Is there room in America for Moderates?

 Is there room in America for Moderates?

People say that the United States of America has never been this politically divided. I am not sure if that is a true statement or not. It certainly feels that way, but we have a collective short term memory and have a hard time keeping long spans of time in perspective. I am thinking that before the civil war, American politics might have been a little more divisive than it is now. It does seem that politicians go "all in" and use the "nuclear option" more often than they should. Why do things feel this way? Why do politicians feel they need to respond so over-the-top all the time? Is it possible to regain the middle ground and to have civil discussion and respectful politicians? 

 

How did we get into this situation?

I think this current situation came about through a perfect storm of career politicians coming to the end of their careers, growing social media influence, and the advent of "Troll Nation."

As the "Baby Boom" generation moves towards retirement, even in politics, they are uncertain about the future and are needing to trust their kids or grandkids with taking the lead. It seems many of the leading politicians, whom are overwhelmingly Baby Boomers, are taking extreme positions in order to hold power just a little longer. A lifetime of politics has made them experts in radicalizing their opponents in the eyes of their audiences.

A large contributing factor is the blatant use of the "Strawman Argument." The Strawman Argument is when someone creates a caricature of their opponent's ideas and then argues against the caricature, rather than the actual ideas of the actual opponent. Often the caricature is the worst possible version of the opponent's ideology. This is a very dismissive and misleading tactic. It forces everyone into a false dichotomy of Right vs Left where Right and Left are extreme positions. This leaves no room for moderates.

We see this used a lot in the media, not the "News" or "journalism," but in talk media and opinion media. So, raises another issue. We have confused "media" with "news." Journalism, which leads to good news stories, is used to be about gathering facts for creating a narrative. The "news story" has devolved into opinion pieces, and the media has become a rating-seeking 24/7 hype-fest. Two ways to pump the rating are Strawman and ad hominem arguments. Of course, the king/queen of ad hominem attacks are the internet trolls. We have all seen them and even at times, have possibly even become one.

 

Troll Nation is not a place, but rather a state of mind which exists in the world of social media. Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) is a relatively new platform for sharing information and ideas. With the ability for instant commenting and dialogue, it often brings out the worst in people. Not only does it lead to opportunities of miscommunication, but also for Trolls to wade in on the attack. Sometimes it is hard to tell when someone is just lacking in understanding or being an intentional troll.

 

It seems we, as a society have devolved into a state of "Talking, not listening." "News Media" wants/needs the rating so they just talk, talk, talk, talk. Politicians want the spot light so they just talk, talk, talk. Even "we the people" want to be heard through protest marches and social media so we just talk, talk, talk. 

 

What can we do?

Thanksgiving is just a few days away. Typically holiday time is family time. Of course this year may be different. Every family seems to have that one aunt, or cousin, or grandfather who really likes to stir the pot and cause drama. They know all the hot topic buttons to bring up and send the family into a chaotic swirl or argument and name calling. The rest of the family tries really hard to stay away from those topics and not be lead into arguments by the family troll. These family trolls are the ones who are not invited to the lesser family gatherings, but you know they will show up at the holiday events and so you guard yourself for conflict, stay one room away, and try to keep quiet for as long as possible. This analogy really sounds like America right now. We try hard to get along, but some people just can't seem to drop it.

 

Can Common Ground exist?

Should we table some topics until we can take a collective breath?

Sure it is on me to not respond to the trolls out there, and it is on me to not be a troll to others. Is that enough? Can we find some topics, maybe like foreign policy or taxation rates, which we can have a civil discussion about? It seems like we are so used to going to the "us versus them," or the "scorched earth" mentality that we don’t even have room to listen. How can we progress if we cannot listen long enough to understand where they are coming from?

I would really like to be seen as a moderate. I believe I am a moderate. But my friends and family on the right push me to the left, because they do not take the time to listen and understand. My friends and family on the left push me to the right, because they do not take the time to listen and understand. I am sure I do the same thing with them. So, I know I need to be willing to listen as they speak and search out common ground, and not go on the attack.

 

Curious how to move out of impulsiveness & into educated replies?

Here are a few helpful tips:

1. Stop watching the news and start reading it instead.

News outlets which are 24/7 are full of hype and it is easy to get lost in the noise and excitement of their rating games. I have found that reading the news helps me to see through the false statements easier and to concentrate on the facts clearer. If I watch the news, it is the local news which focuses time and research on local events, which is informative. This allows me to have a more educated response with local events.  

 

2. Listen before you speak

Ask questions and allow the other person to speak. As they speak, don’t use that time to formulate your arguments, but spend that time listening to understand. When they are done with their stance, then you can have your turn to speak.

 

3. If you must post a comment, wait and don’t post in the moment.

Social media is an interesting beast. We can get instant gratification from it, which can become an addiction. If you read a post and it triggers you, don't go for the instant gratification. Spend some time reflecting upon why you were triggered, if it is worth commenting on, or if you are just trolling. If, after some time for reflection you feel you must comment, then write out a well thought-out comment and read it over a few times to check for errors. Then post it.

 

Conclusion

I do believe many of us share common ground, but have been pushed to the fringes through some of the actions mentioned above. If we can learn to be civil and allow the other person to define themselves and their positions, we will see that most of us are moderates, or at least share some common values. Once we can establish some common ground, then we have a place to start. Like at the family Thanksgiving, where everyone can agree the turkey was dry, but the pie was delicious!

