Wow! So, life throws us a curve ball once in a while. Mine caught the outside corner of the plate the other evening as I was sitting in my Friday night AA meeting. A friend sent me a brief text message informing me that a mutual buddy had apparently committed suicide a couple of days ago. So of course, moments later was the first time in a month I've been called on to share. What do you say at a moment like that? I don't really remember what I said - shared my loss and shock and befuddlement and settled back in a daze to contemplate the ceiling tiles as the meeting wound its course. Accepted a few kind words from friends and virtual strangers (nobody in the program is truly a stranger - those who know, know.)
It was a couple of hours later, after I'd had dinner, shared the news with my family (they'd met him with me at our local watering hole and he'd helped us move almost a year ago), and settled in front of the computer to visit and get a sense of what had happened, that it began to sink in. I went to his Facebook page, read some comments, shared a few, looked at the pics of his smiling mischievous face - drinking a beer (which we did a fair amount of together), hanging with friends, scuba diving, biking. I really lost it. What a waste and what a loss - one of the most intense livers (not the organ) of life I've ever known. He was what everyone dreams of in a friend - open, curious, vivacious and full of life, funny in the extreme, always ready with a tale to top whatever tales were being shared, bright, and exceptionally caring. As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't think he knew how to say no to anyone in want or need. He will be sorely missed, and I don't begrudge him for a nanosecond the decision he made on how he chose to go. To each his own. He was not the shitty friend. I was...
I am still very early in my sobriety, but am well enough dried out through AA and through counseling to finally confront the demons that drove me to drink in the first place. I've long known that I have few real friends, close friends. You know, the ones with whom you'll share your deepest secrets and fears and desires. I'm probably not very unique in that respect, relative to other men anyway. We tend to share on a pretty superficial level. Women, I think, are much better at that, and probably healthier for it.
AA helps some of us stop our drinking, but its up to those of us who choose to, to to do the deeper work of understanding and dealing with what's driving us to drink. Much of the discoveries can be painful, but richly rewarding as well. At the premature death of my friend, I find myself exploring again the pathologies of relationships and friendships, trying to divine the wheres and hows and whys of our connections with others. In my case, my shrink has helped me conclude that I was emotionally abandoned at multiple times from early childhood through early adulthood, to the point that my defense was to close myself off from all but the most superficial of relationships. I was emotionally abandoned by a mother who had four children in five years, followed five years later by another, apparently leaving her with insufficient time or inclination to give any of us what we needed in terms of emotional nurturing. My best friend moved away when I was twelve, which devastated me more than I realized or shared at the time, although I remember sitting alone and sobbing for hours on end that summer. I never spoke of it to another soul. A few years later, my young girlfriend, who I had no reason to expect to wait for me while I froze my ass off in Korea, wisely chose not to, and that was when I moved from the ranks of high-level amateur drunk to a polished world-class professional. Fresh pliant clay is easily formed, but, once hardened, infuriatingly difficult to reshape...
From that point forward, with lady friends or guy friends, my modus operandi was, I think, eerily similar. I wasn't reluctant to put myself out there enough to get attention, hopefully affection, and affirmation. Once that objective had been accomplished, I shut off the valve. I had what I was after and wasn't going to risk the tiniest amount more. I wasn't about to invest enough that I couldn't handle the loss, and as a result, invested so little I never could enjoy the full potential benefit of any relationship. Low risk, low reward. No gain, but no pain. Pretty pitiful. And pretty shitty if you are on the other side of the equation. None of this was conscious, mind you, nor intentional. Doesn't change what it is, though...
The sad, funny, ironic thing is that many people consider me a good friend, think more highly of me than I likely deserve. While it is true that I will almost always respond to a request from help from someone who asks and genuinely needs it, I don't have a pro-active bone in my body when it comes to seeking out opportunities to serve anything less than humanity as a whole. I've long characterized myself as a "forest person" rather than a "tree person." You know, macro versus micro, when it comes to other human beings. It's only recently that I've started to realize that this is a defensive behavior, designed subconsciously to avoid the personal investment in another individual's life that can, and generally will, lead to pain somewhere along the way. Alcoholics are driven by two things - resentment and fear. I resent, I now realize, my real and imagined losses and abandonments, and I fear repeating them. It's an ugly pathology that has led to a lot of heartache for those who've risked loving me. And it is a perfect factory for manufacturing shitty friends. I'm living proof...
I still cry easily, always have, and have always somehow recognized it as a healthy behavior. But the tears come much more infrequently these days, as I've donned this psychic armor against loss. Care not, hurt not. I'm a smart one to be sure...
Bert, God bless him, had apparently penetrated my protection without my really knowing. He was child-like in many ways, bi-polar and ADD I found out later and recently, which explained the quirkiness that attracted me to him the first time we met at our local brewery. He was getting treatment and some medication, but this is tricky stuff I know from family experiences. I am suspecting that this regiment likely played a role in his final act - will likely never know...
Like me, he never met a stranger. Unlike me, however, he was all in from the first encounter. He was curious and energetic - would be hurt by those who wouldn't hear him out, which were many, as his condition didn't allow for him the patience to hear someone fully out before diving in with his own take on whatever topic was in play. This was never off-putting to me, as I am a serial interrupter as well...
I know some women who played a large role in his life, and am looking forward to visiting with them at his memorial. I'm a big funeral goer, which fascinates those who know me. I always knew that these events weren't for the departed, but for those of us left behind, and had learned as well that I somehow have the capacity to provide some comfort to the bereaved in most cases. For me, I suppose it is a chance to make a little contribution to the loved ones of friends, without any risky commitment. The moral being, even if I'm a shitty friend while you're alive, I'm a real pal when you're dead. So if you're morbidly inclined...
Bert loved women, and they loved him. He was attractive, fit, energetic. If he saw a pretty girl he was likely to make a play, even if she was on the arm of a gorilla. Impulse control issues, you know? He was unable to sustain relationships, though. His mind was off on tangents too quickly for him to make and follow through on longer-term commitments required for successful healthy relationships. And I know now that those who spent sustained periods with him knew of his dark down periods, while I only knew him in his elevated states, during which he craved action and interaction. He was a dedicated cyclist and athlete, rode long distances on his bike, which I'm sure was uplifting to him, with the wind in his ears and the world flashing by and no need to focus on anything but the pumping of his well-muscled legs, deep steady breathing and the stories dancing through his mind. He'd torn an ACL in a skiing accident last spring, and had set back his own recovery a bit by pushing too hard too fast. I know this tormented him. He was also a diver, and I'm sure drew similar comfort in working underwater, alone in the nurturing embrace of the tropical seas he so loved. But a ruptured ear drum had brought an end to this enriching vocation. Life deals us all some hard punches. Bert may have been tagged one too many times...
Ruminating over our too-short friendship and too-few encounters, I find myself wondering if I might suffer from similar psychological or neurological short circuits - will be visiting with my shrink about this and getting her views. (No dark thoughts, friends - don't worry. I'm not wired that way, for sure...) Whatever the case, he reached out to me in his own way a few times toward the end, as he did to others in the final months and weeks and days. Not in a way that foreshadowed what was coming, I don't think, particularly if you're tone deaf to the suffering of other individuals, as I apparently am. Shitty...
We'd only actually visited a few times in the months since I achieved sobriety, as our normal meeting spot was the brewery that my sponsor wisely counseled me to avoid due to its potentially destructive temptations. I know he didn't like to think of me as an alcoholic, as that was me voluntarily stepping down from the mini-pedestal he'd constructed for me in his feverish mind. I think he was coming around to understanding that I wasn't that much changed, just healthier, and that what changes there were I gratefully embraced. He seemed to want me to declare him an alcoholic, which he certainly wasn't, so that he could share my experience. I feel no guilt in not taking on this responsibility. Not my role. I understand now, though, that he was hurting deeply inside, and was in his own way seeking any explanation and solution that would bring him some peace. I didn't realize this, however, until it was too late...
Our last exchange was a series of texts, that I deeply wish now I'd saved:
Bert: "I miss our visits."
Me: "Me too. Hopefully we can go riding when it warms up."
Bert:
Damn it, here come the tears again...
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Revolution anyone?
In a week which saw Scott Brown win a historic Senate victory in Massachusetts and the Supreme Court open the floodgates of corporate campaign contributions against a defenseless public, it wasn't likely that I would be writing about anything other than political matters today. As the week has worn on I've had the chance to listen and learn, study, ruminate and cogitate, and have come to the conclusion that indeed, now may be the time for one of the revolutions that Thomas Jefferson prophesied when he famously stated that, "The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots..."
First, rest assured that I am no patriot 1, nor do I consider patriotism an admirable or attractive trait. While I do love much about America, I equally love much of other continents and countries, some of which I've not yet physically experienced. To the degree that a country is a parcel or parcels of real estate defined by well articulated borders, it seems a foolish thing to love. Are the mountains of America more lovable than the mountains of Europe or South America or Tibet or Africa? Surely not. Our beaches or prairies or rivers or valleys are somehow more lovely than those of other countries or continents or peoples? Don't be foolish. So if the physical country is not worthy of loving above others, what is it that we should love? Our people? There is something admirable about the historic can-do attitude of Americans, although it seems much on the wane in recent decades. And like all things human, all things in existence really, our self confidence has another side, a darker side - sometimes a destructive arrogance, a disdain for the consequences of our actions, a parochialism born frankly in patriotism, or more accurately nationalism2, which is what drives people to gather in mobs and shout "USA, USA." What is celebrated and promoted in this country, and in most countries, actually is nationalism, which is a very ugly thing and, along with religion, the source of all wars of the modern era.
