Saturday, November 19, 2016

Election 2016 -- appraisal

I’ve not been able to simply put election 2016 aside.  I’ve been feeling alternately agitated, tearful or numb.  My sleep is erratic.  Surely this is not the first time the candidate I favored lost the election—but this time it is different.  It feels as if some deep dark covered-over menace has been unleashed . . . as if we’ve lived behind pleasant-faced masks that have suddenly been ripped off to expose ugliness.  I know from others that the unrest I speak of is widespread.  Whatever this is, it didn’t begin with the primaries—but the vicious campaign brought it fully to light.  As I look back I ask, “How did it show itself before the campaign?”  “What is the bigger underlying flaw?” 

The most recent indicator was congress’ refusal to bring a vote forward for the Supreme Court nominee in spite of the Constitutional requirement to do so.  It was the culmination of the Republican’s having made it a policy to oppose anything coming out of Obama’s White House.  Prior to the last election, the Republican Party had avowed that its main goal was to make sure Obama didn’t win a second term—when they didn’t achieve that goal but won a majority in Congress, they set out to block every initiative of his.  It was total disrespect of him, the country’s first black president, and so too for the office of president.  A conscious decision to stop our government from functioning for partisan and/or prejudicial reasons is evil.

The wisdom of two-party governance is to insure that extremes are curtailed by the necessity of compromise.  Stonewalling disabled the system, resulting in extreme polarization that paralyzed government.  Attitudes in high places have a way of spreading.  More and more people became dissatisfied with their lot and looked for a scapegoat, slipping into an ‘us vs. them’ mentality.

From the very beginning of the primaries, Donald Trump took the position of all-out no-holds-barred attacks with personal insults, innuendoes, bear-faced lies and bombastic proclamations.  Clearly he believed ‘the ends justify the means’—utterly defying decorum, truth, and human decency—because for him, winning is all that matters!  His theatrics won media attention, and ultimately the nomination.

As candidate his cry became, “The system is broken!”  Without analysis of the roots of the problem he pointed a finger of blame at the opposition while making the outrageous claim, “Only I can fix it!”  Then appealing to every prejudice and issue of unease throughout the country, he fanned the fires of unrest, resulting in much vengeance voting, not a vote for something but against someone.

But why was the country ripe for such blatant manipulation? 
There are numerous outside forces that contribute to the unrest and anxiety: near national financial disaster (from which Obama saved us), the Middle East chaos causing a refugee crisis, global terrorism, climate anomalies reeking death and destruction—yes, but those are the outside factors; something within our culture has gone awry . . .  To even the most casual observer above the age of 40, there seems to be agreement that in the last half century, society has exhibited moral decline; erasing the lines between good & bad, right & wrong, virtue & evil.

You cannot successfully run a country (or a family) without having an identifiable standard of acceptable behavior.  Throughout time, regardless of the name assigned to the deity, it was understood that a god-principle set standards of behavior and the standards were rooted in morality. 

As America was being formed, religion was an important element of social order.  There were many different beliefs and practices, but the concept of ‘a God’ was common to all.  Our nation was founded on moral principles and the belief that God underscored the rights and freedoms we possess . . . ‘endowed by the Creator with certain Unalienable Rights’ . . . The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson.  References to God were prominent as the elements of governing were worked out—even the money minted carries the words “In God We Trust”.  In schools it was traditional to begin each day with a simple prayer.

In 1962 a law was passed to ban prayer from public schools.  There followed the removal of any religious symbols from government buildings (i.e. The Ten Commandments from courthouses), and prayer was eliminated at official gatherings.  The Constitution guaranteed the freedom of religious worship but the new interpretation became freedom from rather than freedom of.  Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

To prohibit public prayer by law is to give a message of denial of value, maybe even to suggest negative value.  In its wake, for many, God faded, became irrelevent and was ignored. Religion has provided the foundation of moral order and prayer is a means to remind us.  It was denied by the state without providing another identifiable standard of acceptable behavior—and that is the flaw that opened the door to moral decline—and Trump was waiting to walk through it.



