toys for Tots bin or write a check to a local organization that's going to help out these families. And as my grandfather was fond of reminding me, "Never pass by a Salvation Army kettle son. Folks need our help."
8.2 million of us are involuntarily part-time workers. We'd like full-time work but, say the bosses, business isn't good enough, despite record profits in some sectors, like the home improvement company I work for--part-time.
There are more systemic concerns. Our highways are plagued with potholes large enough to swallow a Volkswagen. It's not a bad idea to increase your speed when heading for a bridge; if it starts to crumble beneath you the extra speed may help you make it over, EvilKneval style. And this tidbit just in: our electrical grid ranks 32 in the world, just behind Slovenia, for reliability. Stock up on batteries and candles. Air out your sleeping bag and make sure the air mattress doesn't leak. You next camping trip could be to your family room.
Evidence is mounting that all those ads from the natural gas people telling us fracking is safe are outright lies. Check out Elizabeth Royte's feature article in the December 17 edition of "The Nation." In "What the Frack is in Our Food?" she recounts incidents of dead cows, deformed calves, befouled drinking water, and contaminated soil were chemicals used in the process to extract natural gas could well make their way into our food chain. And the FDA as yet is not monitoring any of this. Bon apetite!
So this is Christmas, 2012. Traditionally a time of hope and expectations of something better. But neither hope nor solutions fall from heavenly skies. If there is hope it will come from within the rank and file of workers who are mad as hell and who just plain aren't going to put up with shoveling shit for the top 2% or the fascist corporations who tried to buy every politician in sight. It's time to turn this around.
Signs are good that a turn around just might be coming. It's been a long, long time since this many people have taken to the streets to make their voices heard. And to the voting booth. Despite, thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision that allowed democracy to go to the highest bidder; the people fought back with good old fashioned grass roots organization. And we beat the bosses at the polling places. As James Carville said of the billionaires in a recent "Rolling Stone" interview; "never have so many paid so much to get so little."
There are other promising signs. A fledgling movement to amend the constitution to abolish all corporate money in politics. Maybe we should call it "the people's amendment." For the first time a majority of House Democrats will be made up from women and minorities. The states of Washington and Colorado have taken the first steps in getting rid of our ignorant, always doomed to fail, antiquated drug policies by legalizing recreational use of marijuana. Stopping it is impossible. So why not treat it like booze? Regulate it. Tax it. And toss the extra cash into the public coffers. Uncle Sam could use a bit extra.
So this is Christmas; and there is hope. So I'm hoping to head for D.C. on Inauguration Day with a few friends. Sure, it's an historical day. The second inauguration of the country's first Black president, itself a sign that something dramatic has changed. The face of the people's government is no longer all white or even all male or all Christian or Jewish or whatever have you. A good sign that we are finally beginning to live up to the inclusiveness we profess to believe in.
But I'm not going to endure massive crowds, long walks, and god only knows what kind of port-a-potty lines to support the regime I voted for. I'm going to say, with voice and presence, I, and we, are here not merely to support, though that is important. We are here to push, to raise some hell along with some expectations. It's time to turn words and ideas into policies and concrete actions. Get the corporate brigands' cash out of politics. Provide jobs. Make sure those down on their luck aren't sleeping in the street and that our children have a roof over their heads and can at least set down to a plate of beans and wennies a couple times a day. Fill in the potholes and fix the damn bridges. Make sure when I flip my switch the lamp comes on.
November 6th, the people gave their stamp of approval to much of the Progressive agenda. But we are not stopping here. We're going to bring the full-court press. Get it done. Ignore us at your peril.
The Jawbone.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Remember Gordon Gekko? He's Running for President!
Remember Gordon Gekko, that character from the Charlie Sheen/Michael Douglass movie, "Wall Street?" The guy who, according to Charlie's buddy at the brokerage firm, "had an ethical bypass at birth?" As we count down to election day, Mitt and Gordon are starting to resemble one another. Both are Ayn Rand types in that each firmly believes in completely unrestricted, no holds barred, winner-take-all, "let the people eat cake," capitalism. This disturbs me. And here's what bothers me the most.
In her book, "The Fountainhead," Rand writes of her main character, Howard Roark, "Howard Roark saw no one. For him, the streets were empty... it was only that he made people feel as if they did not exist." Neither Mitt Romney or his fictional counterpart, Gordon Gekko, really see people. And the ability to see people, I mean really to see them as real flesh and blood with real flesh and blood struggles and sufferings and joys and loves and concerns; that, to me, is one of the fundamental principles of ethics. When I hear Gov. Romney set forth his positions, I get the feeling he doesn't see me, my mother, my kids, whole groups of people but most especially those caught between the rock and the hard place. He makes me feel as if I don't really exist.