So, if its not the physical America or the American populace viewed through a clear lens that might inspire a love that would pass the test of patriotism, what might there be? I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but for me it has always been America's future potential, a few proud snippets of our history, and most critically, our form of government as ensconced in the Constitution. I have long held that America's greatest days lay yet ahead, but the events of the past week have caused me to take a closer look and engage in a bit deeper thought on the matter, and as I sit here on a lovely Sunday morning in a America, I am no longer certain. And I am frightened for my children for the first time in my adult life...
Certainly the angst in the American people precedes the startling developments in Massachusetts and in the Supreme Court, the current fiscal crisis, or Obama's change-focused election. Historians can argue it out, but I have long held that America changed in a fundamental way during the Viet Nam era. Our government waged a war for several years that the citizens of this country and the world opposed, all in an era of excessive politicization of governmental powers under the paranoid Richard Nixon. The abuses of Hoover's FBI came to light on the heels of the national scandal of state troopers waging war against unarmed civilians during the then recent and not settled civil rights movement. Following the shootings at Kent State, an unprecedented schism formed between the generations that has only partially healed over as my parent's generation began receiving its just recognition as "the greatest generation" for having come together, struggled through the depression and fought the last just war in our nation's history. America emerged dazed, uncertain about government or our role, struggled against new global economic competition, suffered through Jimmy Carter's so-called "malaise," and witnessed the end of the "cold war" and the rise of the new battle against radical Islam, all without ever having our sense of confidence in government restored. Politics became more polarized and coarser, driving away independents and moderates, at the same time that unprecedented levels of money poured into the electoral process following the Supreme Court's disastrous Buckley v. Valeo3 of 1976, which drew a bizarre distinction between political contributions and expenditures, and created the cancerous correlation between campaign expenditures and free speech.
In the intervening period, attempts have been made by various factions to both increase and decrease the flow of moneys from various sources into various segments of the political process in an ongoing battle between disparate and antagonistic interest groups, with the net result being that the 2008 election cycle saw an unprecedented $5 billion spent on federal campaigns from Congress through the Presidency. While this is a topic too intensive and convoluted for treatment here, suffice to say that the American electorate believes with complete justification that the process is corrupt, tainted possibly beyond repair, and as such government at all levels is held in universal disdain. The Brown victory was a breath of fresh air in demonstrating that an underdog challenger can in fact wage and win a successful campaign against the odds, but only in an open seat race. The effect of the this week's Supreme Court decision is to dampen whatever hope the Brown victory might have birthed among independents and thinking Americans across the political spectrum.
Seeds of Revolt
In November of 2008 President Barack Obama won an historic election, which was itself a revolution against the eight dark years of the Bush era, with its attendant executive branch over-reach, encroachments on civil liberties, electoral and other political chicanery, and unapologetic politicization of all branches of government. Following the 9/11 Al Queda attack on the WTC and Washington, Bush was handed perhaps the opportunity of a generation to follow up on his campaign promise of being "A uniter and not a divider," and to unify the American people in a way not really possible since the darkest days of the Viet Nam era. Instead, he chose to prosecute an illegal and unpopular war in Iraq, divide the people with his unprecedented violations of privacy, his illegal support of criminal acts, total negligence of government's regulatory responsibilities, and unprecedented spending. And he topped it off with the appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alieto, two right-wing demagogues, to the Supreme Court. The stage was set...
The Obama effort was historic in terms of money raised and spent, the level of participation at the grass roots level by both volunteers and contributors, and of course in the clear cut and inarguable victory of America's first African American President. Obama raised and spent unprecedented amounts of money, and with an unprecedented number of contributions from individuals and small donors. Most watchers and pundits saw this as a watershed moment in America's political history, and indeed it was. Obama, like Bush, campaigned on a change platform, promising to change the tone in Washington and its way of doing business. Unfortunately, and a little counter-intuitively, he has been most hampered in this noble direction by having proven to have significant coat-tails, achieving office with a robust majority in the House, and what became a super-majority in the Senate with the final seating of Minnesota Senator Al Franken. Just as this seemingly powerful position elevated the hopes of many liberal Democrats, the Republicans showed their trademark discipline in coming together in lock-step to oppose the liberal agenda being pushed by both houses, with Obama proving unequal to the task of restraining their enthusiasm. As a result, and amazingly despite the overwhelming Democratic majorities, Obama and the democrats have proven incredibly inept at accomplishing anything of substance that would allay the very real fears and anxieties of the American people.
To add fuel to the fire, within months of Obama's victory, the 912 Project was launched, ostensibly as a counter-revolutionary effort promoted and led by Glenn Beck, one of the most despicable figures in American political media today. This group brilliantly emulated many tactics from the Obama playbook, reaching out through the internet to attract both supporters and donors, and to organize in an increasingly intensive fashion. While it remains to be seen what the long term effects of the "tea party" movement will be, it seems clear that just as Obama brought unprecedented numbers of new participants into the process, the "teabaggers" have already proven an unsettling force on the Republican side of the aisle. Comprised overwhelmingly of disaffected middle-age and older white voters of a libertarian mind-set, this movement nonetheless has provided a venue for anti-government and anti-incumbent reactionaries that threatens incumbent Republicans at local, state and national levels. Right here in Texas, a former Republican state chair alighned with the tea party movement is surging in the Republican gubernatorial primary, and incumbent Republican representatives find themselves facing for the first time in their careers viable energetic challengers from the tea party faction. The old adage, "May you live in interesting times," has found a home on the contemporary political landscape. So...
Revolutionary Opportunities...
Many on the left felt or hoped that Obama's election was both the revolution and the victory, despite the fact that he stressed over and over that it was but a beginning. I believe recent developments prove the accuracy of his characterization, and that none of us has the foggiest notion of what the end result might look like. While I am indeed preparing for the worst, and am in no way confident that Jefferson's bloody revolution can be avoided, I believe there is an avenue worthy of consideration. The simple fact is that Obama remains immensely popular, and only a small but vocal minority oppose him personally, almost totally on racial grounds, although only the tiniest subset will concede that fact. But when you look at the disaffection with the federal government, Washington, Congress, et al., the numbers are vastly higher, and very real. Most, without a reasoned intellectual understanding of the causes, believe that the government and virtually all that stems from it are corrupt, and I tend to count myself among these.
There is a quasi-legal construct unofficially titled "The Fruit of the Poison Tree,"4 which holds specifically that the product of illegal searches is inadmissible as evidence. The same principle, felt but not generally articulated, applies to politics and government, and is what I believe underlies most public disenchantment with politics, politicians, and government. My belief is that it all traces back to money, and power, and the power that money brings, and the money that power attracts, which is why this week's SCOTUS decision has possibly opened a door widely to a new revolutionary approach. Ralph Waldo Emerson in an early 1800's paean to our revolutionary ancestors, called the Concord skirmish "the shot heard 'round the world." I think in our current revolution, that shot was fired last week at the American people by the Supreme Court of the United States in its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. The question now, is, will we run or will we fight, and if we fight, what is our strategy and what are our tactics?
And so I have spent the last several days reading and studying and scratching my head and visiting with friends and associates and strangers, all with one objective in mind, which was to answer a question to which I already knew the answer. Namely, is there any way to undo the damage the Court has done us short of a Constitutional Amendment? Of course, the answer is no. How then, do we Amend to undo the damage, and if we're going to amend, do we want to isolate it to this particular transgression? I say no. This action was perhaps the proverbial straw, but it is the culmination of political and governmental violations extending back more than a quarter century. I say, if we're going to fight, let's fight to win, and get the whole mess as cleaned up as we can once and for all. And all my friends are aghast!
I cannot begin to tell you how many have leaped into the fray yelling and screaming that there could be nothing worse than a Constitutional Convention, that there's no way to limit the topics and issues covered, and that this action could lead to the total destruction of our Nation. To which I reply, respectfully, "Balderdash!" It will do no such thing, and if it did, perhaps its time for us to declare the experiment a failure and get on to whatever comes next. On the other hand, I am absolutely confident that if we accept the Court's ruling, and all the other erosions of our government and politics that have befallen us in the last several decades- if we do nothing to, as President Obama is so fond of saying, "bend the arc of history," then we are well and truly lost.
Now before everyone flutters off in a panic, how about we read exactly what Article V of our beloved Constitution actually says, eh?
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
There are two means by which Constitutional Amendments might come about. The first, a top-down process originating in the Congress, which, since Congress is about 90 percent of the problem, we shouldn't be expecting any time soon. The second is a bottom-up approach which has never been utilized, although it has been threatened and has come close to being enacted on several occasions. Name me one revolution worth discussing that has been anything other than bottom-up. Just one? No? Uh-huh. I thought not. The Founders put this provision in place specifically so We the People would have an avenue to wrest control from those who believe they control the government, should the need arise. I believe the need has arisen, and that now might well be the time. And anyway, what in the world is everyone so afraid of? Calm down and read the damn thing, please?
First, the Convention shall only be called upon the application of two thirds of the state legislatures. If we, the citizens of the United States, convince two-thirds of the legislatures we want some amendments that aren't forthcoming from Congress, you'd prefer...what? And you'd consider yourselves to be living in a democratic republic...why? What color of collar would you like, and how heavy a chain? Not for me, thank you very much...
