Ever heard of Pyrrhus, the King of Epirus in Greece? He is best known for having fought against the Romans (about 275-280 BCE)—and winning! However, winning against the Romans cost him dearly. So now his name has come down to us in a phrase: a “Pyrrhic Victory.” And it is not good.
You see, a Pyrrhic victory is an empty one. It means that you paid more to win a war than the war was worth. It means that you won your battle at excessive cost, to the point of negating any or all expected or hoped for benefits that took you to war in the first place. It means you lost everything in order to essentially win nothing—except to say that you’ve defeated the enemy in battle.
That makes me think of President Trump and his big talk against the North Koreans. Trump seems to be willing to pay an excessively heavy price, in order to be a “winner” in the face-off against the North Koreans.
I’ve heard that Trump is not shy about taking financial risks when doing business dealings. But I’ve also heard that he never risks his own money; it’s always somebody else’s money he puts at risk—in his mind that’s nothing more than being a smart and shrewd businessman—being a winner!
So, when Trump makes big threats against North Korea, and talks about his willingness to take us down the war path against the North Koreans (including the possibility of nuclear war), who does he think will pay the cost—South Korea, Japan, Guam, the Philippines?
Of course we will win a war against North Korea, but what if China and Russia get involved (one has to be quite naïve to think that they wouldn’t)? Who will then pay the cost? What will be the total cost to the US economy and its allies? In the end, will it not be nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory—extremely costly, totally empty, and losing everything of true value and significance while gaining nothing as an end result?
Fact is, Trump has a mindset that essentially says: “Be tough, talk big, and push-back twice or three times as hard as your opponent, to get what you want—but always ensure that someone else’s assets are at risk, never my own!” As long as someone else pays the price, he is willing to pay any price, willing to “go-at-it” at any cost, to win a fight. That is the way he did business as a businessman and that is the way he is doing the business of international politics as the President of the United States.
Trump supporters, as of yet, still fail to see why Trump is a dangerous man in office. Someday, they will wake-up to reality (hopefully sooner than later) and realize that Trump is NOT good for America. Rather than making America great again, Trump is most certainly on the way to bankrupting America—in more ways than one. And this kind of talk, implying a nuclear strike against North Korea, for example, is just one obvious example of this.
Sure, it may sound good to the Hawkish types among us, but it is a far cry from being a reasoned and seasoned savvy diplomat in modern day international politics. I know, that’s what Trump supporters like about Trump. But I wonder how many Trump supporters have heard of King Pyrrhus and what it means to have a Pyrrhic victory.
Monday, August 14, 2017
Monday, August 7, 2017
Home & Family: Rights?
As a society we are now arguing over what constitutes marriage and family; for example, we have social disagreement over gay marriage and the right for gay couples to “have” children. But notice how we are not arguing about the idea of, or truth of “Marriage & family” itself.
Marriage and family constitutes the core or foundation of culture and society. Cultural Anthropologists study social cultural norms and values and behaviors all based on kinship identity and family networks, identifiable ties and connections based on family relationships.
The family core is ground zero of cultural learnings and teachings and behavior. One’s personal, social, cultural, lingual identity grows out from there. Who I am, who you are, and who we believe ourselves to be, is rooted in our core familial heritage.
Family provides us our personal history and our origin. Family shapes our self-image, and bends the trajectory of our future. Family gives us our fundamental values and truths. It is where we first understand what it means to BE: to be one’s self, to be human, to be social, to be good or bad, to be right or wrong, faithful and true (or faithless and traitorous), and to be purposeful and meaningful in our living. Family is the fundamental context of our way of being.
This is why “the family” is considered sacred. For example, the Bible speaks of the requirement to honor marriage. That is to say that a married couple’s relationship is to be held as sacred and inviolable (Hebrews 13:4). There is to be no “fooling around.” The marriage commitment is to be respected and honored.
If what is said above about marriage and family is true, then it follows that all social/governing policies that effectively result in hindering, ruining, and/or damaging healthy family life must be considered bad policy. Ergo: If a government social policy is bad for family it is bad for the nation; it is simply bad policy.
Good government social policy should strengthen and enhance family life, not tear it down or destroy it. And so, healthcare policy should be measured by that same principle. Whatever healthcare policy is adopted in the future, we have to ask as a society, does this healthcare policy strengthen families and family life or defeat families?
But that’s not all, what about criminal justice policies or income and homeless family welfare policies? Even when economic downturns are at their worse, should a society adopt policies that effectively exploit, oppress, or marginalize poor families? That is, do our social and economic policies actively and structurally support family life for all families, or do they only buttress the family life of the rich and well-to-do?
Let us learn the lesson from the Prophet Nehemiah (Nehemiah 5:1-13):
“Some time later many of the people, both men and women, began to complain against their fellow Jews. Some said, ‘We have large families, we need grain to keep us alive.’
Others said, ‘We have had to mortgage our fields and vineyards and houses to get enough grain to keep us from starving.’
Still others said, ‘We had to borrow money to pay the royal tax on our fields and vineyards. We are of the same race as our fellow Jews. Aren’t our children just as good as theirs? But we have to make slaves of our children. Some of our daughters have already been sold as slaves. We are helpless because our fields and vineyards have been taken away from us.’
When I heard their complaints, I grew angry and decided to act. I denounced the leaders and officials of the people and told them, ‘You are oppressing your brothers!’
I called a public assembly to deal with the problem and said, ‘As far as we have been able, we have been buying back our Jewish brothers who had to sell themselves to foreigners. Now you are forcing your own brothers to sell themselves to you, their fellow Jews!’ The leaders were silent and could find nothing to say.
Then I said, ‘What you are doing is wrong! You ought to obey God and do what’s right. Then you would not give our enemies, the Gentiles, any reason to ridicule us. I have let the people borrow money and grain from me, and so have my companions and the men who work for me. Now let’s give up all our claims to repayment. Cancel all the debts they owe you—money or grain or wine or olive oil. And give them back their fields, vineyards, olive groves, and houses right now!’
They replied, ‘We’ll do as you say. We’ll give the property back and not try to collect the debts.’
I called in the priests and made the leaders swear in front of them to keep the promise they had just made. Then I took off the sash I was wearing around my waist and shook it out. ‘This is how God will shake any of you who don’t keep your promise,’ I said. ‘God will take away your houses and everything you own, and will leave you with nothing.’
Everyone who was present said, ‘Amen!’ and praised the Lord. And the leaders kept their promise.”
Marriage and family constitutes the core or foundation of culture and society. Cultural Anthropologists study social cultural norms and values and behaviors all based on kinship identity and family networks, identifiable ties and connections based on family relationships.
The family core is ground zero of cultural learnings and teachings and behavior. One’s personal, social, cultural, lingual identity grows out from there. Who I am, who you are, and who we believe ourselves to be, is rooted in our core familial heritage.
Family provides us our personal history and our origin. Family shapes our self-image, and bends the trajectory of our future. Family gives us our fundamental values and truths. It is where we first understand what it means to BE: to be one’s self, to be human, to be social, to be good or bad, to be right or wrong, faithful and true (or faithless and traitorous), and to be purposeful and meaningful in our living. Family is the fundamental context of our way of being.
This is why “the family” is considered sacred. For example, the Bible speaks of the requirement to honor marriage. That is to say that a married couple’s relationship is to be held as sacred and inviolable (Hebrews 13:4). There is to be no “fooling around.” The marriage commitment is to be respected and honored.
If what is said above about marriage and family is true, then it follows that all social/governing policies that effectively result in hindering, ruining, and/or damaging healthy family life must be considered bad policy. Ergo: If a government social policy is bad for family it is bad for the nation; it is simply bad policy.
Good government social policy should strengthen and enhance family life, not tear it down or destroy it. And so, healthcare policy should be measured by that same principle. Whatever healthcare policy is adopted in the future, we have to ask as a society, does this healthcare policy strengthen families and family life or defeat families?
But that’s not all, what about criminal justice policies or income and homeless family welfare policies? Even when economic downturns are at their worse, should a society adopt policies that effectively exploit, oppress, or marginalize poor families? That is, do our social and economic policies actively and structurally support family life for all families, or do they only buttress the family life of the rich and well-to-do?
Let us learn the lesson from the Prophet Nehemiah (Nehemiah 5:1-13):
“Some time later many of the people, both men and women, began to complain against their fellow Jews. Some said, ‘We have large families, we need grain to keep us alive.’
Others said, ‘We have had to mortgage our fields and vineyards and houses to get enough grain to keep us from starving.’
Still others said, ‘We had to borrow money to pay the royal tax on our fields and vineyards. We are of the same race as our fellow Jews. Aren’t our children just as good as theirs? But we have to make slaves of our children. Some of our daughters have already been sold as slaves. We are helpless because our fields and vineyards have been taken away from us.’
When I heard their complaints, I grew angry and decided to act. I denounced the leaders and officials of the people and told them, ‘You are oppressing your brothers!’
I called a public assembly to deal with the problem and said, ‘As far as we have been able, we have been buying back our Jewish brothers who had to sell themselves to foreigners. Now you are forcing your own brothers to sell themselves to you, their fellow Jews!’ The leaders were silent and could find nothing to say.
Then I said, ‘What you are doing is wrong! You ought to obey God and do what’s right. Then you would not give our enemies, the Gentiles, any reason to ridicule us. I have let the people borrow money and grain from me, and so have my companions and the men who work for me. Now let’s give up all our claims to repayment. Cancel all the debts they owe you—money or grain or wine or olive oil. And give them back their fields, vineyards, olive groves, and houses right now!’
They replied, ‘We’ll do as you say. We’ll give the property back and not try to collect the debts.’
I called in the priests and made the leaders swear in front of them to keep the promise they had just made. Then I took off the sash I was wearing around my waist and shook it out. ‘This is how God will shake any of you who don’t keep your promise,’ I said. ‘God will take away your houses and everything you own, and will leave you with nothing.’
Everyone who was present said, ‘Amen!’ and praised the Lord. And the leaders kept their promise.”
Monday, July 31, 2017
From Where Do Our Rights Come?
What are your rights? Can you list them? And, whatever rights you may list, where do these rights come from? Who gave them to you? That is, by what authority or power or fundamental truth are you guaranteed these rights?
Our Constitution speaks of “inalienable” rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for example). How are these rights inalienable and what does “inalienable” even mean?
When the word inalienable is used with reference to human rights, it is to say that such rights have preeminence over all local and/or national governing powers. That is, it is assumed that certain human rights are not given to people by their governments; rather, such rights are inherent to the people simply because they are human. They are the universal rights of humanity.
An inalienable right is a right that cannot be derived from other laws or rights or external powers. Inalienable rights are therefore irreducible givens, essential rights that apply to all persons by virtue of their humanity—the irreducible, non-deductible and essential rights of Being Human. Thus, all good laws are built on the essential nature of what it means to be human; and so all good laws are built on the foundational inalienable rights of humanity.
In short, we humans do not bestow upon ourselves our own inalienable rights. If that were true, than these rights could also be taken away from us just as easily, by the whim and will or fancy of any particular government that happens to be in power at any given time or place—which is exactly how some governments around the world (past, present, and future) wish to rule and actually attempt to govern—as if the inalienable rights of humanity are nonexistent and do not apply.
So, it is insufficient to simply say that our inalienable rights stem from our humanity, the fact that human beings are Human Beings. For, it begs the question—why do or why should human beings have these “inalienable” rights in the first place.
The truth is, if there is no God/Creator, there is no inherent reason to assume that Human Beings are to have or presume to have “inalienable” rights. Without a God, what is…IS! And that is that. And if any single human or group of humans assert or demand that they have inalienable rights, it is nothing more than humans bestowing upon themselves these rights. And then we are only left with a foundation of drifting sand: what humans give, humans can just as easily take away; all depending upon who is in power in any given age or place.
At the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry, Jesus went to synagogue service in his home town, Nazareth, as was his custom, and stood up to read from Isaiah (see Luke 4:16-21; Isaiah 61:1-2): “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has chosen me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed and announce that the time has come when the Lord will save his people.”
Why do the poor matter? Why be concerned about the blind, the lame, or the meek? Why worry about the oppressed and those who are held captive? Why do humans have any value at all? Why do we humans aspire to live in peace and prosperity where justice and goodness prevail?
Because, God is our Creator and we humans are made in His Image. Because, Eternity is in our hearts and deep down inside we know there is a greater Truth to the meaning of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness than how we have narrowly defined it. Because our basic human rights are not bestowed to us by our fellow humans but by the Creator, God’s Self.
Jesus said, “I am telling you the truth: I am the gate for the sheep. All others who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate. Whoever comes in by me will be saved; he will come in and go out and find pasture. The thief comes only in order to steal, kill, and destroy. I have come in order that you might have life—life in all its fullness.” John 10:7-10. In short, only God through Christ will ever guarantee to us, both in principle and in practice, the Inalienable Rights of humanity; for God is its very source.
Our Constitution speaks of “inalienable” rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for example). How are these rights inalienable and what does “inalienable” even mean?
When the word inalienable is used with reference to human rights, it is to say that such rights have preeminence over all local and/or national governing powers. That is, it is assumed that certain human rights are not given to people by their governments; rather, such rights are inherent to the people simply because they are human. They are the universal rights of humanity.
An inalienable right is a right that cannot be derived from other laws or rights or external powers. Inalienable rights are therefore irreducible givens, essential rights that apply to all persons by virtue of their humanity—the irreducible, non-deductible and essential rights of Being Human. Thus, all good laws are built on the essential nature of what it means to be human; and so all good laws are built on the foundational inalienable rights of humanity.
In short, we humans do not bestow upon ourselves our own inalienable rights. If that were true, than these rights could also be taken away from us just as easily, by the whim and will or fancy of any particular government that happens to be in power at any given time or place—which is exactly how some governments around the world (past, present, and future) wish to rule and actually attempt to govern—as if the inalienable rights of humanity are nonexistent and do not apply.
So, it is insufficient to simply say that our inalienable rights stem from our humanity, the fact that human beings are Human Beings. For, it begs the question—why do or why should human beings have these “inalienable” rights in the first place.
The truth is, if there is no God/Creator, there is no inherent reason to assume that Human Beings are to have or presume to have “inalienable” rights. Without a God, what is…IS! And that is that. And if any single human or group of humans assert or demand that they have inalienable rights, it is nothing more than humans bestowing upon themselves these rights. And then we are only left with a foundation of drifting sand: what humans give, humans can just as easily take away; all depending upon who is in power in any given age or place.
At the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry, Jesus went to synagogue service in his home town, Nazareth, as was his custom, and stood up to read from Isaiah (see Luke 4:16-21; Isaiah 61:1-2): “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has chosen me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed and announce that the time has come when the Lord will save his people.”
Why do the poor matter? Why be concerned about the blind, the lame, or the meek? Why worry about the oppressed and those who are held captive? Why do humans have any value at all? Why do we humans aspire to live in peace and prosperity where justice and goodness prevail?
