Howard Thurman was a theologian, civil rights leader, philosopher, educator, and prolific author, probably best known for his 1949 work Jesus and the Disinherited.
Many years ago, I was introduced to a poem by Thurman titled 'When the Song of the Angels Is Stilled' and it has stayed with me all these years. I'd like to share it with you today.
When the song of the angels is stilled,
When the star in the sky is gone,
When the kings and the princes are home,
When the shepherds are back with their flocks,
The work of Christmas begins:
To find the lost,
To heal the broken,
To feed the hungry,
To release the prisoner,
To rebuild the nations,
To bring peace among people,
To make music in the heart.
Terry
Thursday, December 27, 2018
Friday, December 21, 2018
Word of the Day: REPUTATION
The long-running (and still far from over) Catholic Church sex scandals are well-documented and well-known around the world. In the United States alone, there are roughly 165 dioceses with at least one accused priest in them. Within the diocese where I live -- I am no longer Catholic -- there have been more than fifty priests accused, including the one who tried to abuse me almost forty years ago. (Fortunately, it did not get very far because I walked out, but I was still shaken by it.) Some have died; some were defrocked; some were sued; some cases were settled. Some of the priests abused one individual and some abused more than one. Some of the abuses were over shorter periods of time and some went on for decades.
Globally, sexual abuse claims have been made in approximately twenty countries, excluding the U.S.
The 2015 Oscar-winning film 'Spotlight' looked at the sex abuse scandal that rocked the Archdiocese of Boston in the early 2000's when the Boston Globe newspaper uncovered a decades-long pattern of relocating priests who were accused of sexual misconduct in an attempt to keep the abuses quiet. (It is a well-done film which I recommend seeing.)
Prior to his stepping down over five-and-a-half years ago, Pope Benedict XVI had written a letter in the Fall of 1985, when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, to a Bishop in Oakland, California, regarding the possible removal of a priest for such accusations. At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is in charge of the promotion and defense of Catholic doctrine. In his letter, Cardinal Ratzinger argues against the removal, citing "the good of the Universal Church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful". As if putting salve on a wound, Ratzinger suggests providing the one petitioning for the priest's removal "as much paternal care as possible". However, in the same sentence, he adds that the Court (within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) is "accustomed to proceed keeping the common good especially before its eyes".
This past Summer, the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court released a report stating more than 300 Catholic priests in that state had sexually abused children over the course of seven decades and, like in Boston, church hierarchy had done what they could to cover it up.
And just two days ago, the Illinois State Attorney General Lisa Madigan released a preliminary report that says there are more than 500 Catholic priests who have still not been identified by the church. Accusations have been made, according to the report, against 690 priests total, but church officials have said only 185 stand accused. Only. Madigan said that the Catholic Church cannot continue to "prioritize criminal clergy or ... the preservation of their assets." Not only are the actions of these abusers immoral and illegal, but the investigation also showed that none of Illinois' six dioceses have any policies in place that would hold any church official involved in covering up such abuses accountable for doing so. None. Not one. Zero.
And that is just one state in one country.
You might draw a parallel to the idea of shareholder value in business, which basically means that a company's greatest success is in how much it benefits its shareholders. Imagine the Catholic Church is the corporation and the Pope, the cardinals, and the bishops are the shareholders.
A report was commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and compiled by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice which studied sexual abuse by priests and deacons between the years 1950 and 2002. Released in 2004, the lengthy report showed that the percentage of priests accused of sexual abuse ordained in the 1980's had dropped to 8% (from a high of 23% and over 25% of those ordained in the 1950's and 1960's, respectively). It had dropped even further among those ordained in the 1990's, down to 2%. While even 2% of those ordained possibly committing sexual abuse is still too high, if this downward trend has continued, it is one positive sign of progress.
That same U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops were, at their fall gathering last month, going to address how to deal with allegations of sexual abuse. The Vatican's Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (nicknamed the Dallas Charter), which was released sixteen years ago, addressed what to do regarding accusations of clergy, but gave no guidelines regarding accusations against bishops. The Conference was going to address allegations against bishops. One of the proposals was to give authority to a lay commission to investigate allegations against bishops. What was the Vatican's response? Ordering the Conference to not consider any proposals of how to respond.
There appears to be several reasons for this. First, since it sees the issue of sexual abuse by clergy as a global problem, the Vatican feels it should be dealt with globally. Just two months prior to the fall gathering, Pope Francis had called for the presidents of all of the Catholic bishop conferences in the world to assemble in Rome in late February of next year to address this serious issue. Second, having the laity involved in this kind of oversight is a non-starter for the Vatican. (So, lay persons serving as Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, one of the sacraments of the church, is fine, but serving as faithful overseers is a no-go?) Third, the move by the Conference may have been seen as an overreach or usurping the authority of Rome. I think the proposal of a lay commission is a good one. Why couldn't such a proposal, if passed, be brought to the February 2019 conference in Rome as a proposal there? That is not usurping authority, but this third point smacks of an it-only-counts-when-the-boss-does-it mentality.
There is and has been a lot of talk of keeping the reputation of the Catholic Church untarnished. There is nothing wrong with wanting your entity to have a name in good standing. In fact, that should be a goal, whether it be through involvement in your community, providing good service, rectifying any problems, and putting forth your best efforts in the first place. There are, however, other means of trying to do so that are deceptive, fraudulent, or even downright nefarious. How this epidemic has been allowed to fester, mostly untreated, has been due to nefarious practices.
I think, in the most basic sense, that wanting problems to go away is not a bad thing. Honestly, who wants more problems to come their way? Dealing with them to correct mistakes and trying to cover them up are means to a common goal, but the two are not comparable. Even though institutions, including The Church at large, are made up of people and people make mistakes and nothing is ever perfect, society does hold those institutions to a higher standard, rightly so. When something goes wrong, those institutions had better deal with those instances swiftly and properly. The Catholic Church did not do so regarding sexual abuse by its clergy.
If the Catholic Church was concerned about its good name, it needed to deal with this head-on ... no short cuts, no deceptions, no hiding. Sure, some of its faithful might have left at just the news of sexual predators being among the ranks of its clergy out of fear or disillusionment. That is not unusual since that kind of behavior is not welcome in society. The Catholic Church acted out of fear. How many times have we seen that responding out of fear can have devastating results?
Had the Catholic Church shed light on the problem, addressed it right up front, perhaps even sought counseling for clergy that had committed these abuses, or perhaps who were contemplating it, it would have shown that straightforwardness and compassion, not shadows and cover-up, were right practices. It would have shown that such behavior was unacceptable in the church, as in society, and that the faithful would know their religious leaders had their backs. The Catholic Church could have been one of the beacons in the world by shedding light on this issue. Yes, it would have lost some of its numbers, but its reputation would have been untarnished. Instead, it put its proverbial lamp under a basket.
This is the legacy the Catholic Church has brought upon itself.
Terry
Globally, sexual abuse claims have been made in approximately twenty countries, excluding the U.S.
The 2015 Oscar-winning film 'Spotlight' looked at the sex abuse scandal that rocked the Archdiocese of Boston in the early 2000's when the Boston Globe newspaper uncovered a decades-long pattern of relocating priests who were accused of sexual misconduct in an attempt to keep the abuses quiet. (It is a well-done film which I recommend seeing.)
Prior to his stepping down over five-and-a-half years ago, Pope Benedict XVI had written a letter in the Fall of 1985, when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, to a Bishop in Oakland, California, regarding the possible removal of a priest for such accusations. At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is in charge of the promotion and defense of Catholic doctrine. In his letter, Cardinal Ratzinger argues against the removal, citing "the good of the Universal Church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful". As if putting salve on a wound, Ratzinger suggests providing the one petitioning for the priest's removal "as much paternal care as possible". However, in the same sentence, he adds that the Court (within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) is "accustomed to proceed keeping the common good especially before its eyes".
This past Summer, the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court released a report stating more than 300 Catholic priests in that state had sexually abused children over the course of seven decades and, like in Boston, church hierarchy had done what they could to cover it up.
And just two days ago, the Illinois State Attorney General Lisa Madigan released a preliminary report that says there are more than 500 Catholic priests who have still not been identified by the church. Accusations have been made, according to the report, against 690 priests total, but church officials have said only 185 stand accused. Only. Madigan said that the Catholic Church cannot continue to "prioritize criminal clergy or ... the preservation of their assets." Not only are the actions of these abusers immoral and illegal, but the investigation also showed that none of Illinois' six dioceses have any policies in place that would hold any church official involved in covering up such abuses accountable for doing so. None. Not one. Zero.
And that is just one state in one country.
You might draw a parallel to the idea of shareholder value in business, which basically means that a company's greatest success is in how much it benefits its shareholders. Imagine the Catholic Church is the corporation and the Pope, the cardinals, and the bishops are the shareholders.
A report was commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and compiled by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice which studied sexual abuse by priests and deacons between the years 1950 and 2002. Released in 2004, the lengthy report showed that the percentage of priests accused of sexual abuse ordained in the 1980's had dropped to 8% (from a high of 23% and over 25% of those ordained in the 1950's and 1960's, respectively). It had dropped even further among those ordained in the 1990's, down to 2%. While even 2% of those ordained possibly committing sexual abuse is still too high, if this downward trend has continued, it is one positive sign of progress.
That same U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops were, at their fall gathering last month, going to address how to deal with allegations of sexual abuse. The Vatican's Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (nicknamed the Dallas Charter), which was released sixteen years ago, addressed what to do regarding accusations of clergy, but gave no guidelines regarding accusations against bishops. The Conference was going to address allegations against bishops. One of the proposals was to give authority to a lay commission to investigate allegations against bishops. What was the Vatican's response? Ordering the Conference to not consider any proposals of how to respond.
There appears to be several reasons for this. First, since it sees the issue of sexual abuse by clergy as a global problem, the Vatican feels it should be dealt with globally. Just two months prior to the fall gathering, Pope Francis had called for the presidents of all of the Catholic bishop conferences in the world to assemble in Rome in late February of next year to address this serious issue. Second, having the laity involved in this kind of oversight is a non-starter for the Vatican. (So, lay persons serving as Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, one of the sacraments of the church, is fine, but serving as faithful overseers is a no-go?) Third, the move by the Conference may have been seen as an overreach or usurping the authority of Rome. I think the proposal of a lay commission is a good one. Why couldn't such a proposal, if passed, be brought to the February 2019 conference in Rome as a proposal there? That is not usurping authority, but this third point smacks of an it-only-counts-when-the-boss-does-it mentality.
There is and has been a lot of talk of keeping the reputation of the Catholic Church untarnished. There is nothing wrong with wanting your entity to have a name in good standing. In fact, that should be a goal, whether it be through involvement in your community, providing good service, rectifying any problems, and putting forth your best efforts in the first place. There are, however, other means of trying to do so that are deceptive, fraudulent, or even downright nefarious. How this epidemic has been allowed to fester, mostly untreated, has been due to nefarious practices.
