Tempering Religion with Non-Discrimination

The Bill of Rights guarantees religious freedoms. The government is not allowed to create a state religion (the European historical context from which our founders escaped to America). The government is restricted from making laws that are based on religion. Laws may have many common elements with religion but those have nothing to do with the law. They are separate.

The US Constitution guarantees each citizen with inalienable rights in their pursuit of happiness.

Given those two elements, where are we today with regard to religion and its intersection with our federal form of government? Here are few observations:

• Abortion has been defined as the taking of life while the fetus is in the womb; and abortion rights have been seriously restricted by law accordingly.
• Marriage is between one man and one woman and agrees with most church organizations’ traditional view of marriage. This difficult area has led to many states amending their constitutions to embrace the one man/one woman definition of marriage.
• Adoption codes limit Roman Catholic institutions from processing adoptions of children for same sex couples; where challenged, the church has withdrawn from adoption services
• Gay History curriculum is in the California schools now but under attack by religious lobbyists to remove it. They claim gay history taught in schools goes against their theological beliefs so should be removed.
• Creationism versus evolution theory; churches say the Bible supports creation theory as opposed to the scientific community which claims evolution is the standard in studying origins of life on the planet. Some states are legislating creationism in place of evolution in school curriculum.
• How many more of these can you identify? Share them with the blog and I will add them to the mix

Let us examine these items in brief.

First, abortion. If a fetus were removed from the womb prematurely, would it survive? At what point of development would it survive? Does that help us understand when life begins? The argument has been made that life begins at fertilization of the egg. That may be the inception of a biological process, but does it dictate survival of life on its own? Probably not. Why then do we torture the discussion on abortion rights with this biology versus some other standard. Is it based on religious belief? I think it is. And I’m not comfortable with allowing religion to dictate the terms of this discussion.

For those with religious dogma that insists on no abortions, fine; live your life in that manner; and teach your children and family your point of view. Please, however, leave me alone. I do not believe as you do and the law should not be skewed to serve your beliefs and not mine. Leave each to believe as they will. Leave abortion decisions up to the individuals involved.

Second issue is heterosexual marriage versus homosexual marriage. Churches have the right under our constitution to recognize marriage in any format they desire. Licenses, however, are within the authority of the state. The church does not dictate to the state. The state does not dictate to the church. Why is this a problem, then?

If a religious sect or denomination does not believe in gay marriage, fine; don’t perform or recognize them. However, the state has the authority and expectation to issue licenses allowing marriage between two consenting adults. Regardless of gender. There is no reason to impose a gender requirement. If two people love each other, let them marry providing they are of legal age and can comprehend consent. The church community does not have to recognize such unions. They don’t even have to be labeled as marriages. Union would be good enough for me. The ‘legal community’ needs to recognize the union so wills, property rights, family and child care rights exist. And tax laws, too!

Simply put, it is not the function of churches to dictate to the state what facts are to be believed or not in this matter.

The third issue is gay adoption. There are many agencies that provide adoption services to couples wishing to add to their family by way of adoption. Many of these agencies are or have a background history of Roman Catholic charities. By church edict they are not allowed to process adoptions involving gay couples. Some of these agencies have shut down rather than be forced to go against their creed. I don’t have any problem with that. But gay couples should be allowed to adopt children for many reasons. First, they wish to have fulfilled the desire for building a family like any other couple. They should be allowed to do this. There are more children needing to be adopted than there are couples willing to take on the adoptions. That’s a sad state of affairs; because no research suggests gay couples would make unfit parents just because they are gay, they should be allowed to adopt children so each child has the best chance to experience a positive family life. Also, no research exists that shows conclusively that a child does better in a straight couple environment as opposed to a same sex couple setting. Research does find conclusively that children develop better within a family setting as opposed to a non-family (institutional) setting. My conclusion? Let gay couples adopt kids. Make sure the state has agencies that will process these adoptions without ruffling the feathers of the church based adoption agencies.

The fourth issue is teaching about gays in school curricula.  For parochial schools the churches are free to construct their curricula as they see fit. For public schools, however, religion does not enter the picture. School boards and school administrators need to exercise their professional understanding and authority in developing meaningful curricula. Gay people have existed from well before recorded history. They exist now. What about their lives might be important to learn by everyone, not just gay, or straight, but both? Why is this a problem? Is it because religion suggests that gay is a perversion and thus should be kept from underage kids? Just because religion says so, why does everyone else have to agree with them? Who is in charge of what facts are facts and what doesn’t pass the muster as fact? Let the churches do their thing. Let the rest of us do our thing as long as no one is harmed. What’s the big deal?

The fifth issue involves the divide between believers in creation versus evolution theory. The former is totally based on church dogma, not science. Evolution as a theory continues to be researched as a theory and the years pile up more and more evidence that evolution is legitimate science and explains how species came to be over eons of time, and how human kind developed through the ages to its modern “marvel.” But again, if churches wish to be left alone to believe and teach and learn what gives them meaning, let them be. Just don’t legislate their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Leave us to our reasoned thinking and understanding of the universe.

I am a gay man. I am a mature retired man. I have experienced the thrill of having a daughter and son. I have spent decades in churches and studying religion on a very serious basis. I have a healthy relationship with God. I have an unfolding sense of spiritual ‘rightness’ with the world and a working theology. It is basically a Christian belief structure I am invested in. It doesn’t always click with what my church teaches, but then I’m a work in progress! God know this and accepts it. Why can’t others?

November 30, 2011

Lobbying; How and Why

Lobbying has a role that is good and worthy. It is an effort to educate lawmakers so they do no unintended harm to something of value. The education is provided by an area of interest, let’s say an industry, technology, or an academic field that’s emerging from research roots.

An example of this: From 1965 to the present I have been attached as a member or an employee or consultant to the credit union movement. Most people would think of credit unions as financial institutions, something like a bank; but they are much different than that.. Credit unions are actually financial cooperatives and they have always served people of modest means. Over the years those ‘means’ grew to significantly to include middle and upper middle class families.  Credit unions are usually small non-profits and they cannot be lumped in with banking enterprises without being damaged.

The CU movement thus developed an education program to inform legislators and congressmen (both the Senate and House of Representatives). Over the years these efforts have placed credit union lobbying programs in the top ten most effective lobbying programs as determined by Congress itself. Along the way the education program has partnered with law makers in solving problems before they fully emerged, or solved existing problems while remaining positive within the entire financial services industry. Balance was maintained.

So, in summary, lobbying is a good thing if the ends are honorable and fair.

Lobbying earned a bad reputation, however, by following dishonorable objectives, primarily to influence legislation for special interests outcomes at the expense of the general population. Here are a few quick references:

·         Defense industry hires retiring military brass then using them as ‘in’ people to lobby congress for contracts and weapon systems that served the interest of the manufacturers rather than the broad needs of the nation’s defense capabilities

·         Revolving door relationships between congressional staffers or elected officials and specific industry lobbying groups solely for maximizing special interest influences (consider banking, investment brokerages, auto manufacturers, health insurance companies, etc.)