Freedom 

40x30, 2019

Available for purchase

Details from Freedom. 

Freedom is a ready to hang oil painting exploring spiritual freedom. Here we are bursting out of the religious chains which hold us back and prevent us from soaring into the heavens. Spiritual but not religious means that we are not bound by dogma or tradition but free to explore beyond the confines of "religion" and find something new, something freeing, something deeply meaningful. We may find that in the depths of dogma or tradition, not because someone told us to, but because that is where our heart met spirit.

Aspens in the Dark, Acrylic on canvas

Aspens in the Dark, Acrylic on Canvas 18x24, not available

Trees have always held symbolic power for me. While painting the series "Through the Leaves" I wanted to explore the many different ways trees effect us. Through the acrylic pour techniques I used I was able to capture the full range from spring budding and blooming to the autumn changing of colors. This painting is Aspens in the Dark. 

 Aspens remind me of the mountains, especially the mountains of Idaho where I spent many years. In the summer the cool breeze would make the Aspen leaves "quake" gently. The flipping from light green to dark green and back again as each side of the leaf would flash in the light was always very calming. 

But Aspens in the fall where pure delight. Those dashes of yellows and oranges mixed in a hillside of every green pines. They would glow in the early morning dawn and look like tongues of fire on the mountain side with the setting of the sun. 

21st Century America

How did we get into this state of unrest? What the hell is going on?

We are not standing in a new place in history. 21st century America is just like 19th century America.

What we see going on around us is the same struggles that have been going on for centuries. These struggles stem from two roots and are so intertwine as to form one hulking tree of oppression. This massive tree overshadows everything that happens in western society, and possibly the world. The two roots are Capitalism and Police as paramilitary organizations.

The first root is Capitalism.

Capitalism is an adequate system. It certainly has its advantages over other system of economics and production. But it has inherent problems which actively work against it. The two largest problems are excess and inequality. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Defenders of the status quo like to point to outliers of this as seen by a rich person falling from grace and becoming poor or the underprivileged rising above it all to making it big, these are the scarce exceptions.

Excess in capitalism is a given. If you have a good idea and a little capital (cash) or access to cash then it is possible to turn your little into a lot. If you have capital but no ideas you can always "shark-tank" an idea. And the more capital you have, the more capital you can make. Excess builds.

If we were all starting from zero, then this would be limited to what could be achieved in a life time of work. We do not start at zero, some start well below zero and some start well above zero. There are millions of "trust fund babies" who don’t need to work a day in their life because they have the capital to invest and thus, live off the interest. On the other hand there are people who are saddled with debt from before they are born.  It all comes down to the luck of the birth. This creates a duality: The Owners and the Workers.

The duality of Owner/Worker defines the inequality.  Inequality has very little to do with one's skill set or even educational potential. Often it has to do with being born into the right family with the right capital means. At no fault are the children who are born into a situation which is beyond their control. Sometimes education and opportunity presents itself and the child can move beyond their birth. Most often they cannot. It becomes a generational inequality issue. This is part of the system of capitalism. Owners need workers.

Attempts are made to limit the excess and the inequality. Antitrust laws of the late 19th century and early 20th century limited the size and scope of business. The Federal Trade Commission regulates big business. This helps to create a freer and more open market so other smaller business can have a chance to compete. Workers can move into the Owner class.

Another way to limit excess is through taxation. The inheritance tax is levied against the super-rich in order to limit the amount of capital that is trapped in trust funds. Property tax and income tax can both be used to help shape more equitable society. Often taxation is used to help support the working class as they struggle to make ends meet.

Unions used to be a powerful force in the USA fighting for the rights of the working class. Unions allowed the Workers to approach the Owners on equal footing. Through collective bargaining, workers' unions were able to increase the livelihoods of their union members. Unions have fallen out of favor and the working class has seen a huge wage gap increase over the last 40 years. The poor become poorer.

During the 1950s and 1960s the US economy was the strongest it has ever been. During that time we came to dominate the world market. It is also the time when taxation on the super-rich was the highest it has ever been, and Unions were also at their peak fighting for the workers. It was a golden age which created a robust Middle Class. A Middle Class which is now in sharp decline due to the loss of unions and the changing of laws in favor of big business.

No amount of regulation is going to create a perfect capitalism. There will always be excess and inequality.  Some fear that regulation will move capitalism into socialism, where the State controls more and more of private business and private life. There certainly needs to be a balance between government regulation and capitalist freedom. And the people of the nation need to be the determiners of how far into socialism we are willing to go.

And this leads us into the second root, which is the way policing is done in America.

The owners of capital have always used the military or the police to keep the system in place. Socialism threatens them and they often respond covertly through politics: undermining the unions, relaxing taxes and antitrust laws. They also respond overtly through the use of police. The police may not even know they are being used as pawns to protect the rich. Certainly one would think the police union would stand with other unions against immoral corporate practices.

Let's take a moment to look at policing in America before we wade into how capitalists and police are intertwined.

Police forces are built upon paramilitary organizational ideas. There is a chain of command. You don't questions your superiors. You follow orders. You look out for your fellow soldiers. There are inherent problems when you use this structure in civilian life.