I think, in the most basic sense, that wanting problems to go away is not a bad thing. Honestly, who wants more problems to come their way? Dealing with them to correct mistakes and trying to cover them up are means to a common goal, but the two are not comparable. Even though institutions, including The Church at large, are made up of people and people make mistakes and nothing is ever perfect, society does hold those institutions to a higher standard, rightly so. When something goes wrong, those institutions had better deal with those instances swiftly and properly. The Catholic Church did not do so regarding sexual abuse by its clergy.
If the Catholic Church was concerned about its good name, it needed to deal with this head-on ... no short cuts, no deceptions, no hiding. Sure, some of its faithful might have left at just the news of sexual predators being among the ranks of its clergy out of fear or disillusionment. That is not unusual since that kind of behavior is not welcome in society. The Catholic Church acted out of fear. How many times have we seen that responding out of fear can have devastating results?
Had the Catholic Church shed light on the problem, addressed it right up front, perhaps even sought counseling for clergy that had committed these abuses, or perhaps who were contemplating it, it would have shown that straightforwardness and compassion, not shadows and cover-up, were right practices. It would have shown that such behavior was unacceptable in the church, as in society, and that the faithful would know their religious leaders had their backs. The Catholic Church could have been one of the beacons in the world by shedding light on this issue. Yes, it would have lost some of its numbers, but its reputation would have been untarnished. Instead, it put its proverbial lamp under a basket.
This is the legacy the Catholic Church has brought upon itself.
Terry
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
A note to my readers regarding this blog
Dear readers, let me begin by saying I hope your holiday season, whatever holiday(s) you celebrate, is going well. I wish you a happy remainder of the season. (Hard to believe there's only a couple of weeks remaining in the year.)
The saying All good things must come to an end is attributed to the English poet Geoffrey Chaucer, first appearing in the mid-fourteenth century. Fast forward to the early twenty-first century, and the same is true here.
After six-and-a-half years, the time has come for The Keyboard Commentarian to end. The above saying is that all good things must come to an end, and I hope this blog has been a good thing for you readers. It has been for me.
That end is not today, however. That will be sometime next month, January 2019. I do not know how many more posts there will be between now and then, but it will not be a case of writing this post and then the New Year's Day post and that's it. (At least two or three that I can think of off the top of my head.)
As sad as I am that the time has come, I look forward to the next few until next month.
Terry
The saying All good things must come to an end is attributed to the English poet Geoffrey Chaucer, first appearing in the mid-fourteenth century. Fast forward to the early twenty-first century, and the same is true here.
After six-and-a-half years, the time has come for The Keyboard Commentarian to end. The above saying is that all good things must come to an end, and I hope this blog has been a good thing for you readers. It has been for me.
That end is not today, however. That will be sometime next month, January 2019. I do not know how many more posts there will be between now and then, but it will not be a case of writing this post and then the New Year's Day post and that's it. (At least two or three that I can think of off the top of my head.)
As sad as I am that the time has come, I look forward to the next few until next month.
Terry
Sunday, December 9, 2018
Time of the Year: THE HOLIDAYS
The holidays: two words that invoke a large variety of emotions ... joy, frustration, anger, sadness, depression. What is it about this time of year that brings out such a range of emotions? Certainly, the holidays themselves during this time do not represent that variety. Thanksgiving is a joyful occasion. Both Christmas and Hanukkah have joy and wonder at their respective cores. While Kwanzaa represents reflection and purpose, it is still a joyful celebration of African-American heritage. Finally, New Year's Day is celebrating the start of a new year, something to be celebrated with the promise of what lies ahead. So, from where does all that other stuff people feel come?
For many, the joy is there, ready to go, all one needs do is plug into it. The frustration and anger clearly come from the hectic nature of all the stuff we have to do ... and, dammit, all those other people doing their stuff at the same time! Certainly, the hyper-commercialized nature of the holidays contributes to the anger and frustration. The soulless and anti-family force-feeding of the holiday shopping season to an earlier and earlier time each year extends that anger and frustration, further sullying the season.
All of the above items are external, easily seen, even if we wish they weren't so obvious, as with anger and frustration. What about those things that are internal, those feelings that are far too often left unspoken or ignored? While sadness and depression are not confined to one time of the year, the holidays provide fertile soil for the seeds of sadness and depression to bloom.
While sadness is something we all experience at various times and is normal, depression is an entirely different thing. Sadness, at this time of year, may stem from the loss of a loved one or someone simply unable to make to a celebration, or oneself unable to make a celebration. Many people who do not understand depression view it similarly to how migraines are often viewed as just a headache. Interjections like Why can't you just get over it? and You just want attention are often the bug spray haphazardly spewed at those suffering from depression as though they are some sort of infestation. Those suffering with depression don't often feel like joining in as it is, but shaming them only serves to make it worse.
Even though all of the holidays have joy inherent in them, it is that very thing that often makes those who suffer from depression feel even worse. It is not a case where they want everyone else to be depressed, too, as the bug spray mentioned above often suggests. They do not want anyone to be depressed, including themselves, but they often see their situation as unsolvable or requiring something that would be extremely difficult to attain ... or they simply see their situation in terms of It is what it is and there is nothing to be done.
While they may be surrounded by people who are regularly happy, or at least showing little to no discontent, the holidays, with the joy they bring and all they represent, can be a heavy (or heavier-than-usual) burden. Again, it is not their wish that everyone has a terrible holiday season. They simply want the burden to end. This is not anyone's fault. It is not an argument of banishing the holidays. It is what they feel and if they could snap their fingers and make it go away, they would.
There is also a feeling of being alone and, as we usually see "alone" as merely the absence of others, being surrounded by people is only sometimes a curative and, many times, a short-term curative. It is possible to have people around you (i.e. family, friends, co-workers, fellow students) and, while not actually all alone, still feel all alone. The holidays, with their various abundances of others, and those same others who are more plugged into the season, combine for a difficult tine of the year.
What can we do? Going around and asking everyone if they're depressed is not constructive, and will be seen as odd by most, and asking the same person(s) that same question over and over again will become more annoying than helpful. This is not to say that believing each person needs to deal with their problems is mistaken. Still, we need to be more compassionate. Doing what you can to be as caring and inclusive as possible is the right approach.
Simply taking notice is a great first step, and one that most people miss. It is so easy to let the joy and revelry of the season wash over you, and there is nothing wrong with that, just as it is so easy to let frustration overwhelm you. Taking notice of someone who seems more down than usual, or that someone isn't coming out to as many parties or functions as they used you, is the first step. Then, approach them. Do your best to be conversational and open -- if you're friends already, this should come easily -- and talk about something, anything. If you want to be more direct, eventually ask them if they're doing okay; don't just blurt out the question right away. The person may want to keep what they're feeling secret, so the answer may be Yes. Just let it be. Remember, you are approaching, not confronting. You cannot force someone out of depression -- it is not a case of boredom -- so do not try.
Let them know that you noticed they seem kind of down, or really down, or down more often lately or you've taken notice they're not around as much as they used to be. This may make the person feel like they need to "circle the wagons" even more because they are already dealing with a broken spirit of their own ... or it may be the first crack of light that gets them to open up and confide in someone else. Let them absorb what you say in the manner they will. Offer a sympathetic ear because no one else may have done so yet. Keep in mind that, when it comes to help, "offering" and "forcing" are two entirely different things which will bring about entirely different results.
At this time of year, we often hear of "the Christmas spirit". While the Christmas spirit may cause one to do certain things, buying something being one of those things, it is not tangible. You cannot go to a store or to a website and buy the Christmas spirit. (If I could, I would order it in bulk and have it shipped to everyone on Earth.) Many find it difficult to get into the spirit -- and this may be as much being fed up with the craziness as it can be depression -- and there is nothing wrong with the simple wish for others to be in the spirit as well.
For some of us, it is harder to get into the Christmas spirit because our own spirit is broken or hurting. Solely sharing in the joy is not the only means of living out the Christmas spirit, but showing compassion to those who are suffering more at this time of year is, too.
Terry
For many, the joy is there, ready to go, all one needs do is plug into it. The frustration and anger clearly come from the hectic nature of all the stuff we have to do ... and, dammit, all those other people doing their stuff at the same time! Certainly, the hyper-commercialized nature of the holidays contributes to the anger and frustration. The soulless and anti-family force-feeding of the holiday shopping season to an earlier and earlier time each year extends that anger and frustration, further sullying the season.
All of the above items are external, easily seen, even if we wish they weren't so obvious, as with anger and frustration. What about those things that are internal, those feelings that are far too often left unspoken or ignored? While sadness and depression are not confined to one time of the year, the holidays provide fertile soil for the seeds of sadness and depression to bloom.
While sadness is something we all experience at various times and is normal, depression is an entirely different thing. Sadness, at this time of year, may stem from the loss of a loved one or someone simply unable to make to a celebration, or oneself unable to make a celebration. Many people who do not understand depression view it similarly to how migraines are often viewed as just a headache. Interjections like Why can't you just get over it? and You just want attention are often the bug spray haphazardly spewed at those suffering from depression as though they are some sort of infestation. Those suffering with depression don't often feel like joining in as it is, but shaming them only serves to make it worse.
Even though all of the holidays have joy inherent in them, it is that very thing that often makes those who suffer from depression feel even worse. It is not a case where they want everyone else to be depressed, too, as the bug spray mentioned above often suggests. They do not want anyone to be depressed, including themselves, but they often see their situation as unsolvable or requiring something that would be extremely difficult to attain ... or they simply see their situation in terms of It is what it is and there is nothing to be done.
While they may be surrounded by people who are regularly happy, or at least showing little to no discontent, the holidays, with the joy they bring and all they represent, can be a heavy (or heavier-than-usual) burden. Again, it is not their wish that everyone has a terrible holiday season. They simply want the burden to end. This is not anyone's fault. It is not an argument of banishing the holidays. It is what they feel and if they could snap their fingers and make it go away, they would.
There is also a feeling of being alone and, as we usually see "alone" as merely the absence of others, being surrounded by people is only sometimes a curative and, many times, a short-term curative. It is possible to have people around you (i.e. family, friends, co-workers, fellow students) and, while not actually all alone, still feel all alone. The holidays, with their various abundances of others, and those same others who are more plugged into the season, combine for a difficult tine of the year.
What can we do? Going around and asking everyone if they're depressed is not constructive, and will be seen as odd by most, and asking the same person(s) that same question over and over again will become more annoying than helpful. This is not to say that believing each person needs to deal with their problems is mistaken. Still, we need to be more compassionate. Doing what you can to be as caring and inclusive as possible is the right approach.
Simply taking notice is a great first step, and one that most people miss. It is so easy to let the joy and revelry of the season wash over you, and there is nothing wrong with that, just as it is so easy to let frustration overwhelm you. Taking notice of someone who seems more down than usual, or that someone isn't coming out to as many parties or functions as they used you, is the first step. Then, approach them. Do your best to be conversational and open -- if you're friends already, this should come easily -- and talk about something, anything. If you want to be more direct, eventually ask them if they're doing okay; don't just blurt out the question right away. The person may want to keep what they're feeling secret, so the answer may be Yes. Just let it be. Remember, you are approaching, not confronting. You cannot force someone out of depression -- it is not a case of boredom -- so do not try.
