Sixteen days ago, I recommenced reading Oswald Chambers’s book, My Utmost For His Highest.
It seems to be one of those books that, while it may be tough reading
the first time, improves considerably with subsequent ones. It’s one of
those books you can have on the shelf for years and then, dipping back
into it, discover many treasures in it which you didn’t see years
before.
Today, the first sentence which really struck home with me was, “For
instance, the Beatitudes seem merely mild and beautiful precepts for
all unworldly and useless people, but of very little practical use in
the stern workaday world in which we live.”
‘Unworldly and
useless people’. Is there anyone reading this post who hasn’t, at least
intermittently, felt that way about themselves? I know that’s how I feel
about myself too often for comfort. How many of us feel like real
worldly success stories, really? Then again, God seems to have a habit
of picking up those who are seen and/or see themselves as worldly
failures and teaching them to ‘aim’ for Him and His Heaven as opposed to
earth. C.S. Lewis made the observation that, “Aim at Heaven and you’ll
have Earth ‘thrown in’; aim at Earth and you will get neither.” He uses
caring for one’s health as an analogy on page 104 of Mere Christianity, ISBN 0–02–086940–1.
Allow
me to add a caveat here: we do need to stay focused on Heaven; there is
always the danger of making the winning of Earth the end rather than a
side matter.
Chambers’s devotion touches on this with the next sentences. “We
soon find, however, that the Beatitudes contain the dynamite of the
Holy Ghost. They explode….when the circumstances of our lives cause them
to do so. When the Holy Spirit brings to our remembrance one of these
Beatitudes…..we have to decide whether we will accept the tremendous
spiritual upheaval that will be produced in our circumstances if we obey
His words. That is how the Spirit of God works.”
For some
reason, this passage reminds me that, for all of us, our spiritual lives
— that is, what we believe in and act on — is both backdrop to, and the
ultimate aspiration of, our lives. If anyone thinks otherwise, feel
free to say so, but include the ‘why’ of your belief, always. According
to St. John, Jesus said the same thing: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the beginning and the end.”
This is what God does, always. He takes
the washouts, the failures, the smallest and the most peripheral among
us and infuses them with the dynamite of His Holy Spirit. Does not the
very Statue of Liberty have a poem identifying all of us, or our
ancestors, as having been just that once on a time? When peoples and
countries who begin in that way forget such beginnings, they forget who
they really are and they also forget God. Nothing I can think of
testifies to how many of us have forgotten both God and
our abject startings with more eloquence than what we are doing right
now on our southern border. There are other such testimonies, to be
sure, but that particular one sounds loudest in my ears right now.
To shut a door against genocidal killers is not
the same as to bar the door against abject refuge-seekers, so no
comparison of this to Israel’s wall is warranted. In this country, the
latter is what we now permit our government to do and which we’d better
change right smartly if we want to avoid the fate of forgetful and
declining empires. Before a people, or peoples, who we see as
inconsequential prove themselves very much otherwise.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
ANOTHER BAD TIME IN OUR HISTORY (WITH SOME PROLOGUE)
The 1890s were an awful time quite a lot like now.
The prologue to the 1890s can be said to begin in 1877. Three things happened in 1877 that cast a long shadow over the subsequent years, even unto this very day. First, an election commission declared Rutherford Hayes, the Republican, the presidential victor of the 1876 election--by a single electoral vote. And he was so declared with the understanding that the last Federal troops would be withdrawn from the remaining ex-Confederate states that allowed their votes to go for Hayes. And, indeed, shortly after Hayes's inauguration, those troops were withdrawn, leaving the freedmen to their own devices to fight their disenfranchisement, and the terror unleashed upon them by the white peckerwoods as best they could. In 1896, after nearly two decades of lynchings and other terroristic methods (and stout resistance from African-Americans and a few white allies), Plessy v. Ferguson allowed the states to make Jim Crow (and the disenfranchisement of people of color) law in all the old slave states, Union and Traitor (yes, including Delaware). I am ashamed to say such a noteworthy jurist as Oliver Wendell Holmes, a member of the G.A.R. himself, actually wrote, "If the majority of the population is determined to disenfranchise the Negroes among them, there is nothing this Court can do about it." There were three dissenters, led by John Harlan, himself a Southerner.
