Redefined War On Terrorism

How do we pick and choose when we want to fight terrorism?
In the 90's, Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh laid a plot and successfully bombed at Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City. Lots of women and children were killed. It was a direct attack on "The People" of the United States - striking at the very fabric of our Federal Government. The two seemed to have ties with right wing extremists in the United States, and preached a message of hatred toward the United States and our Government. They were clearly terrorists - terrorists representing an extreme anti-government hatred from within our own borders.
Clinton could have declared a "War on Terrorism", I suppose, and spent hundreds of billions of money that we didn't have on trying to create a myth of security. But that didn't happen for two reasons:

• I think he was wiser than that, and not reckless with trying to scapegoat one particular group in order to take our eyes off of the real problems that we should be working to correct.
• The right wing in this country, and the vast media empire that they control, would never have allowed it, as it would have struck at the heart of movements that they actually seem to support.

Then, the next big terrorist attack occurred. This time they didn't strike at "The People" of our nation as represented by our government and our government agencies. Instead they struck at the symbol of corporate greed and the emerging Plutarcy that is taking control of our nation. This time, the death toll was much bigger, and the financial impact was even bigger. This time, the terrorism didn't come from the right wing cancer within our own country, but instead from the right wing cancer within the Islamic world - extreme Islamic Fundamentalism. This time, the right wing within our own country was firmly in power, and they pounced on the event to galvanize the sort of "demonization" that they could rally people around. They did a great job of manufacturing a "War on Terror", and using this guise to rape the public treasury of hundreds of billions of money that belong to The People.
Sure, we may have created some short term security gains in our country as a result. We seem to have been able to continue to thwart potential threats that were related to the right wing Islamists. However, just last week, a nut-case of another brand successfully executed another terrorist attack in our country. This time, there was not the great loss of life as the terrorist flew his plane into the IRS building in Texas, but the symbolism was the same as the McVeigh terrorist attack on OKC. This was an attack directly on The People of the United States of America, as represented by our government.
And where is the right wing and their giant media machine in this country?
I know that it is hard to believe, but now, instead of supporting a War on Terror, they actually appear to be supporting the Terrorists. They have kept the story very low-key in their media, and they have actually begun to spin up support for the "underlying causes" of this attack.

Hard to believe, I know, but apparently true. I continue to see media pieces focused on the sympathy for the sorts of frustration with the actions of our government that would lead to an outcry like this bombing.

Now, I'm no great supported of the IRS, or many of the ways that our government operates. But our government continues to be YOU AND ME. When someone attacks us in this manner, it is an act of terrorism, plain and simple. Our response should be the same in all cases. If we think that the appropriate response to 9/11 is to spend a trillion dollars on invading a couple of countries, then why isn't an appropriate response to OKC and the IRS bombing to spend at least a few hundred billion inside our own borders rooting out and destroying the sort of anti-government rhetoric and fundamentalism that makes this sort of thing happen?
Let me be very clear - I do not thing that is an appropriate or productive response, just like I don't think that what we have done in Iraq and Afganistan is appropriate or productive.

My point is very clear - the right wing in this country continues to control the message that gets to us, and grows ever more effective in their "big brother" role of thought control. Nobody seems outraged at this terrorist attack, and even worse, the right wing media seems to have done a GREAT job of getting us all to think that maybe what happened was OK - maybe we should open our minds to having a little sympathy for the underlying causes of the attack - the sense of oppression and injustice that seems to have been there.
Where was this sort of open-minded thought process in 2001? Those who suggested it were crucified.
All three attacks were equally wrong. They all three deserve similar response on our part. The people who carried them out, and the people who supported them, should be prosecuted. Period. I sympathize with none of them. However, in all cases, we SHOULD look at the underlying causes, and do what we can to correct the real problem. More on that later...

I'm just saying...
We need to wake up and see what the right wing is doing to manipulate us. Big Brother grows more effective every day, and this little example demonstrates it so very clearly.

Craig - Really? More of the same?

Craig, 
After our conversation today, I came to your site. There is so much to be disturbed about out in politics today, and Obama is way low on the list. He is actually trying to do something positive. So, since the theme of your site seems to be to just "attack" the one guy who seems to be trying to make some positive changes, I really have no interest in reading it.

If you were to focus on the real issues - the things that we true conservatives should be focused on, then I might have some interest. For example: 

• What about the absurdly activist right-wing Supreme Court decision recently to step WAY BEYOND what they were asked to rule on, and make law in the country by ruling that a corporation is the same as a person, and entitled to the same Bill of Rights protection? Even worst, they decided to rule that money = speech. This may just be the most destructive Supreme Court ruling in the history of our country, yet it isn't on top of the agenda for all conservatives? Obama happens to be on our side on this one.
• You want to talk about fiscal irresponsibility? As you and I discussed, the most "fiscally conservative" administration that we have had in the past 30 years was the Clinton administration. I hope that shames my fellow Republicans as much as it shames me. Between Reagan and Bush2, the massive debt load was created at a time when it wasn't needed. Now, in a time of financial disaster, we actually need to assume debt to prevent collapse, but the massive debt load that was created by Reagan and Bush2 amplifies the negative effects of this coming debt. By the way, the 2009 growth in debt belonged to Bush2, as that was his budget. Just like the 2001 economy belonged to Clinton. Remember that the budget is created a year in advance.
• And speaking of the debt, how absolutely criminal is it that we bailed out the banks in 2008? All of you folks who want to attack Obama conveniently forget that it was Baby Bush who did the bank bailout deal, for which people should be tried for treason in my opinion.
• And speaking of treason trials and fiscal irresponsibility in the same sentence, we have to put the whole debt on the table here, and see where it comes from today. When Bush Baby took office, the debt was $5.something trillion - depends on exactly when you cut if off. When he turned it over to Obama, it was something north of $10 trillion. Almost doubled it in 8 years. And worst, these were 8 years when we DID NOT NEED to be taking on additional debt - we took on the additional debt in order to artificially stimulate an economy that did not need stimulating in order to make him look good in the short term, with the predictable result of the near disastrous crash that he brought on. And, that $10 trillion doesn't even include the massive $trillion+ cost of the war (which he refused to have the balls to ask the American people to pay for) or the $trillion in bank bailouts that he authorized.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

OK, so now we get to Obama. (I could go on but my point was simple - stop blaming Obama for the mess that Reagan and Bush Baby have created.) I am sick to my stomach over the Republicans in congress who sit on their hands and refuse to participate in any positive way in working our way out of the mess we have gotten into. I am ashamed that I am still registered as a Republican. Obama continues to reach out to these people, and they continue to play the old games. And of course, we all know that the Democrats are just too plain dumb to organize any sort of counter to the Republicans sitting on their hands. What ever happened to the "up or down vote" rhetoric that came from the right wing when there was filibuster threat from the Dems when they were in the minority? How quickly we forget, and how quickly the Dems continue to fail to get it. 