·         Political lobbying for ideologies; help raise campaign funds for elected officials in exchange for legislation on pet theories and political concepts

·         Political lobbying for religious issues or theologies; this is a much slippery slope than mere ideology. This arena involves national adoption of religious values by way of legislation. Here we include abortion laws, education curriculum mandates, inclusion of creationism versus evolution as educational precept, and more.

Along the way lobbying built on its bad boy image. Extremes were achieved and we note these results:

• Deficit spending labeled as bad; never mind it is a legitimate policy tool for managing the economy for productive ends; yes it can be overused; but it is not inherently bad. One must understand the field of economic theory before bad mouthing specific actions.
• Gay marriage debate is another non-issue that has much lobbying horsepower lined up against the concept. This is a religious tenet and not subject to legislative control other than wedding licenses
• Entitlement programs cast as our bane. Nonsense! Social Security and Medicare are programs that deliver much needed stability and quality of life to citizens who have paid for these programs through payroll taxes. They are due this form of respect. The trust funds for each of these programs have been raided by congress to pay for other things having nothing to do with Social Security or Medicare. To suggest that they are the reason for our deficit spending is an empty canard. If Congress would repay its debts to these trust funds and pay a reasonable return on the funds 'borrowed' both trust funds would be funded well into the future
• Defense budget as untouchable; to attempt to manage it properly is labeled treasonous or unpatriotic. Nonsense again! This is pure ideologies and special interest positioning.

These examples extend endlessly through each and every topic of discussion we can possibly think of. The enormity of influence peddling and manipulation has made us all circumspect of lobbyists. Too bad that the good they can do gets lost.

It has always seemed odd to me that the vast investment our country has made in education at all levels is not used more fruitfully to understand issues and development of solutions. If lawmakers developed a disciplined method to use educational institutions for research and advice, the performance of government might be enhanced greatly. Instead we ignore the trillions of dollars invested in educational research and rely on the self-serving and greedy lobbyists for input that is easily suspect.

How can we put a stop to this? Any ideas?

November 29, 2011

On Being Me

I really don’t want to sound selfish; it makes me squirmy, uncomfortable. But I feel the need to come clean on a few things.

First, I am not confident of what I believe from moment to moment. Logic helps me through a lot of material, but still I wonder if I’ve got it right in my mind. I think that is a good thing because it keeps me open; frustrating to live with, but open minded.

Second, I positively hate doing the grunt work of researching a lot of material. I rely instead on the gestalt of a topic. That is the overwhelming bulk of information and discussion that has already occurred on a topic, and how you feel about all of that. Gestalt is a term from psychology meaning ‘unified whole or shape of the whole’ in context and meaning. Relying on a gestalt can mislead my thinking. I may save time by not carefully researching something, but can easily stumble into an ancillary issue that destroys the credibility of the first issue being written about. So be forewarned!

Third, emotions play a strong role in my thinking. I seem to always struggle with what is fair. If someone plays the bully role, I’m there to counter it. If someone makes a strongly biased report in public, I tend to take an equally biased opposing view.

Problem is those tactics, mine, don’t always accomplish what I’m really trying to do. What is my objective? Well, really two:

            First, to ventilate my overburdened brain and unload the junk that has 

            accumulated on myriad issues; think of this as a form of personal therapy.

            Second, to sound a softer more logical voice in a chaotic mass of public

            information; think of this as bringing people to a better, more sustainable way

            of looking at important issues so we all can move on to more productive things.

If I can deliver on these objectives I hope to be a calmer person who thinks logically and brings articulated thinking to contentious issues. If that catches on my hope is our nation’s handling of these issues will be more productive and creative.

This requires that all of us do some basic retooling of our own thinking process:

• really try to remove emotion from the issues and our discourse on them
• actively ignore contentious material in print or electronic media
• seek opinions based on logic and fact; give those sources your support
• resolve to ask leaders for realistic and constructive solutions to public problems

If we do this I have confidence we can turn the tide in public discourse toward fruitful and worthwhile ends. Meanwhile civility among us all should improve. One can hope!

Just imagine what our social networking could be like! We could actually help educate each other, maintain a high level of social justice, and efficiently steer scarce resources where they are most needed for the overall good of our society. Idealistic I know. But it is work needing to be done. And it must be done by a large portion of our population. If we set expectations high, our leaders may follow suit.

Remember ours is a government Of, By and For the People. Abraham Lincoln said it best. And his goal, “that we shall not perish from the earth.” Now there’s a goal!

November 28, 2011

Stock Market Rollercoaster

Economics 101 states that all markets seek equilibrium; that is, a balance between what is offered for sale, and what is demanded for purchase. Supply and demand seek a balance of the forces which set price. What I’m willing to pay for something and what you are willing to accept for it establishes the value of that thing at that moment. Forces may be different in the next moment, and the price changes accordingly.

For supply and demand to work we have to have some basic trusts. First that the products to buy will be there; second, that you are willing to sell the product, let it go; third that supply is variable based on the willingness of others wishing to buy the same item and that the demand will continue. While it does the value of the thing in terms of price remains steady if not higher. If any of these things are lacking, the price/value disappears, or in the case of low supply and high demand, the price will soar.

The element of trust or feeling or faith is critical in the economic transaction. Without it commercial transactions fade away; they die.

Same with stock market values from day to day. One report touts market interest building over a few companies doing business in a select product area, and stock prices rise. Another report suggests caution and stock prices soften, maybe even decline. The effects of attention on the market affects price. Good times and good feelings boost market activity and values; the opposite is also true: poor feelings and weak economic jitters produce unstable market conditions and pricing.

Sometimes I wonder if the reporting is designed to create the instability. One day is good, another is bad. The mood swings are broad and swift, very short term. And the markets reflect it. Are they reporting on what the markets did or what the markets will likely do?

My observation: they try to anticipate mood and thus drive the market.

Just an observation. Why else would European debt problems produce deep dives in stock markets world wide one day, and then huge rises the next day? Just because someone reported a government or two were going to support the Euro during the crisis? But the following day doubts resume and markets drop precipitously.

Who profits from this? The markets and brokers themselves. The volume of stocks sold and bought earn them revenues. People attempting to build a market stake will want to influence the market so they can buy low and sell high. Someone always sells and buys. The price varies. Equilibrium, remember? But the people who handle the transactions are in the business to make money on the transaction, and maybe on the shifting positions in the market as well; in fact that is where the real money is made.

Just an observation……..One wonders who……..and why………

Am I a cynic? Maybe; but probably not. Just being realistic after years of watching. Watching.

