Jim Putnam - Thinking Through My Fingers

Thoughts and Pontifications

Where, except for the blogosphere, is there any furor over the news that Representative Foley (R-Fla) has resigned, or of its implications for the Republican leadership of the House?  It's huge news on blogs, but I haven't seen or heard it in any of the primary media, television or newspapers.  Blogs are already calling this Predatorgate.

I did hear something on  "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", an NPR radio program today about Sydney McGee, the Texas fifth grade school teacher who has been fired because on an approved field trip to a Dallas art museum some of her charges saw a nude statue.  Earlier, I had heard about this from a friend and followed the link to see what it was all about.  Not believing what I was reading, I Googled the story and found other sources.  What do you suppose is behind this?  Are parents in Texas truly that narrow minded?

So, admittedly from early in the life of both stories, it seems that firing a school teacher for, essentially, broadening her students minds, is news that immediately make the comedy shows where a real predator in the nation's House of Representatives is a story for one day.  My, my, we sure have changed our minds about what is allowable in the halls of government since President Clinton's impeachment.

I actually don't believe we have heard the last of Predatorgate.  This story will, if there is any justice remaining in DC, resonate.  And sadly, that bothers me as much as the story itself.  We have, it seems to me, reached a point in which maximum and minimum political coverage depends on whether the subject is Democrat or Republican, respectively.  No news is ever straight news, except for shootings or sports, and sometimes they are both.  Everything else is spun by both political parties.

I subscribe to The Sun, a literary magazine published without advertisement [The Sun Publishing Company, 107 North Roberson Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516].  We received our October issue today.  I've read quite a bit of it already.  One of the articles I did read was "You're In Prison", by John Purugganan.  Mr. Purugganan is:

"... serving a life sentence in a California prison.  He is the author of the play Let's Keep Dancing which won the first annual Arts in Correction Playwriting contest in 1992 ..."

The Sun article is very good, and I enjoyed it.  I have, however, one serious gripe.  Purugganan got hooked on cocaine, and while under it's influence killed a man.  His description was:

"Carl T. did not see his thirty-fifth year.  He did not marry his lovely fiancee.  He never fathered the children he'd hoped to have one day.  His dreams were never realized because you went over the edge.  You took Carl T. with you.  You did not bring him back."

Nice writing.  But it escapes the complete truth and it sets the murderer of a man in the third person "you".  And that "you" did not kill Carl T.   That "you" merely went over the edge, taking him with "you", and did not bring him back.  I find this nauseatingly circumvents the fact that Purugganan is that "you", and  that he killed a man.  The tone leaves me cold.  Even with that though, I enjoyed reading his story.  It is interesting, well written, and informative.  I can see why he has won awards for his writing.

Am I being judgmental there, or overly critical?  Perhaps, since the possibility comes to mind, I am.  I don't think so, but could be wrong.  I wonder whether Carl T's family would think me overly critical, or Purugganan's.  And, honestly, what difference does the tone make?  Purugganan has obviously accepted responsibility for his act, and is making a life for himself while serving his sentence.  Who am I to tell him how he should write about it?  The fact is that he has accepted responsibility, and how he chooses to write about it in a literary magazine is completely up to him.

While I am here, let me give a strong recommendation for The Sun.  It's an excellent magazine, liberal in view, but not stridently so.  The editor, Sy Safransky, doesn't accept any advertising, depending solely on subscriptions.  I understand his monthly printing, including libraries and subscriptions, is over 50,000.  The writing is excellent.  They have a web site.  Go visit, and see for yourself.  Perhaps you would like to subscribe too.

I think I've pontificated enough for one evening.  G'night.

Just Pieces of Thoughts

I'm feeling rather mellow this evening, for no apparent reason.  Marrianna and I spent the day running around doing some things that we needed to do.  We ate a late lunch so will not be having an evening meal.