So, what is it that you're mad about? 

• The fiscal mess? Then realize where the mess came from, and help the guy in power now try and fix it. Stop voting for these "don't tax and spend anyway" people of either party. 
• Ongoing security concerns? Start supporting efforts to get us off of an oil-based economy. We started down this road in the late 70's, and the go-go Reagan years made us forget that this is a time-bomb we have to face someday. Of course, the Bush family is so in-bed with the Saudi's and the oil industry that they did all that they could to cement our ongoing dependency. If we were not dependent on oil, (its not about foreign oil, its about OIL), then we could immediately cut our defense budget in half. That's big bucks, I don't care who you are. And most of all, we could let the Bin Ladens and the rest of the Saudi, Iranian, Russian, and Iraqi oil criminals rot in their stinkin' oil. How 'bout investing in some good old-fashioned American ingenuity and manufacturing, and create an industry building wind, solar, and other alternative generating sources. Sure its complex and hard, but we're not stupid people, and I'm tired of the oil industry telling me we are. As for your question about oil reserves - looks like I overstated at 4% - looks like we have less than 2%. I'm sure there are different numbers on this too - the bottom line is that we don't have squat compared to the rest of the world, and more importantly, the reserves that we have are becoming VERY EXPENSIVE to exploit. If you do the math and compare our consumption rate to our total reserves, then you can easily come up with a wild idea that we have years or decades worth of reserves. However, remember that the deeper we try to get into these reserves, the more expensive it becomes to exploit them, and we aren't that far from bankrupting the country so that we can keep using oil. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_res-energy-oil-reserves  
• Worried about the health-care mess? Mad because as a nation, we spend twice what the rest of the modern world spends for health-care, (twice per capita), and our overall quality of care as measured by most objective measures is not even close to the top - usually not even in the top ten depending on what your measures are. Sure, if you are one of the wealthy in our nation, you can buy whatever you want. But for the other 99.something% of us, we don't make the top 10. A dramatically increasing trend in our country is that people are going overseas for procedures, because they can't afford them in our country. The fiscal conservative in me is pretty pissed off that we pay twice as much as everyone else, and get considerably less. And I'm even more pissed off at the Republicans in congress who are clearly just the lap-dogs of Big Pharma and others, continuing to try and sell that same old saw about how great we have it here. Do a little research - you'll be as pissed as I am. 
• As for the tax burden that you and I discussed, let's start with the easy stuff. I don't think you really need me to provide you with links to sites that can give you these facts. Since 1980, we have been on a steady march toward redistributing wealth in this country out of the hands of the many, and into the hands of the wealthy few. This march has had behind it the continued drumbeat of the old neo-liberal saw about how if you give the money to the wealthy they will stimulate growth. (That's right - these are neo-liberals in the most true sense of the global economic sense.) In fact, if you want to stimulate the economy, put the money in the hands of Joe Six-Pack. He's the guy who will spend it right away, and that's where the stimulus comes from. In the hands of the wealthy few, the money is invested in really productive things like complex derivatives that implode the economy and nice mansions in the Hamptons. You want to stimulate our economy, then start by getting back to the "buy American" ethos of the early 70's. Can you imagine the good that could come to our economy if instead of dumping hundreds of billions into the corrupt banking system, we would have invested instead in real manufacturing companies like GM who create real American jobs? What if we invested in these companies, and created real jobs building wind turbines and an upgraded grid for our nation? For the money we pissed down the toilet to the banks, so that they could stimulate the economy with their obscene bonuses to execs this year, we could have transformed the complete electrical infrastructure in this nation. In 1980, as a businessman, I could hire casual labor for about $10/hr in most places. Today, 30 years later, as a businessman, I can still hire casual labor for about $10/hr. (This is with NO inflation adjustment, reinforcing the facts that are abundant that real wages have declined for most wage earners over the past 30 years. Don't get me wrong - the greedy and self-interested businessman in me likes this, but the human being in me is disgusted.) During that same time, average salaries of the top 1% and the top 10% of earners have increased geometrically. At the same time, we have continued to reduce the tax burden on the top earners, while increasing the tax burden on the lower earners. (Remember that Federal income tax is only one component of the overall tax burden - the other components like sales taxes hit the low wage earner at a much higher "rate", and these other tax rates have had to increase in order to make up for the ever shrinking Federal $$ available as we cut taxes on the wealthy.)

So, think about it. We have had a 30 year experiment in this notion popular with the neo-liberal Friedman school about giving money to the wealthy and they will make things better. What we have found is that real production and manufacturing are all but disappearing in this country as investors pour their money into the countries where they can buy cheap slave labor, real wages in this country have plummeted, we have been brought to the brink of collapse. And you really want to keep doing this? Really? Look back at the explosion of the middle class in this country. In the 50s and 60s, wages increased for labor, and a real middle class was created. The result was a pretty darned good economy. The wealthy were taxed at EXTREMELY high rates. Look at some old tax tables - back in the late 50s and early 60s, there were tax rates as high as 90%. So, when we had the highest historical levels of taxation on the wealthy, we had the highest rates of real economic growth in the country. Not only did we have continuing and growing prosperity, but we were actually reducing the overall debt load of the nation in much of that period, when measured against GDP. (Back then remember we called GNP).

Sure there are lots of factors to everything, but at a high level, we have 2 30 year periods we can look at, divided by 1980. Leading up to that divide, we taxed the wealthy at a high rate, we increased the wages of the lower and middle class, we heavily regulated industries, and we saw robust and sustained growth. Post 1980, we have plunged further and further into debt, have destroyed manufacturing in the country, have reduced real wages for most of the country, and have brought ourselves to the brink of financial collapse.

You really want to keep this up? Really?

It's been fun chatting. Think about a different theme for your website - Obama is the last thing we need to worry about right now - he's doing OK for a new guy handed a disaster.

Neil

More on the Activist Supreme Court

I can't get off of this Supreme Court ruling. It just keeps rolling around in my little brain.

I am wondering if those voters that continue to vote right wing realize the damage that their continued support of this developing plutarchy is doing.

• The right wing media machine continues to beat a very narrow set of drums.
• The right wing christian elite continue to sell their souls to the devil of this right wing media machine by engaging in the quid pro quo that delivers votors to the right wing if the right wing will support a very narrow set of agenda items - specifically abortion rights and gay rights issues.
• The real power of the right wing machine accepts these votes to keep them in power, and gives enough lip service to the narrow issues to keep the voters coming back.
• Then, while in power, they completely dismantle the ability of the people to govern, and continue their march toward replacing our democratically elected Republic with a plutarchy that has the facade of democracy and republic.