Ok, so now the Congress is in convention for the purpose of considering an Amendment or Amendments upon the request of the citizens. Granted, its a little messy that there are no rules defining the exact mode of operating the Convention - I would recommend that be one of the first Amendments to be considered, although said consideration would have no effect on the disposition, passage or ratification of the others. This time...
The point is, the Article clearly defines what the process will be before any action of the Convenened Congress becomes part of the supreme law of the land - exactly the same course as followed in adopting the last twenty-seven Amendments: send back to the states, with ratification by three fourths of the legislatures within a prescribed (generally seven-year) period of time required to pass. So, despite all the alarmism, the predictions of one of my more excitable friends will not be the end result of such an effort. Rupert Murdoch will not be on the Supreme Court. KBR will not run EVERYTHING, and Glenn Beck will not be Secretary of Education, at least not as a result of a Constitutional Convention.
So, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that a decent segment of the American people latch on to this notion. How do we act on it? This is the sweet part. This is a very doable fully grass roots opportunity, and folks who know me know I'm all about the grass roots. First, remembering that this is the Supreme law of the land we're dealing with here, we agree on a small but effective group of Amendments we feel would rectify the major structural problems we face. (I will list my preliminaries below.) In a coordinated fashion on a 50 state basis we let our aspiring and incumbent legislators know what we're expecting from them, and identify them to our members as supporters of the people or opponents of the people, and let the voters have that information toinform their votes. Hopefully we elect enough of our supporters in enough of our legislatures that the process takes off and runs.
Now, here comes the fun part! We're telling our state legislators, the bulk of whom hope to one day advance to federal office themselves, to implement a process that will weaken the ability of incumbents currently clogging up the works to stand in the way of this avaricious ambition. Sweet, huh? Yes, they will be making it tougher on themselves down the road should they succeed, but that's a bridge I'm willing to bet they're willing to worry about when and if they get to it.
And here's even better news! I manged to make contact this weekend with leaders of a national coalition that is already in motion to accomplish something very much along the lines of what we're discussing here. And they're already in motion. And you'll be hearing about it publicly within a matter of weeks. And you'll have ample opportunity to get involved right up to your necks. And we're talking about this year and interfacing with candidates who are currently jockeying for your support for the November 2010 general elections. How cool is that? Right? Right...
So, as another friend asked, what Amendments would you propose, Mark? Well, as we all know I've again exceeded budget (and likely your attention span) and this is already a lot to digest, I'm going to give a very quick rundown of where I see the problems and the very general solutions I think would help, without getting into all sorts of fancy schmancy legalese - there will be lawyers aplenty to guide us when and if this actually gets off the ground. Please keep in mind that I am a single small voice, and one which isn't overly enthralled with the federal model, which was at its inception a compromise between the federalists and anti-federalists. I see an absolute need for the states, for certain sovereignty, and for the efficiency of certain governmental functions being controlled at the state and lower levels. I don't see this need as extending to the gumming up of the whole governmental machine...
Article I, Sec. 2. Is too lengthy to get to in depth - suffice to say that Representatives shall be limited to a maximum of four two-year terms, and that redistricting shall be handled at the federal level by an fully-automated computerized process which pays no heed to incumbency, and which has as its focus compactness, recognition of municipal, topographical and other objective criteria, except that such modification cannot have the effect of diluting current minority representation.
Article I, Sec. 3 Again, too much to get into, but I would propose limiting Senators to three six-year terms, and am not opposed to a discussion of returning Senatorial appointment to the State legislatures. I am not passionate either way, but as I know I'm in the minority in my general disdain for states' rights and federalism, this would be in my view an acceptable swap for our removing from the states the powers of legislative redistricting, partisan gerrymandering, inequitable and preferential ballot acess provisions, etc.
Article I, Sec. 4. Modified to read: The Congress shall by Law make or alter Regulations governing the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, which Regulations shall be uniform throughout the several States, and which shall have neither the intent nor effect of giving advantage to incumbents over non-incumbent challengers, nor to candidates of one political Party over another, nor of a Political party over a candidate not aligned with a political Party, nor of Candidates of a major or established Party over a minor or new Party...(You get the drift.) And I suppose it will be here that the fully publicly financed campaign provision would be inserted.
Article I, Sec. 5. Another lengthy one, but it is here that we would put certain restraints on both Houses to make their own rules (This is the Founders single biggest failure in my view, but those were different times...), in particular eliminating for all time the rules surrounding the filibuster, the most undemocratic tradition in all of the Federal government. Ditto the crap about a single Senator being able to put a hold on executive appointments. We need to be reasonable, but not overly...
Article V. Modified to read: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States for specific Amendments, shall call a Convention for proposing only such Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. (James Madison was opposed to the convention process precisely for the reason that so many are afraid of it now, but I believe this can be overcome by careful wording in this particular Amendment. There must be wording that limits the Amendment process to Constitutional matters and doesn't attempt to utilize it for legislative purposes, lest we become as screwed up as California or Texas in this respect...)
And of course we will need to try and give SCOTUS some direction regarding its authority in determining Consitutional matter, particularly as affects the Court, a source of contention going all the way back to Marbury v. Madison.
As you can see, this is a project in the early stages, but one which is infinitely doable, and which I will argue vehemently must be done. I am extremely flexible on the specifics of what we strive for, but strive we must. In any case, I will build my armory in anticipation of the worst possible outcome, which will be occasioned by our doing nothing. It is my most sincere hope, however, that we will be able to avoid the armed struggle that my father predicted when I was still wet behind the ears, and that my children will in fact have the opportunity to grow old and raise their families in the great and peaceful nation of which so many of us have for so long dreamed.
It is late and I am exhausted. Please forgive the typos - will attempt to rectify in coming days. Good night, friends, until next we visit...
(1) Merriam-Webster online: "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests."
(2) Id: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational group
(3) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0001_ZS.html
(4) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fruit+of+the+poison+tree
(5) http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art5_user.html#art5_hd10 (See "The Convention alternative - questions)
First, rest assured that I am no patriot 1, nor do I consider patriotism an admirable or attractive trait. While I do love much about America, I equally love much of other continents and countries, some of which I've not yet physically experienced. To the degree that a country is a parcel or parcels of real estate defined by well articulated borders, it seems a foolish thing to love. Are the mountains of America more lovable than the mountains of Europe or South America or Tibet or Africa? Surely not. Our beaches or prairies or rivers or valleys are somehow more lovely than those of other countries or continents or peoples? Don't be foolish. So if the physical country is not worthy of loving above others, what is it that we should love? Our people? There is something admirable about the historic can-do attitude of Americans, although it seems much on the wane in recent decades. And like all things human, all things in existence really, our self confidence has another side, a darker side - sometimes a destructive arrogance, a disdain for the consequences of our actions, a parochialism born frankly in patriotism, or more accurately nationalism2, which is what drives people to gather in mobs and shout "USA, USA." What is celebrated and promoted in this country, and in most countries, actually is nationalism, which is a very ugly thing and, along with religion, the source of all wars of the modern era.
So, if its not the physical America or the American populace viewed through a clear lens that might inspire a love that would pass the test of patriotism, what might there be? I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but for me it has always been America's future potential, a few proud snippets of our history, and most critically, our form of government as ensconced in the Constitution. I have long held that America's greatest days lay yet ahead, but the events of the past week have caused me to take a closer look and engage in a bit deeper thought on the matter, and as I sit here on a lovely Sunday morning in a America, I am no longer certain. And I am frightened for my children for the first time in my adult life...
Certainly the angst in the American people precedes the startling developments in Massachusetts and in the Supreme Court, the current fiscal crisis, or Obama's change-focused election. Historians can argue it out, but I have long held that America changed in a fundamental way during the Viet Nam era. Our government waged a war for several years that the citizens of this country and the world opposed, all in an era of excessive politicization of governmental powers under the paranoid Richard Nixon. The abuses of Hoover's FBI came to light on the heels of the national scandal of state troopers waging war against unarmed civilians during the then recent and not settled civil rights movement. Following the shootings at Kent State, an unprecedented schism formed between the generations that has only partially healed over as my parent's generation began receiving its just recognition as "the greatest generation" for having come together, struggled through the depression and fought the last just war in our nation's history. America emerged dazed, uncertain about government or our role, struggled against new global economic competition, suffered through Jimmy Carter's so-called "malaise," and witnessed the end of the "cold war" and the rise of the new battle against radical Islam, all without ever having our sense of confidence in government restored. Politics became more polarized and coarser, driving away independents and moderates, at the same time that unprecedented levels of money poured into the electoral process following the Supreme Court's disastrous Buckley v. Valeo3 of 1976, which drew a bizarre distinction between political contributions and expenditures, and created the cancerous correlation between campaign expenditures and free speech.
In the intervening period, attempts have been made by various factions to both increase and decrease the flow of moneys from various sources into various segments of the political process in an ongoing battle between disparate and antagonistic interest groups, with the net result being that the 2008 election cycle saw an unprecedented $5 billion spent on federal campaigns from Congress through the Presidency. While this is a topic too intensive and convoluted for treatment here, suffice to say that the American electorate believes with complete justification that the process is corrupt, tainted possibly beyond repair, and as such government at all levels is held in universal disdain. The Brown victory was a breath of fresh air in demonstrating that an underdog challenger can in fact wage and win a successful campaign against the odds, but only in an open seat race. The effect of the this week's Supreme Court decision is to dampen whatever hope the Brown victory might have birthed among independents and thinking Americans across the political spectrum.