We bought a new television today.  There's a story behind it.  In our previous home we had an enormous family room, and it was next to our eat-in kitchen.  From table to TV was approximately 30-35 feet.  We really do not watch a great deal of TV, but when we do we like to be able to see it.  We had a 60 inch rear projection TV on the far wall of the family room.  It looked normal, and we liked it.

When we decided to down-size we wanted to get rid of the huge TV, but a problem arose.  Our nephew, a huge sports fan and just into his first home, wanted to buy it.  But since he had just started his job and didn't have a lot of money, his mother did not think it would be a good idea for him to be spending what we would be asking for the large TV.

Our next door neighbors wanted to buy the TV too.  So, we were in a cross current of relationships.  If we sold the TV to our neighbor, our nephew would be hurt.  If we sold the TV to him, his mother wouldn't be pleased, even possibly hurt.  So, we decided to keep it and moved it here.  It dominates our small living room.

After being in this place two years, we have contracted to have custom built-in cabinets and shelving installed in the living room, effectively taking away the only place for the monster.  Fortunately, the cabinet-maker wants it, and cut his price exactly the amount we would have asked if we sold it.  That seemed a great deal.

Today, we bought a smaller LCD flat screen, high definition television.  It will be behind the doors of cabinets custom fit it for the unit.  We're happy, our cabinet maker is happy, I hope everyone is happy.

I've reached the stage in my life that I'm willing, and fortunately able, to pay someone to do things for me that I would never have remotely considered just a few years ago.  We are having the new TV delivered, and a crew is coming out to set it up for us, connecting the cable box, the DVD, and all other associated cables.  I did much of the installation here, and there is a maze of cables hiding behind the big box.  I'm willing to pay someone else to get them all straight for me.

After the purchase, we went to Panera Bread, a small restaurant in downtown Chapel Hill.   There were at least seven students in there working on their laptops.   There was an older couple at an adjacent table, and the lady was talking on her cell phone almost continually.  Marrianna and I noticed that we were nearly the only ones in the place who were carrying on a conversation with the person at their table.

We've noticed that there are seldom conversations in meeting places.  Even at bus stops, the people who are talking are on cell phones.  I read a line in a book the other day. (Between the period of that last sentence and here I've been through the book twice and can't find the line to quote.  The book is a good one, "Rise and Shine" by Anna Quindlen, Random House, New York, 2006).  The line went something like, "There was a time when people who talked to themselves on the street were mental cases.  Now, normal people look the same talking into a phone."

There is something wrong with that.  I get the same feeling of sorrow when I see young people with earphones in their ears and music playing so loud that several feet away I hear it clearly.  A phone has, at least probably, someone at the other end, but the music both damages their hearing and shuts them off from all that is happening around them.  It's not a good sign when college kids turn themselves off so obviously.

But then, what am I doing with a blog post like this?  There is so much going on that cries out for people to notice, and I'm turning myself off to it all.  I see it, read it, even hear it, but am so disheartened that I don't know that I can stand to comment on it every day.

I once engrossed myself in a book of photographs.  All the photographs were taken by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of photographers on the same day, and it was supposed to show the vastly different faces of life around the world.

Way back when, I thought it would be terrific if a good author could write a book with hundreds of anecdotes about a single day in people's lives, similar to the book of photographs.  Now, I know it's not such a good idea.  Unless the author could weave a common thread, and that would require skills beyond even the most talented, it would just be a book of anecdotes.  That's why I believe the best novels weave the story first, using a few characters as icons to illustrate our commonality.

Until we begin to realize that the thread weaving through all our lives is that we are one, that we are connected to one another in ways that even the mystics do not understand, we will continue to tear ourselves apart.  We are one.

What Kind of People Are We?

Today the Senate seems to have passed the so-called "Torture" Bill.  From what I've read across various blogs it is a disaster, giving the President awesome powers to detain US citizens that support terrorist organizations.  I haven't read the bill yet, but what I've read on the Net today frightens me.

In just under six weeks there is an election that will, I believe, illustrate the dire straights that we approach.   If the Republican Party retains majority of both houses, I believe that there will not be a Presidential election in 2008.