This ruling by this radically activist Supreme Court - appointed by the radical right - is the cornerstone that will allow the right wing to make tremendous progress in this regard. The two key principles that this ruling declares are these:

• That a corporation is the same as an individual - that a corporation is protected by the Bill of Rights in the same and equal fashion that a real person is protected by the Bill of Rights. Think about this.
• That money is equal to speech.

This tears the fabric of our Republic to pieces. No longer are we a nation "By the People, For the People, and Of The People". With the advent of modern media, people have become sheep to the media. The media is where they get all their information. The media is controlled by the corporate right wing. The corporate right wing now has complete and unfettered ability to spend whatever it takes to get their flocks of sheep to vote the way they want them to vote. They will feed the flocks ONLY the information that they want them to hear, and they will slant and bias all information and opinions to conform to the shape that they want their new nation to take. There are no limits.

People, the government is US!!! Stop buying into this right-wing propoganda that has become urban legand over the past decades. The urban legand tells us that government is bad. Hello - government is US - WE THE PEOPLE! It is our only way to control the rapidly growing plutarchy!

Money is not speech. Period. Money is money, and it is used to buy things, to control things, to corrupt things. It is not speech. The Supreme Court should be looking for ways to protect speech FROM MONEY. That is, if we had a Supreme Court that was not made up of shills for the extreme right wing plutarchy.

A corporation is NOT A PERSON. The Bill of Rights applies to people, not to corporations. Corporations should be tightly controlled and regulated entities, not rulers of our country, and certainly not protected by our sacred Bill of Rights.

This should be THE PRIMARY ISSUE on the mind of every voter between now and when Congress takes action to reverse this abomination of a ruling.

Campaign Finance Reform - A Simple Solution

The simplest solutions are often the ones that get overlooked. In the case of campaign finance reform, there is a very simple solution that could alter the face of politics in America, dramatically reducing the level of corruption and nearly eliminating the ability of big money organizations (corporations or unions or anyone else) to own the political agenda.

Which is exactly why COMA (Corporate Oligarchy Money in America) will do all that they can to assure that such a simple solution is never implemented. They will paint it with all of the normal paintbrushes of emotional fear that they have used for years. They will call it socialism, and if that doesn’t work, they will call it communism. They will hammer on these themes until enough people fall back into their place with the rest of the sheep, and let their COMA masters have their way yet again.
First, a starting place:

• We must reaffirm the notion that there is such a thing as the “Public Commons”. This was an important notion when our country was founded – the idea that each person had a right to stand in public and say whatever they wanted to say. If there were no Public Commons, then there could be no free speech, right? If all space were private, then landowners would control speech completely – they would decide what got said on their property. Unless you were a landowner – part of the aristocracy – you would not be able to speak freely. The right to speak freely was completely dependent on the existence of public space.
• At the time of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, electronic media obviously did not exist. The Public Square was the place where we expressed our freedom of speech, as well as the written word.
• As the electronic airwaves came into existence, there seems to have been an understanding that these airwaves were public property. In order to use these electronic waves, a person or organization must “lease” a particular space in the public square of the airwaves. They are granted the privilege to use that bandwidth for a particular period of time.
  So let’s stop there. It’s important. Can you imagine if our founding fathers had decided to lease the public commons, and allow the leaseholder to control and profit from speech in their little corner of the public square? It would be absurd. It would completely destroy the notion of free speech, quieting the voice of the individual completely, giving voice ONLY to those who were granted the privilege of controlling a portion of the commons.

So let’s stop there. It’s important. Can you imagine if our founding fathers had decided to lease the public commons, and allow the leaseholder to control and profit from speech in their little corner of the public square? It would be absurd. It would completely destroy the notion of free speech, quieting the voice of the individual completely, giving voice ONLY to those who were granted the privilege of controlling a portion of the commons.This sounds a lot like the feudal systems in Europe that our forefathers were trying hard to avoid, doesn’t it? There would be a small aristocracy who would be in complete control of speech, and through that control of all speech and communication, would further consolidate their hold on power, influence, and money.


I think that we understood this to some degree as print media became more influential, and electronic media began to explode. We put in place laws and limits on how much of this huge power could rest in any single hands. Radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, etc. needed to be owned locally rather than as part of big national corporate voices. We rightfully feared the ability of big barons of money and power to completely control the public conversations, and put strong limits to try and curb this.
Over the past 3 decades, these protections have been rapidly eroded. We have a very few mega-corporations who own essentially all of the media in our country. Is it any surprise that the explosion of corruption and corporate ownership of our represented officials has coincided with this handoff of the Public Commons to this small handful of the super-rich and super-powerful?
The first step in fixing this uber-corruption is to remove control of the election process from the hands of COMA, and put it back in the hands of the American People. This is the simple step:

• If I broadcast over public airwaves, I am granted this privilege by The People, as represented by the government. One of my responsibilities in order to maintain this privilege is that I must grant voice to people who seek to represent The People.
• It should be illegal for me to charge any fee when I fulfill this responsibility. I MUST provide free voice to people seeking election in my coverage area. There will surely be some definitions regarding where lines might be drawn, but the bottom line is that a big portion of my airtime is held by the public in order to express their right to free speech.
• It is illegal to buy time on the airwaves, and it is illegal to charge for that time.
• Period

Notice what this does? It takes money out of the equation completely. The big media giants will whine and cry about all the revenue we are keeping them from taking in. Tell me why this is the problem of The People? I run a small business, and there is no “Bill of Rights” that guarantees me revenue or profit as a business person. If Fox and NBC don’t like it, they can fold their tents and go home – I am absolutely positive that there are many other organizations who would LOVE to have the privilege to use their bandwidth, and will find a wonderful way to make excellent profit within these rules.
For us – The People – we take money completely out of the election process. Well, we don’t eliminate it, but we reduce it dramatically. Sure, this means the media companies take a huge hit – maybe we can find a better way to deploy those resources…
Pretty simple, right? I wonder why we never hear about it? Could it be that the way we hear about ideas is through Big Media, and this would be a crushing blow to Big Media?

The Supreme Court of Corporate America

It should come as no surprise that as the court has become stacked further and further to the right, they would continue to assault the constitution of the United States.

This is way more simple than the media makes it out to be.

Corporations are not people. Period.

Corporations, Unions, and other organizations have no protections under our constitution. The modern corporation is an invention of a cartel to whom we continue to turn over control of our country. This latest move by this right wing activist court shows the depth to which we have handed over our country to the modern day robber barons of corporate America.

Every true conservative in this nation should be alarmed at this shameful activism on the part of partisan judges serving their corporate masters...

Any Other Health Care Ideas?

As a conservative, I am curious about how the public will punish the right wing for their gross obstructionism and complete bankruptcy of ideas regarding health care. This is an area where the Republican Party, run by the extreme right wing, demonstrates again just how far they have strayed from core conservative principles.