Some of those problems are lack of oversight and accountability. As well as the creation of an ingrained "us versus them" mentality. Other problems that occur are seeing everyone as an enemy (criminal), closing ranks around problem officers, and the blue brotherhood syndrome.

Accountability is only as good as the leadership. If the commanding officers do not want to hold lower ranks accountable, or even side with them in their bad behaviors then there is no recourse for the "civilians" to take. Outside oversight and accountability can go a long ways in correcting some of these inherent problems.

When you combine a paramilitary organization with an Owner dominated economy then you can see great abuse of power. The police power and the economic powers combined to keep the system working. In some respects this is needed. But if the powers at the top are unjust, corrupt, inept, immoral or just plain apathetic towards others, then the system slowly grinds people down. There is no recourse and no escape for the millions of people trapped at the bottom.

We are seeing the fruits of this dynamic play out today. It is not the first time we have seen it, nor will it me the last. People, on both sides, focus in on one particular aspect of the failing system, but fail to see the underlying faults in the whole system. People see racism in the police force, but fail to see that the police force is only working at the hands of the Owners. The problem is in the way in which people of color are perceived by society in general. And that stereotype is promoted on behalf of the system. This idea was started centuries ago and is ingrained in our culture. Very few of the people who work within the system even see the systemic failures. They may see a few problems, but chalk it up to a racist policeman, an inept business owner, or a lazy worker. They seldom take the time to sit down and piece it all together to understand how the whole system is devised to protect the wealthy and make sure the working person stays in their place.

Because this is a problem with the system and not a problem with a people, or person, there are very few changes that can be made. Going after an individual may feel good for now, but it will not change the system in the long run. Can the system be changed to make a more equitable and fair society? Sure. Do the power-that-be want that to happen? Probably not.

Christianity and Homosexuality

Christianity and Homosexuality

 

Christianity and homosexuality is a topic to which I have given much thought. I have witnessed the treatment those of my friends and family who are gay have endured by both society and the majority of the Christian community. I have felt ashamed and embarrassed. As a student of theology I have taken a personal interest in this topic and how it has developed over the last few decades in the Christian community. Recently the topic of homosexuality has begun to impact my local community.  As I have read countless editorials and blogs across many venues regarding this, it is evident that my local community is struggling with discrimination and homosexuality in the public arena. Some of the opinions I have encountered are obviously slanted, while others are very thoughtful. Yet, neither side convinces me of their argument. I myself have started many blog posts and “letters to the editor,” just to discard them because I did not like my own tone or analogies. With the arguments I presented, I felt I was overlooking an important facet. I felt the need to reflect deeper upon this topic before putting in words some knee-jerk reaction.

 

My early awareness of homosexuality occurred in high school during the late 1980’s. A few guys in my class were gay, yet we thought nothing of it. At school, it was never a topic of conversation or concern. But at church… it was a sin and they were choosing to live in sin. Of course we had no idea what their personal life held, but they must be sinners because they chose to be or act gay. So, what exactly is the “sin” of homosexuality, the attraction to someone of the same sex or the sex acts themselves? My understanding at that time was that: to be gay was to act in a certain manner and therefore that manner was equal to sin. Yet, the exact nature of sin was never defined. The culture and society taught us that gay men were flamboyant and promiscuous. The church taught us that it was most obviously a sin.

 

Through the years, I met gay couples who were neither flamboyant nor promiscuous, challenging the cultural view. They were just regular people whose mate was of the same sex. So then, from the church’s perspective, what exactly was the sin they were committing? At that time in my life, I did not think deeply about it. Based on what I had been taught, it was obvious they chose that life, and that they should know the consequences.

 

When I began my theological training at a conservative Christian college, this dialogue suddenly changed. It was no longer “choosing” a lifestyle, but whether or not to accept the lifestyle into which they were born. At that point, being homosexual became known to be more biologically based. Homosexuals were born as such. In these teachings, it was an “abnormality,” which could either be cured or ignored. With this understanding, it was then sinful if they were not seeking the correct “aid” in overcoming this “disease.” The burden of sin, then, still rested on the head of the person who was gay. So, even though the dialogue shifted, in essence, the result was still the same. What still remained undefined was what exactly was the sin? At this point in my life, it all made much less sense.

 

So as we further this thinking that homosexuality is a “disease,” then what exactly is the “disease?” Does the liver of a person who is gay produce too many of the wrong proteins? Or perhaps, the brain must be growing upside down. Could someone point to a root biological cause of homosexuality? Does that even matter?

 

It is at this point of questioning and reviewing what I’ve been taught, that I am reminded of the story in the Gospel of John, chapter nine, where Jesus heals the man who was born blind. The disciples asked who had sinned, the man or the man’s parents, that he might be born blind. The religious leaders then affirm in the story that there is a relationship between blindness and sin. We are left with a distinct impression that the thinking of that time was that those born with any “defect” were born so due to sin. It was a common idea of the time. Yet, Jesus actually denied this claim and then healed the man.

 

Throughout the history of Christianity, the concept of a “defect” being related to sin was carried through until the nineteenth century. It was at this time that science began to have a better understanding of the human body as a whole. Now, we see a child who has Downs Syndrome and we may call them “God’s Angel” rather than a “sinner.” My comparison here is only that neither being gay nor having Downs Syndrome are “sinful.” They may not fit the overall “norm” of humanity, but then nobody technically does on an individual basis. Ten thousand years ago, no one had seen a green eyed person before. Certainly, the first green eyed person should have been stoned as a sinner. Obviously, this is sarcasm on my part.