I can't understand these people.  I just do not understand how they cannot see the damage they are doing to our nation, our culture, and, most importantly, our governmet of laws.  It seems to me that they are actively working to destroy them, and I don't understand.  Do they truly believe what they are doing is best for the nation?  Or, is it best for themselves and their cronies?

What kind of future do they envision?  Is it a matter of power, money, control, or is there something else driving them?  Can they truly believe that they can use tactics of torture and imprisonment without trial to win the Great War on Terror?  And what is a war on terror anyway?

It seems to me that so long as most folk have their Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Thursday football, NASCAR, television etc.. they simply don't care.  Only relationships such as those in Reality of Real Folk give me  hope.

The November elections are, I firmly believe, critical to the survival and continuation of us all as a honorable, functioning republic.  Even if Democrats regain control of one or both houses, there is a possibility that their leaders will not be able to undo the damage the Republicans have wrought.  If they do not immediately repeal many of the measures Republicans have done, nothing much will change.  If they allow some of these freedom limiting laws to stand, even if they do not use their full power, there remains the possibility that a furure President will use them.  If they don't regain the higher road, there will just be a different set of corrupt legislators running the country.  They cannot, however, throw the nation into the turmoil of an impeachment, or at least not in my opinion.  There must be some statesmen remaining.

I don't enjoy being so pessimistic.  It isn't how I see myself.  I'd much rather write posts such as Reality of Real Folk or Transformation that about how wrong I see the current direction our present administration has set us on.  But while there remains the freedom to write posts such as this one and others critical of the government, I have to get my thoughts and fears out.  Hopefully it is I who is the wierdo, merely crying wolf. 

More On Transformation

When the current post is a continuation, and above the previous day's post, how does a blog go about getting reader's to read the previous page first?   I considered just adding an update below the fold of yesterday's post, but decided to do it this way instead.  I hope any new reader takes the time to follow the link.  In any case, yesterday's last paragraph was

But that's not my subject.  It is the transforming aspect of education that interests me.  Today I saw an different kind of teaching that, I hope, is transforming the lives of two young boys.  I'll discuss the window cleaners tomorrow.

We had someone come in to clean the windows of our home.  There's a local lady who cleans windows for homes in this area.  I really know very little about her except that a lot of people here in Fearrington use her to clean their windows.  I know more about what she isn't.  She isn't lower economic class.  She and her husband also run a local nursery; they have a beach home, and she drives a very nicely appointed SUV with her cleaning equipment.

She came in with two young boys.  They're her sons, one seemed approximately 14, the other 12 years old.  These two kids were neat, organized hard workers, and knew the process of cleaning upper and lower floor windows and screens.  Marrianna mentioned in conversation that it was a school day.  It turns out thet they are home schooled.

An important part of their education, therefore, was working with and for their Mom.  As Bob said in Sundays's sermon, "...given the fact that we live in a child-centered culture", it's often difficult to find an example of a child learning through doing as well as in the classroom.  These boys education is, I believe, transforming.

Since writing that last paragraph, I've been thinking about how politically incorrect their Mother is in today's culture, and how my readers may have a very different perspective about her having her sons working with her.  I can tell you that they aren't always with her.  Sometimes she pays college kids to work with her.  In fact, after having seen her around the neighborhood several times, this is the first time I've seen her sons working with her.  To some, even such ocassioanl child labor is atrocious and many probably believe that the boys should be taken from their mother.  I don't agree, emphatically do not agree.  It seems to me these boys are having the best care, and likely education, available.  As I told her, I was very impressed, both with the clean windows and her sons' hard work.

I've digressed.  Transformation is the subject.  Let me return to Miss Mary Chadwick for a moment.  Miss Mary taught me over several years.  My high school basically had two streams of classes, college prep and basic.  I was not a good student, and we both knew I wasn't going to be able to go to college.  Still, she encouraged me to, as she put it, "reach high".  Mostly due to her urging, I took the college prep courses, barely succeeding.  I graduated 53rd in a class of 70 seniors.