November 26, 2011

Blog Comments

This blog is new, less than 2 months old. It’s off to a good start. 60 posts in 50 days. Every day. The blog is read; over 2000 hits. There have been comments to individual postings, too. Each is enjoyed and appreciated. But I have also learned that some readers are having trouble making comments using the blog’s procedure. I’m not sure what that is about. I’ll look into it and share with you the easiest way to comment on the sire.

Over Thanksgiving I learned some people have been commenting regularly but I haven’t received any of those comments! So back to the drawing board!

One reader asked me to share my ideas on answering my own questions. Not sure I have the answers. I’m good at questions! They make me think. Hopefully they provoke that in you as well?

I will attempt to answer some of those questions. It would be a good exercise to revisit past postings and see what answers are possible. I can’t do this alone. I will need your help to add ideas. Maybe together we can come up with usable answers?

So stay tuned. We will work on this together.

November 26, 2011

Flapdoodler

Flapdoodle means nonsense, rubbish, bosh, hogwash.

Purveyors of flapdoodle are everywhere. As close as the TV or radio, certainly on the Internet and in hundreds of thousands of blogs.

But let’s focus on just one flapdoodler. Newt Gingrich. He is a rich example. Let us count the ways:

1. He touts sanctity of marriage yet is divorced twice, married three times
2. He touts fidelity in contracts and marriage; yet is divorced twice because of infidelity
3. He believes in honest dealing with others because it is the right thing to do. Yet he took book advances for political tomes
4. He took funds under false pretences while Speaker of the House and was disciplined by the House Ethics Committee; he resigned from the position, and from his congressional seat
5. He spouts freedom of religion yet insists on preaching narrow dogma to exclude others from the grace of a loving God
6. He is a college history professor and teaches an arcane political viewpoint without the academic credentials or source references in the field
7. He argues against lobbyists yet became one once he left congress
8. He was in the employ of Fannie Mae to the tune of $1.6 million dollars helping Fannie Mae diffuse attention to their problems during the mortgage melt down
9. He is friends with Wall Street commercial lenders, commercial banks, regular banks, investment houses and the mortgage industry; all of these were bailed out during George Bush’s TARP program and Barack Obama’s stimulus program. Yet he decries corporations feeding at the public trough!
10. He condemns big government involvement yet supported TARP and helped create the financial debacle that his party fostered in the first place; and that required TARP and the stimulus programs to fix
11. He doesn’t just disagree with Gay Marriage; he feels it would destroy freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and our democracy as we know it; and yet never provides the rationale of that position
12. He has stated that the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators should get a job and take a bath; he also has stated the demonstrators are occupying parks, streets and transit for which they have not paid taxes to produce; how does he know? Whose taxes paid for these items; his alone? No, OWS protestors pay taxes; many are working and sympathetic to those who are not; but they also are underemployed and decry that condition
13. He bewails those who speak up to alert the nation to the needs of the majority while the tiniest minority reaps most of the benefits of the American ‘system’
14. He spouts one liners and sound bite pearls of wisdom but none have content

In short he deals in flapdoodle. A lot of sound signifying nothing. And the reason he is often smiling is because he knows he is getting away with it.

The media, often assumed to be liberal biased, are really sopping up to conservative rhetoric; they want you to think they are being fair; they also see this as a direct challenge to President Obama. Yet they do not carry the opposite view. In this way news is made and audience is developed. Think ratings.

What they should be doing is determining fact from fiction and reporting on that. But it is easier to traffic in half truths and sound bites they know will rankle. So the media is actually a partner with the flapdoodlers. The American public doesn’t seem to care one whit about this. Is that because they enjoy this scrapping in public? Or is it because they simply can’t be bothered to do the hard work of discernment?

It takes time to read and study. It takes time to weigh evidence. It takes effort to analyze facts and determine which public utterances from Newt Gingrich are fiction. It seems like good entertainment.

Shame on the public. Shame on the media. But the biggest shame is on Newt. He should know better. In fact he does. He plays this game with the public all the time and he often wins doing it! But he is an intelligent person who deals in flapdoodle because he thinks he can sell trash as gold. And he does.

Shame on all of us.

November 26, 2011

Maggie Daley Mourned

Chicago and the metropolitan area lost a warm and personable lady last night when Maggie Daley died from cancer at age 68. Wife of Mayor Richard M. Daley for 40 years, she was the city's First Lady for 22 years. A gracious prsence that softened the context of the Mayor's hectic political life, Maggie Daley became an icon of loveliness and civility.

We will miss her and extend our sympathy to all in her family.

November 25, 2011

Hurt Feelings; Are we Listening?

What hurts our feelings? What brings us to attention? What spur was present to do that? And why did we react the way we did?

Normal feeling is quietude. Witness the minor happenings around me. This is my day. This is my life.

A news report. An email. An internet report. TV program, news or documentary. Thread of a story emerges. The noise of the day crescendos. Getting louder now. More audible and visible. Intruding on my quiet. Can’t ignore its presence anymore.

What to focus on. Which grabs my attention? Why? Is it pleasant or negative? Does it alarm me or comfort? Why does it matter?

News story that provides continuing support of a previous story. Unfolding presence of the story. Mind grappling with it. Let’s see which one this morning burst through the quiet to get my attention? Was that a planned interruption to my day?

Occupy Wall Street movement is the topic. Reporters have stopped some participants on the street. Interviewing them. Asking a few questions. They start their comments; they build off of each other’s. Story expands. Emotion builds. Their anger and frustration is evident. Political comments have been made and they have reacted. They feel the righteous indignation of being misunderstood. Beginning to feel the misunderstanding is actually a put on; a critical comment against their movement.

Occupy Wall Street. A movement. Why does it exist? Is it a manipulation by a few just to make noise? Is it a tool to be adopted by trouble makers to upset the establishment? The wealthy? The smug? The selfish? Why do we even use these words together. Are they really helping us understand the milieu or gestalt of the issue, its context?

Probably not, but the emotion suggests otherwise. Let’s see if we can piece it together.

• OWS complains about greed of Wall Street, the financial establishment of the nation; does that stick together?
• Conservative politicians (Newt Gingrich for one) suggests OWS demonstrators  get a job and a bath; is that political hard ball without substance? Or a valid observation?
• OWS supporters lumped together as misfits and malcontents; are they?
• Movement characterized as undisciplined and leadership-less; how true is this?
• Police justified or not in removing protestors from public spaces?
• Police behavior justified in their job in handling the protestors?
• Who is seeking control of the situation? Which situation are we speaking of? The one where public authorities feel a responsibility to maintain public order? Or the one in which protestors have a message to deliver?
• Does the movement require a protest environment to make the message heard?
• Is the targeted audience hearing the message? Can they hear it? Will they allow themselves to hear it?
• Is the message skewed and dishonest? Or is it pointed and on the mark?
• If the parties to the message, the senders and hearers, connect, will this do any good?
• If yes, why and how?
• If not, why and how?