Because, God is our Creator and we humans are made in His Image. Because, Eternity is in our hearts and deep down inside we know there is a greater Truth to the meaning of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness than how we have narrowly defined it. Because our basic human rights are not bestowed to us by our fellow humans but by the Creator, God’s Self.
Jesus said, “I am telling you the truth: I am the gate for the sheep. All others who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate. Whoever comes in by me will be saved; he will come in and go out and find pasture. The thief comes only in order to steal, kill, and destroy. I have come in order that you might have life—life in all its fullness.” John 10:7-10. In short, only God through Christ will ever guarantee to us, both in principle and in practice, the Inalienable Rights of humanity; for God is its very source.
Monday, July 24, 2017
And what does your conscience say?
When was the last time you paid attention to your conscience?
Do you believe that you have one? If so, do you respect it and give it consideration, actually follow its lead? Or, do you more often than not squelch it and ignore it and treat it as a kind of nuisance that is more bothersome than helpful?
What is a conscience? You know. It’s that small inner voice that warns you: “Don’t do this,” or “You better take care of that.” It monitors your conduct, evaluates your intentions, and directs you toward making good and right choices, while blaming you for the bad choices you make.
Speaking of a conscience presumes the following realities:
It presumes that there is a right and wrong and that you know the difference between them. That is, it presumes the knowledge of good and bad by means of a rationale and reasonable mind.
It presumes that, at the core of your innermost being, you’d really rather do what is right and good; you prefer goodness over evil.
It presumes free-choice, that it is a matter of the will—freewill.
And it presumes that there is a higher law of moral consequence and just-desserts. That is that, ultimately one cannot get away with continually doing wrong; sooner or later one’s bad deeds will catch up. That there is a Judgment Day, and goodness will finally prevail over evil.
Christian theology tells us as much: God created Human Beings as intelligent and moral beings.
Proverbs 20:27 says that “The human spirit is the lamp of the Lord, searching every innermost part.” Given that point, we could say that God’s voice plays a role in the voice of our conscience, which is probably a good reason why we should give it some careful attention. In more stark terms, we are told that “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” (Hebrews 4:13.)
Responding to our conscience: Fight or flight?
To fight is to rebel, to stubbornly ignore, squelch, or squash one’s conscience. The Bible speaks of those who seem to have no conscience at all and couldn’t care less, those whose consciences are seared as with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2). These are those who may have had a conscience at one time in their life but no longer. They have seared them; squashed, squelched, and smothered the conscience so often that it can no longer speak or be heard. “They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.” (Ephesians 4:18)
To flee is to admit that one has a guilty conscience with the fear that there is no way of escaping its verdict. One feels doomed and thus one flees. Think of the story of Adam and Eve when they ran from God and hid in the garden for fear of being exposed. They knew they were guilty of committing a wrong. Humanity has been fleeing from God ever since.
Stop running. Jesus tells us that he came into the world for this very reason. “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” (John 3:17)
This world, beautiful as it is, is also a very hard and painful place to live in. There is much evil in this world, and many people do many bad things. No one is without guilt of doing some wrong to others.
So, we have a choice. Sear our consciences as with a hot iron and do what we want, as we want—good bad or indifferent. Or, we can begin paying more careful attention to what it is that our conscience is really trying to tell us. When we feel guilty, rather than run, the best thing to do is to seek God and His righteousness. Seek the Savior, find forgiveness and redemption, and be given a whole new promise of hope and salvation in the face of a cruel, unjust, and evil world, not to mention our own wrongdoing.
Do you believe that you have one? If so, do you respect it and give it consideration, actually follow its lead? Or, do you more often than not squelch it and ignore it and treat it as a kind of nuisance that is more bothersome than helpful?
What is a conscience? You know. It’s that small inner voice that warns you: “Don’t do this,” or “You better take care of that.” It monitors your conduct, evaluates your intentions, and directs you toward making good and right choices, while blaming you for the bad choices you make.
Speaking of a conscience presumes the following realities:
It presumes that there is a right and wrong and that you know the difference between them. That is, it presumes the knowledge of good and bad by means of a rationale and reasonable mind.
It presumes that, at the core of your innermost being, you’d really rather do what is right and good; you prefer goodness over evil.
It presumes free-choice, that it is a matter of the will—freewill.
And it presumes that there is a higher law of moral consequence and just-desserts. That is that, ultimately one cannot get away with continually doing wrong; sooner or later one’s bad deeds will catch up. That there is a Judgment Day, and goodness will finally prevail over evil.
Christian theology tells us as much: God created Human Beings as intelligent and moral beings.
Proverbs 20:27 says that “The human spirit is the lamp of the Lord, searching every innermost part.” Given that point, we could say that God’s voice plays a role in the voice of our conscience, which is probably a good reason why we should give it some careful attention. In more stark terms, we are told that “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” (Hebrews 4:13.)
Responding to our conscience: Fight or flight?
To fight is to rebel, to stubbornly ignore, squelch, or squash one’s conscience. The Bible speaks of those who seem to have no conscience at all and couldn’t care less, those whose consciences are seared as with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2). These are those who may have had a conscience at one time in their life but no longer. They have seared them; squashed, squelched, and smothered the conscience so often that it can no longer speak or be heard. “They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.” (Ephesians 4:18)
To flee is to admit that one has a guilty conscience with the fear that there is no way of escaping its verdict. One feels doomed and thus one flees. Think of the story of Adam and Eve when they ran from God and hid in the garden for fear of being exposed. They knew they were guilty of committing a wrong. Humanity has been fleeing from God ever since.
Stop running. Jesus tells us that he came into the world for this very reason. “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” (John 3:17)
This world, beautiful as it is, is also a very hard and painful place to live in. There is much evil in this world, and many people do many bad things. No one is without guilt of doing some wrong to others.
So, we have a choice. Sear our consciences as with a hot iron and do what we want, as we want—good bad or indifferent. Or, we can begin paying more careful attention to what it is that our conscience is really trying to tell us. When we feel guilty, rather than run, the best thing to do is to seek God and His righteousness. Seek the Savior, find forgiveness and redemption, and be given a whole new promise of hope and salvation in the face of a cruel, unjust, and evil world, not to mention our own wrongdoing.
Monday, July 17, 2017
Freedom and Equality! Are You Equal to Me?
Are we equal?
This is not meant to be a trick question, but a simple yes or no answer won’t do.
It’s complicated this question of equality. For, we are certainly not equal when it comes to natural talent and skills. For example: I can’t sing. That is, I can’t wow people with my singing. I certainly can’t bring in the crowds when I sing, unlike an Elvis Presley or a Frank Sinatra did back in their heyday.
Nor are we equal when it comes to income and lifestyle. Some are born with the so-called silver-spoon in their mouths, while others are born barely able to survive their first year of life for want of nutrition and other health care needs.
We are not equal in size, mental capacity, strength, natural abilities, beauty, health, or success potential and so-on. So when our U. S. Constitution speaks of equality, what does it mean and how is it to be applied in our American social construct?
This is where the Christian influence and backdrop to the birth of our nation comes in to play: It is a Christian assertion that all people are created in the image of God.
Practically speaking, despite our differences in talents and abilities and/or our economic status or mental capacity, the life of every human being is sacred and shares the same responsibility to give and receive mutual and reciprocated respect for one another as a fellow human being.
Take that particular premise away—that we are all created in the image of God—and you have a ready argument to begin to justify categorizing humans as more valuable or less valuable, as more worthy or less worthy of respect and dignity—based on varies metrics, such as natural strength & power or skills and abilities, etc.
It’s a question of what makes a human being valuable. If value is simply based on performance, that is, on what one can do, than those who have little capacity to do anything have less value—may even be seen as totally worthless, having no value at all.
Or, to make the question of human value even more complicated, some will say that value is based on one’s goodness: The more bad a person is, the less value that person has as a person; that is, good people are more valuable than bad people are. But then we get into the question of how to define “goodness” over “badness” and the difference between “being” a bad person versus “doing” a bad thing—they’re not one and the same.
So, the premise that we are created in God’s image gives us the necessary foundation for the building block of human equality.
Thus, rich or poor, all humans are to be given the dignity of respect and honor as a human being. That is, one’s dignity is not based on one’s wealth or monetary value.
Thus, all humans are equal before the law and are to have the right to just treatment and with respect, regardless of physical stature or social status or mental capacity.
Thus, all humans, regardless of ethnic identity, language, culture, and or regional origin, are to be honored as deserving of dignity and respect.
And thus, the most pointed Christian message of human equality is this: though all humans are guilty of wrongdoing and are therefore deemed sinful in the eyes of God (for example: as liars and cheats, as unfaithful and/or unkind and hateful toward others, or as having hearts of greed, pride and arrogance, etc.) we humans are all offered the same means of salvation—redemption and forgiveness by means of Christ the Savior.
The further we move away from the premise that all humans are created in the image of God, the closer we move toward unjust laws, oppressive government, and the devaluing of human beings that we deem as unworthy of our honor and respect simply because they are not like us.
This is not meant to be a trick question, but a simple yes or no answer won’t do.
It’s complicated this question of equality. For, we are certainly not equal when it comes to natural talent and skills. For example: I can’t sing. That is, I can’t wow people with my singing. I certainly can’t bring in the crowds when I sing, unlike an Elvis Presley or a Frank Sinatra did back in their heyday.
Nor are we equal when it comes to income and lifestyle. Some are born with the so-called silver-spoon in their mouths, while others are born barely able to survive their first year of life for want of nutrition and other health care needs.
We are not equal in size, mental capacity, strength, natural abilities, beauty, health, or success potential and so-on. So when our U. S. Constitution speaks of equality, what does it mean and how is it to be applied in our American social construct?
This is where the Christian influence and backdrop to the birth of our nation comes in to play: It is a Christian assertion that all people are created in the image of God.
Practically speaking, despite our differences in talents and abilities and/or our economic status or mental capacity, the life of every human being is sacred and shares the same responsibility to give and receive mutual and reciprocated respect for one another as a fellow human being.
Take that particular premise away—that we are all created in the image of God—and you have a ready argument to begin to justify categorizing humans as more valuable or less valuable, as more worthy or less worthy of respect and dignity—based on varies metrics, such as natural strength & power or skills and abilities, etc.
It’s a question of what makes a human being valuable. If value is simply based on performance, that is, on what one can do, than those who have little capacity to do anything have less value—may even be seen as totally worthless, having no value at all.
Or, to make the question of human value even more complicated, some will say that value is based on one’s goodness: The more bad a person is, the less value that person has as a person; that is, good people are more valuable than bad people are. But then we get into the question of how to define “goodness” over “badness” and the difference between “being” a bad person versus “doing” a bad thing—they’re not one and the same.
So, the premise that we are created in God’s image gives us the necessary foundation for the building block of human equality.
Thus, rich or poor, all humans are to be given the dignity of respect and honor as a human being. That is, one’s dignity is not based on one’s wealth or monetary value.
Thus, all humans are equal before the law and are to have the right to just treatment and with respect, regardless of physical stature or social status or mental capacity.
Thus, all humans, regardless of ethnic identity, language, culture, and or regional origin, are to be honored as deserving of dignity and respect.
And thus, the most pointed Christian message of human equality is this: though all humans are guilty of wrongdoing and are therefore deemed sinful in the eyes of God (for example: as liars and cheats, as unfaithful and/or unkind and hateful toward others, or as having hearts of greed, pride and arrogance, etc.) we humans are all offered the same means of salvation—redemption and forgiveness by means of Christ the Savior.
The further we move away from the premise that all humans are created in the image of God, the closer we move toward unjust laws, oppressive government, and the devaluing of human beings that we deem as unworthy of our honor and respect simply because they are not like us.
Monday, June 5, 2017
Kushner, Trump, the Russians, Why it Matters?
So, did Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, have a clandestine meeting with Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, as well as a Russian Banker? Why does it matter if he did?
Here’s a good reason: It matters because truth matters, integrity matters, morality matters, justice matters, trust matters, loyalty matters—especially in the exercise of POWER.
Question: Is there a moral backdrop to life? Is there a higher authority to which we must answer to?
Who or what governs one’s heart? Who or what rules one’s life? To whom should one give answer to, respecting one’s actions and motives? What is the measure of one’s integrity, morality, or ethics?
News Reporters are determined to get to the bottom of this Russian Thing. Why? Because, it is assumed that truth matters; and so do loyalty, integrity, and trust matter. Note that these are moral issues.
Yet, we have apparently elected a president for which truth and reality, along with morality and integrity, does not seem to matter as much—or only so in a relative sense; which is quite fitting for a culture within which moral assertions are now, more often than not, said to be a matter of opinion and therefore merely private and personal.
On the other hand, for you relativists out there, if truth is relative (including ethics and morality), then President Trump need not answer to his actions—to anyone, not even us. For, if morality is a matter of personal and private opinion, there is no place for giving account and Trump need not justify his words or deeds, personal or public—which he often does not bother to do anyway.
The irony is that this has always been considered one of the greatest responsibilities of a free press: to get to the truth of the matter. But now, in an age of Relativism, certain sectors of the public are outraged when the Press constantly seeks to know. Yes, the press operates on the assumption that there is indeed a moral backdrop to our universe, with moral absolutes—that is to say that our actions and words are expected to line up with that which is real and true, right and good.
So, for example, when News Reporters question Sean Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, and/or questions other White House spokespersons, pressing for more info and clarification as to the Presidents words and actions, their line of questioning presumes that motive and purpose make a difference as to how an action is to be substantively interpreted—for good or for bad.
So, is there virtue? Are there ethical norms by which we live? And should we hold our elected leaders to these ethical standards? In short, are there moral boundaries or ethical lines that must not be crossed? If so, then it matters whether Kushner, Trump, and/or anyone else in the presidential office, had clandestine meetings with the Russians. And so we must find out why, and to what end or purpose.
In other words, it is not enough to know what IS; we also need to know what IS, within a moral context of what should or OUGHT to be. Thus, we need to know what IS as measured by motive, for we presume that there are good and that there are bad intentions.
This is why Trump’s administration’s refusal to give answer to the many mounting questions that are arising from the Russian Investigation, among other things, is or should be very disturbing. In actuality, most of us, if not all of us, believe that there ARE lines that must not be crossed, boundaries that must be maintained, and rules that must be adhered to. Thus, to evade accountability is tantamount to admitting that the boundaries have not been maintained with integrity—vis-à-vis, they’re hiding something!
And so, investigations and good solid news reporting matter. We therefore must not so easily dismiss or disregard Presidential statements or actions that even only appear to sidestep the light of scrutiny let alone outright smack of actual deceit and/or falsehood—unless of course we actually do buy into a reality where truth, goodness, and trustworthiness, are in fact relative, and that these virtues are only a matter of personal and private opinion.
Here’s a good reason: It matters because truth matters, integrity matters, morality matters, justice matters, trust matters, loyalty matters—especially in the exercise of POWER.
Question: Is there a moral backdrop to life? Is there a higher authority to which we must answer to?
Who or what governs one’s heart? Who or what rules one’s life? To whom should one give answer to, respecting one’s actions and motives? What is the measure of one’s integrity, morality, or ethics?