 

So then, what does this mean for the Christian? Does this thinking change the dialogue again? Perhaps, people who are homosexual choose to be the person that God created them to be, rather than living in fear of the majority; the supposed “norm” of society. People who are homosexual do sin, just like everyone else. But, the sin is not for being attracted to the same sex as oneself, but could be just like everyone else’s sins: breaking relationships, giving in to temptations, and being disheartening to others.

 

Some may say, “But, as a Christian, we are supposed to live by the Bible and the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.” To this, I would counter, as a Christian, we are supposed to live by the grace of God and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Should we then follow the Bible and call those who are born with blindness sinners? Or, should we follow Christ in extending a hand of healing to the broken man? Through the church’s Bible thumping, fear mongering, and dis-graceful behaviors, we have wounded, rather than healed. And by healed, I do not mean to change others, but rather to bring hurting people into the arms of love, mercy, and community so that they may know health.

Upon reflection and writing, I recognize that I do not see homosexuality as a sin, in and of itself. Through contemplation, I had to wrestle with my theology of human nature, of sin, of the place of the Bible and Holy Spirit, and of community in general. I believe that sin is a relational matter. It is not a thing or a state of being. When a relationship, be it personal or communal, is being torn apart because of the action or inactions of the parties involved, then sin is occurring. Therefore, the church has sinned against people who are homosexual, in its words and actions which have broken the relationship between the individual and the church corporate.

It is not an easy task coming to an understanding of the root causes of sin. Ask any marriage counselor about why spouses act out against their partner, and recognize that there is no specific answer. Relationships are easy to break and hard to mend. Christians are called to mend relationships with grace and love. In order to overcome “sin” in a relationship, both sides have to be willing to confess their faults and enter a meaningful conversation. Therefore, how can the church make such a move, especially when many Christians misunderstand homosexuality? Is it a theological restructuring and pastoral hermeneutical rethinking that needs to take place? For some, this may sound as if I am trying to justify “sin” and change the “truth” in order to fit the culture. In essence, it is necessary to free Christianity from the culture. The true heart of Christianity is grace, not sin.

Leviticus and the Founding Fathers of the USA

I hear people say that we, the United States, were a Christian nation but at some point we have moved away from the Christian principles of the founding fathers. I always wonder about the accuracy of that statement.

 

I am reading through the Bible for a class. Right now we are reading Leviticus in the Old Testament, a very dry read. But one passage in particular caught my attention. Leviticus 19: 33-34.

 

“When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”

 

Wow, that sounds like something Jesus would say. Made me think “what would the founding fathers say?”

I imagine they would say something like, “Yep because we are all aliens here, now if we can only get those damn natives to accept us…” 

 

I think the founding fathers would agree to this biblical ideal and have a very different understand of immigration issue then the ones we have today. I wonder how many Christians are willing to live by this principle of accepting the alien in love and treating them like a native born. Makes one rethink immigration law and such, at least if you are Christian… like the founding fathers…

Red With Delight

The tomato festival was a big hit with the local towns people. Of course they had never seen a tomato before, they had not even seen anything red before and to eat it was a pure satanic delight. For this was the land of the righteous and anything and everything that could be in some way related to the devil was strictly outlawed and abandoned centuries ago, including all shades of the color red. In fact the color wheels in High School art class had only two primaries and one secondary color, the color brown was nearly impossible to duplicate in the class, and orange and purple were relegate to nature alone. (In fact this lead to many disputes in later centuries about the exact nature of brown and some went so far as to hypothesizes a third primary that made orange and purple the two additional secondary colors which were often seen in nature but not in art. This line of reasoning then lead to an ironic twist, because those theorist were often burnt at the stake and as the red and orange flames rose up their feet it all began to make sense, this was one of the few times where fire (and red) were seen as a tool of righteousness and not one of the devil.)

But then one day a traveling sales man, with a surplus of tomatoes to move before they rotted in the trucks and docks of the co-op for which he worked, entered the town. He was a forward thinking and very modern type of man. The girls swooned at the sight of his black bolo hat. Women wanted him and men wanted to be him. He was slicker then a duck in a rain storm and all that other jazz which made him real cool. He could talk a good game and with the Bible in one hand and a plump tomato in another he was able to convince the great, great, great, great decedents of those original pietists that the tomato, although red, was still a creation by God and ordained as good, was great to eat and excellent to have with pasta (which had been rather stale of taste over the last few centuries). It brought much need vitamins and topped out a bacon and lettuce sandwich very well. 

The town nearly rioted because of the color red, some agreed with the salesman and wanted the tomatoes to pour into the town. Other, more zealous of tradition and right thinking and all that, people refused and wanted to run the man out of town. The frosting on the cake was the fact that a tomato began as green and turned yellow and then red by the rays of the sun. Here was the symbolic making of a theological shift. The trinity of colors of blue and yellow making green combined with the sun, the son, the light, the warmth of the heavens poured out to create this jewel. But others saw a different symbol, a crafty snake offering a tempting but forbidden fruit. The symbolism, either way, was too much. All wanted to partake. For to err, to fall, is human. It is the nature of the creature, even centuries of right living could not breed out the fact that humanity craved the passion of life, that which was forbidden. Now the full circle was complete: peace, warmth and passion; blue, yellow and red; the trinity was completed and every range of emotion and every shade of color became available to this imagine-less town. Riot was subdued but passion to created, to flourish, to build, to spring forth, was unleashed and the tomato festival captured that very essence. 