Lots of people are out of work. Many are working but at low paying jobs, much lower paid than what they were earning several months or a few years ago. Mortgages are paid with extreme difficulty. Health matters are put off for financial reasons. Food and diets are slimmed down; way down. Help is needed to fix the situation. Understanding the situation is critical. What broke down? Why did it break down? Beyond the blame, the “who, what and how” has to be assembled to repair the brokenness that is so evident.

We have an open social history. We are a people seeking connection and meaning and meaningful paths of life. We are educated and intelligent. For those who are less educated, they are still intelligent. We are the backbone of the social network, the fabric of our nationhood. And yet we are being yelled at even while we speak of our hurt and problems. Ours is a vocal culture. We speak up. Our nation was built on this. We share our ideas. Our culture requires this to make a stronger social fabric. We work together. We create together. We celebrate our successes together.

We are family. We care.

Yet we conduct wars. Wars of ideas. Misunderstandings that expand well beyond the narrow base from which they began. Are we ready for a fight?

If we are, can we listen to the central facts of the message without distorting it out of a sense of defense or bias? It’s a challenge to be open. It’s hard to hear another’s voice. It is even more difficult to hear beyond the social context or cultural conditioning.

Our words are taken out of context so often. People jump to conclusions as to what we meant. They choose to fight that interpretation, but they are the ones doing the interpreting. And how wrong they often are! We are!

The hurt. Disappointment. How much is avoidable? How do we help make avoidance possible and healthy at the same time? How do we regroup and begin the conversation over, this time with positive intent and result? With respect?

Have we poisoned the communication network fatally? Or is there still life left in it to use wisely?

November  25, 2011

Moments of Pause

Early morning, quiet. Coffee is made. Clean dishes removed from dishwasher and put away. Emails are read. Internet sites scanned. Just posted today’s blog. Now pausing to contemplate what next to write about.

Today is Thanksgiving Eve. Nothing on schedule but evening church service; we are on the worship team. Time seems to be at a pause.

Awoke early. Thoughts floating in and out. What’s ahead today and the next few?

Well, Thanksgiving of course. But really it’s about family.

Son called me yesterday afternoon while he was driving back from Madison, Wisconsin; business meeting. Dark gloomy rainy day; sleepy day for driving; sky meets road and it all blends together. Water spray on windshield, constant misted blur. Side windows dripping, dripping, wind directed drips into interesting patterns. Music blaring to keep awake. Call Dad. Nice. Reassuring all is well. A reminder we will get together very soon.

Thanksgiving Day schedule shaping up; a little hectic. Sister in Law is first on the schedule. She is still adjusting her life a year after losing her Joseph. We shared last year’s Thanksgiving with her exclusively. Her dinner was super good! Small gathering but a gathering of granddaughters emerged to share the day with her and maybe future years as well? This year, yes; a sign of family connections taking shape in different patterns. Important patterns. A continuation of family ties; this time in new ways. Good.

Next on the schedule is the feast at my daughter’s home. Son in law and two granddaughters. Son and his bride will be there. Ex-wife and her husband will join us. And two of our dogs, too. Families take many shapes. In-laws. Exes; and their new partners. Dogs. Pets. They are all part of the mix. They each have meaning and purpose. Nice to gather like this.

Then on to yet another family gathering; this time it is my new daughter in law at her family’s evening open house. Lots of new family members to get to know better. Share our memories of the recent wedding that cinched our futures together. New family connections. New cultures to embrace. New tapestries of life to weave and feel and touch.

This is family. This is connectedness. It is not always so. There are eruptions and dislocations.

My partner’s family is one such. Broken marriage. Bitterness for 18+ years. Estranged relations that upset connections with two sons. One is a new homeowner, married to his sole mate; three boys from two homes concentrically forming a family; shared with two other homes in this modern age. The other son estranged by marriage partner; three granddaughters, each lovely and competent and maturing well. But not shared with us. Walls built to protect her fiefdom however strangely imagined. Do it her way or no way. Granddaughters access is ransom to her bidding. What does this do to them, the girls over the many years of life?

Two clans of family. One morphing into the future with eyes, minds and arms open to possibility. The other closing doors; sealed from new life; marginalized by themselves.

Two families. One vital. One not.

Interesting commentary on life posed by these two families. How much is intentional behavior. How much is acquired by serendipity? How much is selfish and self defeating? How much does this transfer to other walks of life we must take to survive?

And then the larger question: how much of this inward focus bleeds to society’s attempt at getting along with one another? Is this where fissures begin? Is this where beliefs and hurt feelings twist the body politic? Is the health of the American psyche actually a report card on the healthy relations of families?

Might be a topic worthy of study. Maybe sooner, not later?

May your Thanksgiving be blessed with the good things of life: family, friends, food and the warmth these all provide. Whatever shape they take, or are in!

November 24, 2011

Fixing the Deficit

Bernie Sanders serves in Congress as an Independent Senator from Vermont.  On November 18, 2011 while in a Senate Budget Committee hearing, he stated the following:

“This country does in fact have a serious deficit problem. But the reality is that the deficit was caused by two wars – unpaid for. It was caused by huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country. It was caused by a recession as result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street. And if those are the causes of the deficit, I will be damned if we’re going to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children, and the poor. That’s wrong.”

That is the most concise statement of fact concerning the deficit I have seen in print yet. Bravo Senator Sanders! And he did it without blaming an individual, an ideology or a political party. Another Bravo, Sen. Sanders!!

There is no doubt that the national debt is a serious issue. There is no doubt that annual deficit spending is another serious issue. But we must also remember some mechanics of the economy that are true:

• Deficit spending stimulates the economy by creating more money and credit for others to spend and invest in further economic activity
• Too much deficit spending in an economy that is roaring along would produce inflation: too many dollars chasing too few goods; supply and demand gets out of balance and the economy seeks a new point of equilibrium.
• Too balanced a budget, and no stimulus is created; the economy slows a bit
• Cutting the national debt, paying it down a bit, sucks money and credit out of the economy and slows it down. It contracts or shrinks economic activity.
• These three policy steps help manage the economy.

Our economic condition is one of recession: too little economic activity to keep available labor from fuller utilization. Cutting deficit spending worsens this condition. Spending deficit dollars boosts the economy. The new deficit gets paid from increased taxes on an improving economy.

Counter intuitive I know. We don’t expect the economy to work this way. But it does. Of course there are other complicating factors which make the above policy practice more challenging, but basically it works the way I outlined it.

Our unemployment rate is hovering between 9 and 10 %. Economists generally agree that 9 or 10% of current workers are underemployed, that is, working at lower paying jobs that are not fully using the worker’s talents and skill sets. The lower income recesses that household’s financial health, and that fact, multiplied by millions of households, means the economy will be dampened, or further recessed.

