Pack and Carry – a Bible

With the encouragement of the NRA, the radical right, and various other organizations folk have been encouraged to get firearms, specifically handguns and to append them to the personage on a regular basis; pack and carry. The idea is, I guess, to discourage anyone from threatening or challenging them on any basis. But, I don’t think it works.

A biblical rational advocating of such as stance may use this from the Judaic teaching, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus 21.24.) Trump uses it with some frequency. But in this case it is a fallacious argument. The teaching in Exodus was to set limits on revenge. So, if a person takes your eye, the just revenge would be to take his/her eye but no more. The purpose of that teaching was to limit revenge.

Jesus took the limitation a step farther when he said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ ? But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.” (Matthew 5. 38-41) Jesus teaches us not to seek revenge at all, but to work to help that one who is doing wrong to you to do the right thing, by setting an example of loving rather than hateful actions.

Mahatma Gandhi, also pointed out the futility of progressive or escalative revenge saying, “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” Not only does this form of revenge not work, it makes for greater harm for everyone. So, if you are worried that someone might take a portion of your property from you, are you really willing to end their life for that possession? How will that affect their family, your community and yourself? Can you live with the consequences of such an action? This was the dilemma of the Hatfields and McCoys, and modern-day Near East ongoing conflicts. This type of attitude does not solve problems, in fact, it just makes problems worse.

Campaign Zero (www.joincampaignzero.org) states, “Police should have the skills and cultural competence to protect and serve our communities without killing people – just as police do in England, Germany, Japan and other developed countries.” And then they list numbers of those killed in this country in 2014, and they give recommendations for policies to this end. This is a good example of finding solutions rather than escalating the problem.

If you want to pack and carry, I would suggest you unpack the teachings of Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, and carry them in your heart. If you do you will find a far greater safety in eternal principles rather than fleeting thoughts of revenge. I would encourage you to be a peacemaker as Jesus advocates in his sermon of the mount, rather than give in to the rhetoric of revenge.

If you want to pack and carry, I suggest you pack and carry your bible along with a flashlight. The Bible should remind you of the teachings of Jesus and you can use the flashlight. If you are genuinely concerned for you safety carry a tactical flashlight such as the Surefire EB2 Backup and is easily carried.

Traditional Parties – Will they ever return

I miss the two-party system that was once strong and vital in our country. The Republican Party began its demise with the advent of Ronald Reagan and his rather sophomoric ideas of conservatism. In essence, he just wanted to get rid of government or at least severely limit it. It is a concept harkening back to the days of the B westerns he starred in where good guys wore white hats and bad guys black hats and the good guys won over the bad guys. But the country had grown too large for such a free market concept to work. Big business began to take over the government, with the reduction of their taxes. The emboldened Tea Party finished off the party with it take no prisoners attitude. Again, any government was too much government, essentially the position of an anarchist. No debate, just mindless rhetoric and scapegoating. With the do nothing congress Obama inherited it is remarkable what he was able to do. Then came the election of Trump by a mindless complaining minority that with a rigged election system, interference by the Russians, and the malaise of Democrats the Republican Party as the Whigs, died.

Along with the Republican party demise came the death of the Democratic Party. Once the supporters of fair labor practices and programs for the common good, the party under Clinton leadership became the new practicing Republicans in bed with business interests at the expense of the middle class. Hilary had a long run of doing good things for the public that was mainly dismissed by those who saw her in bed with business interests and a not so appealing personality.

The progressives were left without leadership and the disenfranchised conservatives could only look with dismay at a very unpresidential narcissistic buffoon Trump ranting on Twitter. And what we now have is an oligarchy, government by the wealthy.

Oh, there are good politicians remaining: Sanders, whose nomination for the Democratic party was stolen away by Hilary Clinton’s takeover of the party, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, Al Franken and a few more Democrats among a few others. The remaining Republican seems to be John McCain, dying from cancer and lamenting the loss of solid collaborative work between the parties to get work done for constituents. There may be other traditional Republicans but their silence is deafening.

