In an earlier post, I wrote about the need for non-partisan empathy for the poor and I stick by that. Anyone I have ever taught would admit that I show respect for the insights of both liberalism and conservatism. At times, I have been called liberal and at other times I have been called conservative. I am, at heart, a progressive and that is due to my relationship with Jesus of Nazareth. I do not think that to be a Christian, you must be a progressive, but we do have to admit that our savior sure said and did some really progressive things (“blessed are the poor,” “woe to you who are rich,” “love your enemies,” criticizing the religious and political establishment for their neglect of the poor and suffering). Quoting the prophet Isaiah in Luke 4, Jesus tells the crowd that he has come to bring glad tidings to the poor. In Matthew 25, he warns that deliberate neglect of the poor twists one’s soul into the state of that of the devil and the devil’s angels. When it comes to public policy, I abide by what my friend Howard Gray, SJ once remarked: anything that takes the human out of the human is satanic and needs to be opposed. A situation in which the wealthiest country in the world has an infant mortality rate that is higher than Cuba’s, Slovenia’s, South Korea’s and all of western Europe is tinged with evil. That is not to say that conservatives are evil, but that there are certain economic and social absurdities that conservatism causes and tolerates that are not in line with one of the living, dynamic values of the words of God—care for the poor. According to Biblical teaching, care for the poor was not just “charity.” It was a legal requirement. The Torah is very clear about this: the Israelites were legally required to leave part of their fields unharvested so that the poor might eat of that food. Jesus knew this, preached this, and lived this. According to Acts 2, the disciples shared all things in common and took from the wealthy in their community to give to the poor. The Catholic Church which I belong to has for over 100 years taught that the government needs to be involved in the economy to lift the poor out of poverty and lower the unemployment rate. The mainline Protestant Churches and many Jewish synagogues have taught the same.
That is not to say that we have to ignore every conservative insight. I do not think that nationalizing industries to distribute wealth is effective. It is very inefficient. I advocate a free market with prudential government involvement. If government involvement lowers the unemployment rate, the poverty rate, and the infant mortality rate, then it is obviously economically and morally good. Moreover, Catholic teaching cannot be reduced to the Democratic party platform. The Democratic defense of the partial birth abortion is not acceptable.
I learn from conservatives and I abide by the fifteenth annotation of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius: anyone I spiritually direct and anyone I teach already has a relationship with the truth. I merely seek to facilitate. Nevertheless, when it comes to the well-being of the poor, at times, a person has to take a stand. I will ask questions, but at times, I will declare what reason discovers to be true. If others reach different conclusions, so be it. I hope that honest and humane dialogue will lead us to freedom and prosperity.
At this point in history, in this economic situation, I happen to think that the Democratic approach to economics is the most helpful. We need to review a few facts:
Unemployment was at an all-time low in the 1990s under Bill Clinton and his program of government spending. Yes, President Clinton made mistakes, but emotionally tarring everything political thing he did because of his personal sins, is irrational. Look at the facts. With all due respect to President Bush (and I do respect him and all those who voted for him and worked for him), it climbed under his and the Republican controlled Congress’ leadership. Besides the unemployment rate, one must consider the poverty rate and the infant mortality rate. Every country that has a lower poverty rate than the US has more government involvement in the economy than the US does.
To evaluate President Obama’s agenda, we have to admit that he inherited a wrecked economy in which millionaire bankers sold fraudulent securities that not even they understood. This led to the worst recession since the Depression. These bankers are now collecting bonuses after having been bailed out by the government. The crisis could have been avoided if we had not repealed government regulations of business which was a conservative idea.
It would be a mistake for the American people to assume that Republican tax cuts for the wealthy and the abandonment of a very moderate health care reform (made moderate by bringing Sen Lieberman on board) would provide jobs for working people. I am not an expert on health care reform so I will turn to the experts: the American Medical Association, the largest, and probably oldest, association of doctors in America. They have opposed health care reform in the past, but they support Obama’s. It seems irrational to oppose what the best health care experts support and truth be told, they supported an even more intrusive government plan than the one that the Senate finally supported. I do not want to demonize Republicans, but, in my opinion, they cannot oppose the Democratic bills without answering these fundamental questions: why does the AMA support the Democratic bills? Whose expertise is leading Republicans to oppose the Democratic reform? Here once again, the President’s rationality and calm deliberation for what is best for America is meeting resistance from emotion and, in some cases, misinformation.
