This has been the year of the Hunger Games at my house. First, my 11-year-old daughter read the book, discovering it’s the start of a trilogy. So she read the second and third books and began watching movie trailers online. Then she reread the entire trilogy.
Next, we ordered tickets for the first night of the movie – for her, a friend and me. Finally, she added the movie to our Netflix queue. She waited patiently through our summer of itinerancy until we were home.
So last Wednesday night, we watched the movie again; it was the first time for my husband. For those who don’t know the story, Hunger Games is a futuristic morality tale by Suzanne Collins. In it, the nation of Panem is divided into 12 regional districts ruled by the wealthy and brutal Capital. As punishment for an uprising 75 years earlier, each district must submit two youth, male and female, to an annual competition called the Hunger Games. The children range in age from 12 to 18, and they must compete to the death, with one victor emerging. The games are broadcast throughout Panem, and all are forced to watch the slaughter. For the Capital it is sport; for the districts, it is torture.
As the plot unfolds, it becomes apparent the Capital relies completely on the districts to supply the labor and natural resources to support its lavish lifestyle. So the intimidation, fear and division the games sow help maintain the Capital’s power.
Watching this movie a second time, I was reminded of events in our country recently: the teachers’ strike in Chicago and Mitt Romney’s fundraising speech, describing 47 percent of America’s populace as refusing to take responsibility for their lives. No matter whether you support Romney or not, you can’t deny he sees America divided between the worthy and unworthy.
Former Bush aide Mark McKinnon writes in a post at The Daily Beast: “This is a deeply cynical view of America. Not to mention wrong. And it’s a long way from the compassionate conservatism that welcomed more Americans into the Republican Party under President George W. Bush.”
Similarly, in Panem after the heroine has created a stir of hope for her poor coal mining district, President Snow tells the Hunger Games’ producer if he saw the people in District 12, he would not root for them or any underdog.
I wonder who really feels “entitled” in that culture – and in ours.
In Panem, Snow uses division to keep these underdogs down, which brought to mind the teachers strike in Chicago and Wisconsin’s battle over collective bargaining last year. Pit union workers against non-union workers to keep all wages low and to whittle back worker benefits and protections for all. Pit Democrats against Republicans so they don’t realize the 1 percent is developing policies to increase the wealth of corporations and the super-rich while overloading the middle class; never mind the poor. Divide and conquer.
The underdogs in Panem watch 23 children die each year for 75 years. And as my daughter reminds me, on every 25th year they added special features like doubling the number of competitors. So many children lost before the people begin to stand up to the fear and manipulation.
And it leaves me asking, “What will it take to unite us; what’s in our future?”
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Do we want government run like a business?
One of my nephews posted a clip on Facebook last week from The Daily Show’s coverage of the Republican National Convention. In it, the Daily Show decides to streamline America, running government like a business.
Hilarity ensues as Daily Show correspondents confront delegates from states receiving the most federal budget assistance while paying the least in federal taxes. As they tell a delegate from Mississippi who opines the market should decide if an organization succeeds or fails: “Whoa, dead last in per capita income — you are costing the government $20 billion!”
“Suddenly, when actually faced with the numbers, running America like a business didn’t seem like a good idea after all,” deadpans Daily Show correspondent John Oliver. “And it was every state for themselves.”
The final scene pitted Minnesota, Wyoming and Mississippi against each other to “keep their job,” with one of their delegates making the pitch to stay in the union.
This comic theater asks a serious question. Do we really want our government run like a business? Because the goal of business is profit.
As an example, let’s take schools. Our schools were developed to educate our children. Is this goal compatible with making a profit?
I know as a former school board member that schools make business decisions: from which vendor to purchase milk, bread and gasoline or how to cost-effectively air condition a building. But the first and foremost concern is providing the best education for kids. Do we really want to sacrifice that goal for profit?
Do we want to hire the least expensive teachers i.e. the least experienced, less educated teachers and perhaps fewer of them – to ensure a profit? Because that is the choice we’ll make if we run a school like a business.
And that’s one of the problems with some of the new privatized educational models being pushed, such as online schools. In states like Iowa, where school is financed on a per pupil basis, online schools will receive the per pupil amount. But any money they save by cutting expenses will go directly toward their profit. See how that works? From taxpayers’ pockets to private profit – instead of to educating students.
Results for online schooling to date are mixed at best, certainly indicating a need for at least more research. In an article last December titled “Online Schools Score Better on Wall Street than in Classrooms,” Stephanie Saul of the New York Times wrote of the leading online education company, K12 Inc.: “Instead, a portrait emerges of a company that tries to squeeze profits from public school dollars by raising enrollment, increasing teacher workload and lowering standards.”
I’d note the same business model is used plenty of other places. Again, google “Iraq no-bid contracts.” Google Enron. Or, MF Global. Heck, read George W. Bush’s resume, and check out Matt Taibbi’s latest Rolling Stone article titled: “Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.”
In fact, the last few years have given us one example after another of businesses run into the ground, yet we’re still insisting business operates better than government.
Americans have lost sight of the social compact we make to act in community for the benefit of all – or at least as many as possible. Certain things are too important to be driven by something as mercenary as money.
