The Line

“Don’t think just about where the lines are drawn, think about who draws the lines.”

If I take a hundred dollar bill from the cash register, I will go to jail.  If Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street take billions out of the savings of ordinary people (with purchased government help) then crash the economy, costing thousands of jobs, not one of them will ever be prosecuted. The lines are drawn differently for big money.

The average bonus on Wall Street this
year? $160,000!  That's more than three times
the average household income, just for their bonus.

Our local police have crossed that line. They are soldiers who treat us like terrorists. If Occupy speaks against Wall Street, they will be tear gassed and beaten and handcuffed and caged into “free speech zones” designed to make us forget that the whole country was supposed to be a free speech zone. But now we have free speech only when and where they say you can have it.  Meanwhile, Wall Street can say and do pretty much anything they want, to you or anyone else, and get away with it.

Things have changed.  The way forward is not an easy one for us as a nation or as individuals.  The quest for wealth has replaced the quest for territory, and the weapons are economic.  True?

See The GAP - Part I, Part VI

Thanks and a hat-tip to Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the White House
who obligingly set the stage Wall Street needed.

Things my Father told me

A loving father hopes to inform his child's thinking, not replace it.

Today's rule about fingers on the stove eventually needs to carry the 'why' and 'what else' for future use in similar circumstances.  We want our kids to understand and make good decisions of their own.

My Father offered good insight on many issues; he explained them well and demonstrated them all.

You can have everything you want, or you can enjoy what you have, but not both.

• The things we have are a means but not an end in themselves.  
• This one took awhile.

Helping someone else is more satisfying than helping yourself, especially if it costs you a lot.

• It makes no sense at all, but he's right.
• Nobody believes this one until a ways down the road.

If you care about others, you won't be happy all the time; you'll spend time sharing their load. 

• There's a high price for caring.
• It can take all the years you've got.

Things my Father
told me; enough to
fill a book!

The fact that my Father loved me didn't preclude hardship.  He knew I'd have my share, and he walked through it with me.  I learned a lot along the way.  A lot.


I've cringed when a religiously styled speaker, presuming to speak on behalf of my Father, would tell us things using the magic phrase,  'the Word of God'.  Lots of King James-ish phrasing and stylistic emphasis, but not much useful information.  The religious power-speak seems shaped to narrowly enforce rather than inform, and it doesn't help.

Just things you want your kids to know ...

Some distance down the road, I realised that most things my Father told me were to equip me for a purposeful, meaningful life.  He wanted me to know and understand.  It turns out, he's more a practical realist than I expected, and not particularly religious.

The Dilemma

Republican and Democratic parties are not merely uncomfortable affiliations for people of faith; they are prisons that divide us and prevent our working together for good.

Right vs. Left:  the Right...

The Republican Party portrays itself as the political home for people of faith.  It is also, ostensibly, our pro-life party.  Given the primacy of that issue for many Christians, it has attracted large numbers of evangelicals and conservative Catholic voters.

The Republican Party, however, fails to acknowledge or address social and economic issues within our culture. They aggressively support corporate and wealth interests while describing themselves as conservative.  Instead, as John Gehring puts it, the GOP has embraced an extreme form of "economic libertarianism and [the] tireless defense of struggling millionaires."

That economic view, increasingly dominant in Republican thinking over recent years, poses problems for Christians given our faith's concern for the poor and emphasis on community and justice.  

George Monboit (no friend of religion's role in politics) describes the GOP's position as "a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess the most property end up with great power over others. Dressed up as freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to address inequality, hardship or social exclusion. A transparently self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of those with wealth and power."

~Michael Stafford re Archbishop Charles Chaput, Render Unto Caeser

Is he right?

Right vs. Left:  the Left...

The Democratic Party is the bastion of this left-liberal cultural consensus. Pro-abortion, heavily invested in divisive identity politics, committed to a libertine approach to many moral and social issues under the guise of individual freedom.  

Of particular concern, it is prey to centralizing tendencies, preferring federal authority over allowing states and communities to manage their affairs.  In some ways, it is even overtly hostile to religion itself - this is not an attractive destination.

British theologian and political philosopher Phillip Blond notes that, "the current political consensus" in the United States is "left-liberal in culture and right-liberal in economics. And this is precisely the wrong place to be."   

Is his analysis accurate?

Perhaps this 'consensus' explains why thoughtful believers find themselves torn by political debate, uncomfortable with what's missing, and hard pressed to find an honest way forward. 

In an objective analysis, the Christian vision of social and economic order is perhaps near the opposite of this current consensus.  

 An interesting dilemma, one for which no answer less than a lifetime in length will resolve. 

You're fired, moron!

Bob:  “Who is the moron who left the cell
phone in the aircraft’s engine compartment?”

Among the fifty attendees at the maintenance
staff meeting, Jill raises her hand, embarrassed
and frightened.

Bob:  “Jill, you are an idiot!  What moron 

leaves a cell phone in the engine cowling? 
Jill, you need to pack up your stuff and go.
You are done!  Let this be a lesson to all
of you to not do such an idiotic move; you
will be fired like Jill.   Jill, get your stuff
and get out!”