The third occurrence in 1877 was what became known as the Great Strikes, which began in Pittsburgh against the Pennsylvania Railroad when that company cut its workers' wages by 25 percent. When the Pittsburgh state militia refused to fire on the strikers, the bosses and their political slaves brought other militia in from Philadelphia to forcibly end that strike. The 1890s were to see both the 1892 Homestead steel strike against Carnegie Steel and another railroad strike, this time at Pullman, in 1894. That strike was the one which brought Eugene Debs, who was, according to contemporaries, as kind and generous a man as ever most of them had known, to the fore as a labor organizer. From 1877 through into the Thirties (with World War I as a sort-of interlude), much of the laboring population of the North was still trying to struggle out of semi-starvational conditions. And now a probable majority of working people are struggling not to return to that unhappy state.
An element present in the 1890s whose counterpart, if there is one, today, I cannot perceive, is the Farmers’ Alliance, Colored Farmers Alliance, and the Grange. These were small-farmer organizations which fought the railroads, banks and their boughten political slaves. Everywhere they struggled to make their voices heard against state-sponsored political terrorism and in the old slave states against state-sponsored racial terrorism as well. These organizations were the primary building block of the People’s, or Populist, party. By 1892, this party was strong enough to field a presidential ticket, which won 22 electoral votes. In 1896, they joined with the Democrats under William Jennings Bryan. Just how smart this was I’m still not sure, but the Midwestern Populists, who had made common cause with the out-of-power Midwestern Democrats, won out over the Southern Populists who had had to defend themselves against terrorism from in-power Southern Democrats.
Both the 1896 campaign and the Plessy decision fractured the biracial farmers’ coalition in the South.
This time we cannot afford to let anything fracture an all-races coalition of poor and working people, once such a coalition is fully built. And it neither can nor should be inextricably tied to any current political party! As for being the nucleus of a new progressive party….well, time will tell. In any case, we as a nation have been here before and it’s up to us to make as sure as we can that we never return to this!
The prologue to the 1890s can be said to begin in 1877. Three things happened in 1877 that cast a long shadow over the subsequent years, even unto this very day. First, an election commission declared Rutherford Hayes, the Republican, the presidential victor of the 1876 election--by a single electoral vote. And he was so declared with the understanding that the last Federal troops would be withdrawn from the remaining ex-Confederate states that allowed their votes to go for Hayes. And, indeed, shortly after Hayes's inauguration, those troops were withdrawn, leaving the freedmen to their own devices to fight their disenfranchisement, and the terror unleashed upon them by the white peckerwoods as best they could. In 1896, after nearly two decades of lynchings and other terroristic methods (and stout resistance from African-Americans and a few white allies), Plessy v. Ferguson allowed the states to make Jim Crow (and the disenfranchisement of people of color) law in all the old slave states, Union and Traitor (yes, including Delaware). I am ashamed to say such a noteworthy jurist as Oliver Wendell Holmes, a member of the G.A.R. himself, actually wrote, "If the majority of the population is determined to disenfranchise the Negroes among them, there is nothing this Court can do about it." There were three dissenters, led by John Harlan, himself a Southerner.
The third occurrence in 1877 was what became known as the Great Strikes, which began in Pittsburgh against the Pennsylvania Railroad when that company cut its workers' wages by 25 percent. When the Pittsburgh state militia refused to fire on the strikers, the bosses and their political slaves brought other militia in from Philadelphia to forcibly end that strike. The 1890s were to see both the 1892 Homestead steel strike against Carnegie Steel and another railroad strike, this time at Pullman, in 1894. That strike was the one which brought Eugene Debs, who was, according to contemporaries, as kind and generous a man as ever most of them had known, to the fore as a labor organizer. From 1877 through into the Thirties (with World War I as a sort-of interlude), much of the laboring population of the North was still trying to struggle out of semi-starvational conditions. And now a probable majority of working people are struggling not to return to that unhappy state.
An element present in the 1890s whose counterpart, if there is one, today, I cannot perceive, is the Farmers’ Alliance, Colored Farmers Alliance, and the Grange. These were small-farmer organizations which fought the railroads, banks and their boughten political slaves. Everywhere they struggled to make their voices heard against state-sponsored political terrorism and in the old slave states against state-sponsored racial terrorism as well. These organizations were the primary building block of the People’s, or Populist, party. By 1892, this party was strong enough to field a presidential ticket, which won 22 electoral votes. In 1896, they joined with the Democrats under William Jennings Bryan. Just how smart this was I’m still not sure, but the Midwestern Populists, who had made common cause with the out-of-power Midwestern Democrats, won out over the Southern Populists who had had to defend themselves against terrorism from in-power Southern Democrats.
Both the 1896 campaign and the Plessy decision fractured the biracial farmers’ coalition in the South.