Hilarity ensues as Daily Show correspondents confront delegates from states receiving the most federal budget assistance while paying the least in federal taxes. As they tell a delegate from Mississippi who opines the market should decide if an organization succeeds or fails: “Whoa, dead last in per capita income — you are costing the government $20 billion!”
“Suddenly, when actually faced with the numbers, running America like a business didn’t seem like a good idea after all,” deadpans Daily Show correspondent John Oliver. “And it was every state for themselves.”
The final scene pitted Minnesota, Wyoming and Mississippi against each other to “keep their job,” with one of their delegates making the pitch to stay in the union.
This comic theater asks a serious question. Do we really want our government run like a business? Because the goal of business is profit.
As an example, let’s take schools. Our schools were developed to educate our children. Is this goal compatible with making a profit?
I know as a former school board member that schools make business decisions: from which vendor to purchase milk, bread and gasoline or how to cost-effectively air condition a building. But the first and foremost concern is providing the best education for kids. Do we really want to sacrifice that goal for profit?
Do we want to hire the least expensive teachers i.e. the least experienced, less educated teachers and perhaps fewer of them – to ensure a profit? Because that is the choice we’ll make if we run a school like a business.
And that’s one of the problems with some of the new privatized educational models being pushed, such as online schools. In states like Iowa, where school is financed on a per pupil basis, online schools will receive the per pupil amount. But any money they save by cutting expenses will go directly toward their profit. See how that works? From taxpayers’ pockets to private profit – instead of to educating students.
Results for online schooling to date are mixed at best, certainly indicating a need for at least more research. In an article last December titled “Online Schools Score Better on Wall Street than in Classrooms,” Stephanie Saul of the New York Times wrote of the leading online education company, K12 Inc.: “Instead, a portrait emerges of a company that tries to squeeze profits from public school dollars by raising enrollment, increasing teacher workload and lowering standards.”
I’d note the same business model is used plenty of other places. Again, google “Iraq no-bid contracts.” Google Enron. Or, MF Global. Heck, read George W. Bush’s resume, and check out Matt Taibbi’s latest Rolling Stone article titled: “Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.”
In fact, the last few years have given us one example after another of businesses run into the ground, yet we’re still insisting business operates better than government.
Americans have lost sight of the social compact we make to act in community for the benefit of all – or at least as many as possible. Certain things are too important to be driven by something as mercenary as money.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Do we dare to look in the mirror?
Note:One of my various jobs is serving as a worship leader -- either in a 7-point charge in Paige county or as fill-in for vacationing or ailing pastors. Following is my sermon for Sunday, Sept. 2, 2012.
When preparing for this morning’s message, I was struck by the epistle reading from James, which included this illustration using a mirror:
“For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets, but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.
Mirrors are fascinating objects. They bend and reflect light. We look into them to see ourselves, seeking truth. But as this passage notes, we may forget what we see. We should also ask if we see clearly what’s reflected.
This mirror illustration brought to mind a number of stories, including the old familiar tale of Snow White. As we know, Snow White’s mother died shortly after her birth. Soon after that, her father, the king, married another woman who was beautiful, proud and cruel. The stepmother had studied dark magic and owned a magic mirror, of which she would daily ask, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?”
For many years, each time this question was asked, the mirror would answer, "Thou, O Queen, art the fairest of all." Of course, this answer pleased the queen as she knew her mirror could speak nothing but the truth.
So it came as a shock when one morning after asking, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?" it answered: You, my queen, are fair; it is true. But Snow White is even fairer than you.
That’s when things became really difficult for Snow White. Most of us know the rest of the story – how the queen sent Snow White into the woods with the huntsman, who was charged with killing the girl. How she escaped, begging for mercy, and fled until she found refuge with the seven dwarves. How the queen discovered her via the mirror and disguised herself as the old woman selling apples. How Snow White was deceived and took a bite of the poisoned fruit. How she lay as dead until her final rescue.
Throughout this tale, the mirror reflected beauty and evil; its truth was complicated and perilous for both the queen and Snow White.
Likewise, I think the Pharisees in our passage from Mark this morning had similar trouble with what they saw in the mirror of the law. Although they question Jesus about the practices of the Jewish law and tradition among his disciples, Jesus holds that same mirror up and asks them to take a longer look, saying, “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
And Jesus clarifies further, saying, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”
Later in Jesus’ ministry, the rich young ruler said, “I have done everything the law has asked. I am one who can look in the mirror and see a perfect reflection of the law.” Then Jesus said, “look through the looking glass -- through the mirror, and give all you have to the poor and come, follow me.”
But the man replied, “I just can’t see myself doing that. That is not a reflection of what I do.” So he walked away for it was more mirror than he cared to see. And let’s be honest, how many of us in his shoes would have done the same?
And so we should ask: “Do we dare to look in the mirror?”
The writer of James makes that question personal and the encounter with the rich young ruler a matter for you and me: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”
In the Iowa Methodist Church’s weekly Memo to Preachers, Rev. Bill Cotton asks how one goes about staying “unstained” in the face of service to world. And to wrestle with that question, he writes that he consulted his old friend Tex Sample, who touched a nerve by citing the example of America’s wealthy, who want low taxes while demanding high military spending. Tex shared with Bill that the Society of Friends or Quakers, who are pacifists, track American military spending at 59% of our national budget.