Copyright 2012 David Corbet

That is Art

There is art and then there is art, and standing between them is art.

By this I mean there is art that is created by the artist and there is art that is perceived by the audience. And between those two, the created and the perceived, is the piece of artwork. It can stand alone but always takes on meaning through creation and perception. And the meaning may not be the same for the artist and the audience. The work itself may or may not have an inherent meaning. You would have to ask the piece what it meant, and until a piece of art becomes sentient that question will remain a mystery. Certainly an artist may create with an intention and that intention may come across to the audience, they may “get it.” Artist’s aides such at titles, descriptions, biographies and philosophical methodological ponderings can all help the audience to “get it.” But certainly the audience also has the option to ignore all that and find their own meaning in the piece that has nothing to do with the intention of the artist. The meaning is then derived from their own experiences and psychological profile. But if the piece was wrapped up, stored away for a hundred years, all the descriptors lost from memory and then the piece was rediscovered it would still have meaning for those that found it. That is art. 

Epiphany

Epiphany is the time when the three wise men came and gave gifts to the Messiah. It is the origin of gift giving at the Christmas time. Some forms of Christianity still practice the giving of gifts on January 6th, instead of on Christmas day. It is an interesting story nestled in the second chapter of Matthew.
The Greek for the “wise men” is “magoi apo anatolon.” Literally it translates: magi from where the stars rise. The word “anatolon” which is often translated as “the east” is used repeatedly in reference to the rising of the star which the magi are following to find the Messiah. The Magi from the east saw the star in the east and followed it. The word anatolon has both the connotation of “rising” and “east.” Stars rise in the east and set in the west. Anatolon serves both as a geographical location and an action. The magi from the anatolon are searching for the Messiah by following the star’s anatolon. This is their realm of knowledge, expertise and location. They are successful in their venture and find the Messiah.

Are the Magi magicians, scientists of the day, crackpots, or representatives of other faiths? All of those scenarios have been presented in the literature at one time or another. Not much is known about whom these individuals are; who or what they represent exactly. The biblical account is silent. Christian tradition has assigned them names and places of honor. And the general designation of “wise men”, which may in light of the silence be the best designation, leaves much to the imagination. They were not questioned by the local authorities but rather accepted as valid emissaries on a mission. When they arrive at the side of the Messiah they are not questioned by the mother Mary but accepted.

What is the point of the story? This story only appears in the Gospel of Matthew. This gospel is largely concerned with proving that Jesus is the Messiah. The first chapter is devoted to two themes, first, to the lineage of Jesus back to the King David and the founder of Judaism ,Abraham; and second, to the miracle conception of the Messiah. The second chapter shows the secular rulers rejection of the “King of the Jews” but the acceptance of the “King of the Jews” by the “wise men.” The second chapter also shows an “exodus” event not unlike that of Israel in the time of their beginnings.
So what is the point of the story of the Magi?

Wandering

The following is an excerpt from a document called, "Million Words." It is where I let my mind wander and fingers flow. It is were I practice my art of the wordsmithing. Someday I will write a million words (I am only around a few hundred thousand so far.) And so I share with you a walk down a rabbit trail.

______________
(Written Before 02/15/2008)

I stood staring at my keys, forgetting what I was doing. Move ahead it will all come back to you. Look like you have purpose and keep moving. It does not matter where, just move, decide. Fool those staring at you. Keep acting with purpose. Why do I have my keys out?

Oh yeah going home at the end of the day. But to what home… I am lost in a sea of humanity and cannot find my mind. I am lost, completely alone and all that I put my hand to turns to rubbish. I am lost and alone; I am the existential dilemma incarnate.

I walk to and fro upon the streets and some think I am a beggar, others think I am a directed and confident soul. Some ignore me as I walk by and others are disgusted at my stench. Each breath is putrid rot and I enjoy the taste of the bile in my throat. Will they see my in time to stop?

I put the keys down on the counter as I enter the door. I put the bags of mass produced food like substance on the floor, perhaps the dog will put them away, or shall I? How did I get home? When I turn off my brain, my body can move on automatic and get me through the day. But when I turn it on, all that I see is kaleidoscopically and chaotically churning colors before my mind and I want to jump in and swim in those magical colors, but I fear I will drown. And so I snack every thirty minutes to give my self an excuse to not go insane. “Must wait thirty minutes after eating before you can swim,” is my mantra to sanity.

Why should I hold so dearly to my sanity when it is obvious no one else does?
Why do I have to pretend to be sane when it would be so much easier to be myself?
Ah, liberation of the artist’s soul!!!

Emerging or Post Christian

I have recently read Phyllis Tickle's "The Great Emergence," which of course brought a flood of thoughts into my head. First, let me talk about the book a little and then about the thoughts which is sparked.