Taking a rational perspective, we need to remember that the tech boom, fueled by the US government invented internet, in the 1990s helped the economy. Now we need some innovative leadership from the business community to create the next boom, or perhaps it will once again be the US government, through Democratic leadership, stimulating the economy or funding the next invention. Thomas Friedman has written that green development will fuel economic development, providing jobs for many people. Perhaps our next boom will be the green boom, in which case Rep Boehner is incorrect. I would argue that since 99% of scientists (people who spend 60 to 90 hours a week studying the issues) are advising American industries to develop more fuel efficient cars, cleaner smokestacks and green energy, it is Rep. Boehner’s burden to prove that the Democratic environmental policies are imprudent. Most Republican sources on environmental policies have limited credentials (the Limbaugh Institute is not a nationally accredited university).
If you take a look at how our current economy treats the poor, we have a higher poverty rate than twenty countries,including Germany and Syria. We also have a higher infant mortality rate than forty four countries (including, as I mentioned, Cuba, Britain, Australia, Japan and South Korea). Americans are the hardest working, most innovative people on the planet. We value our families. We try to raise our kids well. Yet, other countries have a lower poverty rate and a lower infant mortality rate. Fewer European and Cuban babies die after birth. Throughout the years, some have argued that poverty in America is due to the low values of the poor, including the working poor. Now it is true that in ghettoes, drug use and other habits impede a person's ability to find work, but if someone is going to claim that this happens because Europeans and Cubans are better people, that they somehow live more virtuous lives, I am going to strongly disagree. Drugs and immorality are a problem in every country.
I do not think that all Republicans are dumb or mean. I am concerned about the far right wing of the Republican party, just as, had I been in my forties in 1968, I would have been concerned about the far left of the Democratic party. I just think that, before we tear apart President Obama’s agenda, we very carefully consider why he has approached the issues he has, and whether or not a Republican approach at this time would really make things better. I happen to think that if Obama had not won the election, unemployment would be even higher than it is today and climbing more and more. Deregulation of the financial markets led to this current crisis.
That does not mean that every Republican policy is a bad idea (I happen to think that school vouchers programs have done some good).
Finally, we need to think long term: Obama’s education strategy has changed education in this country in a way that no other previous president’s has. I am loyal to fellow teachers, but, when a Democratic President gets criticized by teachers’ unions, then you know that something new is happening. Improving education in this country is what will bring long term prosperity and Obama’s race to the top strategy is working. Let’s not abandon that.
Let’s come together in this country and let’s replace emotional discourse with reasoned discourse. How did we get into this situation and what will get us out of it? President Obama is criticized for “not having a pulse” because he so calm and reflective, because he is a man of reason, not of shout-meistering. Support the President. He knows what he is doing. We need a calm, rational person at the helm and we need a Democratic Congress that will support our commander-in-chief.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Haiti, American Division, and the Mystery of Compassion
Do we really understand the reality “God”? Well, no, not if God is ineffable, something all of the great traditions claim. God cannot be understood, but God is, better yet, God is the mystery that all is, the mystery of life.
God is the mystery. The Why? And the intellectual grappling with the Why?
As a Christian, I believe that God is love, something that people of many other traditions claim as well. Is it possible to both claim that God is ineffable and that God is love, that is, to posit something about that which cannot be explained and understood?
I think that not only is it possible to hold that God is mystery and that God is love. I came to believe that the two are necessarily connected to each other. Only a mystery can love and you can find love only in mystery. The attempt to control another is necessarily unloving. To love another you must, to quote Sting, set them free. Yes, a pop star is right about something.
Now love. What does love mean? What do I mean by love? Love is caritas—care. Love is agape—unconditional—the unconditional, energizing, transforming embrace of my entire being by mystery. Love is eros—desire. Love is fatherly, brotherly, sisterly, motherly—familial love, which is connected to both agape and caritas.
Let’s consider caritas and agape. Both are a mystery. Reflect on your experience. I will reflect on mine. I can recall being a child and basking in my parents’ approval and hearing my parents tell me that I was special to them. Then there were moments when my parents, like all people, were preoccupied and I didn’t sense that attentive care. There was an ebb and flow.