In a training session on ethics, we read the scenario (left) for discussion. Some of us initially agreed that Bob did the right thing in firing Jill. We generally agreed it perhaps should have been done in private.

The point of the training was respect in the workplace. Neither the reproof nor the disciplinary action should occur in front of the entire work group, of course.

But there's more.  If anyone should be fired, it’s Bob!

A few of us hung around as the session adjourned to talk further.  Aviation maintenance is a team effort with fairly rigid procedures.  Mechanics and technicians don’t have loose stuff in their pockets.  Tools are checked out and back in afterwards.  If a cell phone or hand-held radio is needed on the flight line, it’s annotated and checked on return.   QA verifies the work.  There are a variety of standards for such things, and it’s impressive when done right.

Bob’s fifty-person aviation maintenance facility wasn't doing it right.  Anger, name-calling, and firing the mechanic, all obscure the cause and don't address the organizational process failure.  Other employees aren't inspired to excellence by Bob's tantrum.  They're more likely to feel threatened and uneasy.  That's probably why company policy says don't do that.

A detailed inquiry, analysis, policy and practice checks, those are perhaps the reasoned response to such things. 

So if I lose my temper and really blast someone, chances are I've got it wrong.

    Yep.

Completely wrong?

    Yep.

A hundred percent wrong??

    Yep.

So I'm an idiot (i.e., acting in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way).

    Yep.

Peace River

Thoughts?

Fault!

Government activity has slowed to an impressive level of inefficiency. Progressively greater polarization has crippled congress and the nation. Government spending produces less benefit. The influence of corporate power and wealth now far exceeds that of the citizenry.  

A common citizen's voice is irrelevant; no individual apart from the mega-financed world of political lobbying has a voice in governmental activity, relevance in the discussions of oversight, or power to affect decisions of importance.   

The president didn't do any of that.

Wailing on Obama for such things is perhaps less thoughtful than one would hope. 

Disappointingly little help is available from
the common media.

Offering trivialities in venues that can't be described or understood in less than 100 or so pages; well, that's not intellect at work.

Armchair quarter-thinking ...

As I was reminded by a friend, we know enough to understand that we should be honoring those who serve and praying for them. Obama and the others find themselves in a world of power players, money grabbers, and the most wicked of mankind.  If they attempt to serve, it's a noble sacrifice; they could use our prayers.

Like them or not, agree with them or not, that's the way it is.  We could participate like many do these days by being whining complainers.  Not recommended.

NOTE:  among the issues for which the parties at large are responsible, we find the following - 

How happy?

Happy vs. unhappy; it's a challenging question of interest to us all.  What are the factors that make us satisfied with our lives and comfortable about our prospects?


The question has been of interest to psychologists, politicians, economists, preachers, and parents since the beginning. Interestingly, the answers emerging from modern studies are what we might expect.  Food and shelter, safety and security, home and family, health and stability, all are part of the equation.

Referred to as 'subjective well-being' (since 'happy' is perhaps an imprecise term), the measurement is complex when applied across cultural and international borders, but the results are enlightening.  What emerges from the studies is that wealth is not the key factor.  Having enough checks the box, having more is of rapidly decreasing significance when subjective well-being is the goal.  We knew that.

[Ref:  More money makes less difference in terms of happiness, and getting it takes up more and more of your life.  Chasing wealth (and more 'things') will likely deprive you of the happiness you hoped to gain.]

In recent years, governments have been challenged to refocus on the well-being of their citizenry rather than on economic factors alone.  A recent survey (Easton, 2006) found that 81% of the UK population agreed that the Government’s primary objective should be the creation of happiness not wealth. David Cameron, HM Leader of the Opposition, put happiness firmly on the political agenda by arguing that “It’s time we admitted that there’s more to life than money, and it’s time we focused not just on GDP, but on GWB – general well-being" (BBC, 2006).

Poverty, as one might expect, is a significant impediment to happiness, but it is not just the lack of money.  The factors involved in poverty cover all categories.  Lack of a way out is the big one, but the list of relevant factors affecting 'subjective well-being' includes adequate food and shelter, safety and security, healthcare, equal access to education, opportunity for upward mobility, a voice in things that matter.  

Poverty is not a circumstance anyone chooses, and given the opportunity, all will take the first exit regardless of how hard the path might be.  From every study, we understand that poverty is externally imposed as a sub-category under oppression.  It is something that is done to others by policy, prejudice, corruption, indifference, and selfishness.  The results are marginalization and disempowerment. 

What does the map show?  It might easily and accurately be described as a representation of the degree of freedom a nation provides.  A recognition of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Not that any nation is perfect, of course; so much remains inadequately addressed and unresolved in even the best of the lot, but such freedom as they provide has remarkable impact on how people view their lives, their well-being.

So, what do we have to offer the world?

Note from generations past:  "Happiness is for pigs," according to my father and his side of the family, but they were farmers and had pigs that rolled around happily in the mud, so you can perhaps allow them their perspective.  "Joy," however, he would go on to explain, "comes from doing for others."  That, and a lot more; he was a wise gentlemen.  After so many years now, I'm inclined to agree, and fortunately, my wife thinks the same way.  Thank you Dad.  Thank you Father.