The book is... well, light in some areas and thought-provoking in others. The book attempts to cover the last two thousand years in history, western history that is. Western history with an eye towards trends in religious thought and development. The book itself is an easy read, although her sentence structure and thought processes are a bit muddled at times. Towards the end of the book it begins to play out and the themes she creates earlier on in the book finally emerge. I am not sure if it is the best book on the subject but it is an adequate introduction. Because church history is my area of study, I felt it was lacking in some areas. I don't think she misrepresented church history, but she does not give a detailed account. OK, now to the subject of the book.

The book looks back at the last two thousand years of history and brings out a trend or cycle. Every 500 years, roughly speaking, there is an event that radically changes the face of the western world, and specifically the church. Of course we are coming up or in the midst of the next five hundred year mark and so the book attempts to flesh out current trends of the course of the next five hundred years. So here is a break down of the last four cycles:

1.0-500 Christ: the birth of Christianity which ushered in a new religion that over the next five hundred years became the dominant religion.

2. 500-1000 Holy Roman Church: with the fall of the Roman Empire and Rome itself, there was an economic, political and religious vacuum which the church was able to step in and take control of. With the birth of monasteries, western thought and culture was preserved and carried forward.

3. 1000-1500 The Great Schism: The eastern church and the western church split over theological and ideological themes. This is the when the west flourished in thought and development, especially as the crusades brought back knowledge from the east.

4. 1500- 2000: The Great Reformation: The church had become authoritarian and oppressive. Scholarship had moved beyond the church as a final authority. People, Martin Luther in particular, stood against the church, calling for reform. What happened was the creation of Protestantism and its thousands of denominations where the Bible became the final authority, not church dogma.

And now, 2000- present: What is being called The Great Emergence. What it is and who is involved, or what effects it will have over time is still unknown.

My thoughts:
This book fails to take into account the other forces that were at work in each of the epochs. Martin Luther was a success not because of his ideas alone, but because he had the backing of German princes who tired of the Church tithing them to death and the Holy Roman Empire taxing them to death. The advent of western science and shifts in technology combined with the emergence of a middle class which could rival the Nobility in wealth and power all called for a shift to occur. Martin Luther has just become the rally cry of the religious historians. But the history of that time period is much more complex.

The book does give credit to modern shifts in science, technology and world views. But when we stand so close in history to the events, it is hard to tell which events will be the hallmarks of the age and which will pass quietly into the past. Certainly tomorrow a greater event can occur that overshadows anything over the last hundred years. Or perhaps Christ will return and the whole question will be mute.

It appears that things happen every five hundred years to shake up the world and what settles out is different than what was before. That which shakes the world is hard to define. Science, technology and culture are all shifting. In the west, eastern ideas about religion, life, and death are forcing people to think differently. In the east, Christianity and western economic and political thought are forcing people to change their worldviews. And the realization that we are one people all inhabiting the same planet is having a major impact on the world. As the west moves towards post-Christian thoughts and practices, it is incorporating ideas from the east but also from science. And what is emerging is spreading that new gospel in new ways through technology. It is there in the blending that I think the next flower will blossom. I think this new epoch will emerge out of a blending of east/west, science/religion and the break down of dualism. Philosophy, theology and politics will all have to be rethought in light of new technology and new responsibility towards the whole. It is not us/them, or you/me... but rather we. This new thought will include the greater environment as part of the human being.

Another theme which is overlooked in the book is that each epoch is also ushered in with violence. That which was before does not want to change into that which is coming and so lashes out violently to stop the change. The usual response is to lash back with self defense and often violence, as well to bring in the radical change. History settles out and forgets the names and faces of the dead on both sides. Today war still rages. But how does that warfare fit into changing times and thoughts? And who is waging the war: the old stalwarts refusing to change, or the revolutionaries helping to emerge a new worldview? This is one of those moments when we stand too close in time to know what history will say in the future about today.

What will emerge will blend the threads of the current trends into a new fabric of reality that will greatly challenge and frustrate that which was. It cannot be just the continuation of what was, but must be an internal change with external consequences. And again, beccause we stand so close, it is hard to say what or who will force that change; but change is occurring.

Garbage day and economic justice

Tuesday is garbage day. Not that big of a day unless you forget to take the can to the street and it is extra full. But I also think that it is a sign of the times.



I remember as a kid garbage day was a big deal. The big white truck would roll up with two guys holding on to the back for dear life. The truck would stop at the cans: one, two or three metal cans all piled with bags, boxes and loose garbage. The men would jump off the back of the truck, toss the garbage into the back, pull a lever and press a button. Then the truck would whirl and whine and an arm would somehow push all that garbage up inside... I mean what action! and those brave men holding on to the truck as it sped down the road to the next house.



And then sometime in high school the trucks went robotic.



Now a big arm drops down, grabs the one big green plastic can and scoops it up dumping its contents straight into the top of the truck. Very smooth and efficient. And if you have more than will fit in the one can... perhaps your neighbor has a little room, or wait until next week, or wait until the city has a special clean up day.



But even all of that is not the point.



With the new fancy robotic arm trucks, the work force diminished by two thirds. Now all you need is a driver. So what happened to the two men who risked life and limb on the back of the truck? Now that we don't pay for them, do we get a discount rate on garbage pick up? No, because the city had to buy new trucks and matching cans. But certainly by now the trucks have been paid off. And there is the rub... with technology and the workplace, technology and economic growth, technology and societal development. I am not anti-technology. I just think we need to use some wisdom when it comes to incorporating technology into our lives.