On another occasion, I can recall the first two times I really heard the word of God in Church. Once, when I was five I heard Jesus warn of the dangers of greed and it resonated. Why did I hear it then? Then, on another occasion, I heard 1 Corinthians 13 for the first time: “Love is patient. Love is kind. . . There is no limit to love’s power to endure.” As I listened, I felt as if some great presence were all around me.
I have even had the experience of agape—that unconditional embrace. It came from beyond. I had no idea that it was coming. I was completely awed by it, and for about 10 months, I felt no sadness.
When I can find a few minutes to pray in silence, I will just sit. From time to time there is that sense of freedom that passes by the edges of what feels like my heart of hearts. If I can sit for an hour or so, I can give myself over to it. I can surrender. Then there are those moments of illumination: at moments of great insight into the world, there is an “aha”, an insight that seems to come from beyond me.
I have experienced the mystery of caring for,being cared for, and being accepted among my wife and children. My three year old continually surprises me with her mystical declarations about the world. My second child, who has Asperger’s, will meltdown into a state that will dominate the entire family scene for a few minutes and then will apologize and affectionately hug me. He will also write incredible books detailing his experiences and offering his unique perspective on life. My eldest dances so gracefully, I weep when I witness it. Most importantly, my wife, who has struggled with me through some anxious moments, is totally committed to me. Her tenderness incarnates God’s love. There is an ebb and flow to that as well.
I have also experienced the agape in moments of teaching. Once I had the privilege of teaching a young atheist who had a pretty solid argument against God’s existence: if God is the cause of the world, then God is necessarily a thing for a cause is a thing. A thing is necessarily limited for it is just that-- a thing; it has some kind of definition. A thing is limited but God is supposed to be unlimited so necessarily God as unlimited cannot exist. It was a pretty impressive thought for a fifteen year old. Borrowing from Rahner and Plato, I asked him how he knew that something was limited and told him that he had a vague sense of the unlimited. If he had some sense of the unlimited, it must necessarily exist. I could see the aha in his eyes, felt the unity in the room, something important had been learned. I gave him some reading and we talked about the nature of the word God as a symbol of something that cannot be fully explained. The moment was dynamic. It ebbs and flows. If I attempt to psychically control that ebb and flow, then the consolation recedes even more. I need to let it be (this time Paul McCartney got it right).
When one is discussing the mystery of God, one must consider the mystery of suffering. Right now, the mystery of Haiti. The mystery that Reverend Robertson violated when he concocted an absolutely bizarre formula that Haiti, the entire nation, is cursed, because some 200 odd years ago, there was a group of Haitians who “made a pact with the devil to end their slavery.” I am a pretty good student of history. I have never even heard of this. It is untrue, but the untruth of the statement goes beyond the historical inaccuracy of it to something more significant. It goes to the heart of much of what is wrong with the far right in this country. They think that they know the will of God, absolutely. They think that God is not a mystery and that their particular hermeneutical method unveils the entire reality of God. They claim to know, at heart, how God feels toward non-conservatives, feminists, gay people, non-Americans. There is no love in this. As a Christian, I am baffled by their approach. God is love and God is a mystery. Haiti is and Haiti is suffering. There was an earthquake. There has been a history of political turmoil in Haiti, just like there was political turmoil in almost every nation on this planet at one time or another.
In Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, Marcus Borg explains that Jesus replaced a religious cleanliness system with compassion. Pat Robertson’s claim is an extreme form of a cleanliness/purity system. For Robertson, God punishes people with natural disasters because they are religiously unclean. This kind of thinking is primitive. It is a vestige of what Rene Girard and James Alison call the primitive sacred. It has been part of humanity for a very long time, but it has nothing to do with the spirit of Christ. Jesus completely rejected that kind of thinking. So, for that matter did Buddha. Judaism has grown out of that kind of thinking as well as we witness in the writings of Heschel and Lerner. We also witness it in the dialogue, social justice activities, and educational activities of contemporary Judaism. Recently, I had the privilege of reading an excerpt from Queen Noor’s book Leap of Faith. She and King Hussein of Jordan, along with many other Muslims, reject that kind of primitive thinking. So for that matter did many Muslims in the middle ages. As many know, in the middle ages, Muslims were more tolerant toward Jews than Christians were.