Let them know that you noticed they seem kind of down, or really down, or down more often lately or you've taken notice they're not around as much as they used to be. This may make the person feel like they need to "circle the wagons" even more because they are already dealing with a broken spirit of their own ... or it may be the first crack of light that gets them to open up and confide in someone else. Let them absorb what you say in the manner they will. Offer a sympathetic ear because no one else may have done so yet. Keep in mind that, when it comes to help, "offering" and "forcing" are two entirely different things which will bring about entirely different results.
At this time of year, we often hear of "the Christmas spirit". While the Christmas spirit may cause one to do certain things, buying something being one of those things, it is not tangible. You cannot go to a store or to a website and buy the Christmas spirit. (If I could, I would order it in bulk and have it shipped to everyone on Earth.) Many find it difficult to get into the spirit -- and this may be as much being fed up with the craziness as it can be depression -- and there is nothing wrong with the simple wish for others to be in the spirit as well.
For some of us, it is harder to get into the Christmas spirit because our own spirit is broken or hurting. Solely sharing in the joy is not the only means of living out the Christmas spirit, but showing compassion to those who are suffering more at this time of year is, too.
Terry
Monday, December 3, 2018
Word of the Day: VIOLATED
Days ago, a story came out of Minneapolis that is truly disturbing. It occurred at Osseo Senior High School and involves a transgender female student. The part of the story that is in dispute at this point is whether or not the student was banned from using the girls' bathroom. The student says she was; the principal and school board says she wasn't.
A video recorded by the student was posted online. The retweet of the video (shown below) was posted by someone other than the student.
On the school's website, a posting from the principal, Michael Lehan, addressed the situation.
Principal's Message to Families Regarding Nov. 28 Incident
Dear Osseo Senior High families:
I am aware of social media posts that significantly misrepresent an incident that
occurred at school on Nov. 28. It’s important for you to know that no students
were barred or banned from using any bathroom at Osseo Senior High.
I sincerely wish I could say more, but for data privacy reasons, I cannot provide
details about a situation involving a specific student.
What I hope you already know is that we work every day to create an inclusive
school where students feel welcome and respected. Our staff regularly works
with individual students and families who have varying needs, including needs
related to identity.
I also want to assure you that staff intervenes in the use of restrooms only in
situations such as the following:
• Concern about the safety of students, staff or community members
• Illness or health-related issues
• Suspected illegal activity
Respectfully,
Michael Lehan
Principal
Osseo Senior High
Principal Lehan is trying to address a serious situation, but his response, while not terrible, doesn't fully address the situation. Let's look at what points Principal Lehan makes in his online message.
He mentions no students were banned from using any bathroom at the school. As I've mentioned, the student herself disputes that. He gives data privacy as his reason for not going into any further detail. This may be due to either not divulging the identity of an underage student or, in light of the school board and school district making no other comment, to not divulge the names of the adults who entered the bathroom. While understandable in the case of the student, why keep the adults' identities quiet if they were presumably acting properly?
Principal Lehan goes on to mention their work to make Osseo Senior High School inclusive, welcoming, and respectful, even working with those with needs, including identity. It might be important to note here that Osseo School District is no stranger to controversy regarding LGBT issues. Thirteen years ago, a student group, Straights and Gays for Equality (SAGE), was not allowed at the Maple Grove Senior School (a school in the same district as Osseo Senior High) to freely promote their events. The group complained that other groups (i.e. synchronized swimming team, cheerleading squad, and Black Achievers group) could promote their events, but not them.
The school district initially said the other groups were allowed to promote their events, including announcements over the school's public address system, and allowed access to the school's facilities because those groups were viewed as curricular activities. Lawyers for SAGE (including some parents) disagreed and argued those groups were not connected to, or stemmed from, any particular classes. A lawsuit was filed by the ACLU in 2005 on behalf of SAGE, claiming the school violated the federal Equal Access Act. The presiding district judge ruled in favor of SAGE and issued a temporary restraining order against the school the following year.
The Osseo School District filed appeals against the injunction, but were unsuccessful every time. In the Fall of 2007, a permanent injunction was issued, giving SAGE the same rights of promoting and equal access as other groups throughout the entire school district.
While the SAGE fiasco more than a decade ago and the current issue of this transgender student may or may not be the only issues the district has had on its hands, how this student was treated is nothing short of disgraceful. If Principal Lehan is correct, exactly how is what happened to this student showing inclusiveness? I would hardly call this treatment welcoming, rather more along the lines of the antithesis of respectful.
And is this occurrence an example of working with this student to address her needs? Hardly. What this showed is that this student's needs, at least on this day, fell somewhere in the spectrum between irrelevant and non-existent.
Per the principal's online message, what threat did this transgender student pose by going to the bathroom? An olfactory offense? She did not appear to be sick or unhealthy in any way, so is her going to the bathroom going to make anyone else sick? (Maybe if she had a cold and touched a lot of common areas, like handles and knobs, or coughed without covering her mouth.) Also, what law did she break?
And what warranted having three adults enter the girls' bathroom, two of whom were male, and open the door to the stall she was in? Seriously, what??!!!!
I realize that transgender public bathroom access is a huge national issue. Transgender people are people and, as such, they have to go to the bathroom just like anyone else. Overzealous arguments against equal access have an inherent presumption of a lower moral character on the part of the transgender individual. If you looked, I'll bet that the vast majority of those who commit such acts are not transgender persons (called, as of late, cisgender). Whenever I hear arguments about soliciting sex in bathrooms (public lewdness), my answer is always four words: Former Senator Larry Craig.
If you would like to let Principal Michael Lehan know your feelings on this, here is the contact information:
His E-mail address is lehanm@district279.org
The high school's phone number is 763-391-8500, and its fax number is 763-391-8511.
If you would like to let The Osseo School District ISD 279 know your feelings on this, here is the contact information:
Its phone number is 763-391-7000
Its E-mail address is WeListen@district279.org
Terry
A video recorded by the student was posted online. The retweet of the video (shown below) was posted by someone other than the student.
A transgender female student @ Osseo Senior High was ostracized by administration, violated, and put out of school for using the Girl's bathroom. 🤬— Kenidra4Humanity (@KenidraRWoods_) November 29, 2018
Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/Pkh46MAjJP
On the school's website, a posting from the principal, Michael Lehan, addressed the situation.
I am aware of social media posts that significantly misrepresent an incident that
occurred at school on Nov. 28. It’s important for you to know that no students
were barred or banned from using any bathroom at Osseo Senior High.
I sincerely wish I could say more, but for data privacy reasons, I cannot provide
details about a situation involving a specific student.
What I hope you already know is that we work every day to create an inclusive
school where students feel welcome and respected. Our staff regularly works
with individual students and families who have varying needs, including needs
related to identity.
I also want to assure you that staff intervenes in the use of restrooms only in
situations such as the following:
• Concern about the safety of students, staff or community members
• Illness or health-related issues
• Suspected illegal activity
Respectfully,
Michael Lehan
Principal
Osseo Senior High
Principal Lehan is trying to address a serious situation, but his response, while not terrible, doesn't fully address the situation. Let's look at what points Principal Lehan makes in his online message.
He mentions no students were banned from using any bathroom at the school. As I've mentioned, the student herself disputes that. He gives data privacy as his reason for not going into any further detail. This may be due to either not divulging the identity of an underage student or, in light of the school board and school district making no other comment, to not divulge the names of the adults who entered the bathroom. While understandable in the case of the student, why keep the adults' identities quiet if they were presumably acting properly?
Principal Lehan goes on to mention their work to make Osseo Senior High School inclusive, welcoming, and respectful, even working with those with needs, including identity. It might be important to note here that Osseo School District is no stranger to controversy regarding LGBT issues. Thirteen years ago, a student group, Straights and Gays for Equality (SAGE), was not allowed at the Maple Grove Senior School (a school in the same district as Osseo Senior High) to freely promote their events. The group complained that other groups (i.e. synchronized swimming team, cheerleading squad, and Black Achievers group) could promote their events, but not them.
The school district initially said the other groups were allowed to promote their events, including announcements over the school's public address system, and allowed access to the school's facilities because those groups were viewed as curricular activities. Lawyers for SAGE (including some parents) disagreed and argued those groups were not connected to, or stemmed from, any particular classes. A lawsuit was filed by the ACLU in 2005 on behalf of SAGE, claiming the school violated the federal Equal Access Act. The presiding district judge ruled in favor of SAGE and issued a temporary restraining order against the school the following year.
The Osseo School District filed appeals against the injunction, but were unsuccessful every time. In the Fall of 2007, a permanent injunction was issued, giving SAGE the same rights of promoting and equal access as other groups throughout the entire school district.
While the SAGE fiasco more than a decade ago and the current issue of this transgender student may or may not be the only issues the district has had on its hands, how this student was treated is nothing short of disgraceful. If Principal Lehan is correct, exactly how is what happened to this student showing inclusiveness? I would hardly call this treatment welcoming, rather more along the lines of the antithesis of respectful.
And is this occurrence an example of working with this student to address her needs? Hardly. What this showed is that this student's needs, at least on this day, fell somewhere in the spectrum between irrelevant and non-existent.
Per the principal's online message, what threat did this transgender student pose by going to the bathroom? An olfactory offense? She did not appear to be sick or unhealthy in any way, so is her going to the bathroom going to make anyone else sick? (Maybe if she had a cold and touched a lot of common areas, like handles and knobs, or coughed without covering her mouth.) Also, what law did she break?
And what warranted having three adults enter the girls' bathroom, two of whom were male, and open the door to the stall she was in? Seriously, what??!!!!
I realize that transgender public bathroom access is a huge national issue. Transgender people are people and, as such, they have to go to the bathroom just like anyone else. Overzealous arguments against equal access have an inherent presumption of a lower moral character on the part of the transgender individual. If you looked, I'll bet that the vast majority of those who commit such acts are not transgender persons (called, as of late, cisgender). Whenever I hear arguments about soliciting sex in bathrooms (public lewdness), my answer is always four words: Former Senator Larry Craig.
If you would like to let Principal Michael Lehan know your feelings on this, here is the contact information:
His E-mail address is lehanm@district279.org
The high school's phone number is 763-391-8500, and its fax number is 763-391-8511.
If you would like to let The Osseo School District ISD 279 know your feelings on this, here is the contact information:
Its phone number is 763-391-7000
Its E-mail address is WeListen@district279.org
Terry
Monday, October 29, 2018
Term of the Day: HEALTHCARELESS
A very dear friend of mine died today.
I am both saddened and angered. The grief and anger I feel at this loss run neck and neck for first place in my mind.