The fiscal conservative wants as much as he can get for his dollar. He doesn't like wasteful spending. So, when it comes to healthcare, there are a couple of really simple facts that should drive every conservative in America to support radical change in what we do.

First, healthcare costs us twice as much as it costs the rest of the developed world. Absorb that a minute, because the media would have you believe think that we have reasonably priced healthcare in this country. There are several sources of information on the cost of healthcare - the REAL COST is what I am looking at - what does it cost us as a country to deliver healthcare to our citizens - regardless of how that is done? In 2007, Congressional Research Service, (remember congress was still controlled by the right wing in 2007 when this report was published), reported that in 2004, the US spent just over $6000 per person on healthcare. This is twice the average of other developed countries, (1st world big economy countries), and about 20% higher than the next most expensive nation.

So that's the first half of the equation - we pay WAY more than everyone else in the world for healthcare. Not just a little more - TWICE AS MUCH! The fiscal conservative in me doesn't like this at all. But wait, maybe healthcare in the country is just so good - just so much better than everywhere else - that this is one of those places where I need to just cool my jets, and accept that our culture wants to spend way more in order to get really really really great healthcare.

So I look around, and start asking the question. Just how much better is healthcare in the country than in the rest of the western world? Not for the ultra rich who can afford anything they want, but for the entire country - for all of us - because at the end of the day, one way or the other, we are all paying that $6000+/year to get this really cadillac healthcare, right?

Well, come to find out that we don't deliver healthcare that stands out head and shoulders above the rest of the developed world.

But wait, it's worst. We don't deliver healthcare that is better than all the rest of the countries at all.

But wait, it's worst. We don't deliver healthcare that is as good as the top western nations in the world.

In fact, the quality of the healthcare that we deliver in this country is worst than the entire western world. The key here is to measure some objective metric that applies across the population, and demonstrates overall health levels of the population as a whole. You can be unfair about this if you want, and look for only those measurements that either prove this as an understatement if you are one side of the argument, or those that prove this as an overstatement if you are on the other side of the argument. A good article in the Christian Science Monitor tries to put the best face possible on it I think - from the same year that the cost numbers above are quoted - 2004.

I don't want to split hairs. I am paying twice as much as the rest of the developed world, and I am not getting healthcare that is better than the rest of the world. THAT is indisputable regardless of what you want to argue.

So, the fiscal conservative in me says what we have is clearly the WRONG way to deliver healthcare, and we should be looking at the rest of the developed world to see what we can learn from them on how to do this better than we have been doing it.

Don't know the answers yet, all I know is that the Republican Party has been hell-bent throughout this debate on making sure that nothing changes. They haven't been offering alternatives plans or other ways to think about it - they have just been playing good lackeys to the corporate medical world, and doing all they can to prevent change.

And me, as a conservative, is disgusted once again at how far the Republican Party has strayed from true conservative principles.

Again.

And will the public punish them in any way? So long as the media keeps up their outstanding work of keeping the wool pulled down low over our eyes, and moving those shells around, they might just get away with it.

How incredibly sad...

On The Other Hand: The Balance of Beauty, Ugly, and Utility

On The Other Hand: The Balance of Beauty, Ugly, and Utility

World Hunger - Solution or Problem?

Did I hear it right yesterday – that Bush is suggesting that we spend $750 million of taxpayer money to help the hungry in the world? I don’t have any details – just heard the headline.

This sure sounds good – makes a good soundbite – but is it possible that we really want to do this?

Let me understand the lay of the land with regard to what we do as a nation to impact food supply around the world:

• The government takes my tax money, and subsidizes farmers to not grow food, in order to try and keep food prices higher.
• The government keeps food prices higher by controlling trade with higher prices as a goal, taking yet more of my money.
• The government takes my tax money, and subsidizes the use of food crops to create ethanol. This uses the tax money I give to them to subsidize something that I don’t believe in, with the result being higher food prices that I must pay at the store.
• I haven’t even gotten into the subsidies that they pay to the big agricultural firms and the big oil firms, all combining to continue the cycle of high prices that they have created.
• I haven’t even gotten into the moral implications of our habits and practices in this country with regard to how we produce and consume food.

I could go on, but from a purely fiscally conservative perspective, it would appear that the government uses a lot of MY money that they take from me in the form of taxes, and they use this money to ASSURE that food prices remain high, and that food availability around the world remains low. Then they want to act as though this is a problem that they want to solve, and of course, their solution to the problem is to take yet more of my tax money and throw it at the problem.

This is absurdity. What takes it from absurdity to the realm of moral crime is that they will most likely assure that most of this tax money of yours and mine that they say that they want to use to solve this problem will most likely go right into the pockets of the big agricultural firms to assure that the problem continues, rather than into programs and policies that might actually encourage independence on the part of poor regions of the world.

Can someone find a more clear example of moral bankruptcy?

The Balance of Beauty, Ugly, and Utility

I design and build gardens for people. It is a dream job in many ways – the ability to use as your palate beautiful plants that will evolve and grow each year.

As a result of this vocation, people often want to talk about plants, and get ideas on which plants are the “best”. Of course, as with most things, “it depends”, right?

Each plant brings its own particular beauty, expressed in many different ways. Some plants compliment one another, some will always clash. Each has its own “hardiness” for cold, or heat, or sunlight, or shade, or soil, or moisture. And of course, they each have their own “ugliness” too.

Right now I am looking out my office window at the purple Delosperma that lies drooping over my rock walls. It looks brown and dead – starkly unattractive really as the Colorado springtime is exploding in the garden around it. However, I know that by the time that June gets here, those ugly masses of drooping brown will have transformed once again into beautiful bright drapes of purple and green dressing-up the granite walls.

So, I accept this little period of ugly, knowing the beauty that is to come once again.

Our relationships with others are like this too I think. Perfection is pretty hard to find in anything – particularly in people it seems. I know that the gap between me and anything approaching perfection is too great a distance to see on the clearest of days. So, the people who are my friends, family, lovers, or whatever, must have decided that even though I have my seasons of ugly, the beauty and utility that I offer makes the ugly season worth overlooking. No accounting for that…

What is it that makes this possible – this ability to overlook the ugly season that a person displays in order to see the beauty when that season is upon us? I have to say that when I am gardening, there is truly some level of connection that I have with the plants that I put into the ground. I know that plant, and I know its many phases, and I know what it is finicky about, and I know that if I treat it right, and place it right, and assure proper care, that it will – once again – wash the garden with the beauty that I know so well.

My friends are like that too I think. It is that connection that you develop with a person that allows you to rest assured that you understand the balance of beauty and ugly and utility in this person well enough to deal with them, and to help them grow as they are meant to grow. The tighter and closer the connection is, the more in harmony we become with each other, and the thing that once seemed only ugly, can now become balance and harmony.