Tex continued noting that it’s not wealthy kids who serve in the military, but poor and working class young people. And they end up fighting not to defend their families, but the assets of transnational corporations that send jobs abroad and hide profits to avoid taxes.
And Tex concluded: “This is not only wealthfare, it is also the sacrifice of poor and working young people on the altar of supply-side economics. For anyone who is formed by the biblical prophets and by Jesus, such wickedness will finally bring judgment.”
All this led Rev. Cotton to write:
“I can’t say it better. To remain silent in the face of such evil is to give the appearance of consent. Evil does have a way of rubbing off onto us. I think we need to heed the Book of James and become doers of the word—speak up!”
And so . . . the echo of this day is, “Do we see clearly in the mirror? Do we dare? Do we recognize that to much of the world, WE are the 1 percent?”
Remember that James uses the mirror as an illustration of the law. Do we see God’s law of love clearly in all aspects of our life? Are we living it?
As our United Methodist Church worship planning resources note: “. . . in James and in early Christianity generally, to keep oneself unstained from the world (James 1:27) did not mean seeking to live entirely apart from the world in some kind of ascetic withdrawal. Rather, it meant not allowing the way the world treats others -- especially the poor, the widow, the orphans, and the marginalized -- to mar the way we treat all people as disciples of Jesus. The world's way keeps them stuck or channels them off to one side. The way of Jesus and his disciples is to come alongside as advocates with the vulnerable and voiceless. . . .”
The Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners also wrote this week about advocacy and justice in a weekly blog post entitled, “Caring for the Poor is Government’s Biblical Role.” Drawing from the texts of Paul, as well as the prophets, Wallis lays out the Bible’s mandates for the role and purpose of government:
“So the purpose of government, according to Paul, is to protect and promote. Protect from the evil and promote the good, and we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes. So to disparage government per se — to see government as the central problem in society — is simply not a biblical position.”
Wallis describes how throughout Biblical history the prophets spoke up about injustice to the poor and forgotten, and that God held both church and government leaders accountable. For even before Jesus, James and Paul, God’s law required the care of the least in society. And I think for both Rev. Cotton and Rev. Wallis, this election season has them looking in the collective mirror to ask if we are living out God’s law.
I would also note that James states clearly that when we act to help others; to live out love, we are the ones who receive the grace of God.
I receive it on Wednesday afternoons when one of the children in Grant’s after-school program asks, “Can I sit on your lap?” Or, “Will your read me a book?” Or when I simply listen to their stories about their day, letting them share the disappointments, laughs, frustrations and surprises they’ve experienced. And I am learning to speak up and share their stories and their needs -- for education, health care and even food, using my voice with my representatives in government as well as with my vote.
My friend, the Rev. Jim Campbell, writes about the blessings of faith in action in his Wonder unto Beauty blog post, “Lost in Wonder:”
“We are not called to simply love those who are in need,
but dare to believe that those we serve
are the face of Christ coming to us
in how WE are to grow.
It is the Benedictines who greet each stranger at the door
with the words, “We have been expecting you.”
Faith into action is a riddle.
It is knowing that in serving God that we find God,
that in caring for others that they help us touch
our own hidden brokenness and fears.
"It is in the face of the least of these our brothers and sisters
that we discover the face of Christ in the street,
the glory of the Lord,
the necessary wonder unto beauty of the goodness of God.
Here, the jazz of God pulses into a freedom dance
in the alley mud for all concerned,
that the imprisoned, the thirsty, the naked and the hungry
include ourselves
yearning for our own re-conversion
beyond the limits of faith in action in a box,
to the lost-ness of WONDER, love and praise set free.”
So look in the mirror, remember to do, and be blessed.
Amen.
When preparing for this morning’s message, I was struck by the epistle reading from James, which included this illustration using a mirror:
“For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets, but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.
Mirrors are fascinating objects. They bend and reflect light. We look into them to see ourselves, seeking truth. But as this passage notes, we may forget what we see. We should also ask if we see clearly what’s reflected.
This mirror illustration brought to mind a number of stories, including the old familiar tale of Snow White. As we know, Snow White’s mother died shortly after her birth. Soon after that, her father, the king, married another woman who was beautiful, proud and cruel. The stepmother had studied dark magic and owned a magic mirror, of which she would daily ask, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?”
For many years, each time this question was asked, the mirror would answer, "Thou, O Queen, art the fairest of all." Of course, this answer pleased the queen as she knew her mirror could speak nothing but the truth.
So it came as a shock when one morning after asking, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?" it answered: You, my queen, are fair; it is true. But Snow White is even fairer than you.
That’s when things became really difficult for Snow White. Most of us know the rest of the story – how the queen sent Snow White into the woods with the huntsman, who was charged with killing the girl. How she escaped, begging for mercy, and fled until she found refuge with the seven dwarves. How the queen discovered her via the mirror and disguised herself as the old woman selling apples. How Snow White was deceived and took a bite of the poisoned fruit. How she lay as dead until her final rescue.
Throughout this tale, the mirror reflected beauty and evil; its truth was complicated and perilous for both the queen and Snow White.