But I never regretted them.  I've used her two years of high school French more in more ways than I ever would have imagined.  The plane and solid geometry still have value as I design my quilt patterns, though Ed Z, the high school coach and geometry teacher, would probably be surprised to know that.

Reaching high has stuck with me for many years.  I've often failed, but without trying I wouldn't be the same person.  Quoting Bob's sermon again,

 

Good teachers seem to know how to get us to open our eyes. Good teachers seem to hold the power to change us. Good teachers challenge us with the gift of high expectations, and make us want to be more than we have yet been and see more than we have yet seen. The real purpose of teaching, after all, is not facts, or accumulation, or even mastery. The real purpose of teaching is transformation.

Thank you Miss Mary.

Transformation

I'm a little short of time this evening, so this will be continued tomorrow.  I thought I'd give my readers an opportunity to read ahead and think a bit.

Sunday's sermon at church was  A Different Kind of Teaching.  As usual, it was interesting and thought provoking for a lot of reasons.  I recommend you read it.  The first paragraph:

 

Victor Kazanjian is the dean of religious life at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. For a number of years now he has been carrying out an informal research project that has had a remarkable impact on the college. Every time he meets with alumnae, every time he sits at coffee with faculty, every time he meets with a committee, he asks people to remember and describe for him a moment of brilliant teaching. I learned about the study from our friend Rick Spalding, dean of the chapel at Williams College. He says that Kazanjian’s little exercise has had the effect of increasing, not only “the repertoire of magic that is available to anyone who hears the stories,” but of reminding the hearer that “the purpose of education is not facts, or accumulation, or even mastery.” The real purpose of education is transformation.

[Emphasis added]

Since the sermon I've been considering moments of brilliant education I've had.  I remember the teacher more than the educational moment; Misses Annie and Mary Chadwick and 'Doc' Ream, from high school come to mind first.  There must have been some college intstructors that made a mark but most were pedestrian.  Perhaps that's because I took one or two evening classes at several colleges while in the Air Force and around the world for over twenty-one years to get my bachelor degree.

But that's not my subject.  It is the transforming aspect of education that interests me.  Today I saw an different kind of teaching that, I hope, is transforming the lives of two young boys.  I'll discuss the window cleaners tomorrow.

Reality of Real Folk

I've been in a bit of a sad spell for a while.  It's a part of why there haven't been more regular posts on the blog.  I'd apologize, but that somehow seems illogical.  I haven't done anything to apologize for; it's me that is in the dumps and an apology isn't going to help.

This morning I found something.  It's my quilting group.  We had our regular Monday morning meeting this morning.  There were a dozen women and me, sitting around a living room discussing important things.  Important things such as admiring one another's work, inquiring about one another's health, car pooling to a quilt show in Pinehurst, and the merits of tea versus coffee.  Important things such as welcoming one member back from her summer stay up north, giving rave reviews of the coffee cake provided by the hostess, and admiring her home.

I belong to two groups.  One, the Fearrington Golf Club, is all male.  The Fearrington Village Quilters are, except for me, all female.  When driving to and from golf courses, the men discuss weather, golf, and interesting subjects such as housing prices.  There's seldom anything approaching relationships. The women discuss all sorts of things, from quilting to family.  I can tell you, without doubt the women's discussions are infinitely more interesting.

As I listened and participated this morning, I felt my gloominess lift.  With these ladies it is easy to tell what is important, or at least what they're willing to discuss.  While neither group includes politics or politicians in their discussions, the ladies talk with each other about relationships and common interests.  There is feeling in their talk.

I read political blogs daily.  I definitely have my opinions about most politicians and of their inability or unwillingness to work together.  But in the long run, the ladies have it right.  Relationships are much more important.  Caring for one another is crucial.

So, when I left them this morning, I felt much lighter in my step.  I could see that there are positive aspects to daily living and that relationships are what makes living more interesting and worthwhile.  I needed that.  Thanks fellow quilters.