For me, the Gospels are clear: the poor and suffering are blessed, not cursed. Jesus came to call sinners, not the righteous (and the self-righteous miss this entirely). In the parable of the vineyard, those late to answer the call get the same reward as the goody two shoes who answer the call early. The prodigal father of the lost son rejoices and invites his self-righteous older son to join the festivities welcoming the sinner home. Those who serve the poor live in joy. Those who, like Dives (rich man) in the Gospel of Luke, ignore the cries of the poor live in torment. What kind of torment? It is not God’s punishing them. It is the torment of not striving to overcome the primitive impulse to erect barriers between oneself and others. It is the torment of neglecting the poor. And this neglect is rooted in fear. We develop barriers out of fear, and, living in fear, we create our hell.
Now, I am claiming that the Gospels are clear. Does that not reduce God’s mystery? No. The mystery of God is that God is all accepting love (agape). Can we logically prove that God is love? No. We trust that this is the case and then it is confirmed through our experience of spiritual living. In living spiritually, we live the reality that we are also mysteries. As a mystery, I am not satisfied with a social arrangement or system that excludes and condemns people. Such a system categorizes the other and thus robs them of their dignity as mysteries. This is not just a liberal approach. Some liberals have their own purity system and conservatives, feeling judged, have called it “political correctness.” I think that many conservative arguments against affirmative action and certain political advocacy for multi-culturalism stem from a sense that affirmative action and the redefinition of the western canon have felt like attempts to impose a new form of purity system. I am a liberal, but I have witnessed some (a minority) of liberal professors attempting to impose a system of thinking rather than facilitating a student’s encounter with the reality that there are injustices that we need to transform.
To take an extreme leftist (not a liberal, but leftist example): the Maoist cultural revolution in China was an extremely brutal purity system. If you did not think a particular way you were tortured and killed. It is not an accident that Maoists sought to end all religion, including the indigenous Buddhist practices of the people of Tibet. All communists have attempted to erase the idea that reality is mysterious. They have in essence claimed that they can explain all reality and hence have developed totalitarian systems—systems that claimed that they could totally explain and regulate all of human existence.
Right wingers in the US are not as brutal as communists, but they want all to accept the strange idea that America is a “Christian nation.” If so, then we have turned Christianity into a purity system again. If you are not a Christian, then you are out. Jesus does not want this. Jesus wants us to accept that our lives, our social lives, are mysterious and that our lives reach fulfillment only when, with his grace, we train our minds to live in the mystery of compassion for all. For liberals and leftists, that means feeling real empathy for conservatives and for people in institutions like the US military. For conservatives, that means letting go of the whole “Christian nation” idea and feeling empathy toward non-Christians, non-Americans, gay people, and others.
Accepting the mystery of God does not mean giving up on talking about God. It means living the mystery of a compassion that is a lived empathy for all. I find this in the efforts of Presidents Clinton and Bush to raise money for Haiti. Non-partisan empathy for the suffering of others is holy. It is a gift and it is a reality we need to spread, especially in this time of partisanship in the US. Non-partisan empathy is a blessing that God wants to give us at a time when we are cursed by division. I hope we can all accept this blessing with gratitude.
God is the mystery. The Why? And the intellectual grappling with the Why?
As a Christian, I believe that God is love, something that people of many other traditions claim as well. Is it possible to both claim that God is ineffable and that God is love, that is, to posit something about that which cannot be explained and understood?
I think that not only is it possible to hold that God is mystery and that God is love. I came to believe that the two are necessarily connected to each other. Only a mystery can love and you can find love only in mystery. The attempt to control another is necessarily unloving. To love another you must, to quote Sting, set them free. Yes, a pop star is right about something.
Now love. What does love mean? What do I mean by love? Love is caritas—care. Love is agape—unconditional—the unconditional, energizing, transforming embrace of my entire being by mystery. Love is eros—desire. Love is fatherly, brotherly, sisterly, motherly—familial love, which is connected to both agape and caritas.