News Reporters are determined to get to the bottom of this Russian Thing. Why? Because, it is assumed that truth matters; and so do loyalty, integrity, and trust matter. Note that these are moral issues.
Yet, we have apparently elected a president for which truth and reality, along with morality and integrity, does not seem to matter as much—or only so in a relative sense; which is quite fitting for a culture within which moral assertions are now, more often than not, said to be a matter of opinion and therefore merely private and personal.
On the other hand, for you relativists out there, if truth is relative (including ethics and morality), then President Trump need not answer to his actions—to anyone, not even us. For, if morality is a matter of personal and private opinion, there is no place for giving account and Trump need not justify his words or deeds, personal or public—which he often does not bother to do anyway.
The irony is that this has always been considered one of the greatest responsibilities of a free press: to get to the truth of the matter. But now, in an age of Relativism, certain sectors of the public are outraged when the Press constantly seeks to know. Yes, the press operates on the assumption that there is indeed a moral backdrop to our universe, with moral absolutes—that is to say that our actions and words are expected to line up with that which is real and true, right and good.
So, for example, when News Reporters question Sean Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, and/or questions other White House spokespersons, pressing for more info and clarification as to the Presidents words and actions, their line of questioning presumes that motive and purpose make a difference as to how an action is to be substantively interpreted—for good or for bad.
So, is there virtue? Are there ethical norms by which we live? And should we hold our elected leaders to these ethical standards? In short, are there moral boundaries or ethical lines that must not be crossed? If so, then it matters whether Kushner, Trump, and/or anyone else in the presidential office, had clandestine meetings with the Russians. And so we must find out why, and to what end or purpose.
In other words, it is not enough to know what IS; we also need to know what IS, within a moral context of what should or OUGHT to be. Thus, we need to know what IS as measured by motive, for we presume that there are good and that there are bad intentions.
This is why Trump’s administration’s refusal to give answer to the many mounting questions that are arising from the Russian Investigation, among other things, is or should be very disturbing. In actuality, most of us, if not all of us, believe that there ARE lines that must not be crossed, boundaries that must be maintained, and rules that must be adhered to. Thus, to evade accountability is tantamount to admitting that the boundaries have not been maintained with integrity—vis-à-vis, they’re hiding something!
And so, investigations and good solid news reporting matter. We therefore must not so easily dismiss or disregard Presidential statements or actions that even only appear to sidestep the light of scrutiny let alone outright smack of actual deceit and/or falsehood—unless of course we actually do buy into a reality where truth, goodness, and trustworthiness, are in fact relative, and that these virtues are only a matter of personal and private opinion.
Monday, May 29, 2017
The Trump Push
Trump’s attitude, tone, posturing, and verbiage often come across as arrogant, boastful, and self-gratulatory.
So, when Trump bullied his way to the front of NATO leaders by pushing aside Dusko Markovic, the prime minister of Montenegro, that said it all.
Did you see it?
Did you see Trump’s face? Did you notice his posture and catch his dismissiveness of Mr. Markovic?
Some Americans liked what they saw; thinking that that was a great way for Trump to show his commitment to “Put America First!”
And that is so very, very sad.
Why?
Do you believe in “Karma” or do you believe in “What goes around comes around” or the idea that “For every action there is always an equal and opposing reaction”?
In other words, as you already know, anger breeds anger, hate breeds hate, and so-on and so-forth. That is to say that Trump’s presumptuous attitude, coupled with his arrogant actions, will have its equal and opposing reactions—and it won’t be nice.
If you’re familiar with the Biblical book of Proverbs, two verses come to mind, Proverbs chapter 16 verse 5 and verse18. Verse 5 says, “The Lord detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.” And verse 18 says, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” (NIV)
“America First,” Trump says. “Make America Great Again,” Trump asserts. And many Americans with pride in the hearts, arrogance in their tone, and Triumphalism in their spirits, resound with a “Hoorah! Make it so!! Let’s do this!!”
So, we have elected a president who, acting in our behalf, acts proudly, arrogantly, and even insultingly toward others, as a way of representing us, the people of the United States of America.
Thus, if the Biblical statements of Proverbs chapter 16 verses 5 and 8 are true, I wonder: How can we say “God Bless America!” expecting God to do so, when God clearly condemns proud, haughty, and arrogant people?
Be kind, considerate, generous, and respectful, mind your manners, be polite, don’t shove and push, wait your turn; and don’t boast and brag or be conceited. These were the social rules, the “how to behave yourself” rules, that previous generations of Americans were taught and were brought up with. Whether you were old or young, high or low, rich or poor, these were the norms of expected behavior within our social interactions. And we are losing them.
And with their loss we are fast becoming a small self-inflated people, curt and contentious, belligerent and bellicose, pompous and petulant, pretentious and plebian in manner. Indeed, in the person of President Trump, it seems that he is the best representative for us at this time, if this is truly the kind of people we are becoming.
So, when Trump bullied his way to the front of NATO leaders by pushing aside Dusko Markovic, the prime minister of Montenegro, that said it all.
Did you see it?
Did you see Trump’s face? Did you notice his posture and catch his dismissiveness of Mr. Markovic?
Some Americans liked what they saw; thinking that that was a great way for Trump to show his commitment to “Put America First!”
And that is so very, very sad.
Why?
Do you believe in “Karma” or do you believe in “What goes around comes around” or the idea that “For every action there is always an equal and opposing reaction”?
In other words, as you already know, anger breeds anger, hate breeds hate, and so-on and so-forth. That is to say that Trump’s presumptuous attitude, coupled with his arrogant actions, will have its equal and opposing reactions—and it won’t be nice.
If you’re familiar with the Biblical book of Proverbs, two verses come to mind, Proverbs chapter 16 verse 5 and verse18. Verse 5 says, “The Lord detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.” And verse 18 says, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” (NIV)
“America First,” Trump says. “Make America Great Again,” Trump asserts. And many Americans with pride in the hearts, arrogance in their tone, and Triumphalism in their spirits, resound with a “Hoorah! Make it so!! Let’s do this!!”
So, we have elected a president who, acting in our behalf, acts proudly, arrogantly, and even insultingly toward others, as a way of representing us, the people of the United States of America.
Thus, if the Biblical statements of Proverbs chapter 16 verses 5 and 8 are true, I wonder: How can we say “God Bless America!” expecting God to do so, when God clearly condemns proud, haughty, and arrogant people?
Be kind, considerate, generous, and respectful, mind your manners, be polite, don’t shove and push, wait your turn; and don’t boast and brag or be conceited. These were the social rules, the “how to behave yourself” rules, that previous generations of Americans were taught and were brought up with. Whether you were old or young, high or low, rich or poor, these were the norms of expected behavior within our social interactions. And we are losing them.
And with their loss we are fast becoming a small self-inflated people, curt and contentious, belligerent and bellicose, pompous and petulant, pretentious and plebian in manner. Indeed, in the person of President Trump, it seems that he is the best representative for us at this time, if this is truly the kind of people we are becoming.
Monday, May 22, 2017
Who’s Reality, Which Reality?
It’s a question of Reality. What is real, true, good, right, and/or just?
Facts are facts. It’s been said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts. So true.
But facts must be interpreted and are done so according to context, perspective, and more importantly, Worldview. In other words, individual facts make no sense to us, unless or until they are connected in a meaningful way, like putting together pieces of a puzzle to make a picture or connecting the dots to form a meaningful shape or image.
As you know, it is much easier to put the pieces of a puzzle together if you have the picture in front of you, especially if there are a large number of pieces to the puzzle, like 500 or more.
What the individual pieces of a puzzle are, to its picture; facts are to a Worldview.
A Worldview is a comprehensive conception of the world. It is an understanding of how the world operates. Thus, a Worldview serves as the interpretive mechanism for one’s Truth, fitting information into an understood picture of Reality. So, a Worldview makes sense and provides meaning to any given set of facts—objects, subjects, events, actions, etcetera—in one’s world.
For example, as a matter of fact, a man dies only a few hours after eating a chicken dinner. In one culture’s Worldview it may be a case of salmonella poisoning; the chicken was bad. In another culture’s Worldview, the man died because a witchdoctor may have placed a curse on the man for failing to honor a pledge. And yet, in another culture’s Worldview, the man died because the god’s were angry with him for breaking a ritual taboo. That is, this one fact, a man dies after eating a chicken dinner, now has three different interpreted meanings to it, according to three different Worldviews as to how the world operates or how Reality is defined.
As Westerners, we laugh. We think, “Of course it was salmonella poisoning. Talk of witchdoctors and angry gods; that’s all nonsense.” And we are so sure. We know that we are right. For, we have the better knowledge of Reality and Truth in this matter. We assume.
Yet, that is exactly where we seem to be as a nation, with respect to our political debates when addressing our government’s economic or social policies. We are now a nation of conflicting Worldviews. For example, Worldview 1: Global warming is a real threat and we humans are culpable. We are responsible and must change the way we use, handle, and consume carbon deposits. Worldview 2: Global warming is a hoax. We are neither responsible nor culpable. Let’s keep doing what we’ve been doing! So, who is right and how do we know?
Or, Worldview 1: There are no gods and there is no God. Thus, we humans are on our own. That is, we are our own gods. We make the laws; we set the standards of conduct, define justice, and rule the day as we determine. Worldview 2: God created the universe and all that is within it, including humanity. God is righteous, just, and true. God sets the standards and defines goodness for us. We must obey God’s laws. Who is right, and how do we know?
This is a significant reason as to why our national politics is more like a contact sport, more of a battle for complete control where winner takes all—a naked power struggle. We are fighting over conflicting variations of defined Truth and Reality itself. Trump’s constant tweeting about fake news, for example, accentuates what it feels like to live in a world where one’s very sense of Reality is constantly called into question.
Is it possible for our nation to have a unified Worldview? Can our Constitution adequately serve as that larger picture of Reality?
If a society cannot agree on the facts, that’s a huge problem in itself. But if a society cannot even agree on the larger Truth or greater Reality, within which those facts are to be given meaning; that is a far greater problem indeed.
Facts are facts. It’s been said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts. So true.
But facts must be interpreted and are done so according to context, perspective, and more importantly, Worldview. In other words, individual facts make no sense to us, unless or until they are connected in a meaningful way, like putting together pieces of a puzzle to make a picture or connecting the dots to form a meaningful shape or image.
As you know, it is much easier to put the pieces of a puzzle together if you have the picture in front of you, especially if there are a large number of pieces to the puzzle, like 500 or more.
What the individual pieces of a puzzle are, to its picture; facts are to a Worldview.
A Worldview is a comprehensive conception of the world. It is an understanding of how the world operates. Thus, a Worldview serves as the interpretive mechanism for one’s Truth, fitting information into an understood picture of Reality. So, a Worldview makes sense and provides meaning to any given set of facts—objects, subjects, events, actions, etcetera—in one’s world.
For example, as a matter of fact, a man dies only a few hours after eating a chicken dinner. In one culture’s Worldview it may be a case of salmonella poisoning; the chicken was bad. In another culture’s Worldview, the man died because a witchdoctor may have placed a curse on the man for failing to honor a pledge. And yet, in another culture’s Worldview, the man died because the god’s were angry with him for breaking a ritual taboo. That is, this one fact, a man dies after eating a chicken dinner, now has three different interpreted meanings to it, according to three different Worldviews as to how the world operates or how Reality is defined.
As Westerners, we laugh. We think, “Of course it was salmonella poisoning. Talk of witchdoctors and angry gods; that’s all nonsense.” And we are so sure. We know that we are right. For, we have the better knowledge of Reality and Truth in this matter. We assume.
Yet, that is exactly where we seem to be as a nation, with respect to our political debates when addressing our government’s economic or social policies. We are now a nation of conflicting Worldviews. For example, Worldview 1: Global warming is a real threat and we humans are culpable. We are responsible and must change the way we use, handle, and consume carbon deposits. Worldview 2: Global warming is a hoax. We are neither responsible nor culpable. Let’s keep doing what we’ve been doing! So, who is right and how do we know?
Or, Worldview 1: There are no gods and there is no God. Thus, we humans are on our own. That is, we are our own gods. We make the laws; we set the standards of conduct, define justice, and rule the day as we determine. Worldview 2: God created the universe and all that is within it, including humanity. God is righteous, just, and true. God sets the standards and defines goodness for us. We must obey God’s laws. Who is right, and how do we know?
This is a significant reason as to why our national politics is more like a contact sport, more of a battle for complete control where winner takes all—a naked power struggle. We are fighting over conflicting variations of defined Truth and Reality itself. Trump’s constant tweeting about fake news, for example, accentuates what it feels like to live in a world where one’s very sense of Reality is constantly called into question.
Is it possible for our nation to have a unified Worldview? Can our Constitution adequately serve as that larger picture of Reality?
If a society cannot agree on the facts, that’s a huge problem in itself. But if a society cannot even agree on the larger Truth or greater Reality, within which those facts are to be given meaning; that is a far greater problem indeed.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
What is a “Constitutional Crisis”; Are We about to Have One?
Basic grade-school level knowledge tells us that we have three branches to our government operative system: executive, judicial, and legislative. Among other things, they serve as checks and balances to each other.
The U. S. Constitution gives shape to our government’s organization. It defines its operative system and establishes its philosophical foundation. And it builds upon that foundation by providing form and structure. Hence, it is a legal document, an operative document, and a philosophical document.
But the Constitution is only as good as the people that choose to own it and abide by it. For example, a people may choose to revolt and disown a constitution—we call such action a “Revolution.”
But a constitution may also break down when certain entities within its framed government choose to ignore its laws or refuse to apply its operative mechanisms or question the trustworthiness of its longstanding legitimacy. If such action results in a breakdown of normal government operations, there is a Constitutional Crisis.
What lies underneath such a Constitutional Crisis is a power struggle between factions within the government system; a power struggle that apparently cannot be resolved by the normal application of constitutional operative mechanisms.
For example, should the President of the United States willfully violate a constitutional law or one of its conventional rules and at the same time refuse to be held accountable or culpable for such refusal, a Constitutional Crisis may ensue. Such a crisis can lead to governmental paralysis or the collapse of government altogether; or it may even lead to a civil war. Our own Civil War between the North and the South was a constitutional crisis, caused by the decision of Southern States to secede from the Union.
As a native born citizen with legal voting rights, as well as a contemporary observer of present day political action (or lack thereof), I have been hearing a few political pundits warning us that President Trump is effectively taking us down the pathway toward a Constitutional Crisis. It sounds over the top, as in hyperbolic exaggeration.
But I understand their reasoning. And, given recent developments at the White House, I must say that I wouldn’t be surprised if we do eventually get there. That is, it now seems realistic to think that, with Trump in office, an actual Constitution Crisis may be in our horizon.
Yet, Trump still has a core following of dazzled-eyed supporters that refuse to acknowledge that Trump has done anything or is doing anything wrong, let alone anything that calls for impeachment or threatens to lead us into a real Constitutional Crisis. For now, they all seem to believe that it is all made up stuff by his political enemies and the so-called false-news press. Talk about self-imposed blindness.