Social Policy

I think that the word socialism is one that we should re-think. I agree with you that one of the basic tenants of socialism seems to be a redistribution of wealth. How does their saying go - from each according to their ability, to each according to their need - or something like that.
Here is a link to a good definition:

It seems to me that western culture all has some degree of socialism. Wouldn't we all like to have a class-less society? (Maybe not those in the “upper” class who reap all the rewards of a class-based society, but surely the rest of us would I think.) The early followers of Jesus were certainly as socialist as you could get. When the US instituted the income tax to pay for WW1, (back when we paid for wars that we waged), and then kept the income tax in place after the war debt was paid, that income tax was used to begin to implement the progressive policies that marked all of western society in the post-enlightenment world. We were making a conscious decision to re-distribute wealth in that progressive era. We were all instituting some form of “socialism”.

We could spend a lot of time discussing the different paths that we and other nations have been on since then, but I think that it is fair to say that in the US or any other western country, there are going to be those who are satisfied with the way that the wealth is distributed and spent, and those who aren't. I have heard for years from people in this country who talk about how unhappy the people in more socialist countries are with both the distribution of wealth policies and the use of that money - usually things like social medicine or universal health care used as the example. However, I never hear those things from the people in those countries. The everyday people that I have known from Canada, Sweden, Britain, Norway, and Germany have generally felt pretty good and positive about their social systems. A case can be made that our economy in this country is suffering, though certainly not in as bad a shape as France and Germany as you point out. However, during our last recession, (01-02), as I recall the European countries fared better than we did, but I didn't hear much talk of our economic problems being tied to the fact that we had an almost completely private system of medicine. Why is it that when their economy is in the tank, we always want to bring out the “social medicine” card as the cause?

I agree with you that the working class in many countries is getting fed up with the load that they are being asked to carry, but I don't see this as linked very strongly to the social policies of the country. I think that a culture makes value statements about themselves when they decide what is important - what they want to pay for. The more socially progressive countries make value statements that indicate a strong sense of accountability for everyone in the culture - regardless of class or economic privilege. My dealings with the everyday folks like you and me in those countries leads me to believe that they generally support those national values. Where they get upset, just like the people in this country get upset, is when an ever increasing burden of the bill falls on their shoulders, as those who are wealthier see their portion of the bill reduced. While the European countries remain more socially progressive than the US, there has been a growing trend in those countries to follow the lead of the US and redistribute the tax burden away from the wealthy and toward the poor and middle class. This - in my opinion - is what causes the unrest among the working class that is growing throughout the western world – the fact that their share of the bill continues to increase, while the share that the wealthy pay decreases.

Most of all, I agree with your last statement - what the party platform says and what the practitioners practice are often very different!

Greens and Libertarians

My experience with the actual positions that seem to be taken by people who call themselves by these labels, (Green or Libertarian), has led me to the following generalizations, (which are never fair of course).

The ideas that are put down on paper by Libertarians attract me at first glance. We all get frustrated by "big anything" sometimes, including government, and I am no exception. But when put into practice, (for example when you hear a Libertarian in a debate focused on how they would solve problems), I come away with the idea that they are really rooted in the worst kind of selfishness. If is all about me, then I want all the ability to make all the decisions for myself, and I want nobody else involved. I want small government, no taxes, I make all my own decisions. There is a great deal of this Libertarian philosophy (I think) that drove the shift in the Republican party 25 years ago away from being for fiscal conservatism and toward a single-minded focus on tax reduction, and a push to starve government programs of cash, assuming they would go away.

The bottom line is that at some point I have to think of myself within the culture that I live in. How does my culture meet the needs of all the members? It is great to theoretically think in terms of charity and people voluntarily stepping up to the plate to solve problems within the culture, but the fact is that this simply does not happen in our culture. At one end of the spectrum you have the notion of a social democracy - we empower and expect solutions from government. Most of the western world leans far more toward this model than we do. Over the past 25 years, we have been moving steadily away from this model, under the banner that people are better at managing "their money" (the Christian in me has a problem with this term) than the government is. As a result, effective tax rates - especially on higher income brackets - have plummeted over the last 25 years. In theory, we should have seen a corresponding rise in both the personal savings rate, (as people take better care of "their money", as well as an increase in the rates of "giving" to charitable and philanthropic causes. In fact, personal rates of charitable giving have not dramatically changed during that period, and the personal savings rate has continued to drop - I think that it actually stands at a negative number right now. (In 1987, when the tax rates were dramatically dropped such that the top rate dropped from 50% to 28% - meaning that high earners had an extra 32% of their income that they kept - the rate of charitable giving rose only about 7%.)

At the end of the day, I guess I do believe that as a culture we should be providing for each other. While much of that work can be done by private organizations, the fact is that Americans don't tend to fund such a model voluntarily. The other drawback to that model is the lack of democratic process - those with money will begin to fund the organizations that favor them, rather than maintaining an egalitarian perspective. So, after wondering for many years if the Libertarian philosophy was one that I could sign on to, I came to the conclusion that they had some interesting ideas, but that their foundational premise was too self-centered for me. They don't really want to solve problems, they just want more control over what they consider to be theirs.

As to the Greens, I have similarly found myself supporting their positions on many things over the years. I know that this is a broad and unfair generalization, but they do too often seem to me to be very "elitist" and "politically correct" - too much so for me in some cases. For example, looking at the 10 Basic Values, they list "Feminism" as one of these. While this is a very politically correct term to use, what does it mean? I don't think that you would find a common definition of what that word means across the board. Mind you, if you know me you know that I am a huge believer in social justice for all, I believe that no one should be discriminated against based on what they are or aren't, and you probably know that if push came to shove, I would probably rank women in general as smarter, wiser, and more capable in most professional respects than men, and believe it to be obvious that western culture has scorned and denigrated femininity for over 1500 years. I don't call myself a feminist though, because I don't know what the word means. I have known militant "female supremacists" who assign that label to themselves, and everything else on the spectrum. So for an organization to use such a vague word as a "Basic Value" bothers me. It shows a lack of thought, and a tendency to do something because it is politically correct - the wrong reason.

With that criticism, I will say again that I find myself agreeing with Greens on many (but certainly not all) issues. Looking at their "Basic Values", how can anyone argue with Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice, Ecological Wisdom, Responsibility, and Non-violence? (I think that the other labels fall neatly into these).

