Charles Manson died Sunday. For decades he was the face of evil. He was evil. That much is clear. I could write more about that but that isn’t the issue that caught my attention. When he was arrested everybody knew his name. Everybody knew the crimes of which he was accused. Many of us even knew the names of his little band of followers. Some argued that he was mentally ill but nobody disagreed that he was evil. There was discussion regarding whether or not he should have been executed but there was no discussion that he might ever be rehabilitated and able to find his way back into society. Charlie Manson was the stuff nightmares are made of.
Jeffrey Dahmer likewise was evil. We know his name too.
Here’s the bit that caught my attention today. We don’t recognize evil today. On October 1 a guy killed 57 people in Las Vegas and injured 546 more and I don’t even know his name. It can be argued that reporting his name would lead to copycats but the reason I don’t know his name is not because it was not reported... it was reported. I looked it up. Steven Paddock. No, the reason I didn’t know his name is because within a few days all of us who were not directly impacted by the violence moved on and essentially forgot what had happened. Seven days ago another gunman killed four at an elementary school and again, I don’t know his name either. We have grown numb to the violence and even an act as horrendous as the Las Vegas Massacre doesn’t frighten us as much as Charles Manson.
I don’t know what else to say about this beyond the fact that it frightens me and saddens me...
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
blogging
It has been a long time since I’ve blogged. Life has been busy. I found myself wondering whether anybody really read my posts. I began posting videos of my sermons on YouTube . Then a week or so I was on a panel at an interfaith event and a person from the audience whom I’d not met before introduced herself and told me that she reads my blog. I couldn’t help but feel guilty for not posting... so I’m going to try to be more regular. We’ll see.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
The antifa and neo-Nazis
Well... the antifa has been on the front page of my local newspaper the past two days and I assume is on others as well as probably being big news on every right or right leaning news outlet. Yesterday's headline here on the Santa Barbara News Press (one of the only papers in the country that endorsed Trump for president) was "Attack on Free Speech." Today's front page article condemned Democratic elected officials for not speaking out loudly against the antifa.
Let me begin by speaking out. I am a pacifist and believe that violence is never justified. That is another post. I know there are folk across the political spectrum who are happy to find ways to justify their actions based in some myth of redemptive violence. I condemn those actions by the antifa as being immoral. Second, in this case, violence is particularly poorly planned. It allows the neo-Nazis to be portrayed as the victims of radicals seeking to deny them their rights as Americans rather than the hateful radicals they are. We see that alternative narrative already moving to the foreground as in both of the articles I referenced above. So, I condemn the antifa's violent actions as being counter productive.
That said, I find it particularly troubling that those on the right are making some kind of equivalency between the alt-right and the antifa. There is no equivalency here.
Let us begin by the simple observation - "antifa" is short for "anti fascist." That strikes me a good thing. Indeed, you could easily have labeled the entire US as "antifa" during WWII. Certainly the US military was acting as an "antifa" organization. I am not arguing that a group of thugs dressed in black is the equivalent morally or in any other way to the US military - but the basic orientation and goal of the antifa falls solidly within our historical values. The neo-Nazis and other alt-right groups fall solidly outside of everything we claim to be as a culture. It is important to underscore that the core values of the neo-Nazi movement enshrine violence against black folk, immigrants, LGBTQ folk, Jews, and basically anyone else who do not fit into their immediate community. That is unAmerican. Clearly there are some anarchists and far left folk who are part of the antifa... but I would argue that even those political views are more closely aligned with what it means to be an American than the views of the neo-fascists.
The goals of the antifa movement are based in positive ends. They were in Charlottesville to protect protestors from the alt-right demonstrators, many of whom had come ready for violence carrying everything from semi-automatic long rifles to plywood shields decorated with swastikas. In other instances they have sought to curtail hate speech, often by inappropriately violent means, that calls for and advocates violence against members of any number of marginalized groups.
I would be thrilled to see the antifa movement embrace non-violent ways of standing up to the alt-right. Examples have shown that they are much more effective and do not feed the desire of the alt-right to be portrayed as persecuted victims. In the meantime, I refuse to remain silent when people make the false equivalency between them and the alt-right.
Let me begin by speaking out. I am a pacifist and believe that violence is never justified. That is another post. I know there are folk across the political spectrum who are happy to find ways to justify their actions based in some myth of redemptive violence. I condemn those actions by the antifa as being immoral. Second, in this case, violence is particularly poorly planned. It allows the neo-Nazis to be portrayed as the victims of radicals seeking to deny them their rights as Americans rather than the hateful radicals they are. We see that alternative narrative already moving to the foreground as in both of the articles I referenced above. So, I condemn the antifa's violent actions as being counter productive.
That said, I find it particularly troubling that those on the right are making some kind of equivalency between the alt-right and the antifa. There is no equivalency here.