Let’s consider caritas and agape. Both are a mystery. Reflect on your experience. I will reflect on mine. I can recall being a child and basking in my parents’ approval and hearing my parents tell me that I was special to them. Then there were moments when my parents, like all people, were preoccupied and I didn’t sense that attentive care. There was an ebb and flow.
On another occasion, I can recall the first two times I really heard the word of God in Church. Once, when I was five I heard Jesus warn of the dangers of greed and it resonated. Why did I hear it then? Then, on another occasion, I heard 1 Corinthians 13 for the first time: “Love is patient. Love is kind. . . There is no limit to love’s power to endure.” As I listened, I felt as if some great presence were all around me.
I have even had the experience of agape—that unconditional embrace. It came from beyond. I had no idea that it was coming. I was completely awed by it, and for about 10 months, I felt no sadness.
When I can find a few minutes to pray in silence, I will just sit. From time to time there is that sense of freedom that passes by the edges of what feels like my heart of hearts. If I can sit for an hour or so, I can give myself over to it. I can surrender. Then there are those moments of illumination: at moments of great insight into the world, there is an “aha”, an insight that seems to come from beyond me.
I have experienced the mystery of caring for,being cared for, and being accepted among my wife and children. My three year old continually surprises me with her mystical declarations about the world. My second child, who has Asperger’s, will meltdown into a state that will dominate the entire family scene for a few minutes and then will apologize and affectionately hug me. He will also write incredible books detailing his experiences and offering his unique perspective on life. My eldest dances so gracefully, I weep when I witness it. Most importantly, my wife, who has struggled with me through some anxious moments, is totally committed to me. Her tenderness incarnates God’s love. There is an ebb and flow to that as well.
I have also experienced the agape in moments of teaching. Once I had the privilege of teaching a young atheist who had a pretty solid argument against God’s existence: if God is the cause of the world, then God is necessarily a thing for a cause is a thing. A thing is necessarily limited for it is just that-- a thing; it has some kind of definition. A thing is limited but God is supposed to be unlimited so necessarily God as unlimited cannot exist. It was a pretty impressive thought for a fifteen year old. Borrowing from Rahner and Plato, I asked him how he knew that something was limited and told him that he had a vague sense of the unlimited. If he had some sense of the unlimited, it must necessarily exist. I could see the aha in his eyes, felt the unity in the room, something important had been learned. I gave him some reading and we talked about the nature of the word God as a symbol of something that cannot be fully explained. The moment was dynamic. It ebbs and flows. If I attempt to psychically control that ebb and flow, then the consolation recedes even more. I need to let it be (this time Paul McCartney got it right).
When one is discussing the mystery of God, one must consider the mystery of suffering. Right now, the mystery of Haiti. The mystery that Reverend Robertson violated when he concocted an absolutely bizarre formula that Haiti, the entire nation, is cursed, because some 200 odd years ago, there was a group of Haitians who “made a pact with the devil to end their slavery.” I am a pretty good student of history. I have never even heard of this. It is untrue, but the untruth of the statement goes beyond the historical inaccuracy of it to something more significant. It goes to the heart of much of what is wrong with the far right in this country. They think that they know the will of God, absolutely. They think that God is not a mystery and that their particular hermeneutical method unveils the entire reality of God. They claim to know, at heart, how God feels toward non-conservatives, feminists, gay people, non-Americans. There is no love in this. As a Christian, I am baffled by their approach. God is love and God is a mystery. Haiti is and Haiti is suffering. There was an earthquake. There has been a history of political turmoil in Haiti, just like there was political turmoil in almost every nation on this planet at one time or another.
In Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, Marcus Borg explains that Jesus replaced a religious cleanliness system with compassion. Pat Robertson’s claim is an extreme form of a cleanliness/purity system. For Robertson, God punishes people with natural disasters because they are religiously unclean. This kind of thinking is primitive. It is a vestige of what Rene Girard and James Alison call the primitive sacred. It has been part of humanity for a very long time, but it has nothing to do with the spirit of Christ. Jesus completely rejected that kind of thinking. So, for that matter did Buddha. Judaism has grown out of that kind of thinking as well as we witness in the writings of Heschel and Lerner. We also witness it in the dialogue, social justice activities, and educational activities of contemporary Judaism. Recently, I had the privilege of reading an excerpt from Queen Noor’s book Leap of Faith. She and King Hussein of Jordan, along with many other Muslims, reject that kind of primitive thinking. So for that matter did many Muslims in the middle ages. As many know, in the middle ages, Muslims were more tolerant toward Jews than Christians were.