This time we cannot afford to let anything fracture an all-races coalition of poor and working people, once such a coalition is fully built. And it neither can nor should be inextricably tied to any current political party! As for being the nucleus of a new progressive party….well, time will tell. In any case, we as a nation have been here before and it’s up to us to make as sure as we can that we never return to this!
Saturday, June 8, 2019
A CERTAIN KIND OF LOVE (IS IT ALL WE NEED?)
"Pride is the deadliest of the Seven Deadly Sins. Ask the Lord to humble you."
So say some clerics and others among the wise.
Now let's pause and ask, what do we generally associate with being humbled? Some great loss or series of losses that puts our pride in the dust? Tell the truth, y'all. How many of us think that's what humbling means?
Personally, my greatest humbling comes with the realization, sinking in below the neck, that I really am LOVED. My dear wife actually believes I really rock and acts accordingly. And when someone 'with skin', to use a four-year-old's expression, loves you and yet knows your imperfections--when this is truly a love between equals--I know of nothing more humbling than that to anyone with half a conscience. And God's love for us becomes all the plainer thereby as well. For many of us who are Christians, realizing the depths of God's Love in Jesus brings forth such a humbled mindset. At least I think it ought to. And this is what the breaking of patriarchy can lead to more of: love between equals.
Love between us and animals and/or children is a great and good thing too, but it's not between equals. And no reader of mine who is a parent cannot know how quickly the worshipful expression in a small child's eyes becomes the skeptical look of a pre-teen and then the mixed looks of teenagers. There's a lot to go through before THAT'S between adults more or less, not so? That is, for those who can reach that point.
I have to wonder: is this something of which patriarchy's defenders are deathly afraid? Do they disbelieve in such love to the extent that they'll die with their false prides (and likely take most of us with them) rather than open themselves to such love? Maybe this is really the heart of the question, but anyone with different ideas is more than welcome to say otherwise. Just argue civilly and to the point; that's all I ask.
So say some clerics and others among the wise.
Now let's pause and ask, what do we generally associate with being humbled? Some great loss or series of losses that puts our pride in the dust? Tell the truth, y'all. How many of us think that's what humbling means?
Personally, my greatest humbling comes with the realization, sinking in below the neck, that I really am LOVED. My dear wife actually believes I really rock and acts accordingly. And when someone 'with skin', to use a four-year-old's expression, loves you and yet knows your imperfections--when this is truly a love between equals--I know of nothing more humbling than that to anyone with half a conscience. And God's love for us becomes all the plainer thereby as well. For many of us who are Christians, realizing the depths of God's Love in Jesus brings forth such a humbled mindset. At least I think it ought to. And this is what the breaking of patriarchy can lead to more of: love between equals.
Love between us and animals and/or children is a great and good thing too, but it's not between equals. And no reader of mine who is a parent cannot know how quickly the worshipful expression in a small child's eyes becomes the skeptical look of a pre-teen and then the mixed looks of teenagers. There's a lot to go through before THAT'S between adults more or less, not so? That is, for those who can reach that point.
I have to wonder: is this something of which patriarchy's defenders are deathly afraid? Do they disbelieve in such love to the extent that they'll die with their false prides (and likely take most of us with them) rather than open themselves to such love? Maybe this is really the heart of the question, but anyone with different ideas is more than welcome to say otherwise. Just argue civilly and to the point; that's all I ask.
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
NO LONGER A JOKE
A dialogue from Hamlet:
It was that very day that young Hamlet was born, he that is mad, and sent into England.
Ay, marry, why was he sent into England?
Why, because he was mad, a' shall recover his wits there, or, if a' do not, 'tis no great matter there.
Why?
'Twill not be seen in him there; there the [people] are as mad as he.
These lines used to elicit roars of laughter from English audiences. I both hope and fear that might not be the case right now.
On my dad's side of the family, I am largely of English descent. And when I say English, that is exactly what I mean. I do not use 'British' and 'English' interchangeably and if I hear any of y'all doing so, I'll put you right about that right quick.
I used to be very happy to be of English descent. I revel in our language that is, for me, both native and ancestral. I am very proud to be one of the people that taught much of the world that transitions of power need not be bloody (except perhaps verbally) and who insisted through centuries that all are under the law, even the king. Rex non debit sub homini esse, sed sub deo et lege. The king is below no one, but below God and the law. And I confess to a certain amount of guilty pride in being one of a people of empire-builders, even while I know 1) native and Celtic auxiliaries did a good chunk of that building, 2) we English have acted in ways contradicting our ideals often enough as to be a byword for hypocrisy among our Scots, French and, sometimes, our German neighbors (big whup, right?) and 3) the whole notion of empire-building is under severe, hostile, and at least partially justified scrutiny these days. But I invite the scrutinizers to ask themselves: how sincere are you? Some of you may be doing no more than virtue-signalling, or you might be Noble Savage freaks (and I have less use only for open or covert racists and other bigots than for both of you)--or you might just be sore losers or their descendants. Japan still calls itself an 'empire'; not so? Just an example to make the point.