It is no secret that health care in the United States is a mess. (That is being generous.) Not only are things such as out-of-reach pricing of medications and the amount of red tape one has to sift through contributing to this epidemic -- use of the word "epidemic" here is not simply for irony -- but actual hands-on, person-to-person health care is shameful. Lest anyone thinks my broad brush is standing at the ready, allow me to say that there are many health care professionals who do, indeed, function professionally. An unfortunate side effect is those individuals tend to get overlooked. It is not surprising, given the multitude of horror stories, but there are fine men and women who do understand that health care is not simply the banner under which their job lies. Those professionals should be lifted up as exemplars.
As you have guessed, my focus today is on those whose jobs fall under the banner of health care, but their performance is clearly health careless ... even health couldn't-care-less.
My focus will be on one person, my friend who died. His name is Ed, and he and his husband Bud have been dear friends of mine for twelve years. Ed was a good man. Those who would dismiss him as anything but, simply because he was gay, are missing the point. He worked as an elementary school teacher for several years, and he was beloved. People who he had taught decades earlier when they were children still had high praise for Ed all these years later. He was heavily involved in local theatre for many years, working in front of the footlights and behind the scenes. (He and I met that way. He was working stage crew for a show I was in, and would direct me in a show the following year.) He did everything most people do ... get dressed and go to work, pay bills, and argued and had wonderful times with his spouse, etc. He and Bud had been together for nearly forty years. They had a civil union several years ago and later got married when it was made legal here in New Jersey. Ed died just three days shy of his and Bud's fifth wedding anniversary. He was not evil or mean-spirited and was one of the kindest persons I have ever known.
Ed's health had taken a huge turn for the worse in the past four months, but his problems began nine years ago. How bad has his condition become? It started with: you do have cancer, you don't have cancer, you do have cancer, you don't have cancer. And that was the start of all this! Add to that whether or not his prostate should be removed during all that back-and-forth. (It was removed.) Go from that to his primary care physician telling him, when he said he was experiencing chills quite frequently, to have a cup of tea. Then, try a kidney infection that kept returning over the past nine years and has never, to my knowledge, been treated properly with medication (i.e. too low of a dosage, wrong kind of antibiotic). And the different kinds of chemotherapy have been a real rollercoaster for Ed. (More on that later.)
All of that has been the bulk of the past nine years. Now, let us move on to the past four months. I visited with Ed and Bud on a Thursday. The next day, Ed was in the hospital. We had gone to lunch at a very nice Chinese restaurant near them, so we joked about not eating Chinese food again. It turned out it was a kidney infection yet again! Then, they thought he had sepsis, which can be caused by a kidney infection, and were treating that. Ed had become weak and needed to go to a rehab facility, since their home has (aside from the stairs to go upstairs) one or two steps between each room on the first floor. The first facility Ed went to was terrible. Ed was neglected by a staff mostly comprised of health couldn't-care-less individuals, including one example of an attendant coming in to take his dinner tray away. Only, he had never been given one in the first place.
Let me stop and inject here that Ed had had lap gastric banding surgery (rubberband around the stomach) a few years ago because he was very overweight. He would eat far, far less than he did prior. He would be hungry, sometimes snacking between meals, but he could not eat the amount of food he could before the surgery. He had lost a lot of weight, to where I would joke Hey, who's this guy?, and looked really good prior to all of this happening. Sadly, and unexpectedly, that initial weight loss might have factored into the past few months.
Ed's second visit to the hospital turned up nothing of major consequence, but the staff was not giving him oxygen during physical therapy (which his paperwork stated he needed) and simply giving up when Ed said he was out of breath and getting lightheaded, which was not long after he stood up. Since one of the side effects of chemotherapy is making the patient weak, Ed was taken off of his treatments in order to give his body a rest from it and the chance to have more energy to work on building up his strength. (In fact, the last chemo treatment Ed was on was an "old version" of treatments that is very harsh ... and likely not used anymore due to its harshness.) My fear, which I never told Ed or Bud, was, if Ed took too long to get his strength back and thus ended up being off the chemo for too long, it could allow the cancer to rear its ugly head again and cause even more problems.
Ed's second rehab facility, which he entered before his second hospital stay, appeared better for only a short while. A tube in Ed for his urine bag had come out -- Ed said he never felt it and didn't know it had come out -- and the overnight nurse called Bud around 6:30 in the morning to ask him if he'd transport Ed from the facility to the hospital. (Bud said her tone was very unpleasant when she had to resign herself to calling for a transport herself.) That same nurse never notified a doctor to come in to see Ed at the facility for an evaluation. Additionally, the social worker kept running things they would be doing by Bud, when Ed was fully alert and aware of everything going on around him. Not that Bud should not have known, but sometimes she would tell Bud about things and not Ed.
A few more stays at the hospital revealed that Ed had contracted clostridium difficile colitis, or C. Diff, which can cause anything from diarrhea (which Ed had) to inflammation of the colon that can be life-threatening. Ed was put on an antibiotic to treat it.
At his third rehab facility -- reminder: this is all in the span of just four months -- things improved only slightly, even with the facility being the best of the three as far as the level of care given. If you remember, I mentioned about Ed's rubberband around the stomach surgery and his eating less. All during the past three months, Ed's appetite had dropped off considerably. He wavered among not being hungry to the "metallic" taste of food from the chemo to just not feeling like eating. Clearly, depression was a huge factor most of this time. As a result, he had withered down to just a shell of his healthier, thinner former self.
One mark against this third facility, however, was, at one point, saying they thought Ed might have pneumonia. They put him on antibiotic for that ... while still taking the antibiotic for C. Diff. Taking two antibiotics at the same time can be done, but it can be a tricky proposition, too. They determined that he did not have pneumonia after all, without saying if it was a bad cold or the flu or whatever ... simply "not pneumonia".)
On yet another trip to the hospital -- I'd lost track at this point, but I think it was his seventh visit -- they decided two antibiotics at once on an already weakened body was too much, so they took him off both. By this time, they said that his C. Diff. had cleared up. They also noticed a dark spot on his liver, which they thought was his cancer spreading. I thought my fear of it coming back when the focus was on all of his other problems had come true. Ed's primary care physician looked at the scans and said that his liver did not show cancer. His physician was finally getting some major things in order, like he had said he would, and was arranging for Ed to be treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland. Ed went back to the rehab facility to await that next step in his treatment.
Two days later, I spoke with Bud on the phone who said he was told that Ed was too far gone to recover and he was coming home that day with hospice. Add to this, a home nursing company, Bayada Nurses, had Bud running around to different pharmacies to get some oral morphine for Ed, including suggesting he go to a pharmacy thirty miles away. During a heated discussion about this running around, Bud was told, "Well, you should have just let him die."
Less than forty-eight hours after coming home, Ed was gone.
It is not just ridiculously long wait times at doctors' offices and hospital emergency rooms. It is not just the greed from charging exorbitantly high prices for medications and procedures. It is not just the unnecessary tug-of-war in Congress over healthcare in America. All of those things are not footnotes, and they certainly contribute enormously to the sad state of healthcare in this country. Not to mention for every time I have heard someone complain, I've also heard someone say, "Well, that's just the way it is." A huge shift for the better is sorely overdue.
This, however, is where the toughest change needs to occur: When you have a culture that views old(er) people as disposable, unimportant, and even a waste of time and resources, and from among those numbers, people enter into the healthcare profession -- not everyone, as I have stated, holds that view, but that is still the overall culture they're drawing from -- you are going to run into people who will act accordingly. Where you come from affects where you are. No one should ever be treated (or should I say "treated") in the manner Ed was. I mentioned too many times to Ed and Bud and many of my friends that Ed needed at least a majority of people who were working to get him home healthy, at least healthier, but he did not have that majority on his side. Ed did come home, but not the way he should have.
A very dear friend of mine died today.
He did not have to.
Terry
I am both saddened and angered. The grief and anger I feel at this loss run neck and neck for first place in my mind.
It is no secret that health care in the United States is a mess. (That is being generous.) Not only are things such as out-of-reach pricing of medications and the amount of red tape one has to sift through contributing to this epidemic -- use of the word "epidemic" here is not simply for irony -- but actual hands-on, person-to-person health care is shameful. Lest anyone thinks my broad brush is standing at the ready, allow me to say that there are many health care professionals who do, indeed, function professionally. An unfortunate side effect is those individuals tend to get overlooked. It is not surprising, given the multitude of horror stories, but there are fine men and women who do understand that health care is not simply the banner under which their job lies. Those professionals should be lifted up as exemplars.
As you have guessed, my focus today is on those whose jobs fall under the banner of health care, but their performance is clearly health careless ... even health couldn't-care-less.
My focus will be on one person, my friend who died. His name is Ed, and he and his husband Bud have been dear friends of mine for twelve years. Ed was a good man. Those who would dismiss him as anything but, simply because he was gay, are missing the point. He worked as an elementary school teacher for several years, and he was beloved. People who he had taught decades earlier when they were children still had high praise for Ed all these years later. He was heavily involved in local theatre for many years, working in front of the footlights and behind the scenes. (He and I met that way. He was working stage crew for a show I was in, and would direct me in a show the following year.) He did everything most people do ... get dressed and go to work, pay bills, and argued and had wonderful times with his spouse, etc. He and Bud had been together for nearly forty years. They had a civil union several years ago and later got married when it was made legal here in New Jersey. Ed died just three days shy of his and Bud's fifth wedding anniversary. He was not evil or mean-spirited and was one of the kindest persons I have ever known.
Ed's health had taken a huge turn for the worse in the past four months, but his problems began nine years ago. How bad has his condition become? It started with: you do have cancer, you don't have cancer, you do have cancer, you don't have cancer. And that was the start of all this! Add to that whether or not his prostate should be removed during all that back-and-forth. (It was removed.) Go from that to his primary care physician telling him, when he said he was experiencing chills quite frequently, to have a cup of tea. Then, try a kidney infection that kept returning over the past nine years and has never, to my knowledge, been treated properly with medication (i.e. too low of a dosage, wrong kind of antibiotic). And the different kinds of chemotherapy have been a real rollercoaster for Ed. (More on that later.)
All of that has been the bulk of the past nine years. Now, let us move on to the past four months. I visited with Ed and Bud on a Thursday. The next day, Ed was in the hospital. We had gone to lunch at a very nice Chinese restaurant near them, so we joked about not eating Chinese food again. It turned out it was a kidney infection yet again! Then, they thought he had sepsis, which can be caused by a kidney infection, and were treating that. Ed had become weak and needed to go to a rehab facility, since their home has (aside from the stairs to go upstairs) one or two steps between each room on the first floor. The first facility Ed went to was terrible. Ed was neglected by a staff mostly comprised of health couldn't-care-less individuals, including one example of an attendant coming in to take his dinner tray away. Only, he had never been given one in the first place.
Let me stop and inject here that Ed had had lap gastric banding surgery (rubberband around the stomach) a few years ago because he was very overweight. He would eat far, far less than he did prior. He would be hungry, sometimes snacking between meals, but he could not eat the amount of food he could before the surgery. He had lost a lot of weight, to where I would joke Hey, who's this guy?, and looked really good prior to all of this happening. Sadly, and unexpectedly, that initial weight loss might have factored into the past few months.