Seeds of Revolt
In November of 2008 President Barack Obama won an historic election, which was itself a revolution against the eight dark years of the Bush era, with its attendant executive branch over-reach, encroachments on civil liberties, electoral and other political chicanery, and unapologetic politicization of all branches of government. Following the 9/11 Al Queda attack on the WTC and Washington, Bush was handed perhaps the opportunity of a generation to follow up on his campaign promise of being "A uniter and not a divider," and to unify the American people in a way not really possible since the darkest days of the Viet Nam era. Instead, he chose to prosecute an illegal and unpopular war in Iraq, divide the people with his unprecedented violations of privacy, his illegal support of criminal acts, total negligence of government's regulatory responsibilities, and unprecedented spending. And he topped it off with the appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alieto, two right-wing demagogues, to the Supreme Court. The stage was set...
The Obama effort was historic in terms of money raised and spent, the level of participation at the grass roots level by both volunteers and contributors, and of course in the clear cut and inarguable victory of America's first African American President. Obama raised and spent unprecedented amounts of money, and with an unprecedented number of contributions from individuals and small donors. Most watchers and pundits saw this as a watershed moment in America's political history, and indeed it was. Obama, like Bush, campaigned on a change platform, promising to change the tone in Washington and its way of doing business. Unfortunately, and a little counter-intuitively, he has been most hampered in this noble direction by having proven to have significant coat-tails, achieving office with a robust majority in the House, and what became a super-majority in the Senate with the final seating of Minnesota Senator Al Franken. Just as this seemingly powerful position elevated the hopes of many liberal Democrats, the Republicans showed their trademark discipline in coming together in lock-step to oppose the liberal agenda being pushed by both houses, with Obama proving unequal to the task of restraining their enthusiasm. As a result, and amazingly despite the overwhelming Democratic majorities, Obama and the democrats have proven incredibly inept at accomplishing anything of substance that would allay the very real fears and anxieties of the American people.
To add fuel to the fire, within months of Obama's victory, the 912 Project was launched, ostensibly as a counter-revolutionary effort promoted and led by Glenn Beck, one of the most despicable figures in American political media today. This group brilliantly emulated many tactics from the Obama playbook, reaching out through the internet to attract both supporters and donors, and to organize in an increasingly intensive fashion. While it remains to be seen what the long term effects of the "tea party" movement will be, it seems clear that just as Obama brought unprecedented numbers of new participants into the process, the "teabaggers" have already proven an unsettling force on the Republican side of the aisle. Comprised overwhelmingly of disaffected middle-age and older white voters of a libertarian mind-set, this movement nonetheless has provided a venue for anti-government and anti-incumbent reactionaries that threatens incumbent Republicans at local, state and national levels. Right here in Texas, a former Republican state chair alighned with the tea party movement is surging in the Republican gubernatorial primary, and incumbent Republican representatives find themselves facing for the first time in their careers viable energetic challengers from the tea party faction. The old adage, "May you live in interesting times," has found a home on the contemporary political landscape. So...
Revolutionary Opportunities...
Many on the left felt or hoped that Obama's election was both the revolution and the victory, despite the fact that he stressed over and over that it was but a beginning. I believe recent developments prove the accuracy of his characterization, and that none of us has the foggiest notion of what the end result might look like. While I am indeed preparing for the worst, and am in no way confident that Jefferson's bloody revolution can be avoided, I believe there is an avenue worthy of consideration. The simple fact is that Obama remains immensely popular, and only a small but vocal minority oppose him personally, almost totally on racial grounds, although only the tiniest subset will concede that fact. But when you look at the disaffection with the federal government, Washington, Congress, et al., the numbers are vastly higher, and very real. Most, without a reasoned intellectual understanding of the causes, believe that the government and virtually all that stems from it are corrupt, and I tend to count myself among these.
There is a quasi-legal construct unofficially titled "The Fruit of the Poison Tree,"4 which holds specifically that the product of illegal searches is inadmissible as evidence. The same principle, felt but not generally articulated, applies to politics and government, and is what I believe underlies most public disenchantment with politics, politicians, and government. My belief is that it all traces back to money, and power, and the power that money brings, and the money that power attracts, which is why this week's SCOTUS decision has possibly opened a door widely to a new revolutionary approach. Ralph Waldo Emerson in an early 1800's paean to our revolutionary ancestors, called the Concord skirmish "the shot heard 'round the world." I think in our current revolution, that shot was fired last week at the American people by the Supreme Court of the United States in its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. The question now, is, will we run or will we fight, and if we fight, what is our strategy and what are our tactics?
And so I have spent the last several days reading and studying and scratching my head and visiting with friends and associates and strangers, all with one objective in mind, which was to answer a question to which I already knew the answer. Namely, is there any way to undo the damage the Court has done us short of a Constitutional Amendment? Of course, the answer is no. How then, do we Amend to undo the damage, and if we're going to amend, do we want to isolate it to this particular transgression? I say no. This action was perhaps the proverbial straw, but it is the culmination of political and governmental violations extending back more than a quarter century. I say, if we're going to fight, let's fight to win, and get the whole mess as cleaned up as we can once and for all. And all my friends are aghast!
I cannot begin to tell you how many have leaped into the fray yelling and screaming that there could be nothing worse than a Constitutional Convention, that there's no way to limit the topics and issues covered, and that this action could lead to the total destruction of our Nation. To which I reply, respectfully, "Balderdash!" It will do no such thing, and if it did, perhaps its time for us to declare the experiment a failure and get on to whatever comes next. On the other hand, I am absolutely confident that if we accept the Court's ruling, and all the other erosions of our government and politics that have befallen us in the last several decades- if we do nothing to, as President Obama is so fond of saying, "bend the arc of history," then we are well and truly lost.
Now before everyone flutters off in a panic, how about we read exactly what Article V of our beloved Constitution actually says, eh?
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
There are two means by which Constitutional Amendments might come about. The first, a top-down process originating in the Congress, which, since Congress is about 90 percent of the problem, we shouldn't be expecting any time soon. The second is a bottom-up approach which has never been utilized, although it has been threatened and has come close to being enacted on several occasions. Name me one revolution worth discussing that has been anything other than bottom-up. Just one? No? Uh-huh. I thought not. The Founders put this provision in place specifically so We the People would have an avenue to wrest control from those who believe they control the government, should the need arise. I believe the need has arisen, and that now might well be the time. And anyway, what in the world is everyone so afraid of? Calm down and read the damn thing, please?
First, the Convention shall only be called upon the application of two thirds of the state legislatures. If we, the citizens of the United States, convince two-thirds of the legislatures we want some amendments that aren't forthcoming from Congress, you'd prefer...what? And you'd consider yourselves to be living in a democratic republic...why? What color of collar would you like, and how heavy a chain? Not for me, thank you very much...
Ok, so now the Congress is in convention for the purpose of considering an Amendment or Amendments upon the request of the citizens. Granted, its a little messy that there are no rules defining the exact mode of operating the Convention - I would recommend that be one of the first Amendments to be considered, although said consideration would have no effect on the disposition, passage or ratification of the others. This time...
The point is, the Article clearly defines what the process will be before any action of the Convenened Congress becomes part of the supreme law of the land - exactly the same course as followed in adopting the last twenty-seven Amendments: send back to the states, with ratification by three fourths of the legislatures within a prescribed (generally seven-year) period of time required to pass. So, despite all the alarmism, the predictions of one of my more excitable friends will not be the end result of such an effort. Rupert Murdoch will not be on the Supreme Court. KBR will not run EVERYTHING, and Glenn Beck will not be Secretary of Education, at least not as a result of a Constitutional Convention.
So, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that a decent segment of the American people latch on to this notion. How do we act on it? This is the sweet part. This is a very doable fully grass roots opportunity, and folks who know me know I'm all about the grass roots. First, remembering that this is the Supreme law of the land we're dealing with here, we agree on a small but effective group of Amendments we feel would rectify the major structural problems we face. (I will list my preliminaries below.) In a coordinated fashion on a 50 state basis we let our aspiring and incumbent legislators know what we're expecting from them, and identify them to our members as supporters of the people or opponents of the people, and let the voters have that information toinform their votes. Hopefully we elect enough of our supporters in enough of our legislatures that the process takes off and runs.
Now, here comes the fun part! We're telling our state legislators, the bulk of whom hope to one day advance to federal office themselves, to implement a process that will weaken the ability of incumbents currently clogging up the works to stand in the way of this avaricious ambition. Sweet, huh? Yes, they will be making it tougher on themselves down the road should they succeed, but that's a bridge I'm willing to bet they're willing to worry about when and if they get to it.
And here's even better news! I manged to make contact this weekend with leaders of a national coalition that is already in motion to accomplish something very much along the lines of what we're discussing here. And they're already in motion. And you'll be hearing about it publicly within a matter of weeks. And you'll have ample opportunity to get involved right up to your necks. And we're talking about this year and interfacing with candidates who are currently jockeying for your support for the November 2010 general elections. How cool is that? Right? Right...
