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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Experts tell us a solution to our poverty is unlikely.
As America recovers slowly from the Great Recession, many of our fellow citizens remain mired in poverty. Economic trends, cultural changes, and changes in family and marriage patterns are combining in new ways that make it harder for those born on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder to lift themselves up. Poverty is changing, and policy responses must change too.
One ray of hope is that Republicans and Democrats are increasingly talking about the intertwined problems of poverty and opportunity. But even if all agree that America must act, our growing political polarization and legislative gridlock make action seem ever less likely with each passing year.~The Brookings Institute
This particular trend of inequality has solidified and grown rapidly for more than four decades, crossing borders and permeating the international marketplace, empowered by governmental policy and corporate business practices. It has adversely affected hundreds of millions, and many have died. Deaths tied directly to the financial industry exceed one million.
The American electorate will, in the next months, elect leadership for the executive and legislative branches of our government. The electorate may then require that leadership enact a solution to persistent and imposed poverty. Both those elected and those who placed them in office will be remembered for how they perform this duty to their fellow man.
Despite the excellent intent of many in leadership, America's reputation around the world has suffered. Right or wrong, many blame American influence for failed governments and economies in the middle East. In the marketplace, globalization has tied the price of maize meal in rural Kenya to Wall Street. In our own cities, there are two paths; one for the wealthy and the other for everyone else. Equality and opportunity are for many just distant dreams.
The solutions are not simple, and change will not be easy. Much will be required of each for the sake of all, I suspect. The alternative would be for the elite to continue to live at the expense of others, but even then, seed and harvest rules apply.
That brings us to the real gridlock.
We've become soft in our thinking about love. Common use of the word suggests warm feelings and pleasant relationships. That's not the context from history, philosophy, or faith. Love is both precious and costly. It often includes setting aside personal comfort and stepping in to defend another, sacrificing for another; a broken heart over the suffering another endures may be a lifelong burden. It may cost you your wealth, your life, or a great portion of it all. Love is extraordinarily powerful. It is choice and action, not feelings. ... and Love is NOT soft and fluffy.
Today's most difficult choice perhaps involves giving up some of what we have. A fine gentleman with a good heart explained his reservations about sheltering refugees. He feared he or his family might somehow lose something. In an economy where grocery stores have a hundred types of cereal and fifty kinds of soup and hundreds of snacks and sauces and pasta and meats and breads ... and we worry we'll lose by helping a family that hasn't seen a grocery store in a year, whose children haven't seen a classroom in a year, and who've never bought new clothes.
There's a selfishness in us all that is strengthened by wealth and justified by the availability of more. Wealth does not produce character. If you want to see generosity, or you want to be welcomed and given a place, or you need a little help, visit the poor. We needn't bother feeling badly about the poverty; that doesn't change anything. We could do something, though.
Loving others for real is a life choice. It may be a short trip for us to get on that track -
Step one - we might pick an area that our heart responds to, join with those who know how, and escalate from a little up to where it's in the budget and schedule well above Starbucks and miscellaneous.
We could pick a couple of targets we know and understand, then plan and finance them. One local and one distant. Help a friend, equip a family, make a difference. Commit for the duration, know the folks involved. It changes things at both ends. :)
help out when you're asked, or better yet, before you're asked help a kid through school, through college or trade school help a family build their home and flocks and gardens help a community build a library or a clinic help a school with supplies for the kids help some refugees get resettled and start over help a community with med assistance help a family through a rough spot help a friend through a crisis
help a family keep their kids in school and on track
help the widowed and the orphaned here and elsewhere
Step two - we might get involved. We could go and see, perhaps, and get to know some of the people we serve. If we know them well enough to love them, then we're family, sort of.
If it isn't important enough to deserve a little effort, a little inconvenience, it may not be genuine. (If you've got kids, they should be part of the discussions, decisions, and changes.)
Perhaps an important side benefit, we don't have to feel guilty when we skip watching those tear-jerker appeals. We'll be way down the road past that sort of thing.
Step three, if we're all-in - we could study, inquire, learn from folks who know and serve well. Review and escalate. And, keep that up for the rest of our life.