Ed's second visit to the hospital turned up nothing of major consequence, but the staff was not giving him oxygen during physical therapy (which his paperwork stated he needed) and simply giving up when Ed said he was out of breath and getting lightheaded, which was not long after he stood up. Since one of the side effects of chemotherapy is making the patient weak, Ed was taken off of his treatments in order to give his body a rest from it and the chance to have more energy to work on building up his strength. (In fact, the last chemo treatment Ed was on was an "old version" of treatments that is very harsh ... and likely not used anymore due to its harshness.) My fear, which I never told Ed or Bud, was, if Ed took too long to get his strength back and thus ended up being off the chemo for too long, it could allow the cancer to rear its ugly head again and cause even more problems.
Ed's second rehab facility, which he entered before his second hospital stay, appeared better for only a short while. A tube in Ed for his urine bag had come out -- Ed said he never felt it and didn't know it had come out -- and the overnight nurse called Bud around 6:30 in the morning to ask him if he'd transport Ed from the facility to the hospital. (Bud said her tone was very unpleasant when she had to resign herself to calling for a transport herself.) That same nurse never notified a doctor to come in to see Ed at the facility for an evaluation. Additionally, the social worker kept running things they would be doing by Bud, when Ed was fully alert and aware of everything going on around him. Not that Bud should not have known, but sometimes she would tell Bud about things and not Ed.
A few more stays at the hospital revealed that Ed had contracted clostridium difficile colitis, or C. Diff, which can cause anything from diarrhea (which Ed had) to inflammation of the colon that can be life-threatening. Ed was put on an antibiotic to treat it.
At his third rehab facility -- reminder: this is all in the span of just four months -- things improved only slightly, even with the facility being the best of the three as far as the level of care given. If you remember, I mentioned about Ed's rubberband around the stomach surgery and his eating less. All during the past three months, Ed's appetite had dropped off considerably. He wavered among not being hungry to the "metallic" taste of food from the chemo to just not feeling like eating. Clearly, depression was a huge factor most of this time. As a result, he had withered down to just a shell of his healthier, thinner former self.
One mark against this third facility, however, was, at one point, saying they thought Ed might have pneumonia. They put him on antibiotic for that ... while still taking the antibiotic for C. Diff. Taking two antibiotics at the same time can be done, but it can be a tricky proposition, too. They determined that he did not have pneumonia after all, without saying if it was a bad cold or the flu or whatever ... simply "not pneumonia".)
On yet another trip to the hospital -- I'd lost track at this point, but I think it was his seventh visit -- they decided two antibiotics at once on an already weakened body was too much, so they took him off both. By this time, they said that his C. Diff. had cleared up. They also noticed a dark spot on his liver, which they thought was his cancer spreading. I thought my fear of it coming back when the focus was on all of his other problems had come true. Ed's primary care physician looked at the scans and said that his liver did not show cancer. His physician was finally getting some major things in order, like he had said he would, and was arranging for Ed to be treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland. Ed went back to the rehab facility to await that next step in his treatment.
Two days later, I spoke with Bud on the phone who said he was told that Ed was too far gone to recover and he was coming home that day with hospice. Add to this, a home nursing company, Bayada Nurses, had Bud running around to different pharmacies to get some oral morphine for Ed, including suggesting he go to a pharmacy thirty miles away. During a heated discussion about this running around, Bud was told, "Well, you should have just let him die."
Less than forty-eight hours after coming home, Ed was gone.
It is not just ridiculously long wait times at doctors' offices and hospital emergency rooms. It is not just the greed from charging exorbitantly high prices for medications and procedures. It is not just the unnecessary tug-of-war in Congress over healthcare in America. All of those things are not footnotes, and they certainly contribute enormously to the sad state of healthcare in this country. Not to mention for every time I have heard someone complain, I've also heard someone say, "Well, that's just the way it is." A huge shift for the better is sorely overdue.
This, however, is where the toughest change needs to occur: When you have a culture that views old(er) people as disposable, unimportant, and even a waste of time and resources, and from among those numbers, people enter into the healthcare profession -- not everyone, as I have stated, holds that view, but that is still the overall culture they're drawing from -- you are going to run into people who will act accordingly. Where you come from affects where you are. No one should ever be treated (or should I say "treated") in the manner Ed was. I mentioned too many times to Ed and Bud and many of my friends that Ed needed at least a majority of people who were working to get him home healthy, at least healthier, but he did not have that majority on his side. Ed did come home, but not the way he should have.
A very dear friend of mine died today.
He did not have to.
Terry
Friday, October 26, 2018
Phrase of the Day: YOU ARE SAFE NOW
Today, a young man who was killed simply for being gay was laid to rest today. His name is known around the world ... Matthew Shepard. He was murdered on October 12, 1998, in Colorado, left to die, tied to a fence.
You may ask why it has been two decades since his murder that his remains are finally being laid to rest. Quite simply, his parents, Dennis and Judy Shepard, were unable to find a final resting place that was safe enough or suitable enough.
He was laid to rest today at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.
Below, is a video of the entire interment service held earlier today. The sermon is delivered by The Right Reverend Gene Robinson, who is the retired bishop of the state of New Hampshire. He was also the first openly gay bishop in the U.S. Episcopal Church.
Terry
You may ask why it has been two decades since his murder that his remains are finally being laid to rest. Quite simply, his parents, Dennis and Judy Shepard, were unable to find a final resting place that was safe enough or suitable enough.
He was laid to rest today at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.
Below, is a video of the entire interment service held earlier today. The sermon is delivered by The Right Reverend Gene Robinson, who is the retired bishop of the state of New Hampshire. He was also the first openly gay bishop in the U.S. Episcopal Church.
Terry
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Phrase of the Day: FULLY HUMAN, FULLY DIVINE [REVISITING 'THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST' ON THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF ITS RELEASE]
Today, I am revisiting a major motion picture that was originally released thirty years ago today. It is a film that was not only deeply moving to watch, but also was a profound religious experience. It is also a film that had many critics, too. The film is Martin Scorsese's masterpiece, The Last Temptation of Christ, based on the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, which was first published in 1955 and later in English in 1960.
"The feeling begins. Very tender. Very loving. Then the pain starts. Claws slip
underneath the skin and tear their way up. Just before they reach my eyes, they
dig in. Then I remember."
He gets up. The scene shifts, with Jesus now involved in making something out of wood, and his voice over continues:
"First I fasted for three nights. I even whipped myself before I went to sleep. At
first it worked. Then the pain came back. And the voices They call me by name.
Jesus."
At first we do not know what this Jesus is making. It is only when he places the piece of wood he was working on, horizontally on two pegs roughly chest level and leans up against it that we realize what it is ... the cross piece for a crucifixion cross.
Wait ... he's making what?! He's making what?!
It is when Judas suddenly enters where Jesus is working and strongly criticizes what Jesus is doing that Jesus, pleadingly, says that he is struggling. When Judas wants Jesus to join him to rise up against the Romans, Jesus tells him that is not the way the Messiah will come. When Judas asks him how will he pay for his sins -- "a Jew killing Jews" -- Jesus simply answers, "With my life. That's all I have." And so, the stage is set. Not exactly the stuff of the Gospels.
That is part of Kazantzakis' point. As noted in the opening scroll in the film...
"The dual substance of Christ -- the yearning, so human, so superhuman, of man
to attain to God or, more exactly, to return to God and identify himself with him
-- has always been a deep inscrutable mystery to me."
The other point is that Jesus' nature, in Christian teachings, was both fully human and fully divine. Not fully human only. Not fully divine only. Not either nature with a majority. Kazantzakis' novel and Scorsese's film simply give more emphasis -- not sole emphasis, simply more emphasis -- on Jesus' human nature.
Most depictions of Jesus in film do not give as much attention to Jesus' human nature. Here, with more emphasis on Jesus' human side, we can see the struggle the man, the human being had with what he was being called to do. At no point in the film does Dafoe's Jesus say God isn't real or God isn't his father. Rather, it shows someone who believes in God -- even posing the question "You can't cast out God, can you?" -- being called to do something frightening and seemingly insurmountable.
If any of us were asked to do what Jesus did, would we all simply charge ahead, never questioning, never doubting ourselves (or even God)? For those who theologically are not able to accept a Jesus who doubts and questions God, Jesus' exhortation on the cross -- "Father, why have you forsaken me?" -- shows, even at the end, his human nature remained intact.
There are points throughout the film that many religious individuals will be unable to accept. My point, as one voice regarding the film, is not to criticize you and neither is it the point of the film or the novel. While controversial, the film's idea is that the journey is just as important as the destination. You may not want to "go there", but I would offer that religious teachings about Jesus aren't only about his crucifixion, either.
There are many things about which Christians have complained about in the film (and no doubt there will be more), so I will start right off looking at them. Please keep in mind, this is not a complete list of what Christians have complained about in the film.
At one point, Jesus says -- and no, this is not in the Gospels -- "God loves me. I know he does. I want him to stop." He says this because the physical pain he feels is too much for him, not because he is a non-believer or a prodigy of Satan. He simply wants his pain to end.
A possible relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is suggested early in the film. When Jesus visits her at her place of business and speaks with her, Mary condemns both Jesus and God, saying, "He took you away from me." Jesus tells her to blame him, not God. Jesus having any kind of romantic involvement with anyone, let alone a prostitute, has been rejected countless times. For me, Jesus having any romantic relationship is irrelevant, for what does his being in a relationship do to his message? My answer remains to this day: nothing.
During his journey out into the desert, he tells a monk he has sins. The monk replies everyone does. Even though Jesus says he doesn't fight, steal, or kill, he does say that he is a liar and a hypocrite. This is another huge sticking point because, in Christian teachings, Jesus was without sin. How can this be so? He says it with a straight face, but is he saying that to convince the monk or to convince himself? And is it to convince or to deflect?
He further tells the monk that his God is fear. This is insight into the man. He won't do certain things out of fear of God. Many people behave certain ways out of fear. (And yes, we still do many things out of fear, not just of God, but of many things. Fear remains a great motivator.)
Lastly, he tells the monk that Lucifer is inside of him, telling him he's the son of God. Here, Jesus shows his unwillingness to accept his destiny. And yet, it is this monk who is the first person in the film to recognize that Jesus is chosen by God.
The film slowly unfolds the ministry of Jesus and just before it, going from rebelling to simple confusion to acceptance. A visual parallel is a montage showing Jesus walking with his followers, with the number of people with him growing and growing. That unfolding represents what any human being would go through to fulfill such a destiny.
We see Jesus in the desert being tempted three times, and at the end of the third temptation, the devil says they will meet again, and they do ... and it's a whopper.
The final act begins when Jesus, nailed the cross, in great pain, cries out, "Father, why have you forsaken me?" (A key point to remember here is that this is the exact moment, when Jesus feels that God has abandoned him, that the devil -- who Jesus does not recognize as the devil -- puts his grandest scheme into effect.)