Likewise, I think the Pharisees in our passage from Mark this morning had similar trouble with what they saw in the mirror of the law. Although they question Jesus about the practices of the Jewish law and tradition among his disciples, Jesus holds that same mirror up and asks them to take a longer look, saying, “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
And Jesus clarifies further, saying, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”
Later in Jesus’ ministry, the rich young ruler said, “I have done everything the law has asked. I am one who can look in the mirror and see a perfect reflection of the law.” Then Jesus said, “look through the looking glass -- through the mirror, and give all you have to the poor and come, follow me.”
But the man replied, “I just can’t see myself doing that. That is not a reflection of what I do.” So he walked away for it was more mirror than he cared to see. And let’s be honest, how many of us in his shoes would have done the same?
And so we should ask: “Do we dare to look in the mirror?”
The writer of James makes that question personal and the encounter with the rich young ruler a matter for you and me: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”
In the Iowa Methodist Church’s weekly Memo to Preachers, Rev. Bill Cotton asks how one goes about staying “unstained” in the face of service to world. And to wrestle with that question, he writes that he consulted his old friend Tex Sample, who touched a nerve by citing the example of America’s wealthy, who want low taxes while demanding high military spending. Tex shared with Bill that the Society of Friends or Quakers, who are pacifists, track American military spending at 59% of our national budget.
Tex continued noting that it’s not wealthy kids who serve in the military, but poor and working class young people. And they end up fighting not to defend their families, but the assets of transnational corporations that send jobs abroad and hide profits to avoid taxes.
And Tex concluded: “This is not only wealthfare, it is also the sacrifice of poor and working young people on the altar of supply-side economics. For anyone who is formed by the biblical prophets and by Jesus, such wickedness will finally bring judgment.”
All this led Rev. Cotton to write:
“I can’t say it better. To remain silent in the face of such evil is to give the appearance of consent. Evil does have a way of rubbing off onto us. I think we need to heed the Book of James and become doers of the word—speak up!”
And so . . . the echo of this day is, “Do we see clearly in the mirror? Do we dare? Do we recognize that to much of the world, WE are the 1 percent?”
Remember that James uses the mirror as an illustration of the law. Do we see God’s law of love clearly in all aspects of our life? Are we living it?
As our United Methodist Church worship planning resources note: “. . . in James and in early Christianity generally, to keep oneself unstained from the world (James 1:27) did not mean seeking to live entirely apart from the world in some kind of ascetic withdrawal. Rather, it meant not allowing the way the world treats others -- especially the poor, the widow, the orphans, and the marginalized -- to mar the way we treat all people as disciples of Jesus. The world's way keeps them stuck or channels them off to one side. The way of Jesus and his disciples is to come alongside as advocates with the vulnerable and voiceless. . . .”
The Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners also wrote this week about advocacy and justice in a weekly blog post entitled, “Caring for the Poor is Government’s Biblical Role.” Drawing from the texts of Paul, as well as the prophets, Wallis lays out the Bible’s mandates for the role and purpose of government:
“So the purpose of government, according to Paul, is to protect and promote. Protect from the evil and promote the good, and we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes. So to disparage government per se — to see government as the central problem in society — is simply not a biblical position.”
Wallis describes how throughout Biblical history the prophets spoke up about injustice to the poor and forgotten, and that God held both church and government leaders accountable. For even before Jesus, James and Paul, God’s law required the care of the least in society. And I think for both Rev. Cotton and Rev. Wallis, this election season has them looking in the collective mirror to ask if we are living out God’s law.
I would also note that James states clearly that when we act to help others; to live out love, we are the ones who receive the grace of God.
I receive it on Wednesday afternoons when one of the children in Grant’s after-school program asks, “Can I sit on your lap?” Or, “Will your read me a book?” Or when I simply listen to their stories about their day, letting them share the disappointments, laughs, frustrations and surprises they’ve experienced. And I am learning to speak up and share their stories and their needs -- for education, health care and even food, using my voice with my representatives in government as well as with my vote.
My friend, the Rev. Jim Campbell, writes about the blessings of faith in action in his Wonder unto Beauty blog post, “Lost in Wonder:”
“We are not called to simply love those who are in need,
but dare to believe that those we serve
are the face of Christ coming to us
in how WE are to grow.
It is the Benedictines who greet each stranger at the door
with the words, “We have been expecting you.”
Faith into action is a riddle.
It is knowing that in serving God that we find God,
that in caring for others that they help us touch
our own hidden brokenness and fears.
"It is in the face of the least of these our brothers and sisters
that we discover the face of Christ in the street,
the glory of the Lord,
the necessary wonder unto beauty of the goodness of God.
Here, the jazz of God pulses into a freedom dance
in the alley mud for all concerned,
that the imprisoned, the thirsty, the naked and the hungry
include ourselves
yearning for our own re-conversion
beyond the limits of faith in action in a box,
to the lost-ness of WONDER, love and praise set free.”
So look in the mirror, remember to do, and be blessed.
Amen.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Will we choose wisely this election?
Recently, we've been re-watching the Indiana Jones movies. In the third film, “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” Indy sets out to rescue his Biblical scholar father who has been captured by the Nazis and the adventure turns into a quest for the Holy Grail or cup of Christ.
This quest has been the lifelong dream of Jones, Sr., while the Nazis seek to possess the Grail for its supernatural powers.