Being a lifelong student of history has left me with, among other things, an interesting array of pictures which certain songs bring up. Images brought up by two songs in particular seem relevant here: when I hear Bennie And The Jets, my mind dredges up pictures of the 1897 Diamond Jubilee of Victoria's reign. That was in large part a celebration of Empire with which most of our newspapers heartily concurred at the time. And the long version of Light My Fire gives me a taste of how being 'part of the action' in pre-war London a little more than a century ago must have felt, when it was the center of an Empire and, at least, debatably, the center of the globe!
But I'm afraid I also need to tell at least half my cousins back across the Pond that this is 2019, not 1913. The Empire is not about to reassemble itself; even the Commonwealth shows no sign of becoming more cohesive around you. The 'good' kids (we, and maybe Ireland, might be seen as the 'bad' kids here)--Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and, debatably, South Africa and India--are all grown up with lives very much of their own. You have done your part in shrinking the globe and making it one; it is too late to repeal the history of the last seventy years or so.
Right now a serious donnybrook appears to be happening over your way over Brexit. If an heir of those onetime ragtag rebels can suggest something, please have a do-over of that--and this time, please vote to reverse it! A hard Brexit will put you at the mercy of the madman currently usurping the White House by occupying it and too many of you seem determined to bring about exactly that! Many of you who think you lost your jobs because of Brussels probably lost them because of the reeking greed of your bosses in fact but which was labelled 'Market Forces'. That is, the owners concluded they could fatten their pockets more by building elsewhere! If you're surprised, then shame on you for all the labor-struggle history many of you seem to have forgotten.
Is the EU not democratic enough for you? OK, I get that, but work within it in order to democratize it further! Put the 'exceptionalism' aside awhile and link up with French, Germans, Italians, Beneluxers and others who feel the whole thing is too top-down as opposed to bottom-up and start working to CHANGE that!! Can't that be done more effectively from within than from outside? Seems to make sense to this Sassenach, anyhow!
If you carry Brexit through, you are most likely to wind up a sorry satrap to us here. Not something I want to see anymore than you do. Rethink, re-vote--and return. If you do, the above lines might produce rollicking laughter among you again.
London was, debatably at least, once the world's effective capital. Inside the EU, it can and will still be a great European center and maybe a world center. Outside, its destiny will be a certain Jethro Tull album. Guess which one I mean. And the above lines will be a bitter joke for at least the rest of our days.
It was that very day that young Hamlet was born, he that is mad, and sent into England.
Ay, marry, why was he sent into England?
Why, because he was mad, a' shall recover his wits there, or, if a' do not, 'tis no great matter there.
Why?
'Twill not be seen in him there; there the [people] are as mad as he.
These lines used to elicit roars of laughter from English audiences. I both hope and fear that might not be the case right now.
On my dad's side of the family, I am largely of English descent. And when I say English, that is exactly what I mean. I do not use 'British' and 'English' interchangeably and if I hear any of y'all doing so, I'll put you right about that right quick.
I used to be very happy to be of English descent. I revel in our language that is, for me, both native and ancestral. I am very proud to be one of the people that taught much of the world that transitions of power need not be bloody (except perhaps verbally) and who insisted through centuries that all are under the law, even the king. Rex non debit sub homini esse, sed sub deo et lege. The king is below no one, but below God and the law. And I confess to a certain amount of guilty pride in being one of a people of empire-builders, even while I know 1) native and Celtic auxiliaries did a good chunk of that building, 2) we English have acted in ways contradicting our ideals often enough as to be a byword for hypocrisy among our Scots, French and, sometimes, our German neighbors (big whup, right?) and 3) the whole notion of empire-building is under severe, hostile, and at least partially justified scrutiny these days. But I invite the scrutinizers to ask themselves: how sincere are you? Some of you may be doing no more than virtue-signalling, or you might be Noble Savage freaks (and I have less use only for open or covert racists and other bigots than for both of you)--or you might just be sore losers or their descendants. Japan still calls itself an 'empire'; not so? Just an example to make the point.