So, as another friend asked, what Amendments would you propose, Mark? Well, as we all know I've again exceeded budget (and likely your attention span) and this is already a lot to digest, I'm going to give a very quick rundown of where I see the problems and the very general solutions I think would help, without getting into all sorts of fancy schmancy legalese - there will be lawyers aplenty to guide us when and if this actually gets off the ground. Please keep in mind that I am a single small voice, and one which isn't overly enthralled with the federal model, which was at its inception a compromise between the federalists and anti-federalists. I see an absolute need for the states, for certain sovereignty, and for the efficiency of certain governmental functions being controlled at the state and lower levels. I don't see this need as extending to the gumming up of the whole governmental machine...
Article I, Sec. 2. Is too lengthy to get to in depth - suffice to say that Representatives shall be limited to a maximum of four two-year terms, and that redistricting shall be handled at the federal level by an fully-automated computerized process which pays no heed to incumbency, and which has as its focus compactness, recognition of municipal, topographical and other objective criteria, except that such modification cannot have the effect of diluting current minority representation.
Article I, Sec. 3 Again, too much to get into, but I would propose limiting Senators to three six-year terms, and am not opposed to a discussion of returning Senatorial appointment to the State legislatures. I am not passionate either way, but as I know I'm in the minority in my general disdain for states' rights and federalism, this would be in my view an acceptable swap for our removing from the states the powers of legislative redistricting, partisan gerrymandering, inequitable and preferential ballot acess provisions, etc.
Article I, Sec. 4. Modified to read: The Congress shall by Law make or alter Regulations governing the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, which Regulations shall be uniform throughout the several States, and which shall have neither the intent nor effect of giving advantage to incumbents over non-incumbent challengers, nor to candidates of one political Party over another, nor of a Political party over a candidate not aligned with a political Party, nor of Candidates of a major or established Party over a minor or new Party...(You get the drift.) And I suppose it will be here that the fully publicly financed campaign provision would be inserted.
Article I, Sec. 5. Another lengthy one, but it is here that we would put certain restraints on both Houses to make their own rules (This is the Founders single biggest failure in my view, but those were different times...), in particular eliminating for all time the rules surrounding the filibuster, the most undemocratic tradition in all of the Federal government. Ditto the crap about a single Senator being able to put a hold on executive appointments. We need to be reasonable, but not overly...
Article V. Modified to read: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States for specific Amendments, shall call a Convention for proposing only such Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. (James Madison was opposed to the convention process precisely for the reason that so many are afraid of it now, but I believe this can be overcome by careful wording in this particular Amendment. There must be wording that limits the Amendment process to Constitutional matters and doesn't attempt to utilize it for legislative purposes, lest we become as screwed up as California or Texas in this respect...)
And of course we will need to try and give SCOTUS some direction regarding its authority in determining Consitutional matter, particularly as affects the Court, a source of contention going all the way back to Marbury v. Madison.
As you can see, this is a project in the early stages, but one which is infinitely doable, and which I will argue vehemently must be done. I am extremely flexible on the specifics of what we strive for, but strive we must. In any case, I will build my armory in anticipation of the worst possible outcome, which will be occasioned by our doing nothing. It is my most sincere hope, however, that we will be able to avoid the armed struggle that my father predicted when I was still wet behind the ears, and that my children will in fact have the opportunity to grow old and raise their families in the great and peaceful nation of which so many of us have for so long dreamed.
It is late and I am exhausted. Please forgive the typos - will attempt to rectify in coming days. Good night, friends, until next we visit...
(1) Merriam-Webster online: "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests."
(2) Id: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational group
(3) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0001_ZS.html
(4) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fruit+of+the+poison+tree
(5) http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art5_user.html#art5_hd10 (See "The Convention alternative - questions)
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Is AA a Religion?
I will begin by advising both regulars and newcomers that this is only one of myriad topics that we'll be discussing here, so don't want anyone put off by this week's heavier subject matter after last week's lighthearted look at sex in the kitchen. Also, as I have many friends who are, like me, "Friends of Bill," and know that most others have been touched in some way by addiction either personally or in their families, please know that I intend no offense in anything which follows. As always, these are my thoughts and mine alone, worth exactly what you're paying for them unless you choose to assign some other value - your prerogative...
I will begin by reminding all that I am a recovering alcoholic, having just passed the seven month mark in what I intend to be a lifelong commitment to sobriety. It was with the greatest reluctance that I admitted last summer that my drinking was more in control of me than I of it, a situation I chose to reverse of my own accord, and not as the result of some precipitating incident, court order, spousal ultimatum, calamity or other outside pressure. I actually strongly considered at the time trying to go it alone, and am not convinced that I couldn't have made it. However, like most "problem drinkers" (almost always a cute term that alcoholics or their enablers utilize prior to the light coming on), I had tried half-halfheartedly to quit a few times and failed. Fortunately, my best friend Shawn, who had been a big drinking buddy and who had been in the program for more than a decade at the time, had through AA, therapy and intensive introspection, turned his life around. Fortunately I had enough sense to know that I was going to need some help. Like me, he was raised Catholic, in a household where drinking was a constant, and is a floater between agnosticism and atheism. He assured me that I was bright enough to work my way past the "God stuff" and told me that he would stand by my side, but only if I would give the program a try. I'm eternally grateful that he did.
It is interesting to note that, according to dictionary definitions, one would be hard-pressed not to deem Alcoholics Anonymous a religion. One of the definitions in Merriam Webster's online dictionary is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." I can assure you that nobody who is an active participant in AA, NA or any other 12-step program will deny that this is, in fact, a perfect definition of the program. Other definitions and other dictionaries use the word "religious" pretty liberally, with little distinction made between "religious" and "spiritual." For most of us, there is a decided distinction between the two which I will get to shortly...
As a quick aside, I was similarly put off some years back - a decade I guess now that I think of it, when I was running for Congress. I was very big on campaign finance reform - was in fact my cornerstone issue (I didn't win so there may be a lesson there...) Anyway, I was trying to draw the distinctions between politics (bad) and government (potentially good.) Go ahead and look it up, I'll wait. Uh-huh. In almost every dictionary the definition of politics is "the art of government." What the hell is that all about? I just really, really hate "a horse is a horse" definitions. Sorry, I digress...
I will begin by reminding all that I am a recovering alcoholic, having just passed the seven month mark in what I intend to be a lifelong commitment to sobriety. It was with the greatest reluctance that I admitted last summer that my drinking was more in control of me than I of it, a situation I chose to reverse of my own accord, and not as the result of some precipitating incident, court order, spousal ultimatum, calamity or other outside pressure. I actually strongly considered at the time trying to go it alone, and am not convinced that I couldn't have made it. However, like most "problem drinkers" (almost always a cute term that alcoholics or their enablers utilize prior to the light coming on), I had tried half-halfheartedly to quit a few times and failed. Fortunately, my best friend Shawn, who had been a big drinking buddy and who had been in the program for more than a decade at the time, had through AA, therapy and intensive introspection, turned his life around. Fortunately I had enough sense to know that I was going to need some help. Like me, he was raised Catholic, in a household where drinking was a constant, and is a floater between agnosticism and atheism. He assured me that I was bright enough to work my way past the "God stuff" and told me that he would stand by my side, but only if I would give the program a try. I'm eternally grateful that he did.
It is interesting to note that, according to dictionary definitions, one would be hard-pressed not to deem Alcoholics Anonymous a religion. One of the definitions in Merriam Webster's online dictionary is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." I can assure you that nobody who is an active participant in AA, NA or any other 12-step program will deny that this is, in fact, a perfect definition of the program. Other definitions and other dictionaries use the word "religious" pretty liberally, with little distinction made between "religious" and "spiritual." For most of us, there is a decided distinction between the two which I will get to shortly...
As a quick aside, I was similarly put off some years back - a decade I guess now that I think of it, when I was running for Congress. I was very big on campaign finance reform - was in fact my cornerstone issue (I didn't win so there may be a lesson there...) Anyway, I was trying to draw the distinctions between politics (bad) and government (potentially good.) Go ahead and look it up, I'll wait. Uh-huh. In almost every dictionary the definition of politics is "the art of government." What the hell is that all about? I just really, really hate "a horse is a horse" definitions. Sorry, I digress...
AA's GSO (General Service Organization) is tax exempt and does instruct affiliates on how to achieve tax exempt status, but pointedly relies not on the church exemption (which I think is a crock of shit) but on the general non-profit service organization exemption. Kudos for that important distinction. However, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in a 2007 ruling, said "...the constitutional dividing line between church and state (sic) is so clear that a parole officer can be sued for damages for ordering a parolee to go through rehabilitation at Alcoholics Anonymous or an affiliated program for drug addicts." And rulings from across the nation since 1996 have established that "requiring a parolee to attend religion-based treatment programs violates the First Amendment," the court said. I suppose it is understandable that, just as much of the general public cannot explain the difference between spiritual and religious, the government is apparently unable to formulate a distinction either. (Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/08/BA99S1AKQ.DTL#ixzz0cpLBaWBX) (Another topic for another day...)
Ok, enough of the formalities. You all know, or should know by now, that I don't do religion. Everyone is welcome to his or her own, and I make no judgments. I was raised in a religious household, attended parochial school and mass every day except Saturday from before I can remember to when I was 14 or so; baptized, confirmed, altar boy, the whole nine yards. Hell, I'm told all the mothers had me slated for the seminary. I guess they willfully ignored my undisguised affinity for the fairer sex. Religion can do that to you - myopia I mean. I managed to pretty well jettison the practice without losing the concept and basic beliefs, and even got baptized a second time as a Mormon, hoping to get into a certain lovely lassie's temple garments. That didn't take either, as she had some silly notion about marriage before the fun stuff and I wasn't going for any of that. Over the course of time my belief in the Christian version of God was replaced with one larger and more universal...