For me, the Gospels are clear: the poor and suffering are blessed, not cursed. Jesus came to call sinners, not the righteous (and the self-righteous miss this entirely). In the parable of the vineyard, those late to answer the call get the same reward as the goody two shoes who answer the call early. The prodigal father of the lost son rejoices and invites his self-righteous older son to join the festivities welcoming the sinner home. Those who serve the poor live in joy. Those who, like Dives (rich man) in the Gospel of Luke, ignore the cries of the poor live in torment. What kind of torment? It is not God’s punishing them. It is the torment of not striving to overcome the primitive impulse to erect barriers between oneself and others. It is the torment of neglecting the poor. And this neglect is rooted in fear. We develop barriers out of fear, and, living in fear, we create our hell.
Now, I am claiming that the Gospels are clear. Does that not reduce God’s mystery? No. The mystery of God is that God is all accepting love (agape). Can we logically prove that God is love? No. We trust that this is the case and then it is confirmed through our experience of spiritual living. In living spiritually, we live the reality that we are also mysteries. As a mystery, I am not satisfied with a social arrangement or system that excludes and condemns people. Such a system categorizes the other and thus robs them of their dignity as mysteries. This is not just a liberal approach. Some liberals have their own purity system and conservatives, feeling judged, have called it “political correctness.” I think that many conservative arguments against affirmative action and certain political advocacy for multi-culturalism stem from a sense that affirmative action and the redefinition of the western canon have felt like attempts to impose a new form of purity system. I am a liberal, but I have witnessed some (a minority) of liberal professors attempting to impose a system of thinking rather than facilitating a student’s encounter with the reality that there are injustices that we need to transform.
To take an extreme leftist (not a liberal, but leftist example): the Maoist cultural revolution in China was an extremely brutal purity system. If you did not think a particular way you were tortured and killed. It is not an accident that Maoists sought to end all religion, including the indigenous Buddhist practices of the people of Tibet. All communists have attempted to erase the idea that reality is mysterious. They have in essence claimed that they can explain all reality and hence have developed totalitarian systems—systems that claimed that they could totally explain and regulate all of human existence.
Right wingers in the US are not as brutal as communists, but they want all to accept the strange idea that America is a “Christian nation.” If so, then we have turned Christianity into a purity system again. If you are not a Christian, then you are out. Jesus does not want this. Jesus wants us to accept that our lives, our social lives, are mysterious and that our lives reach fulfillment only when, with his grace, we train our minds to live in the mystery of compassion for all. For liberals and leftists, that means feeling real empathy for conservatives and for people in institutions like the US military. For conservatives, that means letting go of the whole “Christian nation” idea and feeling empathy toward non-Christians, non-Americans, gay people, and others.
Accepting the mystery of God does not mean giving up on talking about God. It means living the mystery of a compassion that is a lived empathy for all. I find this in the efforts of Presidents Clinton and Bush to raise money for Haiti. Non-partisan empathy for the suffering of others is holy. It is a gift and it is a reality we need to spread, especially in this time of partisanship in the US. Non-partisan empathy is a blessing that God wants to give us at a time when we are cursed by division. I hope we can all accept this blessing with gratitude.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Washington Post on Federal Response to Haiti
Ed O'Keefe. Note Secretary of State Clinton's comments. I hope that we can revamp the plan given the emergency and significantly lower the level of poverty in Haiti, encourage the development of stable political institutions, and provide effective elementary education for their young. For the Haitian long term, investments in elementary ed are essential. The key word from the Secretary is the word positive.
Prayers for Haiti, prayers for all of the US military and emergency workers who are deploying, and prayers for the international community as we help reconstruct Haiti.
Prayers for Haiti, prayers for all of the US military and emergency workers who are deploying, and prayers for the international community as we help reconstruct Haiti.
Earthquake in Haiti
Most people know by now. The Washington Post has a slide show which displays the suffering. We need to help Haiti recover from this crisis and then continue the permanent international effort to reconstruct Haiti. I cannot imagine the Spirit of God inviting us to any other course of action.