Of course it’s easy for Democrats to call for the impeachment of Trump. But, if and when Republicans should ever do so, that’s when all hell will break lose and a real Constitutional Crisis may begin to play itself out. For, Trump is not the type to go down without a fight.
So it does seem like only a matter of time, especially in light of recent developments.
Time will tell.
Until then, I do have to wonder; what will it take, for a Republican controlled House and Senate to finally say, “Enough is enough!” This hasn’t happened yet because Trump’s party continues to see Trump as a political asset. So they tolerate him, knowing that his core supporters continue to love him.
We’ve never had a president quite like Trump. (And I hope that we never have one like him again.)
So, the only thing that can be done is to carefully monitor Trump’s every move. Yes, Trump is being watched very carefully by the Media. And that is a good thing, and quite a necessary thing, if our democracy is going to stay strong and healthy.
It takes time, but eventually all the facts will be laid out—precisely, concisely, and decisively. And then these facts will be interpreted in light of our democratic principles. And, if a solid case is built against Trump, so be it.
All that is at stake here is the vitality, vibrancy, and relevancy of our Constitution.
The U. S. Constitution gives shape to our government’s organization. It defines its operative system and establishes its philosophical foundation. And it builds upon that foundation by providing form and structure. Hence, it is a legal document, an operative document, and a philosophical document.
But the Constitution is only as good as the people that choose to own it and abide by it. For example, a people may choose to revolt and disown a constitution—we call such action a “Revolution.”
But a constitution may also break down when certain entities within its framed government choose to ignore its laws or refuse to apply its operative mechanisms or question the trustworthiness of its longstanding legitimacy. If such action results in a breakdown of normal government operations, there is a Constitutional Crisis.
What lies underneath such a Constitutional Crisis is a power struggle between factions within the government system; a power struggle that apparently cannot be resolved by the normal application of constitutional operative mechanisms.
For example, should the President of the United States willfully violate a constitutional law or one of its conventional rules and at the same time refuse to be held accountable or culpable for such refusal, a Constitutional Crisis may ensue. Such a crisis can lead to governmental paralysis or the collapse of government altogether; or it may even lead to a civil war. Our own Civil War between the North and the South was a constitutional crisis, caused by the decision of Southern States to secede from the Union.
As a native born citizen with legal voting rights, as well as a contemporary observer of present day political action (or lack thereof), I have been hearing a few political pundits warning us that President Trump is effectively taking us down the pathway toward a Constitutional Crisis. It sounds over the top, as in hyperbolic exaggeration.
But I understand their reasoning. And, given recent developments at the White House, I must say that I wouldn’t be surprised if we do eventually get there. That is, it now seems realistic to think that, with Trump in office, an actual Constitution Crisis may be in our horizon.
Yet, Trump still has a core following of dazzled-eyed supporters that refuse to acknowledge that Trump has done anything or is doing anything wrong, let alone anything that calls for impeachment or threatens to lead us into a real Constitutional Crisis. For now, they all seem to believe that it is all made up stuff by his political enemies and the so-called false-news press. Talk about self-imposed blindness.
Of course it’s easy for Democrats to call for the impeachment of Trump. But, if and when Republicans should ever do so, that’s when all hell will break lose and a real Constitutional Crisis may begin to play itself out. For, Trump is not the type to go down without a fight.
So it does seem like only a matter of time, especially in light of recent developments.
Time will tell.
Until then, I do have to wonder; what will it take, for a Republican controlled House and Senate to finally say, “Enough is enough!” This hasn’t happened yet because Trump’s party continues to see Trump as a political asset. So they tolerate him, knowing that his core supporters continue to love him.
We’ve never had a president quite like Trump. (And I hope that we never have one like him again.)
So, the only thing that can be done is to carefully monitor Trump’s every move. Yes, Trump is being watched very carefully by the Media. And that is a good thing, and quite a necessary thing, if our democracy is going to stay strong and healthy.
It takes time, but eventually all the facts will be laid out—precisely, concisely, and decisively. And then these facts will be interpreted in light of our democratic principles. And, if a solid case is built against Trump, so be it.
All that is at stake here is the vitality, vibrancy, and relevancy of our Constitution.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Healthcare and the Value of Human Life
Okay, so is healthcare a universal right or a special privilege?
Is healthcare a commodity, a business product for consumers to individually purchase as they will, or is it a service that the whole community should have access to and therefore collectively support?
Consider our Fire Departments. The whole community shares the financial burden for supporting the establishment of a Fire Department. If a house is on fire and the Fire Department is called, the homeowner is not first asked, “Did you purchase a Fire Department Policy from us? First please show proof that you are covered and then we will come and put out the fire.”
Why is this? It is so because we believe that fire protection (as well as police protection) is a right for everyone in our communities. It is not a commodity to be bought and sold in a market system. It is a necessity for healthy thriving communities.
So, why is this same attitude not extended to the principle of healthcare coverage?
As a homeowner I do not shop around for the best and cheapest Fire department protection policy. Fire Department services are not seen as a privilege for only those that could afford to have it, nor is it viewed as a product that should be sold on a for-profit base. So why is medical healthcare coverage handled as a for-profit product?
As mentioned above, no one views Fire Department services as a for-profit business and thus no one sees fire department protection as a product that some can choose to opt-out of, while others are free to choose which type, quality, and degree of Fire Department service they’d like to have or can afford to have—as in fair, good, better, or best Fire Department coverage.
In other words, when it comes to a house on fire, everyone gets the same treatment, however small or large the fire emergency may be; because fundamentally, putting out a house that is on fire is seen as a community problem expecting community ownership, not viewed as a personal privilege to be bought and sold in the open market system. It seems that the same community principle should apply to healthcare. But it is not.
Why not?
There are many reasons for this. Primarily our economic system prevents us from seeing healthcare as anything other than a business transaction—rather than as a collective or social/community service. Thus, the “business” of health has too much at stake to lose, if we, the people, were to view healthcare as a community right for all. That is the biggest hurdle.
Yet, imagine if we distributed community fire protection and/or police protection in the same way that we distribute healthcare protection. Homeowners that opted-out of, or that could not afford fire protection would have to sit there and watch their houses burn down. People in need of the police, if they could not afford to pay their police protection premiums would have to be told that they are on their own in a police emergency call. How is the need for medical healthcare not the same as the need to have help in putting out a fire at one’s home?
In short, there are some things in a community that are not to be bought and sold on a product or commodity bases but rather should be seen as a common/community right of service for each and all, and thus collectively paid-for by all that belong to said community. Good medical healthcare should be one of those services.
But for us Americans, it would seem that financial profit has become more the guiding truth and principle of substance rather than morality and the principle of community and social cohesion, respecting healthcare.
In effect, we have qualified, separated and categorized our human value according to monetary value rather than a common human value.
That is, with respect to our healthcare system, we are not operating as if all of us are as one people, bonded by our human commonality, in terms of our right to respect, dignity, honor, and equal attention to healthcare needs. We do not see ourselves as one collective body or as a unity of persons deserving of the same attention when healthcare needs arise.
Rather, we divide ourselves into the young and healthy, the old and decrepit, preexisting and non-preexisting conditional, and the payable versus the unpayable—those who have money to pay for healthcare versus those who do not have money to pay for it.
Ergo, we do not see ourselves as a community of equals in this together, respecting our common humanity and our healthcare rights. So, when it comes to the value of our life and its healthcare needs, we are separate and unequal.
By contrast, if someone’s home is on fire, he, she, or they are treated with total equality by the fire department, no questions asked; and the whole community pays for its service.
Is healthcare a commodity, a business product for consumers to individually purchase as they will, or is it a service that the whole community should have access to and therefore collectively support?
Consider our Fire Departments. The whole community shares the financial burden for supporting the establishment of a Fire Department. If a house is on fire and the Fire Department is called, the homeowner is not first asked, “Did you purchase a Fire Department Policy from us? First please show proof that you are covered and then we will come and put out the fire.”
Why is this? It is so because we believe that fire protection (as well as police protection) is a right for everyone in our communities. It is not a commodity to be bought and sold in a market system. It is a necessity for healthy thriving communities.
So, why is this same attitude not extended to the principle of healthcare coverage?
As a homeowner I do not shop around for the best and cheapest Fire department protection policy. Fire Department services are not seen as a privilege for only those that could afford to have it, nor is it viewed as a product that should be sold on a for-profit base. So why is medical healthcare coverage handled as a for-profit product?
As mentioned above, no one views Fire Department services as a for-profit business and thus no one sees fire department protection as a product that some can choose to opt-out of, while others are free to choose which type, quality, and degree of Fire Department service they’d like to have or can afford to have—as in fair, good, better, or best Fire Department coverage.
In other words, when it comes to a house on fire, everyone gets the same treatment, however small or large the fire emergency may be; because fundamentally, putting out a house that is on fire is seen as a community problem expecting community ownership, not viewed as a personal privilege to be bought and sold in the open market system. It seems that the same community principle should apply to healthcare. But it is not.
Why not?
There are many reasons for this. Primarily our economic system prevents us from seeing healthcare as anything other than a business transaction—rather than as a collective or social/community service. Thus, the “business” of health has too much at stake to lose, if we, the people, were to view healthcare as a community right for all. That is the biggest hurdle.
Yet, imagine if we distributed community fire protection and/or police protection in the same way that we distribute healthcare protection. Homeowners that opted-out of, or that could not afford fire protection would have to sit there and watch their houses burn down. People in need of the police, if they could not afford to pay their police protection premiums would have to be told that they are on their own in a police emergency call. How is the need for medical healthcare not the same as the need to have help in putting out a fire at one’s home?
In short, there are some things in a community that are not to be bought and sold on a product or commodity bases but rather should be seen as a common/community right of service for each and all, and thus collectively paid-for by all that belong to said community. Good medical healthcare should be one of those services.
But for us Americans, it would seem that financial profit has become more the guiding truth and principle of substance rather than morality and the principle of community and social cohesion, respecting healthcare.
In effect, we have qualified, separated and categorized our human value according to monetary value rather than a common human value.
That is, with respect to our healthcare system, we are not operating as if all of us are as one people, bonded by our human commonality, in terms of our right to respect, dignity, honor, and equal attention to healthcare needs. We do not see ourselves as one collective body or as a unity of persons deserving of the same attention when healthcare needs arise.
Rather, we divide ourselves into the young and healthy, the old and decrepit, preexisting and non-preexisting conditional, and the payable versus the unpayable—those who have money to pay for healthcare versus those who do not have money to pay for it.
Ergo, we do not see ourselves as a community of equals in this together, respecting our common humanity and our healthcare rights. So, when it comes to the value of our life and its healthcare needs, we are separate and unequal.
By contrast, if someone’s home is on fire, he, she, or they are treated with total equality by the fire department, no questions asked; and the whole community pays for its service.
Monday, May 1, 2017
Presidential Greatness?
We all have something to hide is the point behind the saying, “everyone has a skeleton in the closet.”
Another way of putting it is that everyone has done something stupid in their life, something for which they are embarrassed or even ashamed to admit.
No one is perfect.
Nevertheless, we also like to think that we learn from our mistakes. Though, admittedly, some seem to learn faster than others. Still, we generally assume that we are on a positive trajectory—one of constant and consistent self-improvement. We like to think that we are better people today than we were yesterday.
Some of us even like to think that we deserve all the credit when we do improve; easily forgetting all the people in our lives that positively influenced us that nudged us in the right direction, along the way.
Think about it. Every great person in history has had someone in her life that s/he is able to point to, as having helped give shape to her personal development, providing wisdom, inspiration, insight and direction to her personal growth. It may have been a teacher, a coach, a pastor rabbi or priest, a grandparent, or a friend. Whoever it was, or whoever they were, it was most certainly someone s/he greatly respected, highly trusted, and much loved that inspired and motivated that great person to be better and do better.
But what is “greatness”? True greatness is about quality of person and character, not about wealth and power. It is about who you are, not about what you have or what you control.
But I have to pause. It seems that today’s measure of greatness is not about who you are, but about what you have obtained. By this measurement, all billionaires and millionaires are great. They are great because they have managed to make and accumulate great sums of money. Being worth a fortune makes them great in our eyes.
We have little concern about how they may have obtained their money. Did they cheat, lie, or steal—to get what they have? It seems not to matter. All they need be is rich and successful and they have our automatic respect and support. Indeed, if they brag about it, are proud and arrogant and boisterous about their successes and accumulated wealth, we respond by esteeming them all the more. We are dazzled by their apparent brilliance at making it big. And we are fools.
Let’s go back to the top. Remember the idea that everyone has a skeleton in their closet, that everyone has done something foolish for which they are embarrassed or ashamed? This is also true of great persons. Great people have skeletons in their closet, like anyone else. But the difference is that great people are properly humbled by this and are willing to acknowledge that they too have feet of clay.
Thus, one common denominator among all great persons is their humility. And with that humility comes the ability to admit when they’ve made a mistake, with a willingness to accept constructive criticism, with a willingness to apologize and correct any errors they may have made along the way. Thus, another common trait among great persons is their willingness to accept full responsibility for things that they have said and done without scapegoating or blaming others and pointing fingers at someone else.
And so, great people are not only humble, accepting full responsibility for their actions including every word they utter, they also have integrity and are completely transparent. They neither run nor hide from personal scrutiny. They are an open book. They speak truth and do so with clarity.
With these qualities in mind, qualities of greatness, I have to conclude that our 45th president is set out to become one of the least of our presidents—in terms of greatness.
Another way of putting it is that everyone has done something stupid in their life, something for which they are embarrassed or even ashamed to admit.
No one is perfect.
Nevertheless, we also like to think that we learn from our mistakes. Though, admittedly, some seem to learn faster than others. Still, we generally assume that we are on a positive trajectory—one of constant and consistent self-improvement. We like to think that we are better people today than we were yesterday.
Some of us even like to think that we deserve all the credit when we do improve; easily forgetting all the people in our lives that positively influenced us that nudged us in the right direction, along the way.
Think about it. Every great person in history has had someone in her life that s/he is able to point to, as having helped give shape to her personal development, providing wisdom, inspiration, insight and direction to her personal growth. It may have been a teacher, a coach, a pastor rabbi or priest, a grandparent, or a friend. Whoever it was, or whoever they were, it was most certainly someone s/he greatly respected, highly trusted, and much loved that inspired and motivated that great person to be better and do better.
But what is “greatness”? True greatness is about quality of person and character, not about wealth and power. It is about who you are, not about what you have or what you control.
But I have to pause. It seems that today’s measure of greatness is not about who you are, but about what you have obtained. By this measurement, all billionaires and millionaires are great. They are great because they have managed to make and accumulate great sums of money. Being worth a fortune makes them great in our eyes.
We have little concern about how they may have obtained their money. Did they cheat, lie, or steal—to get what they have? It seems not to matter. All they need be is rich and successful and they have our automatic respect and support. Indeed, if they brag about it, are proud and arrogant and boisterous about their successes and accumulated wealth, we respond by esteeming them all the more. We are dazzled by their apparent brilliance at making it big. And we are fools.
