Access!

If you want to change the world, you'll need an access point.

Perhaps not surprisingly, being a mom or dad is the most significant access you'll ever have.  You can shape the heart and mind of this precious little child over the course of all their developing years.  You can show them what strength and courage look like in action, what compassion and forgiveness can do, and what it means to love and serve another.  Even before they're fully verbal, they hear and understand, and the years go by so quickly.  For the rest of their lives, they'll be blessed by everything you did well and by your love for them.

There are seasons of life, of course.
- we learn and grow.
- we raise up our children and help them grow.  and we learn more.
- we release our children into adulthood and applaud as they walk the pathway.
- we touch the lives around us at work, at school, at church, and along the way.  and we grow more.
- we help with grandchildren, same song, second verse.
- There are so, so many opportunities to make a difference, and we learn from every one.

On my short list of favorite fellows, Bishop Samuel

has taught us so much about what it means to serve.

There's a lot of overlap; our own development is continuous.  At 20 or so, we're pretty sure we've arrived.  Then we discover that our education is just begun, our skills are in their infancy, and our productivity is barely out of the ICU.  Then we hit our stride somewhere along the way, and work really hard, and we learn and grow.  And we change the world for the lives we touch.  If we're wise, we'll capture that early and go all in.  The opportunity is now first, not tomorrow so much.

The centerpiece of meaningful life is serving well.  We can do for ourselves and have for ourselves, but that's pretty much pointless.  We can do for others and find the greater joy.  There's more, for sure; infinitely more, but perhaps this is a starting point.

So the question for the morning, how might I serve well today?

Safe!?!?

Giving a party our endorsement simplifies our task but neglects the responsibility we have for thought and principle.

Today perhaps more than ever in recent history, the political parties are not a refuge for people of faith.  Or conscience.

Neither party and perhaps none of the candidates we've heard could meet the requirements of conscience and faith for kindergarten, much less for adult citizenry.

Don't pretend like the either/or of our two party process is an intelligent place to stand.  Choosing between two lizards still gives you a stupid lizard!

So then, how shall we shape our children's future?  :)

UPDATE DEC 06, 2020:  It has been years since any attempt to unite the nation.  Misinformation is now the substance of our daily lives.  Both political and evangelical players have joined the disruptive process.  Voters are more aligned with fear and anger than with thoughtful consideration of the outcome.

This is not the first time in history when such propagandized turmoil has defined a nation, is it.  What course will a person of faith and conscience take from here?

Real Surreal

Why do we have music?  And why do some folks express themselves musically?

From a science and engineering perspective, it's all surreal. Darwin has nothing to say on the subject, and interestingly, modern behavioral scientists have little to offer.

Experientially, while not all music is great or even good, some music can transport us into an almost indescribable place. Among thousands of examples, the video here is of a young lady singing O Mio Babbino Caro from Puccini's one act opera.  It appears that the opera's story line is not a relevant factor, but the music is standalone magic.  There is a wealth of confirmation for the affect but none for the cause even when 'why' is part of the article's title.

There are a myriad of scholarly articles describing the place of music and its impact on society and culture, but there is little more than speculation on the origin of great music or great musicians, and even less on why some affects us in such an unworldly manner. It's easy to see why someone might want to be a musician, but it's impossible (so far) to convincingly describe the evolutionary arrival of the art form or the reason for its impact.

Beyond the sex/drugs/rock-and-roll culture which is a comparatively shallow performance realm, great music opens up a magnificently different world than that which we see each day.  Read and judge for yourself.

Question of differentiation:  is there a substantial difference between being emotionally moved by dancing with the crowd in a nightclub and being individually uplifted intellectually and emotionally by 'great music'?

Why might such music bring tears to our eyes?  We can trace the neurological path for such an experience, but we have no explanation for why it happens.  It suggests, as has often been bandied about, that a narrow scientific view perhaps misses much of reality, things it considers unscientific or surreal and therefore irrelevant.  Could such thinking be perhaps a bit hubristic? Of course the mind of the person of science can encompass all that is and do so in rational terms, can it not?  Not, of course, as in, "of course not."  :)

We live in a culture that willingly discounts anything outside their math and mind model. Faith, in the common forum, is considered silliness.  That's had a rather high price tag in recent decades.

I suspect that the truly great musicians and perhaps the artists as well push the objectivist boundaries in a manner not unlike that in which people of faith thrive despite the rather harsh opposition.  It does make you wonder.

American Exceptionalism

Whether conservative and liberal, we have difficulty with the issues here.

Competition 

-- it's a contest --

... for territory, for wealth and status and power.  And it's a centerpiece of our culture.

One wins, the other loses.  Coming out ahead means someone is left behind.  Troublesome?

It's perhaps worth a reminder that our nation was founded on justice, equality, and inalienable rights. National superiority and financial dominance are not only alien to our heritage but are the very things against which we rebelled. The empire which wielded such against us became loathsome to us all. We paid a high price to break that yoke.

Competition for survival is fine for fish and animals, but it doesn't serve well for us humans.  

At risk, the lives of people.  In the ancient age of empire, conquest was the norm.  Masses were slaughtered and lands were taken.  Competition was understood to be murderous, but is was thought at the time to be justified somehow. Superiority of race and ethnicity, such excuses were the norm.