Point being, I'm no stranger to religion, rituals, practices, scriptures, etc. Again, there is little on the surface that distinguishes AA from traditional religions. Question is, is there anything at all? I believe there is, something rather large, and will attempt to explain...
First, AA is very straightforward in virtually all its written materials (texts) regarding "A Higher Power" and "the God of your(sic) understanding." Granted, Bill and the other founders in the 1930s were typical and traditional Christians for the most part, and admittedly introduced this flexibility only after some serious consideration. And the fact that every meeting I've been to opens with the Serenity Prayer - "God grant me the serenity to accept those things I cannot change..." and closes with the Lord's Prayer - "Our Father, who art in Heaven..." seems to mitigate in favor of the traditional western monotheistic Christian God model. The second tradition (there are twelve) states in part: "...there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself ..." Again, we have a monotheistic deity apparently male in gender - old white haired fart floating in the clouds, right? But more critically, the third tradition states: "The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking."
Do we detect a dichotomy here? Well, duh! Of course we do, and that's the point. While the second tradition may be offensive to atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., it is not exclusive - as He (yeah, I hate that too) may express himself to one as "She," as "Mother Earth," as "The Infinite Universe," or as the high holy tadpole circling the sun. The fact that a bunch of Christians used Christian language to describe the God of their understanding isn't nearly as surprising as the fact that they very generously left a hole for the rest of us wide enough to drive a universe through. And the third tradition is exquisite in its simplicity. Anyone and everyone who desires to stop drinking is invited, and by simply showing up becomes a member. I really know of no religion whose doors are that wide open, which makes so little demand on its members. You need not believe in its heaven or its hell, its sins or its salvations, honor its patriarchs or saints or cherubim or seraphim or idols or icons or texts or anything else. You don't have to read or memorize or recite or vow, to wear special garments or honor certain days, tithe or fast or self-flagellate or kneel or make signs in the air or on your body. Most critically, you are not compelled to believe anything - only desire. And that which you desire is supported by real tangible evidence in the form of fellow members who had the same desire, followed the same steps you'll be following, and have actually and demonstrably achieved exactly what you hope to achieve. Is there any traditional or non-traditional religion that you know of that requires absolutely nothing of its members, except a desire to stop doing something that is destroying our lives? If, so, please let me know...
If you Google the title of this post, you'll find several entries, almost all anti-AA and making the argument that AA is in fact a religion requiring fealty to their credos and rituals and some even accusing AA of being a cult. I will not cast aspersions on the authors, as I don't know them and haven't walked in their shoes. I will say that the one time that I tried AA before - perhaps 15 years or so ago - can't remember now, I went to one or two meetings, under spousal duress if memory serves, and walked away absolutely put off by "all the God stuff." It was God this and God that and higher power this, and surrender and pray and, aaaargh! I couldn't take it! Turns out that the problem wasn't AA - it was me. I wasn't ready yet. I hadn't hit my bottom. I hadn't admitted that I had a problem I couldn't handle by myself and that I needed help. And that's all AA is, is help. It is a tool in the tool belt - really a set of tools. Go out on a construction site sometime and see how much is being accomplished by the workers who have a belt full of tools but nothing in their hands...
My guess is that the authors of these articles are for the most part real alcoholics or addicts, came into the program looking for someone else to fix their problems, and walked away disappointed and angry. (All untreated non-recovering alcoholics and addicts, by the way, are angry. Most generalizations are dangerous, but not this one. Anger and self-loathing are two universal symptoms...) People become similarly disenchanted with actual religions, which they turn to hoping for some improvement in their lives and when it doesn't come to pass blame the church or the religion or the God or the minister or almost anyone but themselves. Of course the smart religions don't promise anything in the here and now, but only in the hereafter. Kind of tough to disprove in this life, eh? Which is another very important distinction between AA and actual religions. AA's promise is temporal, worldly, tangible. What AA promises is that if you dedicate yourself each day to not drinking, and if you follow the steps that others have followed to accomplish this task which is very difficult for most of us, that the alcohol (or drugs or eating or gambling or sex or any other addiction that has a twelve-step program) will no longer control your life. It doesn't say you'll have eternal salvation, be rich and famous, have perfect body, a shiny car, a great sex life, a happy marriage. It doesn't say that your life will be perfect or that the underlying psychological and spiritual causes of your addictive and destructive behavior will be cured. All it says is that the destructive behavior will no longer control your life. And it works...
I know we're way over budget here, so let me close with these few observations. While AA and other twelve step programs are not, in my view, religions, they are deeply and profoundly spiritual. They do require that the participant admit his or her weakness and insignificance in the face of a greater power. For me, that greater power is the eternal infinite universe, against the power and magnificence of which I am less significant than a single molecule of salt in all the oceans of the earth. For you, it may be something totally different. If, however, you believe that there is no power higher than yourself, don't waste your time, because for you, the programs won't work. For you more so, but for every addict, the problem isn't the alcohol or the drugs or the sex or the eating or the gambling or the stealing or whatever destructive behavior is your particular demon or combination of demons. The problem is you, the individual. And for those too myopic or stubborn to see their own weakness and too prideful to admit they need help, no religion or program or anything else will ease their suffering. I know. I were one once...
Friday, January 8, 2010
Sex & Cooking
How do I let you people talk me into these things? What? I didn't? A cheap ploy to attract readers? I never...
Okay, yes I did. And so I will. The simple fact is that I do both. Enjoy both. Occasionally excel in both. Sex & cooking we're talking about here, remember? Most often, I'm sure, I'm just barely above average at both. See, I'm just like you and told you that from the get go. Didn't I? Well???
I'm really letting this blog thing drive itself a bit, being all Tao and Zen and into therapy and recovery and whatnot. It is seldom that I know when I start where its going to wind up, but on this one I actually had a few thoughts prior to pitching the notion, so this could prove interesting. Also, while its not exactly intentional, I'm pretty sure you're going to at some point pick up a recurring Mars/Venus theme over the course of my ramblings. No, I am not a misogynist and am getting tired of hearing that. If a woman is a bitch she's a bitch, just like a guy who's a bastard's a bastard. Get over it. (By the way, who else knew that the term "son of a bitch" was just about the worst possible thing a Native American could call someone? They had no worse words for another human being. That's what I heard somewhere, anyway...)
Point being, I love women, don't hate or revile or mistrust women any more than I do men. Recognizing that generalizations are always dangerous and inaccurate, I am willing to say that I generally have very little use for men, the majority of whom (here in Texas and the U.S. anyway) are generally shallow, narrow minded, dually focused (sports and sex), and of no appreciable value to society that I can see. Does this make me, in fact a misandrist? Hmmm...
I've only recently come to question why I have for so long held women in higher esteem. I really hope its not just about sex. Very disturbing, that. Anyway, the fact that I consider and called the "ladies" who bedded down with married Tiger "hos" doesn't mean I hate women. I just think they're hos, that's all. Pretty skanky for the most part, too. Hustler fare, if you know what I mean. What the hell was he thinking? Not about cooking, that's for sure...
Okay, fine. Here goes...
First, it is my observation that men and women approach both cooking and sex very differently. Some of this is societal - women are "expected" to cook, ergo its a chore and who wants to do chores? I know very few women who claim to love to cook. I know a number of men who love to cook, myself among them. Why? Partly I'm sure because we don't have to - its voluntary, unexpected, not demanded. I mean, I may be a little strange in this but I've actually shoveled dirt for a living, dug ditches and such, so, as a result, I really don't enjoy doing it now, even in my own yard. The wife digs (little holes for little plants) and I cook. So, lets accept that men who love to cook, as likely as not, don't have to, and that women who would prefer not to cook take this position largely because they're expected to. Cook that is. Some people like to live in the box, and some outside of the box. Nobody, however, likes to be put into the box. Do we?
And regarding the mess? We men would love to be able to cook without making a mess. The point of cooking, however, is to interact with the food, feel the the ingredients, revel in the stirring and sifting and chopping and dicing and mixing and tossing and smelling and tasting and all the other wonderful activities that constitute joyful food preparation. If the object of an activity is "to not," as in, to not make a mess, then you bring a very negative mindset to the whole effort and really kill the whole spirit of festivity. In an ideal world, the meal that results from our unbridled zeal will be wonderful and splendid and tasty and hearty, and all recipients will so enjoy it that they will gladly join in afterward to clean up the battlefield. In an ideal world. While the chef takes a nap on the couch...
In our house, the wife handles the baking. I can't do it. Baking has too many rules, precise measurements, meticulously orchestrated sequences of events. You have to hold your eyes a certain way and control your breathing and don't shake the stove or cut a fart or do anything else to disrupt the machine-like flow of predictable events. No wonder women are devastated when their souffle falls or cake collapses or filling doesn't set or some other catastrophe results despite all their precise efforts. Trying on bathing suits is tough on self esteem? Spend a day baking! Jeesh! Hell, when our chili is off or the steaks aren't exactly right, we just toss half a beer or a splash of bourbon on it or in it and the other half in us and call it good. Life's too short, people...
And sex? Don't get me started. Okay, so we've already started. Deep breath...