Let’s go back to the top. Remember the idea that everyone has a skeleton in their closet, that everyone has done something foolish for which they are embarrassed or ashamed? This is also true of great persons. Great people have skeletons in their closet, like anyone else. But the difference is that great people are properly humbled by this and are willing to acknowledge that they too have feet of clay.
Thus, one common denominator among all great persons is their humility. And with that humility comes the ability to admit when they’ve made a mistake, with a willingness to accept constructive criticism, with a willingness to apologize and correct any errors they may have made along the way. Thus, another common trait among great persons is their willingness to accept full responsibility for things that they have said and done without scapegoating or blaming others and pointing fingers at someone else.
And so, great people are not only humble, accepting full responsibility for their actions including every word they utter, they also have integrity and are completely transparent. They neither run nor hide from personal scrutiny. They are an open book. They speak truth and do so with clarity.
With these qualities in mind, qualities of greatness, I have to conclude that our 45th president is set out to become one of the least of our presidents—in terms of greatness.
Monday, April 24, 2017
The Problem with our Political Assumptions
Assumption: How we see ourselves and others in the political arena is as important as which issues and policies we choose to support. Problem: We no longer see ourselves as one people (Out of Many, One). We see ourselves as separate and incompatible people (Out of One, Many). We now seem to assume that we are all different people with divided values and separate goals working at cross purposes and that there is no value in working with or collaborating with, “the other side.”
Assumption: A healthy democracy requires its people to think holistically, to see the ‘big picture,’ and to value procedural rules and processes without undermining them for political gain. Problem: We now seem to be willing to manipulate and cheat the system in order to get and maintain political control for ourselves—our party, our cohort, our political agenda. We are now greedy for absolute control and will do anything we can to have it our way and get what we want while virtually saying, “To hell with the others.”
Assumption: The ends should never justify the means. Problem: “Yeah right! Don’t be so naïve!” Is the new attitude about that principle. Republican and Democrat alike fight on with an approach and attitude that virtually says, “We must win at all cost, using every means possible—good or bad, fair or unfair, just or unjust. It’s winning that counts!” Out maneuver, overtake, and overpower the opposing side, take down your opponent however you can, wherever you can; have no mercy and take no prisoners.
Assumption: We want peace, justice, truth, honor, integrity, and things done in the right way and for the right reason. Problem: We are willing to bend the truth and ignore dishonest methods when the truth does not favor our side. If it benefits us, we support unjust and dishonorable methods and welcome unrighteous tactics to get our way. Hypocrites are we all.
Assumption: A people are stronger when they are united in purpose, values, and goals. That is, it is good to find common ground and work through our differences even when it means we must compromise or give-and-take a little. Problem: When we say, “Let us work together,” what we mean is: “Come now, be reasonable and see it MY way!” Compromise is now a dirty word. And to “give-and-take” means, support us all the way or become our enemy.
Assumption: The world, including the environment, international relations, economics, social justice, and human health and welfare is a set of intertwined and complex systems requiring much insight, study, and wisdom for properly applied public and private policies. Problem: We think everything should come down to a KISS: “Keep It Simple Stupid.” We have become simple-minded black-and-white thinkers, refusing to acknowledge the basic complexities, complications, and variations of this thing we call life on earth.
Assumption: The Federal Government should be concerned for what’s best for the nation as a whole and what’s best for all its citizens regardless of social rank, economic status, or geographical location. Problem: There is no cause but that which is personal and local, no reality but that which we personally desire or imagine, and no truth but that which we define to our own liking. It is not about “us and ours—we the people”; it’s about me, my, and mine—versus them, they, and theirs.
Assumption: Democratically elected government officials are not above the law and must be transparent and accountable to the people in all that they do while in office. Problem: We are tolerating an elected president, who refuses to be transparent in crucial areas that may involve conflict-of-interest, respecting his personal and family business affairs. Example: He refuses to release his tax returns. Yet he continues to wield a great amount of power and influence while remaining in the position to personally gain that much more wealth from his private businesses.
Furthermore, he outright rejects the idea of being held accountable for his words and actions, never willing to admit that he misspoke or said something that was just not true.
Assumption: the problems connected with the above assumptions, if not corrected, will inevitably lead to our decline as a nation. And it will be long term, like a frog in slowly warming water—we won’t notice it until it is virtually too late.
Assumption: A healthy democracy requires its people to think holistically, to see the ‘big picture,’ and to value procedural rules and processes without undermining them for political gain. Problem: We now seem to be willing to manipulate and cheat the system in order to get and maintain political control for ourselves—our party, our cohort, our political agenda. We are now greedy for absolute control and will do anything we can to have it our way and get what we want while virtually saying, “To hell with the others.”
Assumption: The ends should never justify the means. Problem: “Yeah right! Don’t be so naïve!” Is the new attitude about that principle. Republican and Democrat alike fight on with an approach and attitude that virtually says, “We must win at all cost, using every means possible—good or bad, fair or unfair, just or unjust. It’s winning that counts!” Out maneuver, overtake, and overpower the opposing side, take down your opponent however you can, wherever you can; have no mercy and take no prisoners.
Assumption: We want peace, justice, truth, honor, integrity, and things done in the right way and for the right reason. Problem: We are willing to bend the truth and ignore dishonest methods when the truth does not favor our side. If it benefits us, we support unjust and dishonorable methods and welcome unrighteous tactics to get our way. Hypocrites are we all.
Assumption: A people are stronger when they are united in purpose, values, and goals. That is, it is good to find common ground and work through our differences even when it means we must compromise or give-and-take a little. Problem: When we say, “Let us work together,” what we mean is: “Come now, be reasonable and see it MY way!” Compromise is now a dirty word. And to “give-and-take” means, support us all the way or become our enemy.
Assumption: The world, including the environment, international relations, economics, social justice, and human health and welfare is a set of intertwined and complex systems requiring much insight, study, and wisdom for properly applied public and private policies. Problem: We think everything should come down to a KISS: “Keep It Simple Stupid.” We have become simple-minded black-and-white thinkers, refusing to acknowledge the basic complexities, complications, and variations of this thing we call life on earth.
Assumption: The Federal Government should be concerned for what’s best for the nation as a whole and what’s best for all its citizens regardless of social rank, economic status, or geographical location. Problem: There is no cause but that which is personal and local, no reality but that which we personally desire or imagine, and no truth but that which we define to our own liking. It is not about “us and ours—we the people”; it’s about me, my, and mine—versus them, they, and theirs.
Assumption: Democratically elected government officials are not above the law and must be transparent and accountable to the people in all that they do while in office. Problem: We are tolerating an elected president, who refuses to be transparent in crucial areas that may involve conflict-of-interest, respecting his personal and family business affairs. Example: He refuses to release his tax returns. Yet he continues to wield a great amount of power and influence while remaining in the position to personally gain that much more wealth from his private businesses.
Furthermore, he outright rejects the idea of being held accountable for his words and actions, never willing to admit that he misspoke or said something that was just not true.
Assumption: the problems connected with the above assumptions, if not corrected, will inevitably lead to our decline as a nation. And it will be long term, like a frog in slowly warming water—we won’t notice it until it is virtually too late.
Monday, April 17, 2017
First 100 Days in Office: Nonsense!
The President, the Media, Republicans and Democrats alike, they all make a big hoopla over what is done within the first 100 days in office. I say, “What of it!”
So what?”
What’s so important about the first 100 days? Why not the first 50 or 75 or 300?
If I remember my history well enough, it all started with F. D. Roosevelt. It was a good PR scheme on his part, and it stuck. It was his way of boasting about his accomplishments, boasting about how fast and quick, how constructive and productive he was in his, well, his first 100 days in office.
Apparently it’s a measure that’s been used ever since. “Mr. President,” reporters eagerly ask, “what have you, what will you, what do you plan to accomplish in your first 100 days in office?” “Oh, I’m so glad that you asked,” The President replies, “First I plan to do this, then I plan to do that; you’ll see, I’m going to change the world in my first 100 Days in office!” And I say, “Please!! Get real.”
Enough already! It’s manufactured. It’s artificial. There’s nothing magical or extraordinary or super special about a president’s first 100 days in office. It’s a false start, a set-up for media applause or derogation, a meaningless measure when it comes to the real significance of a president’s term of office.
Turn on the news and what do you hear: “It’s now day 51 of the president’s first 100 days…. It’s now day 75 of the first 100 days in office…. We’re now only one week short of the president’s first 100 days in office!” Oh my! The Media refers to these first 100 days with such earnestness that it’s as if it were enchanted, hallowed time to be revered by all.
I for one am tired of this false artificially constructed measure of a President’s success or failure in office.
First of all, it puts ridiculous and unwarranted pressure on the president to show that he (or she) is productive and really getting things done. It can (and often does) lead to sloppy work due to rushed procedures in order to see quick results. And, for an office like the presidency, that’s a bad way to go about getting one’s business done.
Secondly, it is a poor measure for what really counts in the office and work of the presidency. Real time lasting change requires properly applied procedures with adequate processes, along with a substantial amount of patience. In other words, to produce anything of value usually requires a good amount of time. The first 100 days in office just won’t cut it for quality time with an aim toward quality results.
Thirdly, it’s myopic, that is, short-sighted in its perspective. It is probably safe to say that one cannot really measure the quality of the person holding the highest office in the nation until he or she is well into his or her 3rd year of office. Why is this? The first two years in office are essentially formative years, where the office is shaping the individual (as much if not more so than the individual is supposedly shaping the office). Indeed, most presidents who have had the opportunity to hold a second term in office will admit that they did not find their stride, come into the fullness of their office and position, until after they entered their second term of office.
For these reasons and more, the first 100 Days in office is a very poor indicator of how or what or how well the president is, was, or will be doing in office as president.
So I say to the Media, let it go. Stop using it as a marker or a handle to make or present the news of the presidency. It’s a gimmick. We don’t need gimmicks. We have enough of them already. Get real and keep it real. I don’t care about the first 100 days. I care about each and every day, week, and month, especially as they add up and become seasons and years and turn from one term into two terms.
Soon the so-called president’s auspices first 100 days in office will come and go, and it will mean little compared to the next three and half plus years he has left in office. Let’s focus on the big picture and not lose sight of what really counts as the days, months, and years add up. There’s a lot more to the presidency than the mere first 100 Days that the Media seems to be so focused on.
So what?”
What’s so important about the first 100 days? Why not the first 50 or 75 or 300?
If I remember my history well enough, it all started with F. D. Roosevelt. It was a good PR scheme on his part, and it stuck. It was his way of boasting about his accomplishments, boasting about how fast and quick, how constructive and productive he was in his, well, his first 100 days in office.
Apparently it’s a measure that’s been used ever since. “Mr. President,” reporters eagerly ask, “what have you, what will you, what do you plan to accomplish in your first 100 days in office?” “Oh, I’m so glad that you asked,” The President replies, “First I plan to do this, then I plan to do that; you’ll see, I’m going to change the world in my first 100 Days in office!” And I say, “Please!! Get real.”
Enough already! It’s manufactured. It’s artificial. There’s nothing magical or extraordinary or super special about a president’s first 100 days in office. It’s a false start, a set-up for media applause or derogation, a meaningless measure when it comes to the real significance of a president’s term of office.
Turn on the news and what do you hear: “It’s now day 51 of the president’s first 100 days…. It’s now day 75 of the first 100 days in office…. We’re now only one week short of the president’s first 100 days in office!” Oh my! The Media refers to these first 100 days with such earnestness that it’s as if it were enchanted, hallowed time to be revered by all.
I for one am tired of this false artificially constructed measure of a President’s success or failure in office.
First of all, it puts ridiculous and unwarranted pressure on the president to show that he (or she) is productive and really getting things done. It can (and often does) lead to sloppy work due to rushed procedures in order to see quick results. And, for an office like the presidency, that’s a bad way to go about getting one’s business done.
Secondly, it is a poor measure for what really counts in the office and work of the presidency. Real time lasting change requires properly applied procedures with adequate processes, along with a substantial amount of patience. In other words, to produce anything of value usually requires a good amount of time. The first 100 days in office just won’t cut it for quality time with an aim toward quality results.
Thirdly, it’s myopic, that is, short-sighted in its perspective. It is probably safe to say that one cannot really measure the quality of the person holding the highest office in the nation until he or she is well into his or her 3rd year of office. Why is this? The first two years in office are essentially formative years, where the office is shaping the individual (as much if not more so than the individual is supposedly shaping the office). Indeed, most presidents who have had the opportunity to hold a second term in office will admit that they did not find their stride, come into the fullness of their office and position, until after they entered their second term of office.
For these reasons and more, the first 100 Days in office is a very poor indicator of how or what or how well the president is, was, or will be doing in office as president.
So I say to the Media, let it go. Stop using it as a marker or a handle to make or present the news of the presidency. It’s a gimmick. We don’t need gimmicks. We have enough of them already. Get real and keep it real. I don’t care about the first 100 days. I care about each and every day, week, and month, especially as they add up and become seasons and years and turn from one term into two terms.
Soon the so-called president’s auspices first 100 days in office will come and go, and it will mean little compared to the next three and half plus years he has left in office. Let’s focus on the big picture and not lose sight of what really counts as the days, months, and years add up. There’s a lot more to the presidency than the mere first 100 Days that the Media seems to be so focused on.
Monday, April 10, 2017
Extreme Politics, Neither Side Wins in the END
Can we talk? Apparently not, it’s too risky. If I’m on one side and you’re on the other side of the political spectrum, it’s too explosive to talk about our differing views.
Why is that?
We don’t want to hear it. We don’t want to hear our side put down, nor do we want to hear anything good said about the opposing side.
We also don’t want to look dumb and stupid for the views that we hold or for believing what we believe. We don’t want to risk being out argued; fact is, we know what we know, believe what we believe, and that’s that!—no matter how good the other side may argue their point.
Another reason is that it’s just too emotionally draining. The other side makes us so angry, irritating us to no end. We wonder why they can’t see what we see. We’re frustrated at what appears to be nothing less than self-imposed blindness on their part, resulting in what we see as willful ignorance and stubborn stupidity. And so it is emotionally exhausting and taxes every ounce of whatever patience we may think we have.
Another reason is that we may literally lose friends and gain enemies because of our political differences. “Them there words are fighting words; take back what you said!” There are many on the right who can’t stand those on the left and vice-versa.
And finally, though not final, there is no room for and no respect for those in the middle, for those who may see the good as well as the bad of both sides of the political spectrum.
And that is a core problem for us. So for example, few people on the right are willing to see Hillary Clinton as anything less than a witch on a broomstick. And few people on the left are willing to see Donald Trump as anything less than a conceited egotistical trickster that would be laughable if not pitiable if he were not so dangerous, given his position.
We’ve lost the ability to respect people of opposing views. We resort to the total vilification of the opposing side. Furthermore, we no longer see the idea of “working together” as an honorable and valuable approach to partisan politics. We now consider such cooperation between opposing sides as weak and traitorous. We leave ourselves with no room for negotiation.
This can change. WE can change this. But we have to own that this is where we are and embrace the desire to do better than this.