At their web site, the Greens offer a very nice discussion guide in the form of a comparison of their position with the position of the Democrats and the Republicans - you can find it here. I think the document is not entirely fair with the other parties, but makes a great discussion document. I think that we could print this document, and bring it with us as a discussion guide, and start wrestling through the issues one at a time, and see where we end up. Would be a fun thing to do - I might surprise myself at where I ended up. Would be nice if the Libertarians were a little less theoretical, and we could add a column for them on here too. How about another column for a new party that we form right there at the table? That would be fun! We could call ourselves the Christian Heretics. :o)

A Human The Size of a Grain of Sand

What are we made of – a flexible bunch of carbon based molecules of stuff? Ever look at a model of a these basic building blocks of matter – atoms and molecules and whatever else they build models of? Ever tinier pieces of things spinning around each other. The relative distance between these “little pieces” is immense really – held together by nothing more than electromagnetic energy.

I read somewhere that if you got rid of all that “space” of electromagnetic energy that is holding it all together, and just piled the little bits of matter together, that the human body would be no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.

Wow. That’s all there is to us – a tiny little grain of sand.

And we think we are so much more significant than that – we think we matter somehow.

In the big picture – the really big picture that only the Source of All Being can see – is there really any relative difference between something the size of a grain of sand and something that is around 6 feet tall and walking on 2 legs?

Scientists, theologians, and spiritual seekers seem to come together in some sort of rough agreement that somehow or another, everything – in the end – boils down to energy in some form or another. Different wavelengths of energy, different forms and speed, but all energy.

Somewhere in the middle, there exists The Source of all this energy. This Source has set the bits and pieces in motion, and fills all of the space between the bits and pieces – keeps them from collapsing onto themselves – keeps us upright and thinking, rather than lying in a bucket with other grains of sand.

We are made up almost entirely of space and energy – very little “real matter”. Lots of space in there for a soul to live and work, if we let it. Makes it easy to imagine how we can be vessels for the Divine Spirit to pour itself into. Makes it easy, also, to imagine how we can be a beacon from which this Divine Energy can shine.

If I focus on me – look to myself for answers and growth, I am continually refocusing my energy into myself – moving toward collapse into a grain of sand.

If, however, I make myself a vessel and a beacon, continually emitting energy outward and soaking up ever increasing portions of Divine Energy, then I become a radiator for the Divine Energy in the universe – The Source of all, continually expanding away from the tiny grain of sand that is all that I am without this energy.

Is God Mad at George Bush?

Why does God seem so mad at the Bush family?

Not that I am a big one on believing in the notion that God picks people out for punishment, but doesn't it seem funny to anyone else that all of these disasters are stricking dubya and his friends?

First the mess in Iraq. I mean, if dubya thought that he was led somehow by God to invade this country, (as some have suggested), then wouldn't you think that things would be going better for us? How is it that things keep getting worse and worse there?

And the economy - why does it continue to be a mess?

And why does the proportion of the world that views us with contempt continue to grow?

And all of these traitors and liars that surround the man - why is this happening?

And then Katrina, messing up his adopted state and everything close to it.

And now Wilma, seeming to target both dubya and his brother.

I don't mean to make light of the human tragedy involved here, but it strikes me that the Christian fundamentalists might want to rethink this whole thing. If they believe that God would target a single person and bring them either special good things or special bad things, then it would seem that the Bush family is one that you might want to distance yourself from - the appearance is that they have done things to bring about the wrath of the Almighty.

Just a thought...

Poverty and Deuteronomy

Discussion recently got me to wondering...

The discussion revolved around Jesus rebuking the disciples for their rebuke of the kind act of a woman, where the disciples were clearly focused on the waste of the oil used for anointing, and Jesus is said to have made a comment something like, “The poor will be with you always.”

This may very well be a reference back to the 15^th chapter of Deuteronomy. The actual verse comes from the 11^th chapter, which reads something like, “There will always be poor people among you”, but the context of the preceding instruction in the chapter, as well as the following words, is extremely critical it seems to me. For that reason, here is the text (NIV).

¹ At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. ² This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. ³ You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. ⁴ However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your G-d is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, ⁵ if only you fully obey the LORD your G-d and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. ⁶ For the LORD your G-d will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.

⁷ If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your G-d is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. ⁸ Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. ⁹ Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: "The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near," so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. ¹⁰ Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your G-d will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. ¹¹ There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

If the quote that is attributed to Jesus was truly referencing this passage, then the light that is cast on the issue is brand new. As usual, lack of context is blinding.

The instruction is imbedded within dialogue meant to eliminate poverty – exactly the problem that we said could probably never be cured. Yet, here in the Torah, we are given the formula for eliminating poverty. Within that formula, the assumption appears to be that even as we follow the instruction of G-d, and do out best to eliminate poverty, there will be a constant flow of people into our system who will be poor, and we are commanded to be “openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land”.

To follow this through for a minute, did the authors of Deuteronomy truly believe that it was possible to eliminate poverty? If this was possible, then why would there remain a constant flow of poor? Is it possible that we could read into this the notion that as we follow this command, and share wealth among all the people, then a “rising tide” will indeed continually re-define poverty, constantly raising the bar so that the affluence of humanity will require a constantly revised definition of poverty, (thus a constant flow of the poor)? This is, indeed, what has happened in our world, as most in our country who are considered “poor” might be considered pretty wealthy in many parts of the world.

If this reading of the command was accurate, then our instruction is very clear. As we continue to distribute wealth to the poor, and the tide of affluence rises among all the people, we must continue to raise the bar, not lower it. Progress toward the Kingdom of G-d lies clearly on this path, and breaking this command moves us away.

A discussion of politics within our nation might go well here…

Did Jesus see things like this? If so, then His rebuke makes all the sense in the world. The struggle to eliminate poverty is not a struggle at all, but a blessing – a mitzvoth that we are given. It is one that we can (and should) practice all the days of our lives. He was at that table at that moment, and kindness shown to Him should in no way be taken as a slight to those who were more poor than him. The woman in the story was, indeed, sharing wealth with a poor man at the table, just as everyone at that table should continue to do as a way of moving toward G-d.

Are the poor within our culture a blight to be struggled against. or a blessing for those who are less-poor? Perhaps the Beatitudes take on a new meaning?

Moral Bankruptcy

War

Can war be justified? I think so. There can be many justifications for war.

Most of these justifications are based upon greed – deciding who gets to control resources.

Many of these justifications are ego based – desire for power.

Some of these justifications are based on a need to protect ourselves from some other predator.

Sometimes, (though very rarely I think), these justifications are even based on compassion and charity – the desire to help others out of a terrible situation.

These are all justifications – some good, some bad. But can war ever be “moral”? I think not.

In order to win a war, one must commit acts that are not moral – that is plain and simple. If a leader is going to commit his nation to war, then he had better feel pretty convinced that his justification for this war is rock-solid and will stand the test of hindsight and introspection.

Nietzsche said, “If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”

Our world is full of soldiers who have done what is required to win wars. Some of these soldiers were on the winning side, and some were on the losing side. Some committed acts of greater cruelty and immorality than others. Most are good and moral human beings, who were asked to “look into the abyss” by the leaders of their country, and they responded as a solder responds – with loyalty and obedience. For most, the abyss has looked back into them in some way.