An Email Discussion

This evening, I am going to get lazy and cobble together a discussion I've been having via email over the past few days.  I'll remove all references to name to preserve the other person's identity.

The discussion sort of began with my blog post A Very Good Question.  My friend responded in an email:

In the long run, isn't 'government designed to protect what those in power have of both this world's goods and power?

 

If so, maybe we are barking up the wrong  tree when we ask, or expect government to in effect help us 'share the wealth'?  There have at times in history, been governments designed to do just that, but as a general rule, they haven't lasted long in the pursuit of that end hut have devolved into pursuit of protection.

 

One might think that some other form of social organization, a church perhaps, could achieve it.   But even these seem ultimately to succumb to the protect the status quo syndrome.

I responded with:

The preamble to our constitution begins with "We the people of the United States...".  I think it significant that the very first word establishes who is in charge, or at least who is supposed to be.  It is my opinion that "We the people" have relinquished some of our authority, allowing those with the power to administer our government to misuse it.

 

To answer [the] first question; no, our government isn't "designed to protect what those in power have of both this world's goods and power".  It is supposed to do exactly what the remaining words of the Preamble clearly state.

... in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

Therefore, if We define "general welfare" to extend beyond our own borders, it is quite proper that our government expend our resources to places such as Darfur.  The problem, it seems to me, is that WE haven't yet made it clear that our general Welfare depends on the welfare of others in this world.  WE have not made it clear that protecting the goods and power of the status quo is not sufficient.  Or, at least we haven't made it sufficiently clear to those who administer our more perfect Union.

 

Somewhere, sometime, the people have separated themselves from the government.  It is significant to me that the news yesterday showed private benefactors providing huge resources to alleviate suffering throughout the world.  That's extremely significant.  It's also how true conservatives, though definitely not the neocon idjits in power today, believe it should be done.  True conservatives view the role of government as limited, narrowly defining general Welfare.  Liberals, on the other hand (and I now see myself as a liberal rather than a conservative) see their government as more powerful extensions of themselves, and the general Welfare goes beyond our borders to all.

His rejoinder:

Going back to the preamble to the Constitution for an answer is a novel (today) approach to the problem, and, if I may say so a conservative one rather than a liberal  one.  Government, under our system, is a work in progress to put it mildly.  And, while in its original concept, it may have been designed to meet the requirements of the preamble, today it has become something quite different, at least in operation if not in theory.

I think it only fair to point out that as originally constituted, 'government' not only allowed slavery, but supported it and in many parts of the country, even today, supports its social residue.  Would it be fair to mention that while 'government' supports a minimum wage for some workers but not all, it nowhere limits the portions of the economy the wealthy and powerful can reserve to themselves other than through the tax laws which are stacked, if they are stacked at all, in favor of those same wealthy and powerful. 

In reply, I wrote:

... You used to defend government as strongly as anyone I've known.  That's why it's so disturbing that someone like yourself seems despondent about the ability of government to rise above being only for the rich and powerful.  I am beyond despondent.

 

I agree that all that wealth can possibly be used inappropriately to benefit mankind.  I believe in a progressive, fair tax system, but not to the point of confiscation.  I'm not sure that we would agree where the point of confiscation would begin, but that's at least a subject for debate.

 

I think it is wonderful that some of those rich, powerful people see a need to contribute to the general welfare.  I also believe that as private individuals they seem to be working together to develop a systematic method of doing it.  I can't cite specifics, but at yesterday's and today's meetings in New York, many of them gathered together to discuss how their resources can be used.  I see a very strong positive in that gathering.  Maybe it could be considered a 'kitchen cabinet' of the opposition, as I heard it suggested on the NBC news this evening.

 

There has to be a middle, common ground; a place for individual philanthropy and for governments to work together.  I believe, however, that the Bush administration is so firmly entrenched in the clutches of its own set of powerful, rich individuals and the belief that they are "called" that they are incapable of changing their mode of operation.  I'm afraid that their corruption has reached even the Democratic Party.  I believe it may be too late to keep this Republic.  And I am very, very afraid of what follows.