With $3 trillion of available cash in corporate and banking coffers sitting on the sidelines, investment in new industries, technology and business opportunities has stalled and also keeps the economy in a recessed condition. Tax policy in the past and present rewards the investor so that is not the cause of the treasure trove sitting idly by. What may be the prime contributor is lack of confidence in the American political leadership. Decision making is stalled. This is unsettling to business interests.

Oddly, politicos blame the president; others blame congress. The truth is, the President has led with good, bi-partisan ideas and program proposals. Congress, however, has the sole authority to fund those programs and authorize implementation. Political wars in Congress have stalemated the very engine our nation needs to get the economy going again. Ironic, isn’t it? The schoolyard bullies (republicans in this instance) are saying their approval of corrective actions to benefit the economy will empower the President, and they don’t want him to get the credit. They want him to lose the next election in 2012. What they fail to see is that corrective action earns credit for both sides in the dispute. They have to work together to serve the nation. Both get credit for solving the problem. No one gets the credit if the problem is not solved.

This high stake game is damaging the country. Millions of families are losing their homes, their paychecks, their food, their health insurance, their self respect. Countless houses sit empty and their numbers expand with increasing foreclosure rates. Housing prices (most of household wealth in America) have dropped greatly, and continue to sink.

At this rate it will take years of austerity to right the ship of America.

It doesn’t have to be this way. To say otherwise is irresponsible political rhetoric.

It will take courage for politicians to address this situation honestly and forthrightly. We need to get back to reality, and implement these fixes:

1.      Reinstate the income tax rates on the top 3% of income earners

       2.      Establish an infrastructure replacement program to rebuild railroads, public
              transportation, highways, bridges, water and sewer systems, and the electrical grid; bring all
              of these support systems into the modern age as quickly as possible

3.      Create a mortgage foreclosure program that funds underwater loans until homeowners get back on their feet; this will take 10 years of guarantees to do the trick and in the meanwhile boost confidence within the banking community so they will lend money again for investment in new industries

4.      Provide an education renewal program to upgrade the way we educate our children: intellectual development based on student interest, lifelong learning initiatives to help people adapt to changing conditions throughout their lifetime, improved financing methods that help states and regions fund education without hogtying property owners.

5.      Invent new energy sources and industries to replace the oil standard which continues in spite of declining oil reserves.

One other solution to be installed. This one by the voters: Vote only for candidates who offer solid program proposals in place of rhetoric. Get doers back in the House and Senate and give the boot to do-nothings!

The future is now and always has been in the hands of voters. However, to elect intelligent doers, we must do our homework and understand the issues and the facts. It takes hard work. Are we up to the task? If we aren’t,  I think the very future of democracy is in peril.

November 23, 2011

Right President, Wrong Congress!

In so many ways it seems we have the right President but the wrong Congress! What a shame!

Skip political wars. Suppress ideology and its circuitous logic. Focus on the issues. The things that are clearly in front of our faces. The array of solutions to those issues. Try to keep ideology out of it. Reduce the issues to their specific details. And worth.

I know it will be difficult to do this, but we must. The alternative is endless debate and manipulation of the decision process which solves nothing and allows the problems to get worse and more difficult to solve. If ever!

There is work to be done. And unless I’m missing something basic, I think the American public wants the work to be done.

There is much political noise going on right now. But I think we need to take stock. Gaze over these items:

• Republicans are staging a ‘great debate’ among their presidential candidates; so far the party isn’t even excited about their own prospects, let alone the public!
• Mitt Romney appears to have staying power in both the public’s mind and in polls; no one else seems to have really caught on
• Despite claims, the public is not disillusioned with President Obama
• Public disillusionment rests with the entire political scene. The system appears to be nonfunctional, or dysfunctional at best
• Republicans do know how to stick to a scripted message. It’s all about being against Obama; its all about deficit spending; its all about ineffective leadership; or a dozen other supposed agenda items
• But the President remains constant in his positions: the problems belong to the American people; the elected machinery in congress and state legislatures have the power and authority to manage the problems; presidential leadership presents the problems and potential solutions before the public and the authorities for action. It is the latter who have been found lacking
• Cooperation and collaboration will help work through our shared problems; but the political system has not worked together for some time; they remain stymied by their own hunger for power and greed
• The deficit reduction process went awry because Congress couldn’t agree on the basics
• The deficit reduction committee can’t agree even now, even with huge penalties to their ideologies if they fail; they still can’t do the work
• The problems have not gone away. They still beg for attention and reasoned solution

The American Public may be easily diverted from time to time. They have much on their mind. But they are not stupid. They know who is holding the nation captive. And it is not President Obama.

Congress, do your job. That goes equally for Democrats and Republicans. The public is watching. So is the world community.

Shame!

November 22, 2011

Thanksgivings Past and Present

Turkeys, giblet gravy, mashed potatoes, green beans cooked encassarole with French fried onions, cranberry sauce, hot rolls and butter, and pies, both pumpkin and apple, both accompanied with vanilla ice cream or fresh whipped cream, maybe both!

Year after year. The only change was who was gathered around the table and the size of the bird. Larger ones as our numbers grew, smaller as our core family shrank with distance, marriages and births.

I’ve celebrated Thanksgiving in Altadena, California, and also the Mojave Desert and Glendora, California. Then Pittsfield, Massachusetts, East Syracuse, New York, Chicago, Oak Park, Palos Heights, Wheaton, Kildeer, St. Charles, Barlett. All in Illinois for the non natives among you! And now Warrenville.

Different venues but no menu change. Different people all reaching out to weave the clan together in new patterns. No gifts, just each other’s presence, and the food; of course the food!

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. It is all about good people and good food. No other hoopla or special doings. It is a time to share among family and very good friends.

Simply put, we give thanks for each other and the lives we share. And we are thankful for our blessings however plentiful or not.

Compare this with the hubbub surrounding Christmas. Many of the same people. Many of the same places. Similar menus laden dining tables. Travel from distant sites to join others. Reunions, some of damaged relationships, many tearful and joyous for many different reasons. Christmastime is for families to gather, and to introduce new family members. Unlike Thanksgiving, the Yuletide does not usually include friends unless they are unattached and traveling far from their families.

And then there is Easter. A happy time with serious religious meaning. But in the secular American community it is the harbinger of spring and the rebirth of plants and trees as they shake off the cold slumber of winter. Christmas is also a religious holiday but less so year after year. Rather than celebrating the Christ child as a redemptive power among mankind, the Yule is a season of celebrating new beginnings and hope, a welcome to winter as we complete another calendar year. It is a time to share our bounty with others in material ways. Thanksgiving is unencumbered by religion. It is pure and untrammeled. It is all about sharing self with others.

As we settle into chairs around the Thanksgiving table this year, let us give thanks for each other. Give thanks for the blessings which give health to us, food for our bodies, and meaning for our minds to ponder and revel in. This holiday is special to each of us in our own individual way. May it be special to you and yours on this very special day.