By one estimate, Gov. Romney's plan to turn Medicaid into a block grant program administered by the states, would, within a decade's time, deny health care to thirty-million kids. Does Gov. Romeny really see our children?
Under the Ryan budget, which Gov. Romney supports, a single mother of two earning minimum wage would pay $1500 more in taxes since he proposes to drastically slash the child tax credit. Does Gov. Romney see the that single mother?
What about the unemployed, the under employed? The Romney/Ryan plan, according to the Economic Policy Institute, would destroy 4.1 million jobs. Do either of these candidates really see the unemployed? Hell, have either one of these guys ever experienced, even for a week, what it's like not to have a job when you really want one and will pretty much take anything you can get even if it's flipping burgers to keep a roof over your kids' heads and a box of mac-and-cheese on the table?
Speaking of the poor, David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director, points out that the Romney/Ryan plan would end up cutting as much as 3 trillion (yea, the "t" is correct) from programs for the poor. "It's ideology run amok," says Stockman. The ideology of Ayn Rand. The ideology of an economic war of all against all where the participants never truly see those less fortunate than themselves where the rich get tax cuts and the poor are left destitute.
Tim Dickinson, writing in "Rolling Stone" a couple of weeks back, summed up this mess pretty well. The Romney/Ryan plan "would roll back clean-air protection, gut both medicare and medicaid, lavish trillions in tax cuts for billionaires while raising taxes on the poor, and slash everything from college aid to veteran's benefits." Do the Republican candidates really see any of these people? Or are we merely abstractions, statistics on a balance sheet?
Message to Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan: Neither I, my parents, my neighbors, my children, nor any of the rest of us working stiffs are mere abstractions, and we will not be reduced to statistics. And we are not invisible. We will be seen.
And come November 6th, we will also be heard.
The Jawbone
In her book, "The Fountainhead," Rand writes of her main character, Howard Roark, "Howard Roark saw no one. For him, the streets were empty... it was only that he made people feel as if they did not exist." Neither Mitt Romney or his fictional counterpart, Gordon Gekko, really see people. And the ability to see people, I mean really to see them as real flesh and blood with real flesh and blood struggles and sufferings and joys and loves and concerns; that, to me, is one of the fundamental principles of ethics. When I hear Gov. Romney set forth his positions, I get the feeling he doesn't see me, my mother, my kids, whole groups of people but most especially those caught between the rock and the hard place. He makes me feel as if I don't really exist.
By one estimate, Gov. Romney's plan to turn Medicaid into a block grant program administered by the states, would, within a decade's time, deny health care to thirty-million kids. Does Gov. Romeny really see our children?
Under the Ryan budget, which Gov. Romney supports, a single mother of two earning minimum wage would pay $1500 more in taxes since he proposes to drastically slash the child tax credit. Does Gov. Romney see the that single mother?
What about the unemployed, the under employed? The Romney/Ryan plan, according to the Economic Policy Institute, would destroy 4.1 million jobs. Do either of these candidates really see the unemployed? Hell, have either one of these guys ever experienced, even for a week, what it's like not to have a job when you really want one and will pretty much take anything you can get even if it's flipping burgers to keep a roof over your kids' heads and a box of mac-and-cheese on the table?
Speaking of the poor, David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director, points out that the Romney/Ryan plan would end up cutting as much as 3 trillion (yea, the "t" is correct) from programs for the poor. "It's ideology run amok," says Stockman. The ideology of Ayn Rand. The ideology of an economic war of all against all where the participants never truly see those less fortunate than themselves where the rich get tax cuts and the poor are left destitute.
Tim Dickinson, writing in "Rolling Stone" a couple of weeks back, summed up this mess pretty well. The Romney/Ryan plan "would roll back clean-air protection, gut both medicare and medicaid, lavish trillions in tax cuts for billionaires while raising taxes on the poor, and slash everything from college aid to veteran's benefits." Do the Republican candidates really see any of these people? Or are we merely abstractions, statistics on a balance sheet?
Message to Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan: Neither I, my parents, my neighbors, my children, nor any of the rest of us working stiffs are mere abstractions, and we will not be reduced to statistics. And we are not invisible. We will be seen.
And come November 6th, we will also be heard.
The Jawbone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)