Yet, I don’t see that happening. We are failing to keep this nation balanced and inclusive. We are unwilling to back down from our extreme positions and our extreme demands of the other. The way in which the Senate recently handled the Gorsuch nominee for the Supreme Court position is a blatant and sad example of this failure of ours.
And it is OUR failure, the failure of a nation and its people and the peoples’ representatives. We are sliding downward as a nation in the way we operate as a democracy. It will be years before we see and actually experience the consequences of this downward trend and its terrible effects upon this nation, but they will come. But for the present, we are just too full of ourselves to notice how badly we are actually behaving.
Why is that?
We don’t want to hear it. We don’t want to hear our side put down, nor do we want to hear anything good said about the opposing side.
We also don’t want to look dumb and stupid for the views that we hold or for believing what we believe. We don’t want to risk being out argued; fact is, we know what we know, believe what we believe, and that’s that!—no matter how good the other side may argue their point.
Another reason is that it’s just too emotionally draining. The other side makes us so angry, irritating us to no end. We wonder why they can’t see what we see. We’re frustrated at what appears to be nothing less than self-imposed blindness on their part, resulting in what we see as willful ignorance and stubborn stupidity. And so it is emotionally exhausting and taxes every ounce of whatever patience we may think we have.
Another reason is that we may literally lose friends and gain enemies because of our political differences. “Them there words are fighting words; take back what you said!” There are many on the right who can’t stand those on the left and vice-versa.
And finally, though not final, there is no room for and no respect for those in the middle, for those who may see the good as well as the bad of both sides of the political spectrum.
And that is a core problem for us. So for example, few people on the right are willing to see Hillary Clinton as anything less than a witch on a broomstick. And few people on the left are willing to see Donald Trump as anything less than a conceited egotistical trickster that would be laughable if not pitiable if he were not so dangerous, given his position.
We’ve lost the ability to respect people of opposing views. We resort to the total vilification of the opposing side. Furthermore, we no longer see the idea of “working together” as an honorable and valuable approach to partisan politics. We now consider such cooperation between opposing sides as weak and traitorous. We leave ourselves with no room for negotiation.
This can change. WE can change this. But we have to own that this is where we are and embrace the desire to do better than this.
Yet, I don’t see that happening. We are failing to keep this nation balanced and inclusive. We are unwilling to back down from our extreme positions and our extreme demands of the other. The way in which the Senate recently handled the Gorsuch nominee for the Supreme Court position is a blatant and sad example of this failure of ours.
And it is OUR failure, the failure of a nation and its people and the peoples’ representatives. We are sliding downward as a nation in the way we operate as a democracy. It will be years before we see and actually experience the consequences of this downward trend and its terrible effects upon this nation, but they will come. But for the present, we are just too full of ourselves to notice how badly we are actually behaving.
Monday, April 3, 2017
Behind Health Care Policies
What are the principles, values, and truths behind our health care policies?
Think this through carefully; for, when Republicans say that they want a market driven approach to health care coverage, what truth or value is ultimately being promoted? For example, a market-driven approach to medical coverage results in one immediate truth: only those who can afford health care will get it.
In any market driven economy there will always be the “haves” and the “have-nots.” It now becomes a question of principle. Are there things of which all people, regardless of economic status and/or the ability to pay for it, have a right to receive? So for example: Does everyone have a right to clean drinking water? It’s a simple straightforward question with a yes or no answer. But it’s more complicated than that, isn’t it?
If our answer to the above question is “no,” we are essentially supporting a market system for people’s access to clean drinking water, meaning that only those who can afford it have a right to receive it. That being the case, what we are saying is that only the financially well-off have a right to live—for who can live without access to clean drinking water.
This is the inherent flaw with the promotion of strict Capitalism and the total negation of any policy that we fear smacks of Socialism. In strict capitalism, private property rules the day; there is to be no public ownership for the good of all—no public water, no public land, and/or no public access to various other goods and services—such has medical services. In short, if you cannot afford it, you must go without it—even if the inevitable result of “going without it” is death.
Thankfully we do not live in a strict or absolute capitalistic society. My guess is that there is no country in the world that does. But there are many who believe that we here in the U.S. have swung over, or are in danger of swinging over, too far to the left and have in fact become too socialistic in our economic policies, citing our Social Security benefits as an example, like Medicare and Medicaid, which are commonly called “Entitlements.”
But what are these programs other than an acknowledgment that access to certain basic human resources cannot and should not be left to private means or personal affordability? Indeed, what good is our Constitutional right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness if one has no ability to obtain or is unable to afford access to basic foundational life-sustaining necessities such as pure drinking water, or minimal basic food items, or even clean breathable air?
Before “Obama Care,” our approach to health care basically said this: “If you can’t afford health coverage, you’re out of luck. So, if you’re deathly ill, too bad! Just roll over and die. And do it quickly, if you want to save your family money.” Obama Care tried to soften this a bit, but the underlying truth is still there: only those who can afford health care coverage have a right to receive proper medical help for illnesses so as to live longer and avoid death if at all possible.
This is the crux of the matter. Do we believe that all persons have a right to medical care, especially in life or death situations, or do we believe that only those who can afford it have this right—is it a privilege or a right?
What surprises me is that most Evangelical Christians support the Republican approach, which basically says that health care is a privilege for those who can afford it, not a communal right for all persons, poor or rich. That’s not the Jesus I know.
Think this through carefully; for, when Republicans say that they want a market driven approach to health care coverage, what truth or value is ultimately being promoted? For example, a market-driven approach to medical coverage results in one immediate truth: only those who can afford health care will get it.
In any market driven economy there will always be the “haves” and the “have-nots.” It now becomes a question of principle. Are there things of which all people, regardless of economic status and/or the ability to pay for it, have a right to receive? So for example: Does everyone have a right to clean drinking water? It’s a simple straightforward question with a yes or no answer. But it’s more complicated than that, isn’t it?
If our answer to the above question is “no,” we are essentially supporting a market system for people’s access to clean drinking water, meaning that only those who can afford it have a right to receive it. That being the case, what we are saying is that only the financially well-off have a right to live—for who can live without access to clean drinking water.
This is the inherent flaw with the promotion of strict Capitalism and the total negation of any policy that we fear smacks of Socialism. In strict capitalism, private property rules the day; there is to be no public ownership for the good of all—no public water, no public land, and/or no public access to various other goods and services—such has medical services. In short, if you cannot afford it, you must go without it—even if the inevitable result of “going without it” is death.
Thankfully we do not live in a strict or absolute capitalistic society. My guess is that there is no country in the world that does. But there are many who believe that we here in the U.S. have swung over, or are in danger of swinging over, too far to the left and have in fact become too socialistic in our economic policies, citing our Social Security benefits as an example, like Medicare and Medicaid, which are commonly called “Entitlements.”
But what are these programs other than an acknowledgment that access to certain basic human resources cannot and should not be left to private means or personal affordability? Indeed, what good is our Constitutional right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness if one has no ability to obtain or is unable to afford access to basic foundational life-sustaining necessities such as pure drinking water, or minimal basic food items, or even clean breathable air?
Before “Obama Care,” our approach to health care basically said this: “If you can’t afford health coverage, you’re out of luck. So, if you’re deathly ill, too bad! Just roll over and die. And do it quickly, if you want to save your family money.” Obama Care tried to soften this a bit, but the underlying truth is still there: only those who can afford health care coverage have a right to receive proper medical help for illnesses so as to live longer and avoid death if at all possible.
This is the crux of the matter. Do we believe that all persons have a right to medical care, especially in life or death situations, or do we believe that only those who can afford it have this right—is it a privilege or a right?
What surprises me is that most Evangelical Christians support the Republican approach, which basically says that health care is a privilege for those who can afford it, not a communal right for all persons, poor or rich. That’s not the Jesus I know.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Is Trump a GOOD Leader?
What makes a good “leader”? It’s a simple question, but can it be answered simply?
A good leader leads well. Okay, but that’s not saying much. We might then ask, what does it mean to lead well?
So, I offer a few sound principles around good leadership that might help us get a handle on what makes a good leader.
One: leaders are responsible for the people they lead. For example, they are responsible for the direction they are taking their followers, those being led. In other words a good leader leads in such a way that the wellbeing of his/her followers is a priority. Thus, a good leader is selfless: more concerned about the people and their needs than his/her own self interests. A good leader takes into account the overall welfare, health and safety and prosperity of the people—so that all that are affected by his/her leadership (or at least most) are able to thrive.
Two: a good leader is not only knowledgeable but wise and skillful in the application of that knowledge. Knowledge is one thing, but the wise use and application of knowledge is another thing altogether. Thus, a good leader is measured in his/her behavior and comments, and is insightful and discerning in his/her communication and understanding. Hence, a good leader helps his/her followers see and understand more clearly the necessity of certain actions and choices over others. Hence, a good leader not only inspires but also informs, instructs, and enlightens his/her followers. People are not left in the dark; neither are they left confused or puzzled or bewildered by what is being said or done. They are able to connect the dots and are able to see the wisdom of a leader’s actions and statements.
Three: a good leader is thus transparent, has integrity and is therefore trustworthy. A good leader communicates well and hides nothing, especially of great import. A good leader leaves no doubt and immediately clears up questionable action (or words). A good leader most certainly says what he means and means what he says. There is no double-speak. There is consistency in both action/behavior as well as in word and speech. And there is full ownership of contradictory words and actions with appropriate correction or re-alignment. Hence, a good leader unites, rather than divides, and extends confident assurances rather than spreads anxiety. Indeed, the words and actions of a good leader effectively results in peace and calmness within a people, rather than worrisome, troubling hearts and minds among the people.
These are just three good leadership traits. There are certainly more. I wonder, just using these three traits as a measure, how would you rate President Trump as a leader?
A good leader leads well. Okay, but that’s not saying much. We might then ask, what does it mean to lead well?
So, I offer a few sound principles around good leadership that might help us get a handle on what makes a good leader.
One: leaders are responsible for the people they lead. For example, they are responsible for the direction they are taking their followers, those being led. In other words a good leader leads in such a way that the wellbeing of his/her followers is a priority. Thus, a good leader is selfless: more concerned about the people and their needs than his/her own self interests. A good leader takes into account the overall welfare, health and safety and prosperity of the people—so that all that are affected by his/her leadership (or at least most) are able to thrive.
Two: a good leader is not only knowledgeable but wise and skillful in the application of that knowledge. Knowledge is one thing, but the wise use and application of knowledge is another thing altogether. Thus, a good leader is measured in his/her behavior and comments, and is insightful and discerning in his/her communication and understanding. Hence, a good leader helps his/her followers see and understand more clearly the necessity of certain actions and choices over others. Hence, a good leader not only inspires but also informs, instructs, and enlightens his/her followers. People are not left in the dark; neither are they left confused or puzzled or bewildered by what is being said or done. They are able to connect the dots and are able to see the wisdom of a leader’s actions and statements.
Three: a good leader is thus transparent, has integrity and is therefore trustworthy. A good leader communicates well and hides nothing, especially of great import. A good leader leaves no doubt and immediately clears up questionable action (or words). A good leader most certainly says what he means and means what he says. There is no double-speak. There is consistency in both action/behavior as well as in word and speech. And there is full ownership of contradictory words and actions with appropriate correction or re-alignment. Hence, a good leader unites, rather than divides, and extends confident assurances rather than spreads anxiety. Indeed, the words and actions of a good leader effectively results in peace and calmness within a people, rather than worrisome, troubling hearts and minds among the people.
These are just three good leadership traits. There are certainly more. I wonder, just using these three traits as a measure, how would you rate President Trump as a leader?
Monday, March 20, 2017
Trump Has No Evidence and Gives No Apology
To this day President Trump provides no real hard evidence that the previous president, Obama, “wiretapped” Trump at Trump Towers.
It would seem that Trump supporters believe Trump, taking him at his word, rather than accept the truth that it did not happen, given the lack of evidence after appropriate investigations have been made.
In short, President Trump is getting away with making unfounded serious and profound accusations against a previous president without political, social, or legal, consequence.
What’s next? Who’s next?
When the president of the United States of America can get away with making a baseless and outrageous accusation of this kind against a former president, we are in big trouble. Yet, few Republicans seem to own how serious this really is. Yes, this is serious!!
What’s worse is that, through his spokesman, Sean Spicer, Trump has now accused one of our greatest allies to be in cahoots with Obama in this so-called wiretapping scheme that Obama supposedly perpetrated against Trump. The scandal is getting worse, not better as time goes by!
This action cuts to the core as to what kind of man we presently have, holding the office of the presidency. At first, Spicer said, “The Tweet speaks for itself,” and it does! But then, Spicer/Trump saw the need to redefine and reinterpret what Trump really meant by his tweeted accusation. So now we are to assume that, no, the tweet actually does NOT speak for itself—it now needs, as I Love Lucy’s Ricky Ricardo use to say, “some esplaining.”
I’m a pastor. I know without a doubt that if I were to make a false accusation of this magnitude against another or former pastor I would be forthwith dismissed, let go! I would be held accountable for my unsubstantiated accusation including my poor choice of words. Minimally I’d most certainly be required to apologize, among other things. No doubt I could also be sued for libel in a court of law. Yet, here we are speaking of a man who holds the office of the President of the United States, and he’s getting away with it!! Is President Donald Trump above the law? NO, he is not!
And Trump hasn’t even completed his first 100 days in office yet!
Wake up people. Trump is dangerous, very dangerous. We’re heading for trouble. If we don’t hold him accountable now, we will greatly regret it later.
It would seem that Trump supporters believe Trump, taking him at his word, rather than accept the truth that it did not happen, given the lack of evidence after appropriate investigations have been made.
In short, President Trump is getting away with making unfounded serious and profound accusations against a previous president without political, social, or legal, consequence.
What’s next? Who’s next?
When the president of the United States of America can get away with making a baseless and outrageous accusation of this kind against a former president, we are in big trouble. Yet, few Republicans seem to own how serious this really is. Yes, this is serious!!
What’s worse is that, through his spokesman, Sean Spicer, Trump has now accused one of our greatest allies to be in cahoots with Obama in this so-called wiretapping scheme that Obama supposedly perpetrated against Trump. The scandal is getting worse, not better as time goes by!
This action cuts to the core as to what kind of man we presently have, holding the office of the presidency. At first, Spicer said, “The Tweet speaks for itself,” and it does! But then, Spicer/Trump saw the need to redefine and reinterpret what Trump really meant by his tweeted accusation. So now we are to assume that, no, the tweet actually does NOT speak for itself—it now needs, as I Love Lucy’s Ricky Ricardo use to say, “some esplaining.”
I’m a pastor. I know without a doubt that if I were to make a false accusation of this magnitude against another or former pastor I would be forthwith dismissed, let go! I would be held accountable for my unsubstantiated accusation including my poor choice of words. Minimally I’d most certainly be required to apologize, among other things. No doubt I could also be sued for libel in a court of law. Yet, here we are speaking of a man who holds the office of the President of the United States, and he’s getting away with it!! Is President Donald Trump above the law? NO, he is not!
And Trump hasn’t even completed his first 100 days in office yet!