This race for the Grail converges in a cave in the North African desert, where an ancient Knight Templar guards it. In an inner sanctum, this knight waits with a collection of goblets and a spring of fresh water to be relieved of his guardianship.
But as the Nazis’ and Jones' parties vie for control, Indiana is faced with a difficult choice -- choosing from among the collected cups to save his wounded father. Just seconds before, Indy had watched a Nazi, who desired the Grail for his own wealth and power, choose incorrectly, drink and evaporate to dust.
“He chose . . . poorly,” concludes the old knight, who watches these events calmly.
So Indiana Jones passes his gaze across the cups and asks, “Which is the cup of a poor carpenter?” And when he sees a rough, unadorned water goblet, he grabs it, fills it and drinks.
“You have chosen . . . wisely,” declares the knight slowly. But will we?
This story came to mind as I was preparing a sermon (I serve as a worship leader in a 7-church charge in Page County) based on Solomon's request for wisdom. In my preparation, I spent time reading about Proverbs and found my study Bible described that book as representing “the democratization of wisdom.”
In this election season, that phrase stuck in my brain. In other words, wisdom is offered to all people. It's not just a gift; it's a pursuit you can choose.
Or not.
With regard to the election, I think too many of us have given up pursuing knowledge to make wise choices. Instead, we simply react to whatever's presented - either getting mad or blindly accepting messages repeated so often we don't question their truth.
I think the best example of the latter is Reagan”s quote: “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem.”
Great sound bite, but was it true?
Not if you like your armed forces or Social Security or Medicare or public school or student financial aid or Veteran’s Administration benefits or farm program or public roads or post office or police and fire departments or flu shots or hosts of other government services.
Meanwhile, this meme was repeated until it became accepted truth. Through both Republican and Democratic administrations we’ve been told private entities (like Wall Street banks) operate more efficiently than government. Yet does history bear this out?
Google “Iraq no-bid contracts” and read how private contractors bilked our government out of millions of dollars by overcharging for services military personnel used to perform. Why?
Because under the government-is-the problem argument, we've repealed regulations that protect the public and downsized or dismantled agencies responsible for oversight. Another is the “America's failing schools” meme. Many accept education reform is needed, yet polling shows most are satisfied with their own school. We never question the meme or those promoting it. Yet American school children are taught reading and other concepts at earlier ages than ever. And all American children are educated and tested; even developmentally disabled students have plans to help them reach full potential. Other nations do not do this, so test score comparisons touted in media compare apples to oranges.
These are but two examples. It’s not difficult to find others if you are willing to look - to pursue the knowledge. That’s our job as voters; it's how we arm ourselves to make choices like the one in November. So I can’t help wondering, will we choose wisely?
This quest has been the lifelong dream of Jones, Sr., while the Nazis seek to possess the Grail for its supernatural powers.
This race for the Grail converges in a cave in the North African desert, where an ancient Knight Templar guards it. In an inner sanctum, this knight waits with a collection of goblets and a spring of fresh water to be relieved of his guardianship.
But as the Nazis’ and Jones' parties vie for control, Indiana is faced with a difficult choice -- choosing from among the collected cups to save his wounded father. Just seconds before, Indy had watched a Nazi, who desired the Grail for his own wealth and power, choose incorrectly, drink and evaporate to dust.
“He chose . . . poorly,” concludes the old knight, who watches these events calmly.
So Indiana Jones passes his gaze across the cups and asks, “Which is the cup of a poor carpenter?” And when he sees a rough, unadorned water goblet, he grabs it, fills it and drinks.
“You have chosen . . . wisely,” declares the knight slowly. But will we?
This story came to mind as I was preparing a sermon (I serve as a worship leader in a 7-church charge in Page County) based on Solomon's request for wisdom. In my preparation, I spent time reading about Proverbs and found my study Bible described that book as representing “the democratization of wisdom.”
In this election season, that phrase stuck in my brain. In other words, wisdom is offered to all people. It's not just a gift; it's a pursuit you can choose.
Or not.
With regard to the election, I think too many of us have given up pursuing knowledge to make wise choices. Instead, we simply react to whatever's presented - either getting mad or blindly accepting messages repeated so often we don't question their truth.
I think the best example of the latter is Reagan”s quote: “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem.”
Great sound bite, but was it true?
Not if you like your armed forces or Social Security or Medicare or public school or student financial aid or Veteran’s Administration benefits or farm program or public roads or post office or police and fire departments or flu shots or hosts of other government services.
Meanwhile, this meme was repeated until it became accepted truth. Through both Republican and Democratic administrations we’ve been told private entities (like Wall Street banks) operate more efficiently than government. Yet does history bear this out?
Google “Iraq no-bid contracts” and read how private contractors bilked our government out of millions of dollars by overcharging for services military personnel used to perform. Why?
Because under the government-is-the problem argument, we've repealed regulations that protect the public and downsized or dismantled agencies responsible for oversight. Another is the “America's failing schools” meme. Many accept education reform is needed, yet polling shows most are satisfied with their own school. We never question the meme or those promoting it. Yet American school children are taught reading and other concepts at earlier ages than ever. And all American children are educated and tested; even developmentally disabled students have plans to help them reach full potential. Other nations do not do this, so test score comparisons touted in media compare apples to oranges.