That is where we are in our dialog or discussion, whatever you choose to call it.

The following are my own dark thoughts.  Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that the future of not just this nation but of this world is at a crossroads.  The Pope's slip, the US government's corruption throughout, the world's only deliberative body unable to persuade and unwilling to act, environmental disasters if not ignored at least not adequately responded to, and so on, seem to me to indicate that there is a division that cannot be put back together.

As for the US, I believe that the Republicans and Diebold have corrupted the election system so that even our voting against them will not stand.  Yes, it's that bad in my opinion.  I guess we will see in 2008.

There is some hope, but none of it comes from any government.  Not the US, UK, EU, Russia, China, Japan - none.  The only hope I see is in acting outside of government.  And that's a damn shame.  Buffet, Gates, et al cannot do it even with their huge resources.

Somehow or another "We the people" are going to have to convince those in power that we are serious about changing ourselves and the world.  I hope it doesn't come to pitchforks and torches marching on Washington.  But it may, it very well may.

A Devious Campaign

This afternoon I received in my email a message about Citgo and Hugo Chavez.  I've copied portions of it so that you know what I'm reacting to.

Venezuela Dictator Vows To Bring Down U.S. Government  The Venezuelan government is the sole owner of Citgo gasoline coany Venezuela Dictator Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S. government. Chavez, president of Venezuela, told a TV audience: "Enough of imperialist aggression; we must tell the world: down with the U.S. empire. We have to bury imperialism thscentury." The guest on his television program, beamed across Venezuela, was Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar activist. Chavez recently had as his guest Harry Belafonte, who called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world." Chavez is pushing a socialist revolution and has a close alliance with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Regardless of your feelings about the war in Iraq, the issue here is that we have a socialist dictator vowing to bring down the government of the U.S. And he is using our money to achieve his goal! The Venezuela government, run by dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of Citgo gas company. Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez to help him in his vow to bring down our government. B>Take Action! Please decide that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station. Why should U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to take down our government? Very important. Please forward this to your friends and family. Most of them don't know that Citgo is owned by the Venezuela government. Citgo is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. YOU CAN VERIFY THIS ON THE CITGO WEB PAGE. http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGO.jsp  "The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela."

This makes me want to go out and get a tankful of Citgo gasoline, and to continue to buy Citgo. 

 

Hugo Chavez, to begin with, is NOT a dictator.  He is the duly elected leader of a sovereign nation, elected in an election that was certified as open and free.  I agree with him about imperialist America.  We must be stopped.

 

Have we forgotten that Venezuela sent large amounts of aid in terms of people and money to the US after Hurricane Katrina? Have we forgotten that Venezuela picked up the slack in oil production when our own off-shore platforms were damaged?  Or have we fallen under the lying spell of our own imperialist leader's lies and distortions?  Venezuela also sent massive amounts of aid after the tsunami in Asia.

 

I'm with him and Belafonte in their labeling of GWB as the greatest terrorist in the world.  No folk, just because a nation's leaders don't bow to the great Satan and pay obeisance doesn't make them evil.  In fact, it raises their status in my eyes.

Thankfully, there are other views.  Here is a link to an interview with Hugo Chavez that presents a much different picture.  I highly recommend reading it.  Thanks Gayle for the tip.

It seems to me that there is a deliberate campaign by thye Bush administration to discredit any points of view but their own.  Unfortunately, it seems to be working to a large extent, witness the email cited above.  It is important that we understand just how devious this administration is.

A Very Good Question

Felix grant poses an interesting, obvious question over on his blog, The Growlery. 

.... wondering why all the voices calling for action don't suggest external help with money and materiel (which, unlike mobilisation of their own forces in blue berets, come cheap for rich first world countries) for this force already in place by agreement?

Why indeed?  In places where spending our money rather than troops makes such perfect sense, why are we not doing it?