The idea of racial or ethnic superiority is ancient and persistent, as is the concept of an elite within a culture, but Darwin was the first to offer a scientific rationale. The sub-title to The Origin of Species was The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin wrote about "favored races," and speculated somewhat wildly in The Descent of Man, lending support to the Nazis' belief in the superiority of the Aryan race.  The British thought similarly about Anglo-Saxons.  To make it even more troublesome, Darwin's description of natural selection spoke of a fight to the death, a "law of the jungle." Applying it to humanity suggests that conflict and war are inevitable, perhaps appropriate or even necessary.   Not the best of legacies, justifying the slaughter of tribes and nations.  Was Darwin off the mark?

Survival

Today, we know that humanity is comprised of one species.  We're stuck with the established science and the realization that we're all precisely the same, all equally valuable, all equally deserving of a fair chance.  We find it awkward to continue excusing our selfishness and our economic comfort at the expense of others.  The GAP between the rich and poor, however, is progressively more deadly. 

Now that things like genocide and slavery and conquest for lebensraum are known to be inexcusable crimes, we're left with competition in the marketplaces as the venue for our play to come out on top.  Is it necessary?  Is that why we do it?    Are there destructive elements in that competition?

Today's trade and finance industries are where mega-corporations compete at the expense of nations and peoples.  The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the latest in that campaign.  NAFTA drove more than a million farmers in Mexico out of business and off their land.  Critics of TPP suggest it will be similarly troublesome.  Well intended perhaps in part, such agreements favor the wealthy and the largest corporations, some of which are bigger than countries.  

What lies ahead?

Today's exceptionalism is a mixed retelling of the story of superiority, of rationalizing intervention in the governance of other nations by the last superpower.  To be fair, many who want to 'make America great again' are fondly remembering America's leadership in the 1950's and 60's when we produced half of the world's GDP, when industry and productivity made a way forward for so many.

Times have changed; others have caught up and passed us by.  Samantha Powers, before she was nominated to be U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., asserted that "we're neither the shining example, or even competent meddlers.  It's going to take a generation or so to reclaim American exceptionalism..."  A generation ... or do we perhaps need a better goal.

So, on the macro side of humanity's story, how can nations be noble and virtuous without being destructive at the same time?  Can a nation thrive without oppression and corruption being part of the equation?  Can an economy provide some measure of equity for all without exhausting the resources others need to survive?  Of course.

It's perhaps worth a reminder that our nation was founded on justice, equality, and inalienable rights. National superiority and financial dominance are not only alien to our heritage but are the very things against which we rebelled. The empire which wielded such against us became loathsome to us all. We paid a high price to break that yoke.

People have handled these issues rather well in years past, interestingly enough.

Civilization along the Niger river was not a garden of Eden, perhaps, but for more than a thousand years, not a single monarch ...  We all still have much yet to learn, I suspect.

So what are the ethical issues we face as a nation and as citizens?

Republicans, Democrats, and Zombies

Thoughtful constituents contribute to meaningful dialog on issues of importance, proving yet again that the political and election processes serve the citizenry well.

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and public drooling, also biting and big eye staring.  

As Trump rose to the top in South Carolina, John Baldwin, a used-car dealer from Greenville summed up the mood quite well: “We’re voting with our middle finger,” he says. That perhaps sums up the attitude of the electorate quite well.

A Month of the Trump Stump

In the last 30 days ... trying to understand the candidates, their positions and qualifications, it has been particularly difficult as Donald Trump continues to shape the conversation.

‘I Love the Poorly Educated!’ Off the cuff comments by Trump are often both surprisingly inappropriate and almost incomprehensible.

“I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”  Despite both the constitution and international law, Trump insists he would institute torture.

“I’d like to punch him in the face.”
Trump responding to a heckler.

“He took 50 bullets, and he dipped them in pig’s blood,” Trump says, describing a fictitious slaughter of Muslims by General John Pershing.  “And he had his men load his rifles and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person he said ‘You go back to your people and you tell them what happened.’”  Fortunately, it never happened, which is enough of a problem by itself, but suggesting the religious insult and slaughter of Muslims might be a good example is stunningly ill informed and the worst of bad judgement.  The legend about Pershing is well known to be fictitious.  Pershing himself was strongly opposed to anything that would provoke religious extremism.   And as for Trump's recounting, "Read it in the history books," Trump says.  But it's not in the history books, it's fiction.

Tonight's debate was a bit of a free for all.  More insults than information, it is reminiscent of conflict among juveniles with little of substance available to the listener.

“This guy’s a choke artist,” Trump declares, pointing to Marco Rubio, and, “This guy’s a liar,” he says, turning to point to  Ted Cruz.

I'm at a loss to understand his appeal.

Max Lucado suggests, "The stock explanation for his success is this: he has tapped into the anger of the American people. As one man said, “We are voting with our middle finger.” Sounds more like a comment for a gang-fight than a presidential election. Anger-fueled reactions have caused trouble ever since Cain was angry at Abel."

The Trump University looks like it will surface as an issue, perhaps soon.  Trump's tax records have still not been released.  Both are likely to be troublesome.