I have an uncle who served in WW2 – the Great War. For most Americans, this was the last time that our nation entered into a conflict that seemed “just and right”. My uncle looked into the abyss for 3+ years in the South Pacific. He has spent his life since as a quiet semi-recluse. He farms, in a small community, so it is easy to avoid people. Nobody notices his reclusive nature. For 60 years, he has lived in the shadow of the abyss, as it has stared back at him. He knows what humanity is capable of.

My generation dealt with Vietnam. While our government insisted that the conflict was both just and necessary, many questioned this. 50,000 Americans gave their lives trusting a government that lied, and well over a million Vietnamese civilians and soldiers gave their lives. Many came back from Vietnam wondering why they had been there – what they had really been fighting for. Many came back with the ghost of the abyss watching over them for the rest of their lives. History has shown that those who questioned our motives for being in that war were correct – that much of our motivation was based on greed, with many in the defense industry gaining great wealth while our generation wrestled with the abyss.

And what of today? We are asking the generation of my sons to look long into the abyss in the Iraqi desert, and many are struggling with what is looking back. Many in our country question our real motives, while a few in the defense industry grow quite fat profiteering from the war that Bush has insisted on – many in his own administration are growing rich daily on war profits. They are not asked to sacrifice, they seem to feel they have a right to a profit.

In The Great War, we made it illegal to profit from the war. Doesn’t that small sacrifice seem reasonable, when so many are asked to look long into the abyss?

The abyss is looking back into the hearts of our sons and daughters – how long will we allow this to continue? I wonder, does President Bush sense an abyss looking into his heart? Does Mr. Cheney?

Administration Fears of the Special Prosecuter

Dejevu, all over again.

What will the indictment be?
A special prosecuter is closing in on members of an administration.

Last time this happened - to the Clinton administration, it was a special prosecuter who was hired to look at business dealings of the President before he was even elected to office. There were probably 7 people in the entire country who even understood what Whitewater was. I wasn't one of them. The basis for the special prosecuter seemed tenuous at best, and when he couldn't find anything naughty in the Whitewater investigation, he turned his focus onto the personal sexual life of the President, and struck pay dirt there! (Mr. Clinton made that job easy with his quick release zipper.)

Then, Republicans saw no problem with either the questionable nature of the investigation in the first place, or the fact that the investigation became a snoop dog / watch dog for anything that the President might have done wrong. When these issues were brought up at the height of the Clinton scandal, Republicans generally were indignant - wrong is wrong - it doesn't matter how we came to the indictment.

The worst part of the Whitewater investigation was that it still is. That is, as I understand it, we are still spending money for that investigation to continue. Hello - when does this end?

The tables are turned a bit now, and it is pure entertainment all over again. This time, the nature of the investigation makes sense. That is, someone in the administration has committed a shameful act at the very least in leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent - and purely for political motivation it would appear. In my opinion, I can't imagine how such behavior doesn't rise to the level of at least "high crimes and misdemeanors", or more likely grand treason!

But the Republican press is busy smearing the special prosecuter already, preparing for the possibility that people like Karl Rove or Scooter Libby (or others?) might actually be indicted for something like conspiracy rather than treason. If there isn't enough evidence for treason, then it doesn't seem fair to them that some other charge might be considered I guess.

What if the special prosecuter were to start to dig into the pre-election business dealings of either Mr. Bush or Mr Cheney - I wonder what they might find...

So here we go again folks, but this time, the massive Republican media machine might be able to stop the special prosecuter machine before it reaches critical mass.

The Relevance of the Special Prosecuter
And what about the special prosecuter anyway? Can't this get out of control?

I think it can. I think that limits should be placed on these people to prevent them from digging into issues that are either irrelevant, (as Monica Lewinski was), or trivial.

However, I also think that in this era when way too much power seems to be getting concentrated into the office of the presidency - especially when that office also controls Congress and the Supreme Court as they do today - a special prosecuter might just be the only check and balance that we have on an office with way more power than was ever intended by our founding fathers.


Fair Game
At the end of the day, what should be fair game for Fitz to go after?

I think that we have a clear precedent in this matter - the Whitewater investigation. In the end, we indicted the President, (but failed to convict him), on charges that he lied about who he slept with. With that precedent, I think that we can fairly say that that anything is fair game - the prosecuter should be able to put the President of the United States on the stand, and ask him about his personal sex life, and if he lies, then he is open to impeachment. (sic)

That was absurd when it happened to Clinton, and would be absurd today. I hope that my friends who support these people who are in power today and who call themselves Republican see now just how silly the Clinton/Lewinski ordeal really was. I also hope that my friend who are Democrats see how silly it would be to repeat our past folly.

But, anything that involves the security of this country, or the business dealings of the office of the Presidency, should be fair game.

Stealing Money

This subject is so simple that it makes my head spin.

• Do not spend money that you don’t have.
• Be honest and honorable in how you make your money.
• Do not cause harm to others in order to make your money.

Why can’t we get it? The primary role of government is to provide security for its people. Running the country into bankruptcy provides insecurity, not security. It makes us vulnerable in the world market, and makes our way of life less secure every day. Yet our government is racing us toward bankruptcy at a rate that makes your head spin, and nobody seems to be paying attention.

When I talked about religion, I talked about the Republican party today using Christians to get elected, and then stealing us blind. This is what is going on. For 25 years, they have continued to shift the tax burden further and further onto the backs of the lower and middle classes, all the while reducing the tax burden on the wealthy, (which is them). They have stolen from the trust funds of programs meant to help the most needy in this country in order to fund these tax cuts for the wealthy. While they were stealing it, they said they were just borrowing, and that the money would be paid back in better times. But when better times came, they chose instead to give the wealthy more tax cuts, and continued to steal from the trust funds. The rhetoric that is now coming out of the Republican party makes it quite clear that they have no intention of ever paying the money back – they expect to simply shut down the programs when the programs look to them and ask for them to repay what they have stolen.

Again, the Democratic party is led by the rich as well, but they were shackled by their constituency into doing more of the right thing over the years – that’s how they stayed in power. Now, the Republicans have become master magicians, and have learned how to keep our attention focused elsewhere while they pick out pockets.

Katrina - Clearing shelters by spending millions on hotels

How does this make sense? The president sets some sort of "bring em on" mandate to clear out the Katrina aftermath shelters by mid-October. (Not sure why this makes sense - the fact that people are in shelters is a symptom - how does this solve the problem that people have no place to live?)

So, regardless if it makes sense or not, in order to meet this deadline, we are moving people out of shelters, and into hotels?

The NYT reports that we are spending $11million a day on these hotels, with the outlay for hotels expected to grow to $425 million by 10/24.