Suddenly, there is no sound. Jesus sees a young girl looking up at him. She tells him she is an angel and that he is not the Messiah after all. She takes him down from the cross and shows him a new path. Jesus gets married to Mary Magdalene (further suggesting they were involved once). Magdalene dies and the angel tells Jesus that God killed her. The angel focuses Jesus' attention to Lazarus' sister, Mary, and they start a family together.
In what might seem like a science fiction sequence about alternate or parallel timelines, we see an older Jesus walking home with his family when he hears someone preaching. The one preaching is Paul (formerly Saul). He preaches the story of Jesus as how it would be recorded in the Gospels. Jesus confronts him and calls him a liar, saying he didn't die on the cross. Paul reiterates that the Jesus about whom he is preaching did die on the cross.
We then see Jesus, now much, much older. He is startled by people screaming that Jerusalem is on fire, just as he predicted, and the Romans are killing everyone. The scene switches to Jesus lying on his death bed. He is visited by a few of his disciples, including Judas, who is extremely upset with him since he and the disciples did what they were supposed to do, but Jesus did not. Once Jesus realizes what has happened, without hesitating, he crawls outside, looks up, begs for forgiveness from God. However, time is of the essence, since dying as a mere man simply from old age would deny God's salvation. He pleads with God and is returned to the cross.
"It is accomplished."
Let me reiterate my belief that a married Jesus with a family takes nothing away from his message. The key factor here is that, when offered a life without the struggle he had with God, Jesus accepted, but when shown that the life as merely a man has been a lie, he immediately embraces what was his destiny all along. That is a powerful message.
Seeing a more human Jesus in this film, as opposed to other celluloid depictions of him, made him more real for me. Instead of his humanity being portrayed as a coincidence -- no denial of his walking, talking, preaching, and dying intended -- his humanity being portrayed as equally important makes his death on the cross even sadder and more relatable. If the Son of God lived as a man among us and felt things as we do, such as fear, anger, confusion -- none of which are sins, thus keeping his lived-without-sin existence intact -- then the depiction of Jesus in this film enriches the nature of Jesus as both fully human and fully divine.
There are those who will never see the film because of their religious beliefs. Those who have, or will, see it may not like it either as a film or on religious grounds. I respect both opinions and my goal is not to label you as "wrong". My point is also not to have the film and/or the novel replace the Bible. (I doubt that was the intention of Martin Scorsese or Nikos Kazantzakis, either.) My point is that this film is, or perhaps can be, a deeply moving experience, and, although controversial, does not thumb its nose at the biblical texts. It is, as Kazantzakis states, a "fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict".
I'm sure that any questions about whether or not I would recommend seeing it have been answered. 'The Last Temptation of Christ' is a film that you will not just remember, but one that will remain with you long after you see it ... maybe even thirty years afterward.
Terry
Monday, August 6, 2018
Phrase of the Day: HUGS OF SUPPORT
It is no secret that those in the LGBTQ community, even with the huge strides made here in the U.S., still take a lot of criticism, ridicule, and shaming. Less than half of all U.S. states have laws on the books that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. (Some of those states provide these protections for public employees only or for sexual orientation only, with two states -- Arkansas and Tennessee -- that prohibit any such laws from being passed.) Changing laws is, after all, far different than changing minds and hearts.
On an even more personal level, many times they face negativity from friends and family, often being ridiculed or shunned by those who are supposed to be closest to them. There is a non-profit organization made up of a growing group of parents who are trying to bridge that gap and to provide healing and support to those who can be hurt the most through no fault of their own. This group is made up of parents of who have LGBTQ children of their own and are sharing the love with other LGBTQ children The organization is called Free Mom Hugs.
It was started by Sara Cunningham, whose son is gay, and whose eyes were opened up to the gay community through him. She saw how religion can, at times, come between LGBTQ individuals and their parents. After attending a pride parade in Oklahoma City four years ago with her son and husband, Cunningham started an online support group for mothers of gay children and wrote a book titled How We Sleep At Night: A Mother's Memoir. She attended the same pride parade the following year, donning a button that read "Free Mom Hugs" ... and that's exactly what she offered to anyone who wanted one! That experience led her to starting Free Mom Hugs. (She is nicknamed "Mama Bear" and refers to herself as a "professional hugger".)
Free Mom Hugs goes around to different parts of the country, attending pride events and other events, giving ... you guessed it, free hugs. It is a way of showing support in a motherly way to those in the LGBTQ community who, sadly, do not have that support from their own parents. The group also offers education and information intended to bridge the gap between parent and child and between religion and families with LGBTQ children. They also support information for parents, as well as businesses, schools, and hospitals.
The organization has been around for a few years, but Cunningham and her organization garnered a lot of attention after she posted the following on her Facebook page just a couple of weeks ago...
The caption underneath reads: "PSA. If you need a mom to attend your same sex wedding because your biological mom won't. Call me. I'm there. I'll be your biggest fan. I'll even bring the bubbles."
Clearly, Sara Cunningham is a mom with an abundance of love to give, and who does so freely, as do all those involved in her organization.
Last year, the organization began its annual Free Mom Hugs Tour. Last year's tour visited ten cities across six states, and this year's tour visited twelve cities across eight states. (Both were in the month of May.)
Bridging the gap of misunderstanding is a good thing, a very good thing, and Sara Cunningham's organization is a very good one, doing wonderful work. You can visit Free Mom Hugs' website to find out more or to donate to their work. You can also check out their Facebook page, their Twitter page, or their Instagram page.
Terry
On an even more personal level, many times they face negativity from friends and family, often being ridiculed or shunned by those who are supposed to be closest to them. There is a non-profit organization made up of a growing group of parents who are trying to bridge that gap and to provide healing and support to those who can be hurt the most through no fault of their own. This group is made up of parents of who have LGBTQ children of their own and are sharing the love with other LGBTQ children The organization is called Free Mom Hugs.
It was started by Sara Cunningham, whose son is gay, and whose eyes were opened up to the gay community through him. She saw how religion can, at times, come between LGBTQ individuals and their parents. After attending a pride parade in Oklahoma City four years ago with her son and husband, Cunningham started an online support group for mothers of gay children and wrote a book titled How We Sleep At Night: A Mother's Memoir. She attended the same pride parade the following year, donning a button that read "Free Mom Hugs" ... and that's exactly what she offered to anyone who wanted one! That experience led her to starting Free Mom Hugs. (She is nicknamed "Mama Bear" and refers to herself as a "professional hugger".)
Free Mom Hugs goes around to different parts of the country, attending pride events and other events, giving ... you guessed it, free hugs. It is a way of showing support in a motherly way to those in the LGBTQ community who, sadly, do not have that support from their own parents. The group also offers education and information intended to bridge the gap between parent and child and between religion and families with LGBTQ children. They also support information for parents, as well as businesses, schools, and hospitals.
The organization has been around for a few years, but Cunningham and her organization garnered a lot of attention after she posted the following on her Facebook page just a couple of weeks ago...
Clearly, Sara Cunningham is a mom with an abundance of love to give, and who does so freely, as do all those involved in her organization.
Last year, the organization began its annual Free Mom Hugs Tour. Last year's tour visited ten cities across six states, and this year's tour visited twelve cities across eight states. (Both were in the month of May.)
Bridging the gap of misunderstanding is a good thing, a very good thing, and Sara Cunningham's organization is a very good one, doing wonderful work. You can visit Free Mom Hugs' website to find out more or to donate to their work. You can also check out their Facebook page, their Twitter page, or their Instagram page.
Terry
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Term of the Day: SUPPLEMENTAL VENDING
This blog is no stranger to positive, uplifting stories. It has, however, been a while since I have written on something uplifting, so I decided today was the day to do so.
The focus of today's blog is an overseas charity that addresses a serious problem in many parts of the world, homelessness. The charity is called Action Hunger and bills itself as "a charity with a new approach to combating homelessness". Based in Nottingham, United Kingdom, its first project is a series of vending machines strictly for the homeless to provide necessities 24/7.
The idea is that homeless individuals must check in with a local homeless shelter once a week in order to qualify for a keycard to access the vending machine. In other words, homeless shelters are not giving out the keycards willy-nilly. My understanding is, if a homeless person does not continue to check in with a participating homeless shelter, his/her keycard will be deactivated, thus halting access to the vending machine's items. This way, the vending machines, which are not intended to replace the work of shelters and other organizations, are merely a supplement to them. The weekly check-in keeps those who are homeless with access to other programs and any available means to get back on their feet again via those shelters. The use of the keycards also provides information on which items are needed more than others or less than others, which can help to refine the program.
The first Action Hunger vending machine was installed in Nottingham at the Broadmarsh shopping center last December.
It had its supporters and detractors. The Nottingham city council was one of those entities that was not enthused with the machine, calling it "ill-informed" and "misguided" and an over-simplified addressing of the complex issue of homelessness which encouraged people to remain living on the streets. Those involved with the installing and the stocking of the machine said it was not intended to address all aspects of the homelessness issue. The Broadmarsh shopping center's general manager said they had agreed to a trial of the machine to get it off the ground, but not to having it as a permanent fixture there. In April, the city council voted to have the Action Hunger vending machine removed, and it was.
Undaunted, Action Hunger has set its sights on installing its vending machines in other cities, including Manchester, Birmingham, and London, as well as throughout Europe ... and even here in the U.S., including New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle.
To this blogger, the work of Action Hunger is not, as some have suggested, a vanity project and not a means of replacing homeless shelters, food banks, church-run food pantries, and various other organizations that assist the homeless in both short-term and long-term ways. It is good work.
If you are in the United Kingdom and want to donate food, contact the organization FareShare. Here in the United States, food donations may be made by contacting the organization Rescuing Leftover Cuisine.
If you would like to donate to Action Hunger and/or find out more about it, check out its website.
Terry
The focus of today's blog is an overseas charity that addresses a serious problem in many parts of the world, homelessness. The charity is called Action Hunger and bills itself as "a charity with a new approach to combating homelessness". Based in Nottingham, United Kingdom, its first project is a series of vending machines strictly for the homeless to provide necessities 24/7.
The idea is that homeless individuals must check in with a local homeless shelter once a week in order to qualify for a keycard to access the vending machine. In other words, homeless shelters are not giving out the keycards willy-nilly. My understanding is, if a homeless person does not continue to check in with a participating homeless shelter, his/her keycard will be deactivated, thus halting access to the vending machine's items. This way, the vending machines, which are not intended to replace the work of shelters and other organizations, are merely a supplement to them. The weekly check-in keeps those who are homeless with access to other programs and any available means to get back on their feet again via those shelters. The use of the keycards also provides information on which items are needed more than others or less than others, which can help to refine the program.
The first Action Hunger vending machine was installed in Nottingham at the Broadmarsh shopping center last December.
It had its supporters and detractors. The Nottingham city council was one of those entities that was not enthused with the machine, calling it "ill-informed" and "misguided" and an over-simplified addressing of the complex issue of homelessness which encouraged people to remain living on the streets. Those involved with the installing and the stocking of the machine said it was not intended to address all aspects of the homelessness issue. The Broadmarsh shopping center's general manager said they had agreed to a trial of the machine to get it off the ground, but not to having it as a permanent fixture there. In April, the city council voted to have the Action Hunger vending machine removed, and it was.