I lament the loss of the two-party system both with centrist cores that could work and compromise liberal and conservative philosophies into policies that benefited the nation. Can the democracy survive without these parties? I’m not at all sure. Unless people can learn to have studied discourse on issues without resorting to meaningless rhetoric and immoveable stances and once again have civil debates to find the common good, I doubt it. Most voters today don’t even have any experience of when the parties had reasonable debates and knew the art of compromise. Apparently, they do not read the history of those times either and learn from the past.

Oh, I am not a pessimist. I believe there is a God who still works for the good of people and loves them and will not let them perish. But I place little faith on the part of humanity to learn to govern themselves in a way compatible with the kingdom of God. The American experiment may or may not last.

I Know of No Good People

I know of no good people. By that I mean that I know of no people who are intrinsically good, always altruistic, thinking of others over themselves, unselfish, nice in their inner being. Nope, not a one.

That said, I know a lot of folk with high moral and ethical values reflecting the teachings of the great religions of the world and humanistic folk, religious or not. They are moral, I believe, because they have been raised in essentially moral and ethical family and/or communities, subcultures and cultures. And, they have practiced this ethical and moral behavior and a regular basis. And, the more they practice the more moral and ethical they become.

Surround yourself with immoral or amoral folk, and you may likely end up immoral or amoral yourself. On the other hand, surround yourself with moral and ethical folk and you are more likely to be moral and ethical yourself.

In a world where anomie (a state of normlessness) and bottom-line thinking (what’s best for me and mine), it is easy to be amoral, immoral and unethical. In a world that becomes increasingly impersonal, where we and text rather than talk, buy on the internet rather than a store, become small cogs in large machines and the like, again, it is easy to be amoral, immoral or unethical.

That is why I think it is important to surround ourselves in moral and ethical communities. Faith communities are good examples. Of course, faith communities can also be amoral, immoral or unethical as evidenced in the press, but most faith communities know that they need each other as they strive to be, not good, but ethical and moral people. It is why those faith communities regularly in the worship events, confess their sins. They know they are not good and need forgiveness for their selfish and immoral, unethical or amoral behavior. And in those communities, they accept that God forgives their ways and make them new and fresh on a regular basis…and…infuses God’s own Spirit in them to make more and more moral and ethical choices in their daily lives.

Perhaps that is why Christian folk places a high emphasis on coming to the Lord’s Table, the Eucharist, Communion. There they imbibe either the real, spiritual, or symbolic body of Christ (depending upon their various points of view.) They are what they eat in a very real sense and are better for it. And, in community with those around the table, they support each other in following in the footsteps of that most moral, ethical, and in this case, good man, Jesus of Nazareth.

Here’s to the practice of moral and ethical behavior in community.

Do the Presidential Debates Do Anything?

I have watched the political debates with a sense of civic responsibility. I have watched them all in their entirety and plan to watch and next one as well. Though I do not like the rhetoric that usually takes place, I feel it is important to be informed and aware of how the combatants speak and posture. Or, perhaps I’m just being a masochist.

Though Clinton always fares better in the factual department than trump, it does not seem to make much difference to the public. Politifact and other such fact checkers point out that Clinton mainly speaks accurately and Trump lies most of the time. Yet, they remain in nearly equal in terms of supporters. So, can one conclude that truthfulness is not all that important to voters. Sadly, that may well be the case.

What I believe most folk see is that Clinton reflects the status quo and Trump garners the support of folk who want to see change. I think it is true that Clinton does represent the political norm, she also has a long history of solid support for social change for the good of the common folk, while maintaining ties with the power brokers. I would like to see more change on the political horizon that what she offers.

Trump on the other hand, always seems to go for the lowest common denominator. He recognizes and plays to base human instincts and the things we fear. His words are inflammatory and reflect the racism, sexism, genderism, and all the other isms that folk who are unhappy with their lot and the seek a scapegoat on which to place their fears. Trump also is always concerned about himself, narcissistically. He also seems to totally lack a moral compass, no real sense of right and wrong, only what he sees as beneficial to his own well-being. I think he is a narcissistic sociopath.

For the folk who see Trump as an agent of change in the political scene, I would ask them what change do they want? Many seem to want to go back to the 19^th Century, the laissez faire era where the rich and powerful dominated the scene and the common folk barely eked out a living. They romantically envision a future where the individualistic strong man in a white hat can win the day with the fastest gun; but it is a false notion that didn’t work that way.