Wake up people. Trump is dangerous, very dangerous. We’re heading for trouble. If we don’t hold him accountable now, we will greatly regret it later.
Monday, March 13, 2017
Health Care and Caring for our Sick and Weak
Do we care? How do we care, for the sick and the weak?
This is what our national health care system really touches upon.
Given our national attitude, it seems that we actually have little compassion and little care for the sick and weak among us—it’s more like “every man for himself.”
We know that the world can be harsh and unkind. People get sick, there are unexpected accidents and unanticipated illnesses that hit many families. That’s life.
So, the point is this: we are either in this together, as a national community, or we are not. If not, it is the wealthy that will stay healthy. And as to everyone else, it’s “Tough luck; that’s life!”
The greed of some resists the needs of the many. We tend to reserve available health care resources for only those that can afford it.
We seem to prefer an imbalance, inequality when it comes to who receives and who does not receive adequate, even basic, health care services.
All do not care for the sick, the weak, or the old (and the very young), that is left only to the few.
Thus, not all life is equally valued (consider how we treat nature and its creatures).
Contrast this to a Shabbat Prayer:
“And then all that has divided us will merge
Then compassion will be wedded to power
And then softness will come to a world that is harsh and unkind
And then both women and men will be gentle
And then both men and women will be strong
And then no person will be subject to another’s will
And then all will be rich and free and varied
And then greed of some will give way to the needs of many
Then all will share equally in the earth’s abundance
And then all will care for the sick and the weak and the old
And then all will nourish the young
And then all will cherish life’s creatures
And then all will live in harmony with each other and the environment
And then everywhere will be called Eden once again.”
This is what our national health care system really touches upon.
Given our national attitude, it seems that we actually have little compassion and little care for the sick and weak among us—it’s more like “every man for himself.”
We know that the world can be harsh and unkind. People get sick, there are unexpected accidents and unanticipated illnesses that hit many families. That’s life.
So, the point is this: we are either in this together, as a national community, or we are not. If not, it is the wealthy that will stay healthy. And as to everyone else, it’s “Tough luck; that’s life!”
The greed of some resists the needs of the many. We tend to reserve available health care resources for only those that can afford it.
We seem to prefer an imbalance, inequality when it comes to who receives and who does not receive adequate, even basic, health care services.
All do not care for the sick, the weak, or the old (and the very young), that is left only to the few.
Thus, not all life is equally valued (consider how we treat nature and its creatures).
Contrast this to a Shabbat Prayer:
“And then all that has divided us will merge
Then compassion will be wedded to power
And then softness will come to a world that is harsh and unkind
And then both women and men will be gentle
And then both men and women will be strong
And then no person will be subject to another’s will
And then all will be rich and free and varied
And then greed of some will give way to the needs of many
Then all will share equally in the earth’s abundance
And then all will care for the sick and the weak and the old
And then all will nourish the young
And then all will cherish life’s creatures
And then all will live in harmony with each other and the environment
And then everywhere will be called Eden once again.”
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Trump Versus Transparency
To be transparent is to be completely open and honest. It is a core characteristic of integrity, the assurance of trustworthiness. It is being sound and true.
Technically speaking, something that is transparent is best viewed when light shines through it, as for example a slide film.
And so, a transparent person is one who has nothing to hide and therefore has no fear of exposure.
Thus, by definition, a transparent person has no need to hide behind impenetrable walls of secrecy; no need to hide behind dark shadows of mystery and inscrutability. That is, to be transparent is not only to have nothing to hide, it is the willingness to deliberately step into the light of examination in order to be validated as authentic.
Now, the truth is, human nature being what it is, we all want and need our privacy. There is an old saying I’m sure you know: “everyone has a skeleton in the closet.” In short, everyone has something to hide, something of which they might be guilty of, would be embarrassed by, or ashamed of, should it be exposed. (In the Christian worldview it stems from our sinful nature.)
It is for this reason we humans have wisely learned to apply such principles—best summed up by such phrases as “being held accountable,” or “submitting to checks and balances,” or “the avoidance of conflict of interest,” or “reigning in the abuse of power,” or “trust but verify,” and so-on and so-forth—in the conduct of our social relationships. That is to say: we humans cannot be inherently trusted without the application of an external means of verification and validation. It’s just the way it is; the way we are.
No one likes to be taken as a fool, to be bamboozled, lied to, cheated, taken advantage of, short-changed, used and manipulated, left in the dark, seen as an easy take, or to be treated as just plain ole stupid and gullible. This would be true not only in our personal and family relationships but in our social and political relationships as well. All human relationships require a certain amount of trust; even a network of thieves working together need to trust each other. This is why an independent means of validation and verification of one’s truthfulness and authenticity is often so important—as in “trust but verify!”
In comes Donald Trump. He is the first president in modern history to consistently and deliberately and openly side-step and avoid independent scrutiny and verification. He won’t reveal his tax statements. He maintains ownership and therefore inherent conflict of interest in terms of his business engagements. He stonewalls the media if they probe and examine or question his words and actions in light of conflicting facts and evidence to the contrary, and so-on and so-forth.
In short, Donald Trump is anything but transparent!
In crucial areas, areas of concern and of great consequence, Trump tends to hide under a cloak of darkness, behind shadows of mystery and inscrutability, skillfully and adroitly dodging the actual light of accountability in critical aspects of his presidency.
What is worrisome is that we, the American people, are letting him get away with it!
It will be to our detriment.
The longer we let him get away with this, the more troublesome and damaging will be the consequences to all Americans.
Mark my words! There will be a day when we, all Americans, will greatly regret ever having elected him as president of the United States of America. It is only a matter of time. However long or however short that time may be in coming; that time will come. For the light of truth always has a way of breaking through the darkness and becoming transparent.
Technically speaking, something that is transparent is best viewed when light shines through it, as for example a slide film.
And so, a transparent person is one who has nothing to hide and therefore has no fear of exposure.
Thus, by definition, a transparent person has no need to hide behind impenetrable walls of secrecy; no need to hide behind dark shadows of mystery and inscrutability. That is, to be transparent is not only to have nothing to hide, it is the willingness to deliberately step into the light of examination in order to be validated as authentic.
Now, the truth is, human nature being what it is, we all want and need our privacy. There is an old saying I’m sure you know: “everyone has a skeleton in the closet.” In short, everyone has something to hide, something of which they might be guilty of, would be embarrassed by, or ashamed of, should it be exposed. (In the Christian worldview it stems from our sinful nature.)
It is for this reason we humans have wisely learned to apply such principles—best summed up by such phrases as “being held accountable,” or “submitting to checks and balances,” or “the avoidance of conflict of interest,” or “reigning in the abuse of power,” or “trust but verify,” and so-on and so-forth—in the conduct of our social relationships. That is to say: we humans cannot be inherently trusted without the application of an external means of verification and validation. It’s just the way it is; the way we are.
No one likes to be taken as a fool, to be bamboozled, lied to, cheated, taken advantage of, short-changed, used and manipulated, left in the dark, seen as an easy take, or to be treated as just plain ole stupid and gullible. This would be true not only in our personal and family relationships but in our social and political relationships as well. All human relationships require a certain amount of trust; even a network of thieves working together need to trust each other. This is why an independent means of validation and verification of one’s truthfulness and authenticity is often so important—as in “trust but verify!”
In comes Donald Trump. He is the first president in modern history to consistently and deliberately and openly side-step and avoid independent scrutiny and verification. He won’t reveal his tax statements. He maintains ownership and therefore inherent conflict of interest in terms of his business engagements. He stonewalls the media if they probe and examine or question his words and actions in light of conflicting facts and evidence to the contrary, and so-on and so-forth.
In short, Donald Trump is anything but transparent!
In crucial areas, areas of concern and of great consequence, Trump tends to hide under a cloak of darkness, behind shadows of mystery and inscrutability, skillfully and adroitly dodging the actual light of accountability in critical aspects of his presidency.
What is worrisome is that we, the American people, are letting him get away with it!
It will be to our detriment.
The longer we let him get away with this, the more troublesome and damaging will be the consequences to all Americans.
Mark my words! There will be a day when we, all Americans, will greatly regret ever having elected him as president of the United States of America. It is only a matter of time. However long or however short that time may be in coming; that time will come. For the light of truth always has a way of breaking through the darkness and becoming transparent.
Monday, February 20, 2017
Trump Complains about Media’s "Tone"
Did you hear Trump complain about the Media’s “tone”?
Trump complained about the Media being mean and vicious toward him. “I’m a nice guy,” he says. Asking why they are so mean spirited toward him.
Wait! This is the guy who regularly called Hilary, “Crooked Hilary.” This is the guy who referred to the “so-called Judge” in reaction to the Judge who ruled against his ban against travelers from 7 selected Middle Eastern nations. This is the same guy who viciously and publically attacks and questions the moral character or the believability or the intelligence and/or the integrity of anyone that opposes him or questions his own veracity.
If anyone has had demonstrative negative mean-spirited “tone” toward others in the public forum, it’s Donald Trump!
Trump has attitude. And I do not mean this in a good way. As I see him, he is like a spoiled child who, when things do not go his way, he throws a fit. He whines and pouts and throws temper tantrums—in an adult way, of course. He goes on the attack, belittling and blaming his adversaries and detractors, basically saying that all the bad things that are happening around him are either outright lies or have nothing to do with him and everything to do with his critics and opponents. Yet, he speaks of the ill-tone from the Media, asserting that he’s Mr. Nice Guy.
Have you heard of the Psychological term, “projection”? “Projection” is when a person accuses others of having the very tendencies or behavior or attitude or feelings that the person him/herself actually has deep within him or herself—though unacknowledged or disowned. That is, the subject tends to displace negative thoughts (or feelings, actions, and attitudes) onto others, externalizing on to others what is really going on within one’s own inner self.
So, for example, a common form of projection is when someone (like Trump) accuses others of having very angry feelings toward him, when in fact the hostility and anger is originating from within the subject (Trump) himself.
Thus, Trump accuses the Media of exuding hateful and hurtful, mean-spirited “tone” toward him. But in actuality, it is Trump himself who seems to have initially harbored hateful, mean-spirited, and hostile “tone” toward others—against the Media, against the Judiciary, against Congressional Reps, against the Intelligence Agency, and so-on and so forth.
Hence, Trump is an expert in playing the blame game, painting himself as the innocent victim while pointing to his detractors as perpetrators of evil against him, as people who are intent at taking him down: “It’s not me; it’s them!” “I’m the good guy here; they’re the bad guys.” “I’m innocent, they are the guilty ones.” “I love everyone; why they hate me so much, I don’t know!” and so-on and so-forth.
What’s so sad about all this is that Trump-supporters really do believe that he is the innocent victim here (in his opposition to the Media, for example). They don’t see him as he really is. Like Trump, they are ready and willing to denounce others in the name of truth and integrity or justice and fair play, regardless of actual facts as presented by real and concrete evidence that contradict Trump’s assertions. Trump is being given great latitude and freedom to make striking falsehoods, while everyone else is held to exact account for the slightest error in statement or reporting. It is a case of willful blindness in behalf of Trump.
It is in fact the greatest weakness of a democracy—the blindness and gullibility of the masses that are willing to be led by a demagogue who promises to deliver peace and prosperity for all rightful citizens, which, in the long run, usually results in great loss with much agony for all.
Trump complained about the Media being mean and vicious toward him. “I’m a nice guy,” he says. Asking why they are so mean spirited toward him.
Wait! This is the guy who regularly called Hilary, “Crooked Hilary.” This is the guy who referred to the “so-called Judge” in reaction to the Judge who ruled against his ban against travelers from 7 selected Middle Eastern nations. This is the same guy who viciously and publically attacks and questions the moral character or the believability or the intelligence and/or the integrity of anyone that opposes him or questions his own veracity.
If anyone has had demonstrative negative mean-spirited “tone” toward others in the public forum, it’s Donald Trump!
Trump has attitude. And I do not mean this in a good way. As I see him, he is like a spoiled child who, when things do not go his way, he throws a fit. He whines and pouts and throws temper tantrums—in an adult way, of course. He goes on the attack, belittling and blaming his adversaries and detractors, basically saying that all the bad things that are happening around him are either outright lies or have nothing to do with him and everything to do with his critics and opponents. Yet, he speaks of the ill-tone from the Media, asserting that he’s Mr. Nice Guy.
Have you heard of the Psychological term, “projection”? “Projection” is when a person accuses others of having the very tendencies or behavior or attitude or feelings that the person him/herself actually has deep within him or herself—though unacknowledged or disowned. That is, the subject tends to displace negative thoughts (or feelings, actions, and attitudes) onto others, externalizing on to others what is really going on within one’s own inner self.
So, for example, a common form of projection is when someone (like Trump) accuses others of having very angry feelings toward him, when in fact the hostility and anger is originating from within the subject (Trump) himself.
Thus, Trump accuses the Media of exuding hateful and hurtful, mean-spirited “tone” toward him. But in actuality, it is Trump himself who seems to have initially harbored hateful, mean-spirited, and hostile “tone” toward others—against the Media, against the Judiciary, against Congressional Reps, against the Intelligence Agency, and so-on and so forth.
Hence, Trump is an expert in playing the blame game, painting himself as the innocent victim while pointing to his detractors as perpetrators of evil against him, as people who are intent at taking him down: “It’s not me; it’s them!” “I’m the good guy here; they’re the bad guys.” “I’m innocent, they are the guilty ones.” “I love everyone; why they hate me so much, I don’t know!” and so-on and so-forth.
What’s so sad about all this is that Trump-supporters really do believe that he is the innocent victim here (in his opposition to the Media, for example). They don’t see him as he really is. Like Trump, they are ready and willing to denounce others in the name of truth and integrity or justice and fair play, regardless of actual facts as presented by real and concrete evidence that contradict Trump’s assertions. Trump is being given great latitude and freedom to make striking falsehoods, while everyone else is held to exact account for the slightest error in statement or reporting. It is a case of willful blindness in behalf of Trump.
It is in fact the greatest weakness of a democracy—the blindness and gullibility of the masses that are willing to be led by a demagogue who promises to deliver peace and prosperity for all rightful citizens, which, in the long run, usually results in great loss with much agony for all.
Monday, February 13, 2017
The Pervasiveness of Trump Politics: All This or All That
Donald Trump’s administration is giving the news media a lot to talk about.
Perhaps that’s an understatement.
But what is amazing to me is how far the leading party members will go to defend their party leaders—for example, the tenacious way they choose to avoid the hard questions put to them by news reporters, regarding the many questionable dynamics going on in the present administration (such as misspoken confusing or contradictory words & messages to actual questionable behavior by cabinet members). Instead of answering hard questions, I watch them pivoting and redirecting rather than owning and responding to all that is going on in this administration.
I’ve always heard that “politics is dirty.” I’ve heard that sentiment since I was a child. Yet, I’ve always resisted accepting this sentiment at face value, believing that it doesn’t have to be that way. I find myself not able to resist anymore.
I now feel that I must agree: Yes, politics is dirty. (“Dirty”: dishonest and conniving, lacking in integrity, manipulative, twisted and perverse and abusive in its exercise of power and authority, self-serving, and so on.)