As for Pat Robertson's comments that Haiti made a pact with the devil and thus the whole nation is being punished, I have to say that quite definitively, from my experience God does not punish people. We punish ourselves by refusing his grace and his grace is constantly being offered. His grace moves us to live in the present moment, to find him in our authentic desires to help the vulnerable, and to forgive and ignore the misguided statements of others.
Pat Robertson's statements need to be examined simply because the man has so much power. Quite simply, there is no merit to what the man is saying. I cannot imagine that the Spirit of God would have motivated a statement like that, in any way. Do other believers accept what the Reverend Robertson is saying?
The Washington Post continues the coverage.
As for Pat Robertson's comments that Haiti made a pact with the devil and thus the whole nation is being punished, I have to say that quite definitively, from my experience God does not punish people. We punish ourselves by refusing his grace and his grace is constantly being offered. His grace moves us to live in the present moment, to find him in our authentic desires to help the vulnerable, and to forgive and ignore the misguided statements of others.
Pat Robertson's statements need to be examined simply because the man has so much power. Quite simply, there is no merit to what the man is saying. I cannot imagine that the Spirit of God would have motivated a statement like that, in any way. Do other believers accept what the Reverend Robertson is saying?
The Washington Post continues the coverage.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Thoughtful Editorial About Ohio In The Akron Beacon Journal
The Beacon points out that Ohio's population is shrinking. As a Buckeye, I hope we can turn it around. I really appreciate the Beacon's emphasis on technological innovation. I would also like to point out that Ohio should advertise itself on the two coasts as a very nice place to raise a family--good neighbors, slower pace of life, short commutes, great parks and good schools (that are dealing with recessionary spending cuts). I can also add that the city of Akron has a great library system. In this era of telecommuting, I think that several people in New York, Philly, and Washington would like a more family friendly place to raise a family. We also are the home of the best athlete on the planet--LeBron James.
Moreover, I hope that we will be the site of the 2020 Olympics--the Lake Erie region's chance to really show itself to the world.
As for the local economy, I am convinced that Ford, Chrysler, and GM will turn around and remain strong.
Moreover, I hope that we will be the site of the 2020 Olympics--the Lake Erie region's chance to really show itself to the world.
As for the local economy, I am convinced that Ford, Chrysler, and GM will turn around and remain strong.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Brother Can You Spare a Dime? Toward A Veteran Job Corps
Reading about a homeless Iraq War Vet sleeping under a bridge in Warren, Ohio (Washington Post, December 17), I immediately felt a sense of compassion and outrage. How could we allow this? Our vets, who increasingly hail from working class and poor families, have put their lives on the line for our country. The least we can do is help ease their way back into the civilian economy. It is true that vets have lower poverty rates than non-vets and tend to have similar unemployment rates as non-vets, but given their sacrifice for all of us, the period of readjustment to civilian life, and the possibility of post traumatic stress disorder, we need to provide them with some kind of job security.
In the 1930s, FDR, the last truly great president (Reagan was good, but given the conservative understanding of government, a conservative president really can’t do enough to be great), was wise enough, compassionate enough and creative enough to develop the Civilian Conservation Corps. Roosevelt did so to employ the unemployed as well as to provide a crucial service to the country—the salvation of American land use policy. While we are not faced with 25% unemployment as FDR was, we are coping with the worst recession since the 1930s and economists tell us that the national unemployment rate will hover around 10% for a year or so. Others warn of the possibility of a double dip recession. For this reason, I propose that we develop a Veteran Job Corps (VJC) which would focus on the following projects:
First, our vets could be used to increase the manpower inspecting the hulls of ships entering our waters and the cargo of airplanes landing in our airports for potential terrorist threats. According to a 2009 GAO report, US Customs and Border Control has not been able to scan more than five percent of US-bound cargo containers coming from larger ports. Some of these VJC members would be working in American ports in conjunction with the US Coast Guard and some could be deployed overseas to ensure compliance in foreign ports. At the very least, we would have more people to intercept and scan more ships as they approach American harbors, given the low rate of scanning in large foreign ports. Security analyst Stephen Flynn has been warning about the danger of al Qaeda sealing a biological device in a shipping container since 2000. He argues that the chaos that would result from al Qaeda’s successfully detonating the device would cripple our economy because it would cause us to suspend the shipping of goods into our country.