These are but two examples. It’s not difficult to find others if you are willing to look - to pursue the knowledge. That’s our job as voters; it's how we arm ourselves to make choices like the one in November. So I can’t help wondering, will we choose wisely?
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
What do we take for granted?
Until this summer, I didn’t really understand the anxiety, stress and complexity of living without a fixed address, a.k.a. homelessness.
My family and I are temporarily displaced due to a major home renovation. So once work is done, we’ll move back in, and life will proceed normally. But during the interim, our life has been turned upside down.
First, we had to determine what to do with our pets: three house cats, one dog and barn cats. Two cats found temporary foster homes, and our neighbors have helped feed and water the barn cats. The dog and one house cat have traveled with us to a couple of relatives’ homes.
But as school approaches, my teacher husband and student daughter both need to be close to home. So we’ve checked into a local retreat center and have boarded the dog and cat with our vet, where we make regular visits.
Additionally, we’ve had to figure out where to store possessions and pick up mail. We’ve had to plan and pack every essential for maintaining household business as well as back-to-school. Since I work out of a home office, I had to be sure I traveled with information and items I need for current projects. It takes extra energy to complete the usual tasks simply because we have no fixed location and no routine. It has been a logistical nightmare.
But I have an end in sight. What if I didn’t?
Since the financial crisis, homelessness in America has increased. Financial security for many working families has become tenuous at best, and many of us are only one emergency away from disaster. Are we honest with ourselves about that?
A recent article by Jeff Tietz in Rolling Stone Magazine, “The Sharp, Sudden Decline of America’s Middle Class,” profiles several homeless individuals living in Santa Barbara, California under the city’s Safe Parking Program. This program offers overnight parking permits to people living in vehicles.
The people Tietz interviewed were formerly middle class working men and women like Janis Adkins, who owned a nursery business in Moab, Utah when the Great Recession hit. With business declining by 50 percent and land values dropping drastically, she needed to refinance to keep her business. But no bank would work with her, and she lost everything. Now living out of her vehicle, she seeks work having 40 years of experience on her resume. Yet employers learn of her homelessness and assume it’s her fault; there must be something wrong with her. Such discrimination is common and resembles attitudes about welfare recipients.
Adkins and the other people profiled also brought to mind attending Griswold Community School’s annual Veterans Day Program last November when my neighbor, who works for the Veteran’s Administration, mounted the stage to accept a collection of donated paper products and toiletries for homeless veterans. It was a revelation to learn the large numbers of homeless veterans living across the country. Perhaps most disturbing was her suggestion that as we drive through the Omaha metro, we look beneath clusters of trees because such protected areas were likely home to some veterans. How can these people live so openly among us, yet be unseen?
So as I temporarily wrestle with “homelessness” I wonder when we’ll understand it could be any of us. And when will we quit judging and begin fighting for policies and programs that support all of us.
My family and I are temporarily displaced due to a major home renovation. So once work is done, we’ll move back in, and life will proceed normally. But during the interim, our life has been turned upside down.
First, we had to determine what to do with our pets: three house cats, one dog and barn cats. Two cats found temporary foster homes, and our neighbors have helped feed and water the barn cats. The dog and one house cat have traveled with us to a couple of relatives’ homes.
But as school approaches, my teacher husband and student daughter both need to be close to home. So we’ve checked into a local retreat center and have boarded the dog and cat with our vet, where we make regular visits.
Additionally, we’ve had to figure out where to store possessions and pick up mail. We’ve had to plan and pack every essential for maintaining household business as well as back-to-school. Since I work out of a home office, I had to be sure I traveled with information and items I need for current projects. It takes extra energy to complete the usual tasks simply because we have no fixed location and no routine. It has been a logistical nightmare.
But I have an end in sight. What if I didn’t?
Since the financial crisis, homelessness in America has increased. Financial security for many working families has become tenuous at best, and many of us are only one emergency away from disaster. Are we honest with ourselves about that?
A recent article by Jeff Tietz in Rolling Stone Magazine, “The Sharp, Sudden Decline of America’s Middle Class,” profiles several homeless individuals living in Santa Barbara, California under the city’s Safe Parking Program. This program offers overnight parking permits to people living in vehicles.
The people Tietz interviewed were formerly middle class working men and women like Janis Adkins, who owned a nursery business in Moab, Utah when the Great Recession hit. With business declining by 50 percent and land values dropping drastically, she needed to refinance to keep her business. But no bank would work with her, and she lost everything. Now living out of her vehicle, she seeks work having 40 years of experience on her resume. Yet employers learn of her homelessness and assume it’s her fault; there must be something wrong with her. Such discrimination is common and resembles attitudes about welfare recipients.
Adkins and the other people profiled also brought to mind attending Griswold Community School’s annual Veterans Day Program last November when my neighbor, who works for the Veteran’s Administration, mounted the stage to accept a collection of donated paper products and toiletries for homeless veterans. It was a revelation to learn the large numbers of homeless veterans living across the country. Perhaps most disturbing was her suggestion that as we drive through the Omaha metro, we look beneath clusters of trees because such protected areas were likely home to some veterans. How can these people live so openly among us, yet be unseen?
So as I temporarily wrestle with “homelessness” I wonder when we’ll understand it could be any of us. And when will we quit judging and begin fighting for policies and programs that support all of us.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Personal liberties and public good: Where’s the balance?