Saturday, November 5, 2016

The Danger of Donald

I begin by stating: “Donald Trump is dangerous”.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican—rather, a life-long Independent who has voted both ways depending on the candidate.  In past campaigns I have sometimes felt relatively neutral and sometimes vigorously supportive toward a candidate, but I have never before experienced this intense negative visceral reaction that I have toward Donald Trump.  I set out to try to understand why, listening to every debate, looking up information and reading widely about each candidate.

The office of the presidency can help or hinder the nation’s progress, but in the system of Democracy it cannot single-handedly impose personal control.  Not total control, but the single greatest personal influence possible.  Because it exerts such influence, I see the character of the one seeking office to be of prime importance.  Character is what shows over a lifetime—the focus of one’s passion.

All institutions, including those of government, are not without flaws—yet it is through institutions that the mass of humanity can be ordered, producing civilization.  Remove systems of order and we have chaos.  When the basic institution is solid (as with Democracy) the call is to amend the flaws that become obvious, not disparage the system and insight overthrow.

Donald Trump is dangerous.  He gives no plan for improving the system of government; he beats his chest and says, “Only I can fix it!”  He insults the military and says, “I know more than the generals”.  He expresses admiration for Russia’s Putin saying, “He is a strong leader!”

I looked up the word ‘megalomaniac’ and found: ‘obsession with exercise of power, especially in the dominance of others’, and ‘delusion about one’s own power or importance’, and ‘obsession with grandiose or extravagant things.’

Donald Trump has already done damage to the American psyche . . . He has lowered the standard of public debate with blatant insults and unfounded accusations, slandering his opponents and leading to an overall coarsening of the dialogue.  While other candidates too have sunk to a lower lever, he unquestionably ‘led the charge’.  He has fanned hatred and discrimination and engendered doubt in our governing and voting systems with, “The system is broken” followed by the claim, “Only I can fix it” and shouting over and over “it is rigged, it is a rigged system” preparing an excuse for himself should he lose.  His hunger for personal power is a danger to Democracy.

Donald Trump is only after his own aggrandizement and seeks to undermine public trust in the democratic system that has led our country to greatness.  If you listen to the undertones of his rhetoric you will hear the heartbeat of a dictator.

Please give careful thought before you vote—Donald Trump is dangerous!

Friday, October 28, 2016

A Voice To Be Heard

In the 1980’s Carol Gilligan, a professor at Harvard University, wrote a book titled: In a Different Voice.  The book made a lasting impression on me and inspired the poem that follows.  The book title points to the differences between how men and women encounter the world.  She noted that virtually all information “has implicitly adopted a male perspective as the norm”.  She calls for the inclusion of 'a different voice'.  Since that time efforts are made by some to include female references, but the mere inclusion of ‘she’ and ‘her’ misses the point.  The point is that throughout history, up until the 20th century, even in developed countries, women were excluded.  They had no say in government or business; often no rights of ownership or inheritance; were excluded from higher education thus skilled occupations; and surely, all meaningful involvement in religious ritual was forbidden to women—save as passive recipient.

More than just a ‘place at the table’, Gilligan’s thesis is that women had no influence in shaping decisions that ruled their lives—their collective voice was silenced.  Nations were formed, laws were enacted, customs adopted, history written while for the most part women were invisible—even in the Bible only fathers were mentioned in lineage.  She makes a strong case for the fact that our development has been handicapped by silencing the voice of half of humanity.

Throughout the ages it has always been 'common sense’ that males and females see and explain life and the world differently—and too often women’s differentness has been judged as inferior and wrong.  Research in psychology affirms measurable differences between the sexes.  Studies of the play among young children show that boys are drawn to competition while girls more readily choose activities of cooperation.  Among adults given the task of solving a dilemma, the male approach is more legalistic and directed to finding an efficient solution.  A female approach is more global, taking into consideration surrounding circumstance and concern for the people who will be affected by the choice made.  Men mainly show concern for the ‘outside’ (the specific outcome) while women show equal concern for the ‘within’ (the relationships and feelings).

Each perspective emphasizes different values (what is thought to be of greater or lesser worth).  Value choices are not easily altered, there is resistance and denial.  In a one-dimensional world there are only two choices: yes or no, good or bad, right or wrong.  We no longer live in a flat world, we live in a multi-dimensional reality full of complexities—but old prejudices are hard to overcome.  Some voices urge us to hold on to them, but the day of white-male-supremacy is past.  Our world is in crisis; we must listen to all reasonable voices.  