Being a lifelong student of history has left me with, among other things, an interesting array of pictures which certain songs bring up. Images brought up by two songs in particular seem relevant here: when I hear Bennie And The Jets, my mind dredges up pictures of the 1897 Diamond Jubilee of Victoria's reign. That was in large part a celebration of Empire with which most of our newspapers heartily concurred at the time. And the long version of Light My Fire gives me a taste of how being 'part of the action' in pre-war London a little more than a century ago must have felt, when it was the center of an Empire and, at least, debatably, the center of the globe!
But I'm afraid I also need to tell at least half my cousins back across the Pond that this is 2019, not 1913. The Empire is not about to reassemble itself; even the Commonwealth shows no sign of becoming more cohesive around you. The 'good' kids (we, and maybe Ireland, might be seen as the 'bad' kids here)--Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and, debatably, South Africa and India--are all grown up with lives very much of their own. You have done your part in shrinking the globe and making it one; it is too late to repeal the history of the last seventy years or so.
Right now a serious donnybrook appears to be happening over your way over Brexit. If an heir of those onetime ragtag rebels can suggest something, please have a do-over of that--and this time, please vote to reverse it! A hard Brexit will put you at the mercy of the madman currently usurping the White House by occupying it and too many of you seem determined to bring about exactly that! Many of you who think you lost your jobs because of Brussels probably lost them because of the reeking greed of your bosses in fact but which was labelled 'Market Forces'. That is, the owners concluded they could fatten their pockets more by building elsewhere! If you're surprised, then shame on you for all the labor-struggle history many of you seem to have forgotten.
Is the EU not democratic enough for you? OK, I get that, but work within it in order to democratize it further! Put the 'exceptionalism' aside awhile and link up with French, Germans, Italians, Beneluxers and others who feel the whole thing is too top-down as opposed to bottom-up and start working to CHANGE that!! Can't that be done more effectively from within than from outside? Seems to make sense to this Sassenach, anyhow!
If you carry Brexit through, you are most likely to wind up a sorry satrap to us here. Not something I want to see anymore than you do. Rethink, re-vote--and return. If you do, the above lines might produce rollicking laughter among you again.
London was, debatably at least, once the world's effective capital. Inside the EU, it can and will still be a great European center and maybe a world center. Outside, its destiny will be a certain Jethro Tull album. Guess which one I mean. And the above lines will be a bitter joke for at least the rest of our days.
Sunday, February 17, 2019
IN FAVOR OF STRIVING WITH GOD
For some time, these thoughts have been taking shape, helped by this memory, this quotation, this idea and that notion.
Within the bounds of those who are, or claim to be, 'spiritual' people there's a division which cuts across traditional religious lines. On one side are those for whom, like myself, faith is a process which works through doubt and is thereby deepened and strengthened. This is sometimes a quiet, but always a robust, faith as measured by these criteria: such a robust, living faith welcomes questions, can answer criticisms cogently, gives mockery a pitying smile and spurns any state's efforts to 'strengthen' it.
On the other side are those whose 'faith' seems to be chiefly based on the denigration of others on any basis handy, be it 'race', ethnicity, recited creed, sex or sexual orientation, not to mention economic class. This in and of itself is enough to mark such a 'faith' as dry, brittle and moribund. It seeks with desperation to squelch questions, criticisms and mockeries even to the point of begging the state to help shore up its shell. Their adherents seem to associate bliss with not having to think a whole lot--or at least are told to believe this by their clerics, whether imams or priests. This by itself flies in God's Face--the God which we are commanded to love with all our mind as well as heart, soul and strength. Switching off one's mind is the opposite of this and leads in turn to walling off one's heart to be shared only within Our Group, by whatever other name it may be called.
As a Christian myself, I am instructed to use the life of Jesus as a 'lens' through which to read Scripture. I don't know what 'lenses' Jews or Muslims may so use for theirs although I can't help reflecting that Spinoza was a lens-grinder. Maybe for them it's on more of an individual basis, but this much I do know: such lenses have to be crafted for growth of each of us with and towards God. No one ever did Islam a greater injury than the fool who said some eight centuries ago that 'The gates of ijtihad are now closed.' 'Lenses' built with the intention of blinding or bullying people into submission cannot be of God but are of the Enemy!
Those with a living faith eagerly grasp at the idea of being able to become children of, and eventually co-creators of, God's Realm. Those without such a faith usually have difficulty with this notion and wind up committing one of two mistakes. Either they conclude only We are God's True Children OR they say, 'God does not need children. We are his slaves.' Can such a God be all that Merciful and Compassionate? Seriously, Worst of all, sometimes they can say one and act out the other.