Last weekend’s horrific massacre in Aurora, Colo. has reopened questions about gun control in America. With 12 people dead and 58 injured after a gunman fired assault weapons inside a movie theater, media are asking what legislation, if any, has been passed to protect the public.
The gun control debate has been around for years. In fact, 30-plus years ago, I wrote a research paper on it for my government class.
As the daughter of a farmer, I grew up with guns in the house. My father was never a hunter or gun enthusiast; he simply used the weapons to take care of dangerous or unwanted animals.
My brother, on the other hand, became interested in hunting as a teenager. He learned to use Dad’s guns to hunt with the neighbors.
So I grew up with an appreciation for guns’ usefulness. But I was also taught healthy respect for them and their power to take life. They were a tool used in necessity. And when I conducted research for my paper, I looked at both sides of the issue – from the dangers guns posed to people in communities struggling with violence to the needs of rural residents for hunting and protection.
But even 30 years ago, the number one force blocking any and all forms of gun control was the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Today, the NRA is the nation’s largest lobbying force. Most recently, they successfully blocked extending a ban on assault weapons, which most Americans, including NRA members, support.
NRA leadership, including NRA President Wayne LaPierre, successfully trots out two canards to block any gun control measures: that they will take away citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights and that “guns don’t kill people, people do.” Both arguments oversimplify a complex issue and completely ignore public safety.
They also divert attention from the organization’s business goals. For the NRA is nothing more than a business whose nominal mission is to represent and protect the interests of gun owners. But like many other large organizations, leadership manipulates the organization to empower and enrich themselves.
As Alan Berlow relates in the first of a three-part series on the NRA in Salon Magazine (http://www.salon.com/2012/07/24/nras_doomsaying_sham/), the NRA’s leadership is happy to sell products (including concealed carry hoodies and liability insurance for shooting someone) and to e-mail alerts to solicit donations to their political action committee. Yet research shows these same leaders, who draw six-figure or more salaries, don’t donate themselves. As Berlow writes:
“Former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman has suggested one reason NRA big shots are happy to sit on their wallets. In his book ‘Richochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist,’ Feldman calls the NRA a ‘cynical, mercenary political cult … obsessed with wielding power while relentlessly squeezing contributions from its members.’ According to Feldman, NRA leaders ‘weren’t interested in actually solving problems, only in fueling perpetual crisis and controversy’ because ‘that was how they made their money.’”
Meanwhile, the NRA blocks compromise on gun laws that could protect the public.
As Edith Honan notes in a Reuters article recent polling by Republican pollster Frank Luntz shows gun owners, including NRA members, favor some ownership restrictions.
“Seventy-four percent of the current and former NRA members and 87 percent of the other gun owners supported criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun, according to the poll.” The results showed support for other checks as well.
In the wake of the Aurora massacre, we need to get beyond black-and-white arguments about guns and explore compromises. I think actor Jason Alexander said it best in an essay last weekend: “We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone... but this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.”
The gun control debate has been around for years. In fact, 30-plus years ago, I wrote a research paper on it for my government class.
As the daughter of a farmer, I grew up with guns in the house. My father was never a hunter or gun enthusiast; he simply used the weapons to take care of dangerous or unwanted animals.
My brother, on the other hand, became interested in hunting as a teenager. He learned to use Dad’s guns to hunt with the neighbors.
So I grew up with an appreciation for guns’ usefulness. But I was also taught healthy respect for them and their power to take life. They were a tool used in necessity. And when I conducted research for my paper, I looked at both sides of the issue – from the dangers guns posed to people in communities struggling with violence to the needs of rural residents for hunting and protection.
But even 30 years ago, the number one force blocking any and all forms of gun control was the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Today, the NRA is the nation’s largest lobbying force. Most recently, they successfully blocked extending a ban on assault weapons, which most Americans, including NRA members, support.
NRA leadership, including NRA President Wayne LaPierre, successfully trots out two canards to block any gun control measures: that they will take away citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights and that “guns don’t kill people, people do.” Both arguments oversimplify a complex issue and completely ignore public safety.
They also divert attention from the organization’s business goals. For the NRA is nothing more than a business whose nominal mission is to represent and protect the interests of gun owners. But like many other large organizations, leadership manipulates the organization to empower and enrich themselves.
As Alan Berlow relates in the first of a three-part series on the NRA in Salon Magazine (http://www.salon.com/2012/07/24/nras_doomsaying_sham/), the NRA’s leadership is happy to sell products (including concealed carry hoodies and liability insurance for shooting someone) and to e-mail alerts to solicit donations to their political action committee. Yet research shows these same leaders, who draw six-figure or more salaries, don’t donate themselves. As Berlow writes:
“Former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman has suggested one reason NRA big shots are happy to sit on their wallets. In his book ‘Richochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist,’ Feldman calls the NRA a ‘cynical, mercenary political cult … obsessed with wielding power while relentlessly squeezing contributions from its members.’ According to Feldman, NRA leaders ‘weren’t interested in actually solving problems, only in fueling perpetual crisis and controversy’ because ‘that was how they made their money.’”
Meanwhile, the NRA blocks compromise on gun laws that could protect the public.