The idea of introducing technology into the workplace, or society as a whole is to save time. At work, time is money. Save time to save money. Does that money saved make it down the ladder to the consumer, or just into the pocketbooks of the CEO, managers and board members? Business is business. I would hope that good business is wise business. But it appears that good business is concerned less with its workforce, its effect on society and the environment, than with profit margins. Can we have just and responsible business within capitalism?

Let us return to the garbage men. Cities are not businesses, they are people gathered together to join in creating a better place through mutual consent, work and cooperation. A city is more than just buildings, politicians and people. A city is a commune. And above all shouldn't the city be more concerned with its people then with anything else? So does laying off two thirds of the garbage men help the people in general or harm them? How do we evaluate this question? Are one hundred people out of work worth saving millions of dollars? Have those savings even really taken place? What is the long term result? Would I pay higher taxes to insure that a neighbor or myself stays employed? Perhaps not... but does the promised savings of technology really come through? Who can I ask?

Maybe, just maybe, rolling the can out to the street should not be a moment of philosophical reflection. Maybe it is just garbage day. But if I don't think these thoughts and ask these questions then who will?

Growing Strong

Growth has always been a viable metaphor for the spiritual life. If it is the growth of a plant from seed to tree or of a child moving towards adulthood, the idea of growth has always been applicable to the spiritual life. I have a nine year old daughter and a ten month old baby boy. Both of them are at completely different developmental stages, and yet someday they will both be adults. The spiritual life is much the same way. We may be just beginning the growth cycle of a spiritually maturing being or we may be well on our way. Either way the steps of development may be similar for all of us, just like childhood development is similar for all children. Here it is important to make a distinction. I say it is “similar” for all children; for everyone develops and matures along their own lines becoming a diverse group of adults. The spiritual life follows suit. We learn to pray, but our prayers will be different; we learn to serve, but choose different ways to be servants in life. There is a similarity to growth which creates a united community in shared commonalities, but our differences foster diverse communities.

The point I would like to move towards is that growth brings change and maturity which include new challenges. My nine year old knows how to walk, my ten month old will learn that skill in the next few months. My nine year old does not need to relearn that skill, she knows it and can move towards the next challenges of running or biking. Spiritually speaking, growth is similar. Once we learn a spiritual skill, we don’t have to keep going back and relearning it. It is time to put that skill to use, to develop it further and allow it to lead to other challenges where we need to grow. If you have mastered the discipline of prayer as intercession, then perhaps it is time to explore prayer as meditation or discernment. If you have mastered serving as an usher, perhaps it is time to challenge yourself to serve as a reader.

A good place to start is knowing where you are. Take some time to make an inventory of your spiritual skills. Ask the following questions: How am I using these skills for my community? How can I further these skills as I grow? What challenges in growth am I facing now?

Another exciting exercise is to create a spiritual autobiography where you can track your growth in the spirit. Make sure you list special moments such as baptism, confirmation, reaffirmation retreats or service projects, that have had an impact on your spiritual life. This autobiography can then be used as a tool to see trends, movements and growth in your own spiritual life. Perhaps it will open you to see ways in which you have been moving that you did not recognize before.

Value: Economics or Meaning

This is a thought which I have had recently. It is one that is still in development and so a little shy on concrete principles or proof. At some point in human history we started to see each other, and by extension ourselves, as commodities. Our value and worth became coached in economic terms. A person's worth became tied to their economic potential. Success became gaged by ownership of possessions and their economic value. When did that shift occur? Or was it even a shift or just a natural extension of the industrial revolution's effects on human society? Certainly having the ability to provide both support and safety have been long sought after skills by both men and women. But wasn't that skill honed within a community all trying to advance the good of all for the advancement for the good of the individual?

I think perhaps the difference now is that the good of the individual overrides the good of the community. I will run the best and cheapest business in order to outsell and undercut my competitors and drive them out of business so that I will succeed. This last statement is all about the individual's ability to provide by out-performing. They are not bringing value and worth to the community, only cheapening the business class. Not that healthy competition is bad, it just needs to be balanced with a little community mindedness. Why do I need to open a new store if two already exist in the community that sell the same thing, just to try to drive them out of the market and show how "good" I am at business? Where is the value in that?

At this point perhaps I need to let the original thought simmer for a bit longer before I ramble on and on and turn it into a muddled mess. I guess the question (or thought) is why do we let economics dictate our worth and value, and not some other aspect of life?

Life

Life is never the way it is supposed to be. There are so many things outside of our control, things we get blamed for and held responsible for, but in reality we have absolutely nothing to do with. As the old saying goes: life is unfair. But why is that? Why do we just sit by and accept that as part of life? Yes, life will throw curve balls at us, but that is different than intentional creation of scenarios where life has to act in unfair ways. How do we create a life, a society where trust, faith, justice and fairness are the defining points?

The Human Condition and Economics

Is there an appropriate response in economic terms to the perceived human condition?

First let us define our terms.
Economics: the exchange of goods or services for other goods and services usually with a mediator such as I.O.U., coins, cash or vouchers of some flavor.

The Human Condition: On the definition of this term the whole question turns.
1. Humans are inherently bad or evil.
2. Humans have a predisposition to learning to be evil and to do bad.
3. Humans are inherently good and are forced into situations that create within them the capacity to do evil.