I want to see significant change in the political scene as well. Instead of blind individualism, I support the change that is based upon the common good. In Star Trek/Spock terms “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or ‘one’).” We need change as envisioned by the Roosevelt’s, Teddy and Franklin, one Republican and one a Democrat, but both progressive. They instituted programs that moved us away from the oligarchical attitudes of the day to the common well-being of a democracy. Since Reagan we have wandered afar from that vision back to a seeming plutocracy where the national debt has exploded and the wealth has been redistributed to the few. We all know the numbers by now; the change that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren embody. Donald Trump would not bring real change to the country, he would just further than wealth and power of the rich over the needs of others. Our country fares far better, socially and economically, when we have a strong middle class. The change Trump wants makes us more of a plutocracy – government by and for the wealthy.

One fears not only about the caliber of candidates today, but also the thoughts and actions of the voters in this nation. We do not seem interested enough to study and reflect upon our political views but more inclined to go with the popular, or emotional pulls to our vested interests. More so, we do not even seem to be able to understand what is best for our vested interests. We seem not moved by great debate but by slogans that feed our prejudices. Perhaps we get the government we deserve by our lack of political depth. It seems apparent to our European cousins who marvel at our lack of vision in a land of plenty.

My political point of view is primarily the outgrowth of my theology; my religious training and reflection. Christianity and most other religions, do look for the common good and emphasize care for our neighbors; all of them. The teachings of Jesus call out to us to look our for the needs of others, to accept responsibility for the care and nurture of nature; to be concerned for the common good and to assume the roles of servant leaders. From this standpoint, it seems clear to me that Clinton far surpasses Trump as a leader for our country. And in the future, I would like to see the progressive leadership and envision by Sanders and Warren.

Whatever the future may hold I would hope that we all will discern that we are to be the caretakers of each other, servant leaders holding onto the model of Jesus and others, working for the common good.

Socialism vs. Social Democrats

Listening to folk and reading blurbs on the Internet, it occurs to me that a lot of folk have difficulty distinguishing between socialism and being a social democrat, such as Bernie Sanders. As we learned from Sesame Street, “one thing is not like the other” similarities perhaps but not the same.

Some definitions from Wikipedia:

Socialism is a political ideology and movement which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies and systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, measures for income redistribution, and a commitment to representative democracy.^[1][2][3]   [italics ^[mine]

There you have it; in socialism the government owns the means of productions – companies, in a social democracies companies are privately owned but government works to ensure that there is an economic justice applied to the income derived from these companies through various ways. Perhaps it is best just to compare Russia to the Scandinavian countries. Russia is a socialist country that only recently has seen fit to use a bit of capitalism. The Scandinavian countries are social democracies that have successfully provided a high standard of living for all their citizens through social justice means.

In a recent Des Moines Register a poll showed that 43% of Iowans consider themselves to be socialists. Say What? Socialists? But they really aren’t socialists; they are social democrats like the Scandinavians and other European cousins. They want the wealth redistributed more equitably than it is now in our country.

Now, where are our presidential candidates in all of this? Bernie Sanders is easy. He clearly states he is a social democrat, and from the above definition we can now understand what that means. He is not a socialist, despite what name-calling takes place by his opponents.

Hillary Clinton calls herself a progressive democrat. Is that just another word for a Liberal?  David Sirota explains the difference between the this way; he says, “there is a fundamental difference when it come to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional ’liberals’ in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A ‘progressive’ are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.” Hmm, sounds a lot like a social democrat doesn’t it.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t real differences between Hillary and Bernie, there are. Bernie want a single payer medical system (socialized medicine), Hillary doesn’t; she wants to keep those insurance companies private.

What we have in this country and have had for a long time is a mixed economy. We combine capitalism, socialism, and social democratic ideas. We want free enterprise but we also want socialized medicine for retired folk and those of ill health. We want life insurance companies but we also want social security programs maintained. Most Republicans want that, so, in that sense they are social democrats.