In Illinois and New England, as fall takes root, trees are fully bare of leaves, and gray skies and cool temperatures take hold of our environment, warm and cozy inside time is special. A great time of year to be indoors, share a closeness with family, and aromas of slow cooking food. Are you ready for yet for Thanksgiving? I am. Can’t wait! Its about the only time I appreciate the onset of winter cold, snow and ice! But inside, aaahhhhh!

November 22, 2011

Spherical Thinking

Contemplate a globe. A ball. Round and equidistant surfaces in true arcs. Poles are not evident. Not needed unless an axis is? A balance point? Is the ball spinning? Need it do so to have meaning?

Surface bodies. Are they part of the surface or resting atop? Are they clinging or resting by gravity? Are they related to other surface bodies? If so, how? To what extent?

Dynamic forces. Are they present? Are the laws of nature having an effect? What of intellect? How is it functioning? Are the surface bodies needing to interact with one another? How do they know they exist or even need to communicate in order to interact?

Ideas. On the surface. Below the surface. How far down? How deep do they penetrate the surface? Are there substrata of ideas there? If down below, what might be above the surface? How far does it extend? Is there a superstructure associated with this phenomenon?

Complexity. Grows. Wonders. Needs more,…..something. Ideas? Facts? What?

Interdependence. Of surface bodies? Or more? If so, what?

Where am I going with this? I think it relates to understanding how individuals think and relate their thinking to other people and their thoughts. Establishing meaning seems to be a motivation behind this effort. And then the expansion of the thinking, knowing more of what the ideas mean, try to capture or articulate so together we understand our world better. The striving to know. Is this a critical, dynamic behavior of mankind?

Maybe.

But another is competition. Not for resources alone. Not for wealth. Not for space. But for something else. Pre-eminence? Power? Influence? What?

Ideas. How to think. How should we process ideas in a way that helps others understand. Education. Function of. Expansion of. Direction of. Purpose of. Changing, always changing.

Two dimensionality of thinking. Three dimensional thinking. Four dimensional thinking. Each expansion of dimensionality adds vastly to the complexity. But also the illumination it may shed?

Try this intellectual exercise:

Picture a horizontal line. On the left is Liberal thought; on the right is Conservative thought; in the middle lots of room to interact between the two polar opposites. Let the two camps think to logical extensions their points of view, why they are important; where they will lead us; why they re important; who should be involved in this; how to plan the ascension of this thought pattern or philosophy to the rest of society.

How do the two camps reach out to each other? How do they interact? What do they share? To what effect? Is there active borrowing of concepts between the two? Are each clarifying the other? Is there a valuable building of a shared understanding of each?

Might there be a building of a middle ground between the two poles? Is this middle ground taking on its own distinct character? Is it becoming a third option of thinking?

Take the horizontal line. Extend it out farther to both the left and the right. How far can we extend the line? Is it infinite? Does it pull the thought process to ridiculous heights and absurdity? If so, does it have an end point? Does it have a conclusion which sums up the value of the liberal or conservative point of view?

Now take a sphere. From the above exercise, apply the horizontal line on the surface of the sphere. What happens to the line? Does it extend around the sphere? Does it create an equator? A line that girds the sphere and meets on the far side of the globe? What questions does this raise?

Do the two philosophical values, liberal and conservative, meet on the far side of the sphere? Do they mingle or collide? Or do they provide a fresh perspective. An Aha moment!? Could they possibly be much the same when taken to extremes?

A continuum of thought. Ideas pursuing ends. Farther and farther apart. Until—bang!---they meet. What does it tell us?

I think it tells us this: any political philosophy taken to its extreme becomes a mirror image of its opposite. They become so similar that they are shown to be identical. They got there by different paths, but they now are reduced to their irreducible elements and Pow! They are the same.

But we see this only if we envision a spherical construct for processing thought.

You know what’s scary? What if we added the fourth dimension; space around the sphere? And the fifth dimension; subterranean space within the globe. Five dimensions. How would this improve our thinking? Creating? Would we use this for positive purposes or negative? How do we proceed with this concept? Who do we trust to do it? Can we do it? What are we reaching for?

What are we reaching for?

November 21, 2011

Taking Stock

Writing this blog has benefited me. I am less testy about news items; I still think much of the news focuses on dumb topics; I still see important events and subject matter mishandled, usually because it is grossly misunderstood; I have articulated my point of view on many issues; that has allowed me to vent.

I have learned that articulating isn’t always easy; no wonder there are so many points of view! I have accepted that there is too much junk fighting for our attention; I have learned that I can do little alone to counter all of these things. But I still believe that each of us can make a difference so I remain positive.

Those are the big ideas I’ve to terms with. Not dealing with this stuff rankles me; stewing and festering yields some creative energy. Somehow I know some issues are inevitable. Maybe in the long term they may even be unimportant.

The things that are important and in public view don’t always end badly. I’m becoming aware that the invisible public hand eventually allows justice to prevail. Perhaps slowly or late in coming, but eventually, yes!

I guess this means I am a positive thinker. I believe in the basic goodness of mankind.

To the cynics among us this does not mean I am delusional. I know the flaws of being human. I understand how those flaws interact and make for more problems. Somehow we handle them and move on. Someway we cooperate with one another to get good things done. We even know how to collaborate from time to time. Those are high points on the journey! Creative. Effective. Rewarding to see people coalesce for good results.

OK, let me change the channel here. What have I learned that isn’t so good?

Well, to start with, I realize I have been cranking out a lot of material on a daily basis, 7 days a week, sometimes twice a day. And I developed a routine to write daily, and prepare a few days in advance. The more I wrote the more I cranked out stuff.

Not all of it very good. That’s a good thing to realize about yourself!

So, I’m reworking the plan. Write about things that matter, now and in the long term. Unfold it more carefully. Feel the beat of the issue, its own tempo. Don’t push it. Above all, don’t be concerned about how others will react. It is not about others. It is about ideas and what they mean and how they can be used productively with other ideas. No known objective yet; just to keep my mind from exploding, or imploding! This is self therapy in a way. A big way, actually.

Maybe the discipline I develop will produce better content for the blog. Maybe that product will come daily, or less often. Perhaps it will be more attractive for others to dialogue with the material.

I must admit I appreciate comments made in response to the blog, but I haven’t invested the time to respond to comments yet. Too early? Maybe. But I do want the dialogue, so please feel free to comment any time.

I’m also trying to understand what is a good length for a daily article. Is 500 words too much? Or 800? Perhaps the content should be serialized to maintain digestible offerings.

I’ll play with that and see where it goes.

Meanwhile I appreciate those of you who follow this blog. The numbers are not important. But having an ‘audience’ does require me to exercise discipline and temper. It’s important knowing you are out there reading the blog.

Thanks for being a partner!