* * *

HEAR ME

I am Woman, hear me oh Man!

You have intercourse with life from the outside,
            I from within.

You know only half of the reality that is
            --as do I.

Rigid and absolute, your aim is to impose and control;
Yielding and accommodating, mine is to accept and adapt.

You fear that I will limit your fecundity
            your self-serving pleasure pursuits

And so it is, for I seek compassion and understanding
            and protection for my vulnerability.

What you fail to know--for you know only half of reality--
            is that there is pleasure of a different kind as well as wisdom
            in my experience of life and living.

What you have demonstrated to me--for you have been in charge--
            is that your outside knowing, adventurous to be sure,
            is empty and meaningless without my insights!

You’ve insisted upon leading--your power and logic made it seem right--
            but narcissistically you fell in love with your own reflection
            and forgot to keep my voice alive with your love...
            instead, you asked of me only that I serve and service you
            --forgetting you know only half of reality.

Learn from me, not in a subservient way, but as an equal
            and we will both be enriched.

                                         - - -

Your vital virile outside knowing has changed the face of the earth
            you’ve built and discovered and re-created...

But without the within, it is all empty, hollow, meaningless
            --and above all infinitely dangerous!

You disdainfully dismiss what I have to contribute
My accomplishments seem mundanely simple and unimportant.

I cannot do what you have done
Your achievements are in fact glorious!

You infuse, you initiate, you achieve
            --but you also rape and plunder,
            immediate gratification and conquest is your goal.

Your arrogance is your curse
            because you won’t admit what you don’t know
            or can’t do alone.
You don’t nurture and sustain the developing potential
            you don’t watch and wait and hope for the promise to come
            --that is my task.

You know only half of the reality that is!

Would that you look at me...
            but you only glance at my form
Would that you listen to me...
            but you only scoff at my awarenesses
Would that you learn from me...
            but you only yawn at my wisdom.

Look at me and see me,
Listen to me and hear me,
Understand me and learn from me,

I am Woman, hear me oh Man



Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Prejudice and the Campaign

What is prejudice?  The dictionary tells us:  “the act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions”.  The immediate past and present U.S. election cycles have brought the issue of prejudice to the forefront of American awareness and that dark hidden mind-cancer is being called out for us to examine in the light of day.

I address the two most pervasive and damaging examples of prejudice in society: white against black, and male against female.  It would seem that since we have a black president, and a woman nominee for the office, those prejudices are no longer a problem, but that is not the case.  Although the personal appeal, intelligence and enthusiasm of Obama got him elected to the office of president, very soon forces were raised against him that blocked every effort he made to bring meaningful change to benefit the nation.  I don’t claim he was right in all his initiatives but I point to the almost hysterical opposition and refusal to work with him to seek compromise.  For his second term, rather than propose goals, the opposition identified as their main objective: ‘to make sure he did not achieve a second term’.  The fierce opposition was never blatantly stated as “because he is a black man” but it was the obvious undertone . . . . . . .thankfully the majority did not support that.

Now we are in another election cycle and we have two candidates that in some way call attention to prejudice.  For one, the woman, there is an unspoken ‘something’ that causes many to ‘just not like her’.  She triggers some of the still, mostly hidden, anti-women attitudes lingering from a long history of suppression of women.  Until recently, every aspect of a woman’s existence was controlled by men.  Because women saw the world through different eyes, they were considered weak, inferior, and incapable of rational judgment.  It was a mere 100 years ago that women won the right to vote in America.  Advances in the status of women in developed countries in the 20th and 21st Centuries may cause us to forget that throughout the ages women have been demonized, demeaned, discounted, and dismissed. Look at other countries where women are still oppressed, with no rights and considered the property of their husbands.  Are we sure we are free of this prejudice?