Well, it IS true that God does not need children. But with God, His needs (He has none) are not the point. But God wants us to be able to become His children and help Him create His Realm here on Earth! Is this not what a God Who is Love would want for all of us? We all need to do some serious re-examinations of our various faiths and practices and see what helps us grow in heart, mind and soul in our faiths--and what does the opposite! Get rid of what stunts such growth and nourish that which encourages it, wherever we find each item.
This is deep matter, so don't be afraid to dive into it as often as each of y'all needs to. Blessings to all of my readers!
Within the bounds of those who are, or claim to be, 'spiritual' people there's a division which cuts across traditional religious lines. On one side are those for whom, like myself, faith is a process which works through doubt and is thereby deepened and strengthened. This is sometimes a quiet, but always a robust, faith as measured by these criteria: such a robust, living faith welcomes questions, can answer criticisms cogently, gives mockery a pitying smile and spurns any state's efforts to 'strengthen' it.
On the other side are those whose 'faith' seems to be chiefly based on the denigration of others on any basis handy, be it 'race', ethnicity, recited creed, sex or sexual orientation, not to mention economic class. This in and of itself is enough to mark such a 'faith' as dry, brittle and moribund. It seeks with desperation to squelch questions, criticisms and mockeries even to the point of begging the state to help shore up its shell. Their adherents seem to associate bliss with not having to think a whole lot--or at least are told to believe this by their clerics, whether imams or priests. This by itself flies in God's Face--the God which we are commanded to love with all our mind as well as heart, soul and strength. Switching off one's mind is the opposite of this and leads in turn to walling off one's heart to be shared only within Our Group, by whatever other name it may be called.
As a Christian myself, I am instructed to use the life of Jesus as a 'lens' through which to read Scripture. I don't know what 'lenses' Jews or Muslims may so use for theirs although I can't help reflecting that Spinoza was a lens-grinder. Maybe for them it's on more of an individual basis, but this much I do know: such lenses have to be crafted for growth of each of us with and towards God. No one ever did Islam a greater injury than the fool who said some eight centuries ago that 'The gates of ijtihad are now closed.' 'Lenses' built with the intention of blinding or bullying people into submission cannot be of God but are of the Enemy!
Those with a living faith eagerly grasp at the idea of being able to become children of, and eventually co-creators of, God's Realm. Those without such a faith usually have difficulty with this notion and wind up committing one of two mistakes. Either they conclude only We are God's True Children OR they say, 'God does not need children. We are his slaves.' Can such a God be all that Merciful and Compassionate? Seriously, Worst of all, sometimes they can say one and act out the other.
Well, it IS true that God does not need children. But with God, His needs (He has none) are not the point. But God wants us to be able to become His children and help Him create His Realm here on Earth! Is this not what a God Who is Love would want for all of us? We all need to do some serious re-examinations of our various faiths and practices and see what helps us grow in heart, mind and soul in our faiths--and what does the opposite! Get rid of what stunts such growth and nourish that which encourages it, wherever we find each item.
This is deep matter, so don't be afraid to dive into it as often as each of y'all needs to. Blessings to all of my readers!
Thursday, January 3, 2019
TO THE POLITICALLY DISENGAGED
This post is primarily for those who have, for whatever reason,
disengaged from the political process and the corresponding
functions — especially that of voting.
Now, I know that many, indeed a dangerously growing number of you, are simply too tired and otherwise taxed to take much if any notice of politics. While I, having worked as a caterer, can certainly understand this, even to you I must repeat: elections have consequences. And the consequences of the last election are at work making, or at least aiming to make, your already-difficult lives even harder. I can understand that, between worrying about your own health and the disaster a serious illness would be and the need to hold down two (more?) jobs or keep that tiny business going simply to feed the kids and make sure they stay safe at school, you feel there isn’t enough of you to be a real citizen instead of a mere subject, a helot, a serf to the criminally and obscenely wealthy. I suggest you start thinking again about politics, even if you can only do so during your commutes either in a car or on public transportation. Start with how hardly anyone — IF anyone — speaks for you. Then ponder what you might be able to do under current circumstances. It might be as small a thing as a potluck or a cookout with neighbors on a day off where you can all seriously talk about how you and many others like you might actually participate in active change for the better. Take it step by careful step; I don’t want y’all neglecting family (including pets) or anything else you cherish for ‘bigger things’. I’m all for doing ‘small things with great love’ as a recently canonized saint put it.