There are a lot of folk today who profess that they really want to go back to frontier days and have as little government as possible. I find that a bit romantic and also naïve. The country has just changed too much over the years to go back to a pioneer type government. We are a big country and we need a big government to take care of the needs of citizens. Strangely I find that Republican administrations have grown the size of government and Democratic ones reduced it. Look at the numbers of recent administrations. But I wander off.

What I am interested in here is understanding what we mean when we throw terms around. Understanding the terms we understand who we are better and what our political concerns are. I suspect that most folk in the country want the social justice that a social democrat like Bernie Sanders promotes, but they may not support the name. So, if you ask them if they are a social democrat they will say, ‘no way.’  But if you lay out the programs a social democrat advocates such as minimum wages, higher taxes for the wealthy (progressive taxes), health care for all citizens, equal educational opportunities for all citizens and the like, they are for those things.

As for me, I’m a Communal Populist.

Our New Coffee Table

We recently found ourselves in need of a small coffee table in our new digs and thought of this old wood crate; when and where it was acquired no one remembers.

I got a 4x4 and cut off 4 4" chunks and made some legs and lo and behold, we have a new coffee table. We rather like it.

remember good old cracker jacks?

Now, what were ribbon corn confections?

The Obama Presidency: One Man’s Perspective

The Obama presidency, I feel, will be regarded historically as quite successful. I don’t think his administration has touted his success very well, and I don’t think the media lifts up his successes well either; that doesn’t sell as well as negatives, but let’s look at his record so far.

   

 During his term the Iraq war has ended, the country has been pulled for a very serious depression, the auto industry was rescued, Osama Bin Laden was eliminated and the biggest accomplishment – a Health Care Reform Act was passed. That’s impressive.

Other accomplishments include: ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” and other civil rights issues, improved fuel efficiency standards, more children were insured (4 million – SCHIP), we have improved student loans, a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created and Wall Street reforms were passed, the torture programs that began under Bush were stopped, our image with other countries were vastly improved, the START treaty with Russia was created, educational programs ie. Race to the Top Incentive Program was implemented, sanctions on Iran were made, support to veterans wee significantly increased, two Supreme Court Justices were appointed, significant investments in green energy were made and the list goes on. For a big list, 319 documented accomplishments, you can go here .

It is tempting to compare the Obama presidency to the FDR presidency and from that standpoint, I don’t think Obama would fare well. His progressive agenda is not as extensive and not nearly as deeply systemic as the reforms made by FDR. Let me take two major examples, health care and education.

For years presidents have been trying to pass health care reforms. We certainly have models for good healthcare reforms in European countries, especially the Scandinavian countries. During the Clinton administration Hilary Clinton tried to get a more progressive health plan passed and failed. So, kudos go to Obama but it really does not solve the problem of the cost of health care. It does provide health care for more people as it should but the ridiculously high costs remain to the delight of insurance companies. We need a single payer system for these to come down. Obama, I think is a realist, he got what he could get in today political climate. It was not great but it was a step forward.

The same is true in education. More has been done in education, especially higher education than most people realize. There is a lot of money available in government programs for college education that is not applied for. But the real problem, like health cares remains, the incredibly high costs of education. In years past, as when I was in college, anyone could afford to go to college. You could work your way through or take out moderate loans that could be paid off without undue duress. Today’s costs are making college education something available only to upper classes.

The problems of the Obama presidency are the problems of our society. Obama is a realistic and has tailored his presidency pragmatically to our times where the wealthy essentially control the economy and the political arena. He has worked around that oligarchical system to produce some progressive movements, but they are not long-term solutions. We still have an infrastructure that is falling apart and an educational and health system that best serves the wealthy. We have a system that creates a crumbling middle class and poor folk in dire straits with little hope. People are mad, but manipulated media bought and paid for by the wealthy they often are mad at the wrong folk and do little to improve their own lot.

One hopes that the populace will become sufficiently well educated to seize control of the structure of a democracy and make a progressive agenda that works for the people viable again. That was what happened during the time of FDR. The vision of social reform was laid before the people, the political vision was shared, it was fought against, but it won out and the country flourished and grew. It is a vision best captured and shared today by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Warren isn’t running and pundits say Sanders can’t win. Can it happen again? One can hope.