Men and women are different. Okay, there, I said it. And men are to cooking as women are to baking. (That's a junior-high middle school math allusion for those of you thinking it had a slightly familiar ring.) We all approach everything we do from our own self-conscious perspective - its unavoidable, and not necessarily selfish. We men are like a steak or a chicken or a pot of chili or a fresh salad. There's nothing complicated about a man and, from a qualitative standpoint, man sex is pretty simple. For the vast majority of us, the worst sex we ever had wasn't bad, and the very best was about 2.5 times better than the worst. We're just that way - uncomplicated. Toss us on the fire, flip us every once in a while, a dash of this and a dab of that and everything's good.
Women, on the other hand, not so much. Outside of the space shuttle or the CERN particle accelerator, women are just about the most complicated contraptions on the planet. So woman sex is like baking. A lot like baking. Much of the cause of this is that 80 percent of a woman's sex organs are between her ears, the balance distributed equally between the sweet spot which bears no further mention (except to say its complicated as hell too!) and about 72 other spots on her body, the vast majority of which most men don't even know exist. (This complex configuration is, of course, the exact opposite of a man's, which is simple to the point of imbecility - hence requiring virtually no effort to deliver the perfect repast - from the man's point of view.) This marked difference means that, in woman sex, almost all of the sifting and stirring and mixing and seasoning and all of the other things that it takes to pull off the perfect meal (metaphorically speaking) are ideally performed in all sorts of places besides the one or three where most men are inclined to focus their attention. And very, excruciatingly contextually dependent. And ladies, you don't exactly come with instruction manuals or cook books or how-to classes, ya know?
Now, now friends. Don't be depressed or distressed. There is good news for those who've hung around this long. Men can and do in fact learn to cook without making a huge mess, and to clean up after themselves when there is one. We can also learn to bake, and a lucky few may even learn to enjoy it (although I've never personally met any.) And women, you can learn the joy and abandon of cooking spontaneously, tossing in a little of this or that just because it sounds interesting, despite the fact that it's not in the recipe, or maybe getting totally wild and pulling the first ten things you find out of the fridge and pantry and making a meal of it with no recipe at all, because you're not afraid to fail, because there's no such thing as failing. Who needs a recipe anyway, remember? Add a little Tao to our cooking - go with the flow. Enjoy the process and don't be overly hung up on the final result. And for both, start with a clean kitchen and finish with a clean kitchen...
And as far as the sex goes? Just keep trying different recipes, different ingredients, different techniques. Men, work a little harder to be more complicated, sometimes our simplicity makes us seem, well...simple? And remember that women aren't actually trying to be complex, they're just that way. Keep in mind that a positive and giving attitude goes farther than just about anything towards making sure the oven is at the right temperature, the ingredients are properly mixed, and the meal will be enjoyable to all. Ladies, open up and lighten up and enjoy the experience without trying to make it fit a recipe or agenda or schedule? Remember, who needs a recipe? Again, go with the flow. And don't be shy about directing we poor simple men through your complexities. Remember, most men really do want to be, metaphorically speaking, great cooks or bakers.
Finally, I would encourage everyone remember two simple maxims. First, nobody has a good time if one party is trying to bake while the other is trying to cook, at least in the conventional kitchen. Not enough cooking implements, room, counter space, etc. If you try it, you'll likely have a poorly prepared meal and too much angst for anyone to consider either the cooking or dining experience enjoyable. And secondly, a meal is not complete until everyone has been served and filled to their individual satisfaction. So, with that...
Bon Appétit!
Author's Note - This is a blog, not a magazine. If I ever do outside research, it is unlikely that you'll know. If I ever cite specific facts or figures, they will be properly attributed. Ergo, it is safe to assume that whatever you read here is fully and completely the product of my twisted little mind. Hope you enjoy!
Okay, yes I did. And so I will. The simple fact is that I do both. Enjoy both. Occasionally excel in both. Sex & cooking we're talking about here, remember? Most often, I'm sure, I'm just barely above average at both. See, I'm just like you and told you that from the get go. Didn't I? Well???
I'm really letting this blog thing drive itself a bit, being all Tao and Zen and into therapy and recovery and whatnot. It is seldom that I know when I start where its going to wind up, but on this one I actually had a few thoughts prior to pitching the notion, so this could prove interesting. Also, while its not exactly intentional, I'm pretty sure you're going to at some point pick up a recurring Mars/Venus theme over the course of my ramblings. No, I am not a misogynist and am getting tired of hearing that. If a woman is a bitch she's a bitch, just like a guy who's a bastard's a bastard. Get over it. (By the way, who else knew that the term "son of a bitch" was just about the worst possible thing a Native American could call someone? They had no worse words for another human being. That's what I heard somewhere, anyway...)
Point being, I love women, don't hate or revile or mistrust women any more than I do men. Recognizing that generalizations are always dangerous and inaccurate, I am willing to say that I generally have very little use for men, the majority of whom (here in Texas and the U.S. anyway) are generally shallow, narrow minded, dually focused (sports and sex), and of no appreciable value to society that I can see. Does this make me, in fact a misandrist? Hmmm...
I've only recently come to question why I have for so long held women in higher esteem. I really hope its not just about sex. Very disturbing, that. Anyway, the fact that I consider and called the "ladies" who bedded down with married Tiger "hos" doesn't mean I hate women. I just think they're hos, that's all. Pretty skanky for the most part, too. Hustler fare, if you know what I mean. What the hell was he thinking? Not about cooking, that's for sure...
Okay, fine. Here goes...
First, it is my observation that men and women approach both cooking and sex very differently. Some of this is societal - women are "expected" to cook, ergo its a chore and who wants to do chores? I know very few women who claim to love to cook. I know a number of men who love to cook, myself among them. Why? Partly I'm sure because we don't have to - its voluntary, unexpected, not demanded. I mean, I may be a little strange in this but I've actually shoveled dirt for a living, dug ditches and such, so, as a result, I really don't enjoy doing it now, even in my own yard. The wife digs (little holes for little plants) and I cook. So, lets accept that men who love to cook, as likely as not, don't have to, and that women who would prefer not to cook take this position largely because they're expected to. Cook that is. Some people like to live in the box, and some outside of the box. Nobody, however, likes to be put into the box. Do we?
And regarding the mess? We men would love to be able to cook without making a mess. The point of cooking, however, is to interact with the food, feel the the ingredients, revel in the stirring and sifting and chopping and dicing and mixing and tossing and smelling and tasting and all the other wonderful activities that constitute joyful food preparation. If the object of an activity is "to not," as in, to not make a mess, then you bring a very negative mindset to the whole effort and really kill the whole spirit of festivity. In an ideal world, the meal that results from our unbridled zeal will be wonderful and splendid and tasty and hearty, and all recipients will so enjoy it that they will gladly join in afterward to clean up the battlefield. In an ideal world. While the chef takes a nap on the couch...
In our house, the wife handles the baking. I can't do it. Baking has too many rules, precise measurements, meticulously orchestrated sequences of events. You have to hold your eyes a certain way and control your breathing and don't shake the stove or cut a fart or do anything else to disrupt the machine-like flow of predictable events. No wonder women are devastated when their souffle falls or cake collapses or filling doesn't set or some other catastrophe results despite all their precise efforts. Trying on bathing suits is tough on self esteem? Spend a day baking! Jeesh! Hell, when our chili is off or the steaks aren't exactly right, we just toss half a beer or a splash of bourbon on it or in it and the other half in us and call it good. Life's too short, people...
And sex? Don't get me started. Okay, so we've already started. Deep breath...
Men and women are different. Okay, there, I said it. And men are to cooking as women are to baking. (That's a junior-high middle school math allusion for those of you thinking it had a slightly familiar ring.) We all approach everything we do from our own self-conscious perspective - its unavoidable, and not necessarily selfish. We men are like a steak or a chicken or a pot of chili or a fresh salad. There's nothing complicated about a man and, from a qualitative standpoint, man sex is pretty simple. For the vast majority of us, the worst sex we ever had wasn't bad, and the very best was about 2.5 times better than the worst. We're just that way - uncomplicated. Toss us on the fire, flip us every once in a while, a dash of this and a dab of that and everything's good.
Women, on the other hand, not so much. Outside of the space shuttle or the CERN particle accelerator, women are just about the most complicated contraptions on the planet. So woman sex is like baking. A lot like baking. Much of the cause of this is that 80 percent of a woman's sex organs are between her ears, the balance distributed equally between the sweet spot which bears no further mention (except to say its complicated as hell too!) and about 72 other spots on her body, the vast majority of which most men don't even know exist. (This complex configuration is, of course, the exact opposite of a man's, which is simple to the point of imbecility - hence requiring virtually no effort to deliver the perfect repast - from the man's point of view.) This marked difference means that, in woman sex, almost all of the sifting and stirring and mixing and seasoning and all of the other things that it takes to pull off the perfect meal (metaphorically speaking) are ideally performed in all sorts of places besides the one or three where most men are inclined to focus their attention. And very, excruciatingly contextually dependent. And ladies, you don't exactly come with instruction manuals or cook books or how-to classes, ya know?