Putting the pieces together would pose questions such as: Can an evil humanity create a just economic society? Why do some people prosper while others who work just as hard fail? How do the few hold economic sway over the many? The questions could be nearly endless depending upon the shading one would wish to take with the above definitions.

But is there one system of economics that can cover the full spectrum of meaning, or does it always break down at some point?

Free market leaves itself open to corruption and greed.

Regulated markets can fall into the hands of the "haves" who can control who the regulators are and how they choose to regulate.

Socialism and Communism as economic systems can fall prey to the "haves" or the party elite creating their niche markets and safety zones.

At first glimpse it appears that there may be no justified economic system. There will always be those in power, in control and in the money who can dictate to the rest how things will be. Even if we were to find highly enlightened individuals to make up that cast of "those in power," those who are not in power would become jealous or angry about the power situation and make moves to amend it. It is an eternal struggle of the classes. But certainly we must just not wander aimlessly from one theory to the next. Certainly there must be one that stand above the rest to assure fairness of trade, equality of living standards, checks and balances on business and lending institutions. An informed and educated citizenry will go a long way in making some of those balances, but it may also breed new villains.

Is economic justice and equality a real and meaningful thing or is it a pie in the sky dream?

Death rattles of capitalism, 1929

Isn't capitalism just one big ponzi scheme?
The way a ponzi scheme works is by paying yesterday's debt by tomorrow's earnings. A ponzi scheme promises investors with higher-than-normal returns on investments. It sounds good so people invest. The return is payed by future investors wanting in on the good fortune. It works because there is always a larger flow of cash into the system. It collapses when the flow stops or too many people try to withdraw from the scheme.

Kind of sounds like the basic premise of capitalism. The key word being "capital," as in needing to continually raise more this week to support last week's payments. The capital to be raised may be goods, or money, or workers. But without the increase it self destructs. Why else would 3% growth (inflation) be good? Is less or more bad? Less and it all falls apart, more and it threatens to run away.

In 1929 the premise was questioned and was found lacking. The result: the only thing that keeps a ponzi scheme afloat is to throw more money at it. The New Deal did just that. It shored it up for a while, then a war helped it along. In the aftermath of the Great Depression the real questions about capitalism were not addressed. Business boomed with a lot of hard workers and the world's resources to fund it (more and more capital). A few hiccups were felt and should have been warning signs. But a ponzi scheme this large would take decades to unravel and more capital was raised (Hence the Cold War and the hot wars in the Middle East countries).

But now the world is running out of capital to invest. The last few pounds of earth and flesh are being eaten as we speak. Soon there will be nothing left but revolving debt: 700 billion now (coming from where? DEBT) and another trillion later (again from DEBT). The ponzi scheme will be over and there will be no capital left to throw at it (The Middle East countries and China are the last of the big money men and look how heavily we are invested in their interests. Yet even they are eating through whatever capital they might have at an alarming rate). Finally the premises of capitalism must be questioned.

When the ponzi scheme is over then capitalism dies. So what is next? Hard to tell. It may be possible to prolong the death for a few more years... but in the meantime, we better all learn Chinese.

Daav Corbet

Happy New Year

Well another year is gone and another has come. But is today any different than yesterday? I suppose it is as good a time as any to make some changes to your life routines. It is a tradition to set some resolutions, but that is one tradition which I don't always participate in. Why? Because I am not any more likely to stick with resolutions because it is the first of the year than if it was the third month of the year. I guess what I am saying is... when you are ready to change your life to reflect that which you want your life to truly look like, then you will make those changes regardless of the calender. So use this first of the year as a catalyst if you must or use your own desire to shape and change your future and life to find fulfillment, whatever it takes. Just reach out for those hopes and dreams and make progress at finding happiness in everyday living.

Daav Corbet

Selling Art

I sold an art piece the other day. I was glad for the sale, it boosts the ego, right? I might have a showing at the Portneuf Brewery next month, but then my next show is not until May at Walrus and Carpenter. I want to be a selling artist. That is the whole point and goal, but it is a lot harder than it looks. I have to get my name out there (visit my website at Fine Art America, click the link above) and then I have to draw the crowd who likes my work, who has the money to buy (getting harder and harder in this economy) and who has the inclination to purchase an original piece of art work.

But then after the sell I have this momentary let down, like losing a good friend. That piece has been hanging on the wall for so long that it has become part of the natural enviroment of the studio. So I will miss it, but be glad I made the sale. I hope there will be more to come.

The philosophy of education

How do we educate today's children to become tomorrow's adults with a sense of personal responsibility, value and community pride? I think the education system in the USA is lacking some fundamentals. It seems that it is consumed right now with theories on how to teach but lacking in any true direction about what to teach. It seems there needs to be a shift in the whole educational process which better educates the children for the future. Creating well rounded people is noble but not attainable. It is better to create well thinking people who can stand on their own two feet and make it in the world. I think we need to concentrate on character development at a younger age, and then on critical thinking in the middle school grades. I also think science and the arts need to be balanced. The teaching of theory needs to dovetail with practical experiences.

The promotion of university as the pinnacle of education needs to be done away with. There are valid reasons to continue on with education, but it should not just be "the thing to do." For this reason, trade and technical schools should be created, funded and promoted as equally valuable avenues of education. Let us prepare educated, thinking and well trained people.