November 20, 2011

Building Up and Tearing Down

It takes a long time to learn how to do something. Practice makes us better at it. Confidence allows doubts to fall away; and Presto! Creative talent blossoms and amazing things follow. It becomes almost art.

The process repeats itself as each musician learns his art; it starts as learning a craft, then the art emerges if talent is true and deep. And discipline is dedicated to it. Artur Rubenstein must have had this experience. Of course when he stepped upon the world stage he was already amazing. The rest of his career was spent building on that perfection. His skills at making music were unparalleled. A genius we said.

With athletes I imagine the same sort of process applies. The athlete comes to know his body and its potential, explores skills and develops strength and agility. Later the talents take it to a much higher level of achievement. Like Roger Staubaugh, Lance Armstrong, Walter Peyton, Tiger Woods….how many more can we name? But surely it becomes a long, long list.

Artists in other visual and performing arts must also follow this line of development.

They each build toward excellence. And we the public watch with mouths agape as they excel. We marvel at their accomplishments. We slowly come to appreciate them highly, anticipate their next achievement, even think them heroic, models of perfection.

And then a fault appears, a flaw or mistake, or misstatement, something that reminds us they are human.

We have participated in their ascent to the heights of becoming a paragon. Surely we didn’t lose sight of their humanity? Their inevitable weaknesses in other compartments of their lives? Some of us despair because perfection in others is a caustic reminder of our own lacking. Some of us seek imperfections of those we honor and adore. Some greedily hunt for possible failure so they can report it, harp on it, feel better about their own failings and imperfections.

And then the process begins. A press report, a photo of the idol in a weak moment, followed by paparazzi hounding the ‘star’ and internet and TV gossip outlets berating the failures of the once admired person.

Think Tiger Woods as a shining example. A star in the world of golf. A multicultural person with enormous talents. A person who was a model to so many, athlete and non-athlete alike. But Tiger encountered the same difficulties of life we all face. Oh he had some troubles we only wish we had! He had a lot of money, a towering income, public recognition, fame; you name it, he had it.

The problem is that those good things of fortune also create pressures, stressful situations to be navigated. What does this stress do to our temper, our peace of mind, our relationships? Especially our family relationships – kids, spouse, nuclear family? Then there are our business associates, social contacts and neighbors.

Relationships shift with time pressures and focal points in daily living. Errors begin to happen; oh they were always there like for the rest of us, but now they are getting noticed under the glare of fame.

And suddenly the public tide shifts. Now we begin to deride, to criticize, to pummel, yes, to tear down.

We do it all the time. This is more pronounced in political circles than anywhere else, but it is often in the world of athletics. Performance is king. That’s the measure of perfection. The best is honored and titled the Best! But someone else is always coming along and improving, following his own developmental path. He will challenge the champion. He will eventually take the championship away. But need we tear down the old to ensconce the new?

Tiger Woods is an incredible model of hard work, talent, discipline and success. He is also a model of what it means to be human. Yet we somehow take the latter too far and poke holes in the image until the model lies in ruins.

Why is that? Headlines frequently tout the current failure of Tiger Woods; that report is done with a tinge of glee. How sad. He is still the guy who achieved remarkable things. Let’s just accept he is in a new phase of his life and leave him alone.

There are other athletes in his arena. He still golfs. But others are making their record and it is their time. Tiger remains in view and ought to; he set the bar of excellence very high. Now others will fight to surpass his mark of excellence. That is a very good thing.

Tearing down the idol is not a good thing. It abases us; for listening to it, hearing it, allowing this ‘noise’ of bad taste to poison us.

Best to let it be.

November 19, 2011

Why "Occupy Wall Street" is Important

I’m sure there are many who don’t agree with me on this, but I think the OWS movement is important. Why? Because it:

• States public dissatisfaction with the effects of Wall Street greed over the past 20 years
• Points out the failure of government regulations
• Identifies favored classes of people protected and coddled by our very own society
• Tells the story of poor being demonized
• Shows how victims are being blamed for their own situation
• Demonstrates how the middle class has been neutralized

Of course OWS has many others climbing on the bandwagon. That’s when the message gets laden with unintended content. But then, this is a group/mob leadership dynamic, not a well thought out organizational structure with clear leadership roles identified. Until that emerges the movement moshes along trying to keep focus on the primary arguments.

Will it develop staying power to be around long enough to make a difference? There is no way of answering that question at this time.

There are powers stacking against it. But there is a surprising resiliency that has kept OWS in the public eye much longer than some would have supposed. Even me?

The movement, if we can call it that, recalls the anti-war movement of the 1960’s. Then that movement was laden with ‘flower power’, Haight-Ashbury themes, the street drug culture, and much more. The music and dress of the time was bizarre but refreshing. And from this environment came the sexual revolution which changed the American social landscape forever. All of this was fascinating. Some of it was scary. Even disturbing. But necessary I think for the USA to grow up and become more adult about the social intersection of self and public. The taboos of puritan America kept healthy sex drives in the closet. And those were the heterosexual drives. But from this milieu the Gay Pride movement was born. That was a healthy development. Our gay brothers and sisters were finally recognized as ‘normal’ and we all got on with the business of living.

Seems to me if a movement is truly a movement, a few pieces have to be in place:

1. A wrong has to be clearly identified for public acknowledgement
2. A sense of what caused the wrong to become one has to be present; not necessarily judged fully yet, but becoming such over time
3. A sense of public responsibility for the wrong and a need to correct it
4. Maybe an emergent sense of ‘who is to blame’ but this is not really needed; just a sense that all is not right in some arenas and correction is needed
5. An argument for social justice swells with growing clarity
6. Change begins to be engineered with those in authority

If the movement swerves too far from its intended path, it becomes fractured and increasingly ineffective. Leadership changes may resurrect it but that’s iffy.

America was founded by movements. Even revolution. And it was messy and disturbing. But time has found it to have been right.

It is too early for us to judge the Occupy Wall Street movement. It’s time is just beginning.

The real cause for alarm is our willingness to listen, to pay attention. It seems we have or else the movement would be over already. So perhaps enough of us are listening to give credence to the movement?

If so, who is against this movement? Clearly the Wall Street denizens who refuse to accept culpability for the failure of markets, regulations, and overwhelming greed which has nearly led the American economy to its grave! And the world economy, too! Let us not lose sight of the exported American greed which has severely damaged the Common Market.

But also local mayors and governors are fighting the movement. Apparently they see this as a threat to public order, their order. And they are loosing police squadrons on the demonstrators washing them with pepper spray, stun guns, riot shields and batons, in addition to the at times deadly use of force, rubber bullets and propelled smoke grenades. This in America. The land of the free and free speech. The right to peaceably assemble. The right to redress government wrong. The home of the brave, too. What’s going on here?

This is not government leadership or enforcement. It is more like police thuggery.

We had a time in the ‘60’s like this. Remember when it got out of hand? Some people were scared by the apparent lawlessness. But nothing of today’s movement even comes close to those developments back then.