Now, to those who have disengaged for less urgent reasons, here come my sternest words. You, without the pressure of necessity and under the illusion that politics is extraneous to ‘real life’, have chosen to degrade yourselves from citizens to subjects. And by so doing, you may have also become a fit instrument to degrade others into subjection as well. Maybe most of you are more ‘I-do-my-thing-you-do-your-thing’ types, but if you are, tell me this: when a wannabe despot says to you, “You ain’t doing your thing no more; all of you WILL do MY thing and ONLY my thing.”, what will you do then?
I suggest you take serious stock to see whether you’ve lost the habit of common action either for certain improvements OR, perhaps more importantly, against internal threats that come disguised — that is, they’re not dark-skinned with black berets or shades. Nothing has brought me closer to despair than to see how many breaches of rights, how much blatant and unapologetic corruption it takes to get y’all to grab the nearest pitchforks, torches or whatever else may be at hand!!
The two main parties are NOT all the same and at least one still has an active wing for real change! I wanna know, what will it take to get y’all to step up to the level of citizens and TAKE PART?! I can certainly understand it if big money and the corruption that comes with it has disgusted you; that’s the basic reason I didn’t go into politics in the 1980s — I could see where the incessant begging for money was going even then!
I’m making myself a candidate for President of the United States with an entirely different campaign. This campaign will be largely online and I won’t be asking for ANY money if I can avoid it. For this campaign, the process is a big part of the point. If you support my platform (to which there will be a link at the end of this post) and like the idea of an entirely differently-engineered campaign, you can share this post along with an earlier one titled Is This Really Such A Loony Idea? with as many others as possible. Find out when the earliest date is to begin collecting signatures to be on the 2020 ballot (and how many are necessary in your state) and then get going on collecting them! I’m conflicted whether or not to be part of a primary or go in as an independent, but time will tell.
As the great Athenian statesman Pericles said two and a half millennia ago, “You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.” Politics are a condition of human life and Jane Goodall has told us our nearest cousins the chimpanzees also practice politics. That’s right; google it for yourself. If you don’t want to be pushed round by politics then push back — now.
Here’s the link to my current platform — and don’t feel shy about suggesting additions or revisions either. Only one thing anyone needs to give up in this campaign: hate.
http://nopartyline.blogspot.com/2011/06/to-all-my-fellow-americans-especially.html
Now, I know that many, indeed a dangerously growing number of you, are simply too tired and otherwise taxed to take much if any notice of politics. While I, having worked as a caterer, can certainly understand this, even to you I must repeat: elections have consequences. And the consequences of the last election are at work making, or at least aiming to make, your already-difficult lives even harder. I can understand that, between worrying about your own health and the disaster a serious illness would be and the need to hold down two (more?) jobs or keep that tiny business going simply to feed the kids and make sure they stay safe at school, you feel there isn’t enough of you to be a real citizen instead of a mere subject, a helot, a serf to the criminally and obscenely wealthy. I suggest you start thinking again about politics, even if you can only do so during your commutes either in a car or on public transportation. Start with how hardly anyone — IF anyone — speaks for you. Then ponder what you might be able to do under current circumstances. It might be as small a thing as a potluck or a cookout with neighbors on a day off where you can all seriously talk about how you and many others like you might actually participate in active change for the better. Take it step by careful step; I don’t want y’all neglecting family (including pets) or anything else you cherish for ‘bigger things’. I’m all for doing ‘small things with great love’ as a recently canonized saint put it.
Now, to those who have disengaged for less urgent reasons, here come my sternest words. You, without the pressure of necessity and under the illusion that politics is extraneous to ‘real life’, have chosen to degrade yourselves from citizens to subjects. And by so doing, you may have also become a fit instrument to degrade others into subjection as well. Maybe most of you are more ‘I-do-my-thing-you-do-your-thing’ types, but if you are, tell me this: when a wannabe despot says to you, “You ain’t doing your thing no more; all of you WILL do MY thing and ONLY my thing.”, what will you do then?
I suggest you take serious stock to see whether you’ve lost the habit of common action either for certain improvements OR, perhaps more importantly, against internal threats that come disguised — that is, they’re not dark-skinned with black berets or shades. Nothing has brought me closer to despair than to see how many breaches of rights, how much blatant and unapologetic corruption it takes to get y’all to grab the nearest pitchforks, torches or whatever else may be at hand!!