Now, now friends. Don't be depressed or distressed. There is good news for those who've hung around this long. Men can and do in fact learn to cook without making a huge mess, and to clean up after themselves when there is one. We can also learn to bake, and a lucky few may even learn to enjoy it (although I've never personally met any.) And women, you can learn the joy and abandon of cooking spontaneously, tossing in a little of this or that just because it sounds interesting, despite the fact that it's not in the recipe, or maybe getting totally wild and pulling the first ten things you find out of the fridge and pantry and making a meal of it with no recipe at all, because you're not afraid to fail, because there's no such thing as failing. Who needs a recipe anyway, remember? Add a little Tao to our cooking - go with the flow. Enjoy the process and don't be overly hung up on the final result. And for both, start with a clean kitchen and finish with a clean kitchen...
And as far as the sex goes? Just keep trying different recipes, different ingredients, different techniques. Men, work a little harder to be more complicated, sometimes our simplicity makes us seem, well...simple? And remember that women aren't actually trying to be complex, they're just that way. Keep in mind that a positive and giving attitude goes farther than just about anything towards making sure the oven is at the right temperature, the ingredients are properly mixed, and the meal will be enjoyable to all. Ladies, open up and lighten up and enjoy the experience without trying to make it fit a recipe or agenda or schedule? Remember, who needs a recipe? Again, go with the flow. And don't be shy about directing we poor simple men through your complexities. Remember, most men really do want to be, metaphorically speaking, great cooks or bakers.
Finally, I would encourage everyone remember two simple maxims. First, nobody has a good time if one party is trying to bake while the other is trying to cook, at least in the conventional kitchen. Not enough cooking implements, room, counter space, etc. If you try it, you'll likely have a poorly prepared meal and too much angst for anyone to consider either the cooking or dining experience enjoyable. And secondly, a meal is not complete until everyone has been served and filled to their individual satisfaction. So, with that...
Bon Appétit!
Author's Note - This is a blog, not a magazine. If I ever do outside research, it is unlikely that you'll know. If I ever cite specific facts or figures, they will be properly attributed. Ergo, it is safe to assume that whatever you read here is fully and completely the product of my twisted little mind. Hope you enjoy!
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Think About It...
Happy 2010, friends. My first post of the new year/decade and I've been frankly conflicted on where to start. Coming out of a ho-hum holiday and driving to Houston tomorrow for some client visits and not really positive whether I want to get frighteningly serious about grabbing my job by the balls and making it my bitch, or getting more serious about exploring other opportunities, including dedicating myself more to writing. I can safely say that there isn't a single aspect of my life right now that is firmly anchored, stable or predictable - I'm fine with that, but it requires that I be awake, alert, and mindful at all times. And it would no doubt help if I settled down and did some serious meditating, a practice I've honored in the past primarily by artfully dodging...
I guess I'd best start the year by explaining what it is I wish for this blog, in hopes that at least a few of you will be inclined to help out. Obviously, it is a journal of sorts, and in that sense intended to be therapeutic for me. And, God knows, I can use all the therapy I can get. I have always loved to write, but have never been one to write for myself. I'm not much impressed by my writing (even less by my spelling, grammar, etc.), but enjoy sharing my thoughts with others and having others occasionally tell me that they appreciate my efforts. So I guess a bit of affirmation is an underlying objective.
More critically, if a post has the effect of making even one reader think more deeply about a topic, or perhaps consider something for the first time or from a new perspective, I will feel truly blessed. I like to think, and I like hanging out with people who think, and who like to think. That's really what we're about here - thinking. As my formal education is so lacking, I fully expect to be exposed to new and formalized perspectives on myriad topics to which I've never been exposed nor thought to consider. Hopefully some of you will find your intellectual portfolio enhanced as well - likely not every week, but often enough that you'll keep coming back for more.
And I really would rather have my readers share an honest well articulated disagreement with some proffered stance or viewpoint, than to have my derriere kissed by a bunch of wonderful well-meaning folks who want to make me feel good about myself. The yin and yang of my Taoist philosophy dictates that there will be balance regardless of anyone's efforts, and my preference is that you, my dear readers, feel at least as free to wail away at my over-size ego as you are to cast praise. There is no progress in any aspect of life that is free of discomfort. I'm a big boy. I can take it...
In seeking both topic ideas and feedback from diverse viewpoints, I am adopting the same approach that insightful senior missionaries share with their students, namely that the best way to refine and strengthen your message is to share it with non-believers, understand and acknowledge their feedback and viewpoints, and defend or modify your position accordingly. Not that I have any strident messages I'm trying to sell here, or at least I hope stridency isn't seen as a hallmark, but I find that we learn very little when we limit our conversations to topics without nuance, with which everyone is comfortable, or to groups which all share our weltanschauung. I would go one step further and argue that topics we are cautioned against discussing in public are exactly the topics we should discuss, and so have every intention of violating this cautionary maxim and discussing politics and religion, economics and philosophy, sexuality and relationships and so forth, and hopefully doing so in a way that encourages dialogue between myself and my readers, and between readers yourselves. With respect and civility, of course...
Back in the days when I ran for public office, we were required to give speeches. I hated giving speeches. I loved, however, having discussions, and whenever the format allowed, I would do just that - giving a brief introductory bio on me and who I was and why I was running for whatever post I was seeking, and almost immediately opening it up to questions. This was particularly enjoyable when I spoke to groups of students, whether high school or college, but with adult and professional groups as well. I would start by stating my position on whatever the topic at hand was (as I will do here), offering a rationale or justification, and then fielding questions and challenges. It made for a lively dialogue that forced me to see other viewpoints, broaden my perspective, and either defend my position when I was right, or adjust it when I was not. At the end of the day, the point wasn't winning the discussion, but learning and teaching, sharing and growing.
So, in closing my first and hopefully most boring post of 2010, a few thoughts I'd like you to take away:
Thanks for spending a few minutes with me. Until next week...
I guess I'd best start the year by explaining what it is I wish for this blog, in hopes that at least a few of you will be inclined to help out. Obviously, it is a journal of sorts, and in that sense intended to be therapeutic for me. And, God knows, I can use all the therapy I can get. I have always loved to write, but have never been one to write for myself. I'm not much impressed by my writing (even less by my spelling, grammar, etc.), but enjoy sharing my thoughts with others and having others occasionally tell me that they appreciate my efforts. So I guess a bit of affirmation is an underlying objective.
More critically, if a post has the effect of making even one reader think more deeply about a topic, or perhaps consider something for the first time or from a new perspective, I will feel truly blessed. I like to think, and I like hanging out with people who think, and who like to think. That's really what we're about here - thinking. As my formal education is so lacking, I fully expect to be exposed to new and formalized perspectives on myriad topics to which I've never been exposed nor thought to consider. Hopefully some of you will find your intellectual portfolio enhanced as well - likely not every week, but often enough that you'll keep coming back for more.
And I really would rather have my readers share an honest well articulated disagreement with some proffered stance or viewpoint, than to have my derriere kissed by a bunch of wonderful well-meaning folks who want to make me feel good about myself. The yin and yang of my Taoist philosophy dictates that there will be balance regardless of anyone's efforts, and my preference is that you, my dear readers, feel at least as free to wail away at my over-size ego as you are to cast praise. There is no progress in any aspect of life that is free of discomfort. I'm a big boy. I can take it...
In seeking both topic ideas and feedback from diverse viewpoints, I am adopting the same approach that insightful senior missionaries share with their students, namely that the best way to refine and strengthen your message is to share it with non-believers, understand and acknowledge their feedback and viewpoints, and defend or modify your position accordingly. Not that I have any strident messages I'm trying to sell here, or at least I hope stridency isn't seen as a hallmark, but I find that we learn very little when we limit our conversations to topics without nuance, with which everyone is comfortable, or to groups which all share our weltanschauung. I would go one step further and argue that topics we are cautioned against discussing in public are exactly the topics we should discuss, and so have every intention of violating this cautionary maxim and discussing politics and religion, economics and philosophy, sexuality and relationships and so forth, and hopefully doing so in a way that encourages dialogue between myself and my readers, and between readers yourselves. With respect and civility, of course...
Back in the days when I ran for public office, we were required to give speeches. I hated giving speeches. I loved, however, having discussions, and whenever the format allowed, I would do just that - giving a brief introductory bio on me and who I was and why I was running for whatever post I was seeking, and almost immediately opening it up to questions. This was particularly enjoyable when I spoke to groups of students, whether high school or college, but with adult and professional groups as well. I would start by stating my position on whatever the topic at hand was (as I will do here), offering a rationale or justification, and then fielding questions and challenges. It made for a lively dialogue that forced me to see other viewpoints, broaden my perspective, and either defend my position when I was right, or adjust it when I was not. At the end of the day, the point wasn't winning the discussion, but learning and teaching, sharing and growing.
So, in closing my first and hopefully most boring post of 2010, a few thoughts I'd like you to take away:
- Please let me know what you think about any post, positive or negative. Your doing so is helpful to me in more ways than I can count, and hopefully will act a spur to further discussion.
- Please feel free to pitch, either through comments or email, any topic you would like us to get into. I do not want this to be a monologue, but a dialogue and as lively a one as we can muster.
- Please invite your friends and fellow travelers to join us. We welcome anyone of any persuasion with a bright mind, an open outlook, and a reasonably civil disposition.
- I ask that any invective be reserved for me personally, and that discussion between readers be kept on a civil plane. I don't ask or expect all to agree, lest the dialogue have a narcoleptic effect that is useful to nobody. I do, however, expect civility, as should we all.
Thanks for spending a few minutes with me. Until next week...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