Second, VJC vets could put the US at the forefront of green energy by aiding in the construction of green energy facilities throughout the United States. Surely our veterans have had so much experience reconstructing the infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan that learning a few more technical skills so that they might help put together wind turbines, solar facilities and other green sources will be easy. Moreover, once they have mastered these skills, they could easily transition into working for private sector green energy firms after their term with the VJC had ended.
Third, given the law enforcement duties many of them had to accept in Iraq, our vets would make excellent border patrol agents, using their skills in compassionate ways to handle the problem of illegal immigration.
Fourth, our vets could work throughout the country to aid our recycling efforts.
Fifth, the VJC could construct high speed rail between important destinations (e.g. New York to Cleveland to Chicago).
VJC vets would be provided with some kind of housing, perhaps taking advantage of some of the vacant housing left over from the housing bubble. They would be paid 5-10% more than they were paid in the military. They would also receive the same benefits they received in the military. The pay and the benefits would be an incentive to join the military in the first place, providing a boost to recruiting efforts.
Our military personnel are some of the finest people in our country. Many come from poor families. All risk excruciating injuries, disfigurement and death. None should have to risk unemployment during their transition back to civilian life. The Veteran Job Corps will eliminate that risk, guaranteeing that our nation’s mission to treat our vets with respect and justice is accomplished.
In the 1930s, FDR, the last truly great president (Reagan was good, but given the conservative understanding of government, a conservative president really can’t do enough to be great), was wise enough, compassionate enough and creative enough to develop the Civilian Conservation Corps. Roosevelt did so to employ the unemployed as well as to provide a crucial service to the country—the salvation of American land use policy. While we are not faced with 25% unemployment as FDR was, we are coping with the worst recession since the 1930s and economists tell us that the national unemployment rate will hover around 10% for a year or so. Others warn of the possibility of a double dip recession. For this reason, I propose that we develop a Veteran Job Corps (VJC) which would focus on the following projects:
First, our vets could be used to increase the manpower inspecting the hulls of ships entering our waters and the cargo of airplanes landing in our airports for potential terrorist threats. According to a 2009 GAO report, US Customs and Border Control has not been able to scan more than five percent of US-bound cargo containers coming from larger ports. Some of these VJC members would be working in American ports in conjunction with the US Coast Guard and some could be deployed overseas to ensure compliance in foreign ports. At the very least, we would have more people to intercept and scan more ships as they approach American harbors, given the low rate of scanning in large foreign ports. Security analyst Stephen Flynn has been warning about the danger of al Qaeda sealing a biological device in a shipping container since 2000. He argues that the chaos that would result from al Qaeda’s successfully detonating the device would cripple our economy because it would cause us to suspend the shipping of goods into our country.
Second, VJC vets could put the US at the forefront of green energy by aiding in the construction of green energy facilities throughout the United States. Surely our veterans have had so much experience reconstructing the infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan that learning a few more technical skills so that they might help put together wind turbines, solar facilities and other green sources will be easy. Moreover, once they have mastered these skills, they could easily transition into working for private sector green energy firms after their term with the VJC had ended.
Third, given the law enforcement duties many of them had to accept in Iraq, our vets would make excellent border patrol agents, using their skills in compassionate ways to handle the problem of illegal immigration.
Fourth, our vets could work throughout the country to aid our recycling efforts.
Fifth, the VJC could construct high speed rail between important destinations (e.g. New York to Cleveland to Chicago).
VJC vets would be provided with some kind of housing, perhaps taking advantage of some of the vacant housing left over from the housing bubble. They would be paid 5-10% more than they were paid in the military. They would also receive the same benefits they received in the military. The pay and the benefits would be an incentive to join the military in the first place, providing a boost to recruiting efforts.
Our military personnel are some of the finest people in our country. Many come from poor families. All risk excruciating injuries, disfigurement and death. None should have to risk unemployment during their transition back to civilian life. The Veteran Job Corps will eliminate that risk, guaranteeing that our nation’s mission to treat our vets with respect and justice is accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)