In the sermon at our church this past Sunday, our pastor posed a similar question.

We stand today mired in the deep swamp of difficult choices… choices about how we will conduct ourselves in the face of terror, about how we will act vis-à-vis those whom we deem to be our enemies.  They are choices that will define our national character for years to come. Nations can hardly choose self-sacrifice, of course, but historically this nation’s power has been most effectively exercised when combined with a clear moral authority rooted in concern for the welfare of the larger human family. And its moral authority has eroded in those other times when it has simply chosen to exercise power for its own advantage. There is a spirited debate going on in our nation’s halls of power, across the partisan divide, about that same differentiation between power and authority. My great fear, and I pray that I am wrong, is that if we are careless, we will run the risk of relinquishing whatever authority, whatever moral capital we have accrued over the years in ugly acts of power which, for whatever good they may accomplish and whatever elemental security they may purchase, will further tarnish this nation’s standing in the world, and make this world an even more perilous place… far different from security or the shalom we seek.

You say that's not a question?  Sure it is.  It places a choice before us, asking who we want to be as a nation.  It isn't a statement instructing us toward an end, but a question about how we want that end to be. 

We can spend our moral capital in real capital terms.  Felix's question shows a dark area in which we can spend real capital and gain moral capital.

What is our answer?

 

Monday's Thoughts

Our Trip to western North Carolina was very nice.  It's interesting to watch Marrianna as we drive west.  When we get where the mountains can be seen, purple against the gray sky, she seems to go within herself, gathering home around her.   Even after all these years away, she remains a mountain girl.

I am not mountain born or bred, but I could easily become a mountain person.  I love those mountains as much as Marrianna.  There is something about having them around you that creates a sense of solidness, permanence, and quiet.  The people I know from that area, including Marrianna, are strong, sensible, and dependable.  Their word is their bond and they take care of one another.

While up there I didn't watch TV, and read only the headlines of the newspapers.  Thus, it was a surprise to me today to see and hear the uproar about the Pope's "slip of the tongue."  Interestingly enough, I was listening to a radio interview with Anna Quinlan about her new book, "Rise and Shine".  When asked about the Pope's statement, she provided a bit of perspective I hadn't seen.

She was quite surprised that the Pope would make such a mistake.  According to her, when he was Cardinal, he was one of the highly adept political Cardinals.  To have him make such a mistake was not normal.

As I read other accounts, I felt a chill.  I do not know, of course, but I believe the Pope's remarks were deliberate.  His recants seem less than full to me.  Certainly they have not appeased the Muslims.  They seem to deliberately separate the Catholic Church from meaningful dialog with Muslims.  And, if the Pope is doing that, we are in for a long, sometimes very hot, period.  I do not find it likely, and do not believe he slipped.  I think he was signaling a new course for the Catholics, and though I am not Catholic, it really worries me.

This afternoon I was listening to NPR, and they had a story that deepened the chill between my shoulder blades.  The IRS is investigating an Episcopal Church in California.  The lead paragraph is:

All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., is deciding whether to fight an IRS summons for the church's e-mails, meeting minutes and letters. The liberal church is under investigation for allegedly making political statements leading up to the November 2004 presidential election. At stake are its tax-exempt status and possibly some heavy fines.

You can listen to the rest here, and it's worth it.

This seems to me a deliberate attempt to silence liberal voices, even in churches.  If the IRS is successful, even the gifts and donations of All Saints parishioners could be examined.  What has happened?  Here, in the USA?  How have we arrived at this point?

I'm one who believes that even seemingly unrelated events can have meaning when taken in their totality.  A Pope's 'slip' and All Saints encounter with the IRS are of one cloth.  Separately and individually, they point to a lessening of tolerance.  More even, they are a deliberate, decided attack on religious freedom if it isn't in accord with an approved set of thoughts.  I think it is time to become very, very vigilant, looking for similar examples.  They must be published together in order to draw attention to their combined effect on our freedom.