Undaunted, Action Hunger has set its sights on installing its vending machines in other cities, including Manchester, Birmingham, and London, as well as throughout Europe ... and even here in the U.S., including New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle.
To this blogger, the work of Action Hunger is not, as some have suggested, a vanity project and not a means of replacing homeless shelters, food banks, church-run food pantries, and various other organizations that assist the homeless in both short-term and long-term ways. It is good work.
If you are in the United Kingdom and want to donate food, contact the organization FareShare. Here in the United States, food donations may be made by contacting the organization Rescuing Leftover Cuisine.
If you would like to donate to Action Hunger and/or find out more about it, check out its website.
Terry
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Word of the Day: TRAITOR
The President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is a traitor.
He is now among the likes of the U.S. Revolutionary War's Benedict Arnold, World War II's Tokyo Rose, and the Cold War's Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and is the first president to do so. He also joins the ranks of perhaps lesser known traitors, such as CIA operative Aldrich Ames, Navy communications officer, John Walker, Jr., and former FBI agent Robert Hanssen.
You may be surprised to know that, while a traitor president has never happened before, such behavior did reach up to the vice-presidency. Thomas Jefferson's first vice-president, Aaron Burr -- the same Aaron Burr who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel -- tried to militarily bring about the annexation of Spanish territories in Louisiana and Mexico, with the intent of forming a republic separate from the Union. (He was not indicted at a first court appearance, but fled the country when asked to return for a second appearance.)
The legal definition of treason includes someone "owing allegiance" to this country who: a) levies war against this country [which Trump is allowing, but has not done himself]; b) "adhering to [our] enemies" [which Trump has clearly done time and time again], and/or c) providing our enemies with "aid or comfort" whether here in the U.S. or outside the U.S. [which Trump has also clearly done both here and abroad]. The list of punishments for treason in the legal code include a minimum prison sentence of five years, a fine of at least $10,000, being disqualified to hold any office in the United States ... and even the death penalty. (The legal definition is narrow -- which is why Aaron Burr was not convicted -- and any punishments would, if pursued, likely be tangled up in the courts for a long time, and likely not put into effect if approved.)
President Trump has displayed behavior that clearly shows his admiration of, and possible desire to emulate in his presidency, authoritarian and despotic regimes. He has been showing U.S. allies indifference, dismissiveness, and disdain -- take last month's G7 summit and last week's NATO summit as examples -- while showing such dictators nothing but respect, praise, and comradery.
And in the case of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the recent disastrous "summit" in Helsinki, Finland, sharing who knows what.
To begin with, Trump has a private meeting with Putin, just the two men and their interpretors. With no one from Trump's cabinet present, there is no one else with knowledge of what was said ... or what Trump gave away to Putin, as he did with halting military exercises with South Korea as a gift to North Korea's Kim Jung Un. He has displayed this shifty behavior for some time now, including hosting Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office in May of last year with no American press allowed. Even the U.S. National Intelligence Chief Dan Coats knew nothing about that meeting ... and he knew nothing about Trump asking National Security Advisor John Bolton to invite Vladimir Putin to the White House in the Fall, which was announced today.
Trump claims he told Putin no more meddling during that one-on-one alone time, but who knows? His level of trustworthiness outside of his base is anything but stellar. At their joint press conference, the world watched to see if the U.S. president, whose country was cyber-attacked during the 2016 election, would publicly condemn the attacking country's leader, Vladimir Putin, standing directly to his left. He did not. Instead, he blamed the United States for its lousy relations with Russia and said he believed Putin's words of denial of interference over all of his own country's Intelligence agencies' findings to the contrary. His reading of a prepared statement two days ago trying to say he really meant to condemn Russia -- he meant "why it wouldn't be Russia" instead of "why it would be Russia" -- was disingenuous and visibly forced, with his own unscripted rote addition of "it could be others, too" added in for further deflection.
I have been saying among my friends for several months that I think Putin has something on Trump, some sort of dirt on him, that is keeping Trump in line. After Helsinki, political pundits are asking the same, including many of them and their guests saying Trump is acting like he is compromised by Russia in some way. Even some national security experts are not saying that Trump is a spy for Russia, but that he is acting like a "controlled spy". Putin denied any dirt on Trump at their joint press conference, but he did admit he wanted Trump to win over Hillary Clinton.
At a campaign speech just eight days before the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton made the case against Trump regarding his connections to Russia. (Her comment about Trump being Putin's puppet at the third and final presidential debate has been played far more than the video below.) Three days prior to this speech by her, then-FBI Director James Comey reopened the E-mail investigation into Clinton, so this speech was overshadowed in the news, since Trump received more television coverage than Clinton overall and Clinton's saying this after Comey's reopening of the E-mail case might have been seen as nothing more than a desperate move by her to counter bad press, anyway.
Turns out, she was right after all.
With just 8 days left, this can’t wait. RT if you agree Trump should immediately disclose all of his ties and connections to Russia. pic.twitter.com/IqmC2wIDq4— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016
To their credit, many leaders in the POT (Party of Trump) and commentators on the POT-loving Fox News (and even some on the Fox Business Channel) have condemned Trump's behavior in Helsinki. It is the most speaking out against the president they have done the entire time of Trump's presidency. However, what actions will they take to counter Trump's obsession with turning the U.S. into a rogue state, beholden to Putin, just as he is. One has to ask here: without knowing what was said in the private one-on-one session, what specifically would they be countering? Just as you cannot fix what you do not know is broken, so, too, you cannot counter what you do not know has taken place. Talking on the floors of the Senate and House of Representatives so that it goes into the Congressional record, and talking in front of cameras so that it spills into the homes of the American public, are just words. Appropriate words, yes, but just words.
Just two days ago, members of the House POT blocked a measure by Democrats to simply condemn Trump's comments in Helsinki. If the POT will not even allow a condemnation, what more can they be expected to do to serve the country and uphold the Constitution?
The actions in government in general are also suspect. The Treasury Department announced on Monday that non-profit organizations will no longer be required to disclose donations of any donors who contribute $5,000 or more. Included among those affected by this ruling is the National Rifle Association, which is now embroiled in controversy with the arrest of Russian operative Mariia Butina. (The NRA did recently admit to accepting monies from nearly two dozen donors with ties to Russia.)
Mr. Trump has not only shown a bastardized view of the world and of the U.S. presidency, as well as an unfitness for the highest office in the land, but he has shown himself to truly be a puppet of Vladimir Putin after all, a worshiper of demogogues, and a traitor of the United States of America.
Terry
Monday, July 16, 2018
Film of the Day: DON'T BE A SUCKER
A short film was released by the U.S. War Department (which would later become what we know as the Department of Defense) that oddly and sadly has relevance again seventy-five after its release.
In 1943, during the height of the second World War, the U.S. War Department produced a short film about how political and social propaganda was being used to recruit Nazi sympathizers ... not just in Germany, but also here in the United States. The title of the film is 'Don't Be a Sucker', and many elements in this film are sadly being seen again.
I invite you to watch this film. (Running time is approximately twenty-three minutes.)
Terry
In 1943, during the height of the second World War, the U.S. War Department produced a short film about how political and social propaganda was being used to recruit Nazi sympathizers ... not just in Germany, but also here in the United States. The title of the film is 'Don't Be a Sucker', and many elements in this film are sadly being seen again.
I invite you to watch this film. (Running time is approximately twenty-three minutes.)
Terry
Sunday, June 24, 2018
Sentiment of the Day: R.I.P. AMERICA [Part 6 of 6]
Much of my focus the past five days has been on politics in general and the current administration specifically, but I have also focused on our society. While politics is not the totality of a society, it nonetheless does have a major impact on it.
In terms of politics, and what I mentioned yesterday about the need for us to stop casting votes out of fear, we need to be smarter and more active. A number of other steps that may be taken to address this: Perhaps a "None of the Above" option on all ballots or writing in "No Confidence" (as I did for President in 2016). Certainly, the ending of gerrymandering is necessary and abolishing the Electoral College would be a very good thing as well.
One final note here of a political nature: We need a president who does not find inspiration from, and does not want to emulate, despots.
In 1948, three years after the end of World War II, the United Nations, during what it called the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, defined what constitutes genocide. In Article II of the declaration, there are five definitions of genocide listed. One of the definitions is: "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group".
Sound familiar?
Granted, none of the citizenry put this policy into place, but this is a stain on our collective soul. What have we become and what are we becoming? We are both supporting and protesting this activity and we are arguing among ourselves more and more. Agreeing to disagree is being replaced with fighting because we disagree.
If you search for "country [loses/lost/losing] its soul" on Google, you will find links to articles arguing that we have, indeed, lost our soul or are in the process. Some of them were even posted after the one-year mark for President Trump, and not just in response to the current manufactured crisis.
When compromise is anathema, when differing views are equated with hatred toward one's country and fellow human beings, when being different is condemnable, and when hate itself is emboldened, how can a nation's soul be intact? How can it be pure? The sad truth is it can't be either intact or pure.
Right about this point in this posting would be the time to project a positive message about the future. I am not projecting a positive message, at least not fully, and I am not pushing an utter doom-and-gloom scenario, either. Looking at the title of this six-part series, I do believe America is dead. Oh, it's still called the United States of America ... its total land mass is the same ... the number of states is the same ... and our forty-eight contiguous states are still in between the countries of Canada and Mexico ... but America is dead.
Now, can it be revived? Yes, but it would take a massive effort from all of us -- and I do mean each and every one of us -- to bring that about. The question is can we all do that? Well, can we? I've thought long and hard on this, and just it seems to me, sad to say, that the idea of a country working together -- not just pockets of that country, but the entire country -- is no longer feasible.
Additionally, is there one person alive in this country, walking around, doing whatever he or she is doing, who can solve everything? No. We are a nation of pill takers for all sorts of ailments, and it seems we think our solutions have to be as easy as taking a pill, too. I could go into great detail on what my take is on how to bring about a huge change, at least organizationally -- although it may be, admittedly, a bit pretentious -- but let me say here that a huge part of it needs to be an attitudinal change, the hardest kind of change. We need a huge paradigm shift to revive this country ...
... but how bad do we want it?
We have plenty of energy to complain about things in this country -- I've found myself doing that, too, now and then -- but we don't have the stomach for doing the hard work. Part of that, I think, is that things are so rough for people, in terms of the economy, that they have to focus on taking care of themselves. Making ends meet is always a priority and a tough thing to do. I get that ... I really do. The problem is, if that trend continues, might a sense of hopelessness become second nature, like breathing? Have we arrived at the point where we know we are being ignored and all hell has to break loose in order to affect any kind of change? (And all hell breaking loose about every single issue?) Not yet, but we are teetering on that precipice far too often.