Are we listening? Will we listen? Do the people have a point that needs society’s full attention and redress?

I’m not sure. But I’m more than halfway there in agreement. Where are you?

November 18, 2011

Random Thourghts

Today a few random thoughts.

I fell yesterday. After sitting for two hours in a meeting, I left the building and the next thing I realized was falling; out the door of the building; was in the process of holding the door open for a couple of people following me out; next thing I knew for sure I was on the outdoor pavement. The downward motion was quick but seemed in slow motion. Fell flat on my back and the back of my head hit the pavement softly. Two people helped me to my feet. I felt sheepish and vulnerable.

Rest of the day I kept checking for symptoms of any damage. None except for stiffened muscles in wrists, hands and neck. Must have clenched during the fall in an attempt to regain control while falling. Realized I missed the bottom step of the doorway, thus lost footing, then balance, then boom.

At my age this can be an issue. Glad it wasn’t. But it still makes you wonder, and wonder.

Our bi-weekly community newspaper went to press today; will hit the street tomorrow. Am pleased at the central focus of community work and volunteerism covered in this issue. This was not the intention. It just is because of events. Last week the chamber of commerce recognized significant volunteer action by 15 people. Held a banquet with all the trimmings. A great event. Will become annual award recognition venue I think. Good to pat good people on the back for work no one else thinks important at the time; but it is; vital, in fact, to keep a community effective, and to provide quality of life opportunities. Some awardees active in significant ways for 50 years. Others for 30 or 40 years. Amazing.

Then we participated in a long-range planning input meeting for our local library. 28 volunteers present. Led by professional facilitators. Meeting came alive and richly offered ideas the library can use and adopt. Excitement in the room as ideas not only flowed but connected and expanded on offered themes. Productive and creative. Some people, yes even the oldest ones there, offered ideas of clarity and probity leaping into the far future! Challenged us to think outside the box. Wow! You want this stuff to happen, but seeing it in action from all sorts of people from different backgrounds was truly exciting. We all left the 3 hour session ‘floating on air’. Two days later people were still talking about the experience so I wasn’t the only one appreciating the process.

The two previous items are related. Volunteerism. But more. Leadership. That leads to another topic. The condition of leadership in America today.

First off, where is it? Normally we saw it in action on the national stage; in congress; on the TV talk shows like Face the Nation, Meet the Press, and such like programs. We also observed leadership in news articles concerning foreign affairs, crisis interventions regarding serious national calamities (forest fires, tornadoes, blizzards, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.). Now we see incivility among politicians. People attempting to be newsmakers. We also see rude public behavior meant to be disrespectful of public officials. One can understand this.

But it is not a good thing. The public office should be respected. Maybe not the office holder, but the office needs to be honored. The office really is our own, the public’s. These are the functions we need to have performed under our authority. If the office holder isn’t doing the job, then replace the person. The office, though, needs to be upheld. Hold the person accountable, and find someone who can do the job. That’s our job to do, the voter. Not doing that job well makes for lousy performers in office.

Leadership. What is it? Perhaps some definitive elements would include:

• Knowledgeable of the area of expertise
• Forward thinking; 5 or 10 years in the future
• Not just focused on the present; manages the present, but looks for clues of the future
• Educates staff on delineations of present and future; tension of becoming
• Educates public on these same issues helping them to understand the journey from the present to the future and why it is important
• Constantly looking for ways to serve human needs now and in the future
• Continues to think on avoiding problems,  eliminating them

Do you see many of these leadership qualities today? If so, where?

We need leadership in government to be sure, but also in our companies, employers, institutions; schools; also in local settings and regional. Not just national venues.

It is interesting that we have a lot of these elements at work in the local communities. We often don’t see them or know about them. But they are there. Mostly unsung. But the good work is being done on the local scene, closest to where we live.

It’s the other stages where leadership appears to be missing the most. Our states and nation.

What a shame! What do we do to encourage people to become leaders? Are we also required to do something to be good followers? Interesting question. Wonder what the answer is.

November 17, 2011

More Issues from Penn State

The Penn State scandal has story lines that need to be delineated. Here are some:

1. Sandusky has been indicted for child molestation. His case will work its way through the criminal justice system in an orderly manner. We need to let that happen before jumping to other conclusions.
2. The All American Blame Game is in full swing. Anyone connected to Penn State University seems to be under suspicion. That seems unfair to me. Let the court and authorities handle this. Afterward we can air opinions but then it will be based on fact.
3. No one knows at this time what Joe Paterno knew, and what he could have done about it when it would have made a difference. He is a man who has been absorbed in the operations of a winning football program for five decades; it is possible Sandusky’s behavior could have slipped by him. At any rate he notified his boss immediately when reports were made to him. Channels of authority in a large organization should have taken it from there. But sometimes those channels are clogged and move slowly. .
4. Paterno is nearly 85 years old; he keeps on ticking and working hard at what he has devoted his life to. He appears dazed by all the accusations. We should give him time to process the scandal. He needs time and space to pull his thoughts together, not sound bites which are easily distorted by those who have axes to grind.
5. This case says a lot about institutional power and self monitoring. Some institutions get too big to adequately monitor their own ethos and applied morals. Important elements get fogged over and eventually lost. Did this happen at Penn State? Will we ever know? This case may not be finally understood until calm returns and analysts are given the time to thoroughly digest the facts.
6. The case is about child molestation. That is a behavior driven by a psychological illness. It needs to be recognized and treated as such if the individuals involved are to be protected and provided healing treatment.
7. This is apparently not a case of gay child abuse. Sandusky for all intents and purposes is a straight man. His case then would be pedophilia. Most such cases involve straight men. But these variations exist as well:
1. Straight women abuse of young girls
2. Straight women abuse of young boys
3. Straight men abuse of young girls
4. Very slight evidence of gay men abusing young boys.
8. As uncomfortable as it may be to ponder, pedophilia involves prepubescent children; it is a sexual attraction experienced by an adult, whether male or female.

Some people are too willing to lay blame on anything that moves. No doubt there are many who assume the Penn State scandal is gay related. They should share those thoughts so the ideas can be dealt with. Same with news organizations. They do not label this case as pedophilia, or attempt to inform the public on what that term means. Meanwhile public opinion runs wild.

A good example is that of Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (past failed US senator, current failing Republican Presidential candidate). He says it is about gays abusing young children and it is why gays should not be allowed to adopt children. Scientific research does not support that conclusion. Santorum has an anti-gay axe to grind and he will fit any fact or fiction to his preconceived position.

We should not be as gullible as he. We need to focus on the immediate problem and how to avoid it in the future.

Innocent kids were abused. They deserved protection and nurture. If we can’t sort this out factually, how are we going to find the right answers to protect kids in the future?

Rhetoric, posturing and blaming gets us no where. Caring about kids will.

November 16, 2011