As Edith Honan notes in a Reuters article recent polling by Republican pollster Frank Luntz shows gun owners, including NRA members, favor some ownership restrictions.
“Seventy-four percent of the current and former NRA members and 87 percent of the other gun owners supported criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun, according to the poll.” The results showed support for other checks as well.
In the wake of the Aurora massacre, we need to get beyond black-and-white arguments about guns and explore compromises. I think actor Jason Alexander said it best in an essay last weekend: “We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone... but this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.”
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Trying to understand health care act opposition
Last week as we waited for the Supreme Court of the United States to hand down its ruling on the Affordable Care Act, a Reuters/Ipsos poll on the health care reform law was released. It showed, yet again, that while a majority of Americans oppose the law, most favor the individual elements. Does that make any sense?
It is instead a knee-jerk reaction based on ignorance and fear of change. But I have to ask, is our current system really workin’ for you?
Opponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) like to rant about government run health care, death panels and denied care.
But after my husband and I went through physicals and an injury during the last 10 months, it seems we already have that with insurance.
Because ACA is not government-run health care; it’s a band-aid designed to make private insurance more affordable and to sustain it for a few more years. Nothing more.
In fact, when polled on individual elements of ACA, people liked the following provisions:
— Allowing children to stay on their parents’ policy until age 26;
— Banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions;
— Requiring corporations to cover employees.
And whether they know it or not, as a result of ACA many retirees on Medicare are already enjoying free preventative coverage and will receive rebate checks for their drug expenses.
What Americans claim they don’t like is the individual mandate – largely because they’ve heard a lot of bunk about how it impinges on their freedom.
Do you rail about your auto insurance, which most if not all states require to own a car? You may split hairs about auto coverage being a state’s right, but that’s all you’re doing – splitting hairs.
The reality is through our private health insurance system, your company may deny you coverage or limit your treatment options. The insurance company may limit which doctors you can see. The insurance company may delay treatment for underwriting. And yet that’s what we say we’re afraid of with government health care?
Instead of parroting media messaging manufactured by health insurance corporations via think tanks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, think about how many forms, co-pays and deductibles it takes to go through a simple physical under the current system. Is it really workin’ for you?
And why is it that during the debate before ACA passed, we heard people crying “Keep your hands off my Medicare”? Medicare is a government-run universal single payer insurance plan, and most people on it like it.
Maybe instead of automatically repeating what we hear on television and radio, we should look at reality and start asking some questions. Like, “Why should health care be governed by the profit motive?”
If we want something better – like a health care system instead of a profit-driven payment system, we have to educate ourselves and speak up.
Too many of us sit at the kitchen table and complain without actually doing anything.
It’s not enough to vote. You have to know what you are voting for. And the six o’clock news is not going to give you the information you need.
Start with the Reuters/Ipsos poll results: www.reuters.com
Then visit the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Health Reform site to learn about ACA’s provisions: healthreform.kff.org
And finally, the government offers easy-to-use resources and information: www.healthcare.gov
Learn what the law actually does. Then use not only your vote, but your voice.
It is instead a knee-jerk reaction based on ignorance and fear of change. But I have to ask, is our current system really workin’ for you?
Opponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) like to rant about government run health care, death panels and denied care.
But after my husband and I went through physicals and an injury during the last 10 months, it seems we already have that with insurance.
Because ACA is not government-run health care; it’s a band-aid designed to make private insurance more affordable and to sustain it for a few more years. Nothing more.
In fact, when polled on individual elements of ACA, people liked the following provisions:
— Allowing children to stay on their parents’ policy until age 26;
— Banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions;
— Requiring corporations to cover employees.
And whether they know it or not, as a result of ACA many retirees on Medicare are already enjoying free preventative coverage and will receive rebate checks for their drug expenses.
What Americans claim they don’t like is the individual mandate – largely because they’ve heard a lot of bunk about how it impinges on their freedom.
Do you rail about your auto insurance, which most if not all states require to own a car? You may split hairs about auto coverage being a state’s right, but that’s all you’re doing – splitting hairs.
The reality is through our private health insurance system, your company may deny you coverage or limit your treatment options. The insurance company may limit which doctors you can see. The insurance company may delay treatment for underwriting. And yet that’s what we say we’re afraid of with government health care?
Instead of parroting media messaging manufactured by health insurance corporations via think tanks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, think about how many forms, co-pays and deductibles it takes to go through a simple physical under the current system. Is it really workin’ for you?
And why is it that during the debate before ACA passed, we heard people crying “Keep your hands off my Medicare”? Medicare is a government-run universal single payer insurance plan, and most people on it like it.
Maybe instead of automatically repeating what we hear on television and radio, we should look at reality and start asking some questions. Like, “Why should health care be governed by the profit motive?”
If we want something better – like a health care system instead of a profit-driven payment system, we have to educate ourselves and speak up.
Too many of us sit at the kitchen table and complain without actually doing anything.
It’s not enough to vote. You have to know what you are voting for. And the six o’clock news is not going to give you the information you need.
Start with the Reuters/Ipsos poll results: www.reuters.com
Then visit the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Health Reform site to learn about ACA’s provisions: healthreform.kff.org
And finally, the government offers easy-to-use resources and information: www.healthcare.gov
Learn what the law actually does. Then use not only your vote, but your voice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