They still can't tell you where this money is going to come from, and this is just a tiny piece of the billions that we will spend providing aid to the region. Just like they can't tell you where the hundreds of billions that they are spending in Iraq is going to come from.

Is anyone in this administration even coherent?

Conservatives, wake up! As always, rather than looking at the supply side of the tax equation - which is the taxes that we take in - we should be looking at the spending side of the equation, and how we are spending and wasting money.

These neocons are ruining the country, and well meaning conservatives are doing nothing to stop them!

Justice, Equality, and Poverty According To Jesus

I was having a discussion with friends the other night about a book we had read, and a quote from the Bible came up that troubled me greatly - I wanted to share my thoughts on this.

The quote was one that is used often, where Jesus is depicted as saying "The poor will be with you always", usually used in the context of defending the notion of inequality with regard to distribution of resources. As if to say, "Hey, Jesus said it himself - the poor will always be with us - so it is OK to maintain policies that allow inequity between rich and poor."

There are many quotes from Scripture that are taken out of context (in my opinion) and used to justify the actions that we want to continue to take. In my opinion, this is one that is most offensive.

The story appears in 3 of the Gospels. They are as follows: (NIV)

Mathew: Ch26: v11

⁶While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, ⁷a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

⁸When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. ⁹"This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."

¹⁰Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. ¹¹The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. ¹²When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. ¹³I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

John: Ch12, v5

¹Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. ²Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. ³Then Mary took about a pint^[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

⁴But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, ⁵"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages.^[b]" ⁶He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

⁷"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. ⁸You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

Mark: Ch14: v7

³While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

⁴Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? ⁵It could have been sold for more than a year's wages^[a] and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

⁶"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. ⁷The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. ⁸She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. ⁹I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

The Greek interlinear that I have for the verse in Mark translates exactly as follows for the verse in question. “For always the poor you have with yourselves and when you wish you are able for them to do good, but me not always do you have”

The essence of the story is that a woman does something nice for Jesus, and she is criticized by the disciples for using funds unwisely. Jesus’ rebuke is consistently aimed at the criticism of this woman, and within that criticism is the implication that this woman’s kindness should not be reduced because there are other kindnesses not yet given. Jesus even says of the poor in one of the versions that “you can help them any time you want”. Note that he is not suggesting in any way that the poor should not be helped.

Every action within the ministry of Jesus seemed aimed at trying to reduce inequity, and find ways to “bring the poor to the table”. In this passage, I see a Jesus who is trying to help his disciples see a potential pitfall of the ministry of bringing greater justice that he has put them on. He is, after all, only a couple of days away from his execution at this point in his ministry, and he needs to put the finishing touches on what he has taught to those closest to him. In modern, western style bullets, here is how I read the message:

• Of course we are here to help the poor, and bring those who are outcast into the fold of the Kingdom of God – we should be doing this every day.
• In your zeal to “do good”, be careful that you don’t end up at each other’s throats in criticism over the best way to do good – this is the easiest way for evil to enter into your midst.
• Apply your goodness and kindness to the problem right in front of you, and apply it with zeal and gusto.
• Do not allow your attention to be taken from the problem that has been given to you and is right in front of you. This is hard to avoid, as our natural tendency is to be anxious about a distant problem, as this is sometimes easier than applying ourselves to the problem at hand. This is also an easy way for evil to make your hands idle.
• God will supply the problems and challenges that you need in your life to move forward – do not question this by trying to focus on other problems – solve what you have in front of you.

Now I don’t know how closely my reading of this message is to what Jesus meant when this event took place. We are just guessing and accepting really that the event even took place like this. However, this message is easy to read from the event, it is consistent with the rest of the teaching of Jesus, and it is consistent with what you would expect within the time-plane that the event was to have taken within, (days before his execution).

This message is dramatically different than a message that even begins to imply that Jesus was “OK” with the notion that there should be large discrepancies between the poor and the rich in the world, and that we should not try to make the world more just and equitable place.

Don’t fret and be anxious over the problems that are enduring and complex. Try to solve them, of course, but don’t think that there is a quick fix. Focus each day on the problems that are on your plate, and work to make the world a more just and equitable place. Actions are much more effective than anxieties.

Who Dishonors Our Vets - Sheehan or Bush?

I read a piece slamming Cindy Sheehan for what she is doing. I am always glad to hear from those who agree or disagree with me, provided there is some degree of sense of logic to what they write. In this case, I wasn’t sure that I could understand the logic, and could not see much sense in what was written.

The essence of the piece seemed to be that women (mothers especially) should be rooting for those women who live in parts of the world where their sons are brainwashed into doing horrible things like suicide bombings, and the women had to stand by powerlessly as this happened. The piece, (of course) attacked this woman by stating that he husband (and others in her family) did not agree with her.

Unless I am mistaken, this is exactly what Ms. Sheehan is doing. And by stating that her husband doesn’t agree with her, the author is displaying exactly the sort of misogynistic arrogance that makes Ms. Sheehan’s stance so noteworthy.

This woman raised a fine young man. An Eagle Scout as I understand, with many other honors to his name. She is proud of her son, as well as her family’s long history of distinguished service to this country. Her son was apparently proud to sign up, and who knows – she may have been proud to see him carry on a family tradition. At any rate, he believed that he was honorably serving the society and culture that raised him.

Now that he is dead, she simply wants to know if he was. The web of lies that took us to war is what dishonors the men and women who are dying there, not those who question those lies. She has the courage to question those lies, and President Bush obviously doesn’t have the courage to answer her question.

Our enemies today use lies and coercion to enroll impressionable young men into their ranks, and they strap suicide bombs on these young men and tell them of the great honor that it will be to die for their country. And the mothers have to sit by and watch – powerless to say anything – powerless to do anything. We are right to criticize this effort. We are right to see the disgrace and evil in this.

And in our country, when we have leaders who lie to us and deceive us to take us to war, are not their lies as disgraceful as those of our enemies? The only difference is that in our country, the mothers of those young men still have the right to stand up and question these leaders. We may not have the right to go to a “town hall” meeting that we pay for as taxpayers unless we are Republican supporters of the President, we may be losing our civil rights at an alarming rate, but for now, a mother still has the right to question leaders who she thinks may have lied to her.

If these leaders were men of courage and honor, they would sit with her and answer her questions – and the questions of the country. If they are cowards and scoundrels, they will attack this woman, and try to paint her as unpatriotic, and say that her opinion doesn’t really count, since her husband doesn’t agree with her.

Thanks G-d for those millions of true American patriots who have given their life and blood to assure this woman’s right to question openly. Thank G-d for the hundreds of thousands who serve today to protect that right. Shame on this President and this administration for dishonoring their sacrifice with their lies and deceit, their cowardly attacking of the woman who raised a soldier who died for their cause, their shameful profiteering from the lives of Americans.