All I see in today’s political arena is this:
One must see one’s own favored party, along with its leaders, as always in the right; that is, it (the party) and they (party leaders) can do no wrong. They have the purest of motives, are altruistic at heart, and basically all around wonderful honest and trustworthy people. Hence, one’s own party’s leaders should exercise all their power and authority to assert (dictate) the party’s preferences, values, and agenda, irrespective of the opposing party.
And, if mistakes are made by one’s favored party leaders (from the President on down), one must see it as the result of innocent shortcomings fraught with good intentions and therefore conclude that they are nevertheless above reproach. Thus, their response, when party leaders are asked to give an account for their questionable words and/or actions, should therefore be one of spin, pivot and redirection, outright avoidance, and/or blaming of the opposing party and the Media. In other words, there should be no admittance of wrongdoing of any kind, ever!
By the same token, one should also assume that the opposing party and its leaders are always wrong, lack legitimacy, are un-patriotic in spirit and behavior, have false selfish and egotistical motives, and can do no right. In short, one must believe that the opposing party and its leaders are harmful to the nation’s welfare and therefore must never have a part or voice in influencing national policy. It’s as simple as that.
This is what we have come to. Yes, it’s now that black and white. How SAD!
Perhaps that’s an understatement.
But what is amazing to me is how far the leading party members will go to defend their party leaders—for example, the tenacious way they choose to avoid the hard questions put to them by news reporters, regarding the many questionable dynamics going on in the present administration (such as misspoken confusing or contradictory words & messages to actual questionable behavior by cabinet members). Instead of answering hard questions, I watch them pivoting and redirecting rather than owning and responding to all that is going on in this administration.
I’ve always heard that “politics is dirty.” I’ve heard that sentiment since I was a child. Yet, I’ve always resisted accepting this sentiment at face value, believing that it doesn’t have to be that way. I find myself not able to resist anymore.
I now feel that I must agree: Yes, politics is dirty. (“Dirty”: dishonest and conniving, lacking in integrity, manipulative, twisted and perverse and abusive in its exercise of power and authority, self-serving, and so on.)
All I see in today’s political arena is this:
One must see one’s own favored party, along with its leaders, as always in the right; that is, it (the party) and they (party leaders) can do no wrong. They have the purest of motives, are altruistic at heart, and basically all around wonderful honest and trustworthy people. Hence, one’s own party’s leaders should exercise all their power and authority to assert (dictate) the party’s preferences, values, and agenda, irrespective of the opposing party.
And, if mistakes are made by one’s favored party leaders (from the President on down), one must see it as the result of innocent shortcomings fraught with good intentions and therefore conclude that they are nevertheless above reproach. Thus, their response, when party leaders are asked to give an account for their questionable words and/or actions, should therefore be one of spin, pivot and redirection, outright avoidance, and/or blaming of the opposing party and the Media. In other words, there should be no admittance of wrongdoing of any kind, ever!
By the same token, one should also assume that the opposing party and its leaders are always wrong, lack legitimacy, are un-patriotic in spirit and behavior, have false selfish and egotistical motives, and can do no right. In short, one must believe that the opposing party and its leaders are harmful to the nation’s welfare and therefore must never have a part or voice in influencing national policy. It’s as simple as that.
This is what we have come to. Yes, it’s now that black and white. How SAD!
Monday, February 6, 2017
Let’s Not Underestimate Trump
Trump has been called insecure, thin skinned, and ignorant. This is a mistake. For it underestimates his ability to make calculated maneuvers in his favor.
Trump is a shrewd propagandist. He knows how to use and manipulate the Media.
This is why he twitters as much as he does, and why he is so ready to present his own “alternative facts” by “correcting” mainstream media’s presentation of “truth.”
It is not that he is insecure. For, if he were truly an insecure person, he most likely would never have gotten as far as he has in both the business arena as well as in the political arena.
I say that Trump is very certain of himself (though foolishly so), and that he knows exactly what he is doing. That is, his words and actions have nothing to do with personal insecurities.
We therefore can’t afford to underestimate him, as for example by dismissing his battle with the Media as a product of personal insecurities or self-imposed uninformed ignorance.
And that’s precisely the point: Trump is smarter than the Media pundits give him credit for. And so, thus far, Trump is getting what he wants and the powers that be readily give him what he asks for precisely because they fear political reprisals from his base supporters; for his base supporters fully buy into Trumps depiction of Reality.
Perception is everything and Trump functions with that principle in mind.
So, NO, Trump is not a naïve simpleton, who is insecure and thin-skinned.
He is shrewd and manipulative.
Trump knows how to influence and control his supporters’ perception. He defines their perspective, creates their vantage point, and draws their conclusions for them; that is to say that Trump’s depiction of “reality” is his supporters’ given reality. The way Trump sees things is the way his followers see things. It’s as simple as that.
On that score, Trump is ahead of the game and is far out smarting mainstream Media’s attempt to “keep it real.”
Trump is a shrewd propagandist. He knows how to use and manipulate the Media.
This is why he twitters as much as he does, and why he is so ready to present his own “alternative facts” by “correcting” mainstream media’s presentation of “truth.”
It is not that he is insecure. For, if he were truly an insecure person, he most likely would never have gotten as far as he has in both the business arena as well as in the political arena.
I say that Trump is very certain of himself (though foolishly so), and that he knows exactly what he is doing. That is, his words and actions have nothing to do with personal insecurities.
We therefore can’t afford to underestimate him, as for example by dismissing his battle with the Media as a product of personal insecurities or self-imposed uninformed ignorance.
And that’s precisely the point: Trump is smarter than the Media pundits give him credit for. And so, thus far, Trump is getting what he wants and the powers that be readily give him what he asks for precisely because they fear political reprisals from his base supporters; for his base supporters fully buy into Trumps depiction of Reality.
Perception is everything and Trump functions with that principle in mind.
So, NO, Trump is not a naïve simpleton, who is insecure and thin-skinned.
He is shrewd and manipulative.
Trump knows how to influence and control his supporters’ perception. He defines their perspective, creates their vantage point, and draws their conclusions for them; that is to say that Trump’s depiction of “reality” is his supporters’ given reality. The way Trump sees things is the way his followers see things. It’s as simple as that.
On that score, Trump is ahead of the game and is far out smarting mainstream Media’s attempt to “keep it real.”
Monday, January 30, 2017
Facts are Facts, There can be No Trump Alternatives
Truth is truth and facts are facts; there are no alternative Realities from which to choose.
“Fact” (according to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition): “A thing done; the quality of being actual—actuality; something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence, a piece of information presented as having objective reality [my emphasis].”
There may be a set of facts, and there may be more facts or less facts known with respect to a given objective reality, event, action, deed, object, or subject. However, there can be no “alternative” facts! We do not live in a world where we can freely move in and out, between two alternative realities; that is purely imaginative sci-fi.
For example, it cannot be said as a fact that I was in the city of Philadelphia at a certain time of day, on a certain day of the week, at a given month of the year AND “alternatively” that I was also in the city of New York on that same particular day, in that same exact hour, at the same month of the year. The fact is that one of those so-called “facts” of my whereabouts at that moment of time is false; for I cannot be at two places at one and the same time. Two contradictory statements of facts cannot both be true; not even “alternatively” true.
Of course, facts must be interpreted. And thus, interpretations of a given set of facts will vary. Likewise, interpreted facts must often be responded to; and thus, disagreements are sure to arise as to how one should react or respond to a given set of facts. Nevertheless, the surety of a factual reality does not change according to perspective or interpretation. Either a fact is a fact or it is not. That is, we are not free to create, design, imagine, or construct our own facts to suit our own desired interpretations, reactions, or outcomes.
Truth matters! We make major and minor decisions every day based on our understanding and knowledge of what is factually true. For example, it is either true or not true that we have sufficient funds in our bank account to cover a purchase with a debit card. If the bank properly demonstrates to us that we do NOT have the money to make that purchase, there is no alternative truth to which we may turn to as a way of arguing that we DO have the money in the bank. The money is there or it is not there; it’s as simple as that.
Granted, there are truths or facts that are questionable and debatable. For example, either Jesus rose from the dead or he dead not. There are those who say Jesus did rise from the dead and claim to be eye-witnesses to that “fact.” Furthermore, they were willing to go to their death for making that claim. That’s powerful stuff! Still, there were also those who chose not to accept the testimony of these eye-witnesses. Hence, to this day we have those who believe that Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is true and factual in contrast to those who believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a mere fantasy at best and has no bases in factual reality.
The interesting thing about this is that there are great and possibly severe consequences that are contingent upon which case is actually true. If it turns out that Jesus really did “in fact” rise from the dead, it behooves humanity to take a serious look at what Jesus did, said, and taught. On the other hand, if Jesus in fact did not rise from the dead, much of Christianity’s teachings about God and the life hereafter can be and should be greatly ignored.
Point being: even when we disagree as to whether something (a word, deed, object) is actually and factually true or not true—it matters. That is, it has serious consequences—as to whether or not we are perceiving reality in truth or whether we are perceiving reality incorrectly and therefore falsely. Think about the simple act of driving your car on the highway and not being able to see reality for what it is on the road—my guess is that, if you are not getting your traffic facts right, you won’t be driving for very long.
Reality bites!
Reality has a way of crashing down on us, especially if we choose to ignore it or try altering it for our own purposes (called “being in denial”).
We need truth, factual truth, in order to rightly thrive and prosper.
This is why it is so dangerous to allow anyone to get away with lying to us (no matter how small the lie may seem)—especially those who are in power and have great influence over others.
So let us not accept this nonsense about “alternative facts”! Truth is truth, facts are facts. Let us stick to the truth and nothing but the truth, and demand that our nation’s leaders do the same. We will all be a lot better off for it.
“Fact” (according to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition): “A thing done; the quality of being actual—actuality; something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence, a piece of information presented as having objective reality [my emphasis].”
There may be a set of facts, and there may be more facts or less facts known with respect to a given objective reality, event, action, deed, object, or subject. However, there can be no “alternative” facts! We do not live in a world where we can freely move in and out, between two alternative realities; that is purely imaginative sci-fi.
For example, it cannot be said as a fact that I was in the city of Philadelphia at a certain time of day, on a certain day of the week, at a given month of the year AND “alternatively” that I was also in the city of New York on that same particular day, in that same exact hour, at the same month of the year. The fact is that one of those so-called “facts” of my whereabouts at that moment of time is false; for I cannot be at two places at one and the same time. Two contradictory statements of facts cannot both be true; not even “alternatively” true.
Of course, facts must be interpreted. And thus, interpretations of a given set of facts will vary. Likewise, interpreted facts must often be responded to; and thus, disagreements are sure to arise as to how one should react or respond to a given set of facts. Nevertheless, the surety of a factual reality does not change according to perspective or interpretation. Either a fact is a fact or it is not. That is, we are not free to create, design, imagine, or construct our own facts to suit our own desired interpretations, reactions, or outcomes.
Truth matters! We make major and minor decisions every day based on our understanding and knowledge of what is factually true. For example, it is either true or not true that we have sufficient funds in our bank account to cover a purchase with a debit card. If the bank properly demonstrates to us that we do NOT have the money to make that purchase, there is no alternative truth to which we may turn to as a way of arguing that we DO have the money in the bank. The money is there or it is not there; it’s as simple as that.
Granted, there are truths or facts that are questionable and debatable. For example, either Jesus rose from the dead or he dead not. There are those who say Jesus did rise from the dead and claim to be eye-witnesses to that “fact.” Furthermore, they were willing to go to their death for making that claim. That’s powerful stuff! Still, there were also those who chose not to accept the testimony of these eye-witnesses. Hence, to this day we have those who believe that Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is true and factual in contrast to those who believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a mere fantasy at best and has no bases in factual reality.
The interesting thing about this is that there are great and possibly severe consequences that are contingent upon which case is actually true. If it turns out that Jesus really did “in fact” rise from the dead, it behooves humanity to take a serious look at what Jesus did, said, and taught. On the other hand, if Jesus in fact did not rise from the dead, much of Christianity’s teachings about God and the life hereafter can be and should be greatly ignored.
Point being: even when we disagree as to whether something (a word, deed, object) is actually and factually true or not true—it matters. That is, it has serious consequences—as to whether or not we are perceiving reality in truth or whether we are perceiving reality incorrectly and therefore falsely. Think about the simple act of driving your car on the highway and not being able to see reality for what it is on the road—my guess is that, if you are not getting your traffic facts right, you won’t be driving for very long.
Reality bites!
Reality has a way of crashing down on us, especially if we choose to ignore it or try altering it for our own purposes (called “being in denial”).
We need truth, factual truth, in order to rightly thrive and prosper.
This is why it is so dangerous to allow anyone to get away with lying to us (no matter how small the lie may seem)—especially those who are in power and have great influence over others.
So let us not accept this nonsense about “alternative facts”! Truth is truth, facts are facts. Let us stick to the truth and nothing but the truth, and demand that our nation’s leaders do the same. We will all be a lot better off for it.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Trump’s MO
As an observer as to how Trump operates, this is what I see.
He’s more like a dictator in attitude and spirit.
He’s more interested in image and appearance than actual substance of truth and reality. And so, he will exaggerate, speak in hyperbole, and outright lie in order to maintain a certain image, imposing upon his audience his particular tailor-made slant and perspective on reality—no matter how unreal it may actually be. He will thus also retaliate and bully anyone who makes him look bad, even if the cause or source of making him look bad was of his own doing. That is, he hates to be “called out” and shown to be wrong or in error.
He never says what he means or means what he says. His constant off-the-cuff remarks leave people guessing, especially on delicate and fine nuanced issues. He likes it that way. He doesn’t like to be pinned down.
He denies and obfuscates anything he disagrees with, twists, bends, and shades the truth with innuendo, outright denial, boldfaced lying, and subtle redirection to make people question what was thought to be obvious and undeniably true.
He lies all the time, yet constantly calls everyone else liars when they speak truth that he dislikes and doesn’t want to hear or accept.
Thus, I believe that he is a dangerous man to be holding the highest office in the nation.
He’s more like a dictator in attitude and spirit.
He’s more interested in image and appearance than actual substance of truth and reality. And so, he will exaggerate, speak in hyperbole, and outright lie in order to maintain a certain image, imposing upon his audience his particular tailor-made slant and perspective on reality—no matter how unreal it may actually be. He will thus also retaliate and bully anyone who makes him look bad, even if the cause or source of making him look bad was of his own doing. That is, he hates to be “called out” and shown to be wrong or in error.
He never says what he means or means what he says. His constant off-the-cuff remarks leave people guessing, especially on delicate and fine nuanced issues. He likes it that way. He doesn’t like to be pinned down.
He denies and obfuscates anything he disagrees with, twists, bends, and shades the truth with innuendo, outright denial, boldfaced lying, and subtle redirection to make people question what was thought to be obvious and undeniably true.
He lies all the time, yet constantly calls everyone else liars when they speak truth that he dislikes and doesn’t want to hear or accept.
Thus, I believe that he is a dangerous man to be holding the highest office in the nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)