The two main parties are NOT all the same and at least one still has an active wing for real change! I wanna know, what will it take to get y’all to step up to the level of citizens and TAKE PART?! I can certainly understand it if big money and the corruption that comes with it has disgusted you; that’s the basic reason I didn’t go into politics in the 1980s — I could see where the incessant begging for money was going even then!
I’m making myself a candidate for President of the United States with an entirely different campaign. This campaign will be largely online and I won’t be asking for ANY money if I can avoid it. For this campaign, the process is a big part of the point. If you support my platform (to which there will be a link at the end of this post) and like the idea of an entirely differently-engineered campaign, you can share this post along with an earlier one titled Is This Really Such A Loony Idea? with as many others as possible. Find out when the earliest date is to begin collecting signatures to be on the 2020 ballot (and how many are necessary in your state) and then get going on collecting them! I’m conflicted whether or not to be part of a primary or go in as an independent, but time will tell.
As the great Athenian statesman Pericles said two and a half millennia ago, “You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.” Politics are a condition of human life and Jane Goodall has told us our nearest cousins the chimpanzees also practice politics. That’s right; google it for yourself. If you don’t want to be pushed round by politics then push back — now.
Here’s the link to my current platform — and don’t feel shy about suggesting additions or revisions either. Only one thing anyone needs to give up in this campaign: hate.
http://nopartyline.blogspot.com/2011/06/to-all-my-fellow-americans-especially.html
IS THIS REALLY SUCH A LOONY IDEA?
One morning last October, I read a pair of columns with which I couldn’t agree more. One
was by Jim Sleeper and was basically a rant about the spinelessness of
most powerful Democrats. This column and another one by Charles Blow
which I read this morning have my mental wheels moving. Allow me to
quote Jim Sleeper’s last paragraph immediately below and then proceed to
my main topic.
“Until and unless Democrats are forced by well organized movements to challenge the regime of casino-like financing, predatory lending and consumer-bamboozling that they’ve done so much to sustain under the falsely compensatory drapery of United Colors of Benetton “diversity,” the true and urgent claims of #MeToo and Black Lives Matter will always lose to the belligerence of the Brett Kavanaughs and the bitter resentments of the less “entitled” politically incorrect.”
“Until and unless Democrats are forced by well organized movements to challenge the regime of casino-like financing, predatory lending and consumer-bamboozling that they’ve done so much to sustain under the falsely compensatory drapery of United Colors of Benetton “diversity,” the true and urgent claims of #MeToo and Black Lives Matter will always lose to the belligerence of the Brett Kavanaughs and the bitter resentments of the less “entitled” politically incorrect.”
Maybe
‘guerrilla’ political campaigns are a way to do this. I’m thinking
harder than ever about launching a ‘stealth’ campaign for president (and
encouraging others to do likewise for Congress and state legislatures
if and when necessary) which , I hope, can also prove to be an end run
around big money. There’ll be a link to my current ‘platform’. at the
bottom of this post. What I want to do is share the platform with the
clear understanding that the overriding job for all of us must be ‘save
the planet’. Some concerns at least appear more urgent, but none are
longer range. And in order to tackle longer-range concerns than we’re
generally doing now, anyone who runs for office under this platform has
to have at least two, maybe three, essential traits:
1) The ability to listen without an ‘override’ style
2) A strong sense of themselves quite apart from being politically powerful persons
3)
An understanding that there ARE rule-or-ruin groups and individuals
(like patriarchalists, fossil-fuel billionaires and Islamists, to use
three examples) and they MUST be dealt with very sternly indeed across
the board!
Since
I have neither the means nor the time to travel, I will ask political
friends and allies in all the states if they’d circulate petitions to
put me, and anyone running for other offices, on the ballot there. I’m
not even sure they need to let me know; maybe I too should be surprised
in November 2020.
You
may think this a quite loony idea; well and good. But just let it
simmer and imagine ‘stealth’ campaigns using low-cost communications and
making an end run round big money by people who won’t feel themselves
non-entities without more power than the rest of us! And imagine the MSM
caught entirely, or almost entirely, by surprise on Election Day — but
this time for something really good!
I
admit to having no political experience but I have watched and studied
politics for half a century (since I was almost 12). I also know a good
deal of history, geography, theology and the Bible. I also itch to throw
the ‘religious’ Right off the ground I see them as having usurped. In
any case, my observations and knowledge dwarfs the current
usurper — yeah, not like that’s too difficult, I know.
If,
after mulling this over, this appeals to you, please share it with
those who you know to be political allies in each state so we can get
things rolling. Let’s make this a campaign where the people can say, “We
did it ourselves.” Another post, more to the disengaged, will follow hard upon this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)