The other candidate, the man, Donald Trump, apparently believes that Americans do NOT possess the enlightened desire to combat their hidden prejudices, so, by stoking the fires of all hidden prejudices he can ride to victory.  A 'might means right' philosophy.  He offers a smorgasbord of hate filled denigrations, choose from: religions, nationalities, migrants, veterans, handicapped, war heros, the government, the Press, women and anyone who crosses him.   He has fueled his campaign with negativity toward anyone and everyone who is not ‘in his camp’—he personifies prejudice.  It is fortuitous that his prurient attitude toward women was exposed by a video of his bragging about his exploits.  That brought a backlash from both women and enlightened men who recognized that the attitude ‘women are objects for my pleasure’ is from an archaic prejudice rooted in the arrogant belief in Male Superiority which gives them the right to behave toward women as they please; this same attitude fuels groping, physical abuse and rape.  Prejudice is an ugly reality.  Are Americas enlighten enough to fight against it?


If we are serious about opening dialogues about prejudice, don’t confine the issue to race, look deeper to explore the roots of all prejudices.

And choose carefully who you vote for!


Saturday, September 24, 2016

Our World

About a year ago my friend Jane, unknowingly, presented me with a challenge as she gave me a little ‘world pin’.  She is part of a group about which I know only that they have created and distribute this lovely little lapel pin of planet earth with its oceans and continents.  In our conversation she casually said, “Just what is the world? . . . the world, the earth, the planet, is it all the same?”  I think I responded with something like “well not exactly”. 

I went on to expound (yes, I do do that!) about Teilhard de Chardin and his explanation of the formation of the earth’s layers that evolved over an incalculable span of time; first there coalesced the Barysphere and Lithosphere—the metal core and rocky crust; next, those layers were overlaid with the Atmosphere and Hydrosphere—air and water; which were the necessary precursors for the Biosphere—all life forms.  Over eons of time, an array of vegetation and animal life slowly appeared, advancing in form from simple to complex.  Teilhard defined that as the ‘law of complexity-consciousness’, which drives evolution to ever reach for greater intricacy and more freedom by complexifying nervous systems and increasing consciousness.  The process ultimately brought forth the rational and reflective creature—the human species.  This wasn’t just ‘another species’ but the very axis and arrow of evolution, adding a new layer to the planet.  That layer, Teilhard named the Noosphere—the thinking layer.  With thought and freedom, human choices have shaped the emerging world in which we live: a world of buildings, roads and machines; a world of languages, music and arts; a world of laws, institutions and philosophies . . .

Evolution is on-going change.  Only humans have the ability to initiate change, both within the self and in the world they inhabit.  It is imperative that we awaken to the power humanity has to determine the destiny of this awesome interacting system—our world.

Our planet is an object in a solar system that orbits the sun in harmony with other planets—Jupiter, Mars, Venus, etc.  At the planetary level it is but one of many similar objects.  It differs however, because of being surrounded by continually re-circulating air and water, thus providing what is necessary to support life.  The interaction of these elements is a unique process, fully integrated with the myriad life forms animating our earth.  Just as the Biosphere changed the planet into the living earth (fondly referred to as ‘Mother Earth’), the newest layer, the Noosphere, changed it into the world of thought and action we occupy.

Over the past year my thoughts kept returning to the challenge of that question, ‘are they the same?’  I now realize I found the question so significant because it points to the basic God/human interaction—together we co-create the world.

When I speak of God, I’m not referring to a remote Being far away in the heavens who counts sins and grants favors.  Knowledge of the nature of God is of a dimension beyond human comprehension.  When I speak of God I mean that dynamic Mystery beyond my understanding that brought order out of chaos.  I look at the known evidence of life and the magnificent balance of the uncountable elements necessary for the universe to exist—yet there it is and here we are!  So I say, “Thank you, Mystery God” and I think of the wonder of human consciousness that can seek Truth, Justice and Love and can express love, compassion . . . and hope.

The evolutionary process is still unfolding; the God contribution has been set before us, ours is underway as we explore our capacity for both good and evil.  We’re given this playground free and clear, no strings attached.  Our ultimate challenge is for the human family to learn to act cooperatively in supporting the preservation of our common home.  We can make it flourish as it was meant to, or we can destroy it by our collective violence, greed and selfish choices, so reducing it to a dead planet left empty in its orbit around the sun.

So my friend’s question about ‘sameness’ can be answered both yes and no.  Either word refers to the same whole unit, but the world comes into being thru the God/human interaction.  We’ve been given planet-earth, flourishing with life and potential; and too, we’ve been called to consciousness and freedom to do with it what we will.  Ultimately ‘our world’ is our answer to Mystery God.