There were a lot of memes of a gravestone with the inscription of "R.I.P. America 1776-2016", following the election of Donald Trump. I had a sliver of hope, ever so thin that it was, that there would be enough people watching and involved to stem a tide of destruction. In just a year-and-a-half, that sliver of hope is gone. There is a way back, as covered with brush and darkness that it may be right now, and maybe we will find it.
In the meantime, at least for now (and for however long), Rest In Peace, America.
Terry
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Sentiment of the Day: R.I.P. AMERICA [Part 5 of 6]
There have been many presidents who were not as well-liked as other presidents, either during their term or afterward. Names such as Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Warren G. Harding, and George W. Bush come to mind. To be fair, the job of President is a difficult one, no matter who occupies the position, and there is no way to train for it. When you are President, you have to realize and accept that you will never please everyone all the time; it comes with the territory. Having, say, a steely resolve and clear intentions are certainly insufficient to guarantee likability and/or success in the position.
There will always be those citizens who are strictly one political party or another all the way. There are those who may vote primarily for one party, but have voted for candidates of a different party from time to time. My parents were always siding with the Democrats, saying they were for the working man, even though, to my knowledge, they never voted. (Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.)
I fully understand the sentiment of voting being pointless because of such criticisms as politicians lie too much, they never keep all of their promises, and they mostly serve the wealthy, which includes themselves, not the common folk. All of that is not just sour grapes. The past presidential election showed two key elements: One, voting out of fear is still, sadly, alive and well in this country; and two, an unfriendly country (Russia) was able to meddle in a presidential election. If we send people on missions, usually through the United Nations and other global watchdog groups, to observe whether or not various elections go smoothly, then we need to exercise that same intent within our own system.
Beware! That meddling in 2016 does not mean it cannot happen during mid-term elections this November.
It is easy and, quite frankly, lazy to label all those who voted for Donald Trump. Calling names might make the caller feel good, but it solves nothing. Mr. Trump was savvy enough to play on the fears about immigrants (fear of "the other") and fears about jobs to win the election. It is not a new tactic, and I have to admit to feeling disheartened thinking that his use of it will likely not be the last time it's used in an election or in trying get legislation passed.
What I will offer here is to say that the 2016 presidential election must become proof, once and for all, that simply voting out of fear cannot be a viable motivation. That is not to say fear is easy to ignore when voting, but it can no longer be your biggest reason for heading to the voting booth on Election Day. And yet, that is part of the reason the election went the way that it did. Simply put, when fear is a motivator in an election, the result and aftermath are not always pretty.
Think back to when you feared something -- and I mean fear of something life-affecting -- and ask yourself how clearly did you think in that moment? Were all of your actions clearly thought out to their logical conclusion? Not every major decision I've made in life was a smart one, even when fear wasn't involved, and any made while being fearful were not easily made or produced the best results. No less must be true when it comes to voting in an election.
The 2016 presidential election is not the only example of voting out of fear and maybe, sad to say, this year's mid-terms will play out the same way for the same reason. (I sincerely hope not.) Let me offer this as food for thought: Can you think of a candidate, any candidate, who did not mention jobs? If you look back in history, will you find any candidate who did not mention jobs?
Now take those questions and expand on them further: Can you think of a candidate who campaigned on taking away jobs? Yes, there have been some whose policies or promises might lessen jobs for certain sectors. What I mean here is can you think of any candidate who just came right out and said If you lose your job, oh well or I will work to increase unemployment numbers? Of course not. They are not going to campaign on losing jobs. What candidate would? They certainly wouldn't get very far if they did.
My point is that jobs will always be a concern, even if mostly everyone had a job ... that is, a permanent, full-time, livable-wage job. When a candidate is harping over and over again about jobs, maybe even about a certain kind of job or a certain sector of jobs, unless the reported unemployment numbers are like those during the Great Depression, those candidates are playing on your fears.
Similarly, when they talk about "the other", usually this is about immigrants but not solely them, unless there is proof that the vast number of them are (as Trump said in his speech announcing his presidential campaign) "bringing drugs [and] bringing crime [and are] rapists", then they are playing on your fears. Have there been those who crossed the border illegally who brought drugs with them? Sure, but far more drugs come into this country through means other than via illegal immigrants. Have there been any who crossed over into the U.S. who committed crimes? Sure, but out of the total number of crimes committed in this country, the number committed by those here illegally is a small percentage. (The current administration, but not just the current administration, likes to conflate and cherry-pick numbers to make it sound worse than it is.) Have there been any rapists who crossed into the U.S.? I do not know for certain, but I would suspect that, with the fervor against immigrants in this country, if the number of rapists and rapes were significantly high, that information would have come out long before this blog posting.
All of that is not to say we should, as a nation, start approving crime ... of course not. However, when you highlight something as being so terrible, when the numbers simply do not back you up, then you are using disproportionate highlighting to play on people's fears. It is akin to far more terrorist attacks in this country being committed by citizens rather than by foreigners coming here for that sole purpose, but stating that the threat from outside our borders is greater. For the voter, it should be a case of if you can't back up what you're saying, then I can't back you.
Instead, what we currently have, and this phrase popped up on many news programs last week, is a cult of personality for our political system. Forget democracy, never mind a republic, it is a cult of personality. The GOP (Grand Old Party, the nickname for the Republican Party) is gone and has been replaced with the POT (Party of Trump). (It is not just R.I.P. America, it is also R.I.P. the Republican Party.)
None of this is all one group of persons' fault. It is not just the fault of the voters -- they are, after all, the ones casting votes -- and it is not just the fault of the politicians. My point throughout all of today's post is we are indirectly responsible for what politicians who were voted in do while in office because we put them there, but we are directly responsible for what we do. That includes when we go to the polls. We must be wiser collectively when we vote.
In his first inaugural address, on March 4, 1933 -- it wasn't until his second inauguration that the date of inauguration was changed to January 20 -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this country's thirty-second president, said these immortal words:
How true and how ominous those words are now after years of voting out of fear. For what we can do, for the one part we play in a democracy, we must reject that as normative.
Terry
There will always be those citizens who are strictly one political party or another all the way. There are those who may vote primarily for one party, but have voted for candidates of a different party from time to time. My parents were always siding with the Democrats, saying they were for the working man, even though, to my knowledge, they never voted. (Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.)
I fully understand the sentiment of voting being pointless because of such criticisms as politicians lie too much, they never keep all of their promises, and they mostly serve the wealthy, which includes themselves, not the common folk. All of that is not just sour grapes. The past presidential election showed two key elements: One, voting out of fear is still, sadly, alive and well in this country; and two, an unfriendly country (Russia) was able to meddle in a presidential election. If we send people on missions, usually through the United Nations and other global watchdog groups, to observe whether or not various elections go smoothly, then we need to exercise that same intent within our own system.
Beware! That meddling in 2016 does not mean it cannot happen during mid-term elections this November.
It is easy and, quite frankly, lazy to label all those who voted for Donald Trump. Calling names might make the caller feel good, but it solves nothing. Mr. Trump was savvy enough to play on the fears about immigrants (fear of "the other") and fears about jobs to win the election. It is not a new tactic, and I have to admit to feeling disheartened thinking that his use of it will likely not be the last time it's used in an election or in trying get legislation passed.
What I will offer here is to say that the 2016 presidential election must become proof, once and for all, that simply voting out of fear cannot be a viable motivation. That is not to say fear is easy to ignore when voting, but it can no longer be your biggest reason for heading to the voting booth on Election Day. And yet, that is part of the reason the election went the way that it did. Simply put, when fear is a motivator in an election, the result and aftermath are not always pretty.
Think back to when you feared something -- and I mean fear of something life-affecting -- and ask yourself how clearly did you think in that moment? Were all of your actions clearly thought out to their logical conclusion? Not every major decision I've made in life was a smart one, even when fear wasn't involved, and any made while being fearful were not easily made or produced the best results. No less must be true when it comes to voting in an election.
The 2016 presidential election is not the only example of voting out of fear and maybe, sad to say, this year's mid-terms will play out the same way for the same reason. (I sincerely hope not.) Let me offer this as food for thought: Can you think of a candidate, any candidate, who did not mention jobs? If you look back in history, will you find any candidate who did not mention jobs?
Now take those questions and expand on them further: Can you think of a candidate who campaigned on taking away jobs? Yes, there have been some whose policies or promises might lessen jobs for certain sectors. What I mean here is can you think of any candidate who just came right out and said If you lose your job, oh well or I will work to increase unemployment numbers? Of course not. They are not going to campaign on losing jobs. What candidate would? They certainly wouldn't get very far if they did.
My point is that jobs will always be a concern, even if mostly everyone had a job ... that is, a permanent, full-time, livable-wage job. When a candidate is harping over and over again about jobs, maybe even about a certain kind of job or a certain sector of jobs, unless the reported unemployment numbers are like those during the Great Depression, those candidates are playing on your fears.
Similarly, when they talk about "the other", usually this is about immigrants but not solely them, unless there is proof that the vast number of them are (as Trump said in his speech announcing his presidential campaign) "bringing drugs [and] bringing crime [and are] rapists", then they are playing on your fears. Have there been those who crossed the border illegally who brought drugs with them? Sure, but far more drugs come into this country through means other than via illegal immigrants. Have there been any who crossed over into the U.S. who committed crimes? Sure, but out of the total number of crimes committed in this country, the number committed by those here illegally is a small percentage. (The current administration, but not just the current administration, likes to conflate and cherry-pick numbers to make it sound worse than it is.) Have there been any rapists who crossed into the U.S.? I do not know for certain, but I would suspect that, with the fervor against immigrants in this country, if the number of rapists and rapes were significantly high, that information would have come out long before this blog posting.
All of that is not to say we should, as a nation, start approving crime ... of course not. However, when you highlight something as being so terrible, when the numbers simply do not back you up, then you are using disproportionate highlighting to play on people's fears. It is akin to far more terrorist attacks in this country being committed by citizens rather than by foreigners coming here for that sole purpose, but stating that the threat from outside our borders is greater. For the voter, it should be a case of if you can't back up what you're saying, then I can't back you.
Instead, what we currently have, and this phrase popped up on many news programs last week, is a cult of personality for our political system. Forget democracy, never mind a republic, it is a cult of personality. The GOP (Grand Old Party, the nickname for the Republican Party) is gone and has been replaced with the POT (Party of Trump). (It is not just R.I.P. America, it is also R.I.P. the Republican Party.)
None of this is all one group of persons' fault. It is not just the fault of the voters -- they are, after all, the ones casting votes -- and it is not just the fault of the politicians. My point throughout all of today's post is we are indirectly responsible for what politicians who were voted in do while in office because we put them there, but we are directly responsible for what we do. That includes when we go to the polls. We must be wiser collectively when we vote.
In his first inaugural address, on March 4, 1933 -- it wasn't until his second inauguration that the date of inauguration was changed to January 20 -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this country's thirty-second president, said these immortal words:
"THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR IS FEAR ITSELF."
How true and how ominous those words are now after years of voting out of fear. For what we can do, for the one part we play in a democracy, we must reject that as normative.
Terry
TOMORROW
THE CONCLUSION
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)