Let us begin by the simple observation - "antifa" is short for "anti fascist." That strikes me a good thing. Indeed, you could easily have labeled the entire US as "antifa" during WWII. Certainly the US military was acting as an "antifa" organization. I am not arguing that a group of thugs dressed in black is the equivalent morally or in any other way to the US military - but the basic orientation and goal of the antifa falls solidly within our historical values. The neo-Nazis and other alt-right groups fall solidly outside of everything we claim to be as a culture. It is important to underscore that the core values of the neo-Nazi movement enshrine violence against black folk, immigrants, LGBTQ folk, Jews, and basically anyone else who do not fit into their immediate community. That is unAmerican. Clearly there are some anarchists and far left folk who are part of the antifa... but I would argue that even those political views are more closely aligned with what it means to be an American than the views of the neo-fascists.
The goals of the antifa movement are based in positive ends. They were in Charlottesville to protect protestors from the alt-right demonstrators, many of whom had come ready for violence carrying everything from semi-automatic long rifles to plywood shields decorated with swastikas. In other instances they have sought to curtail hate speech, often by inappropriately violent means, that calls for and advocates violence against members of any number of marginalized groups.
I would be thrilled to see the antifa movement embrace non-violent ways of standing up to the alt-right. Examples have shown that they are much more effective and do not feed the desire of the alt-right to be portrayed as persecuted victims. In the meantime, I refuse to remain silent when people make the false equivalency between them and the alt-right.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Blue Ocean Faith - book review
I believe in the Church. Now, I do not believe in the Church the same way I believe in Jesus... but it is close. It is close because I do not believe it is possible to be a follower of Jesus outside of the community of faith. Community is central to being faithful. At the same time, Church is full of cultural bits and as culture changes, the institutional expression of Church changes too. We are in the midst of huge changes culturally and that is impacting the institution of the Church in significant ways. Indeed, I believe that we are facing the birth of a new incarnation of Church that will be radically different from the institution in which I was formed and by which I'm employed. So, my eyebrows usually go up when someone mentions a book that might be giving a glimpse of the not quite here yet... Blue Ocean Faith by David Schmelzer promised to be one such book.
Let me begin by saying this book frustrates me. A lot. And I think I'll likely be proposing it to my church board for the next all church study book.
So, what about it frustrates me? The author speaks to a post-Evangelical audience. I am so post post-evangelical that those arguments have no interest for me whatsoever.
The argument whether or not we should be centered set vs. bounded set is not one I even see worth entertaining. Indeed, if you need to question who we need to exclude... I don't have time or energy for you.
He writes about a third way when facing controversial issues that allows for room to differ over non-essentials and then defines the essentials as dogma - the ideas included in the Apostolic and Nicene creeds and says that if one does not hold those ideas, then they're talking about a different faith than Christianity. I'm not sure about that. Indeed, I come from a tradition that specifically rejects creedalism in favor of Statements of Faith which a very thoughtful friend of mine said must always be written in pencil. The author defines disputable issues as those that bring together competing implications from dogma and over which otherwise faithful people might reasonably disagree. I like the intent here... but fear we might disagree over what is disputable. Schmelzer includes the issue of LGBTQ folk here. I cannot see that as disputable. Indeed, reject those folk and you're talking about something other than Christianity in my mind. The bottom line is that I'm not sure how one defines the essentials vs. the disputables.
Perhaps most important of all, the author sees this new movement of the church standing on the statement - Solus Jesus (as opposed to sola scriptura). I like that... but I fear we might have a lot of very different understandings of who Jesus is. The implications of that range of images is very serious.
I observed earlier that Schmelzer is writing to a post-evangelical audience. This became most apparent as he embraces ideas that more mainline churches have held for a long time as if they are new ideas. He treats centered set as if it is new (he does give credit to a theologian from Fuller who wrote about it in the 70's) but in my circles it was part of the discussion in the 1980's. He speaks of joyful engagement with secular culture when the mainline church never rejected scientific inquiry, the arts, etc. etc. He calls for ecumenism when the mainline church embraced that wholeheartedly in the 50's and went on to wrestle with the even larger issues of interfaith connectedness.
Finally, the book doesn't really address the institutional questions with which I struggle daily. What does the coming Church look like? How does it work in society? What forms might worship take? Ministry? Do we have trained leadership and if not, what happens to a body of knowledge and wisdom that has been gained through centuries and requires a kind of commitment to it which lay folk don't have time or skills to address?
So... what do I like?
Their six distinctives are a good start... and especially for those in the post-evangelical world. I have a bunch of younger friends who grew up in evangelical churches, left as they became more mature, and have been inoculated against church, thinking that all real Christian churches believe and act like the ones they abandoned. There was no convincing them that something else exists out there where their gay friends would be welcomed, women can hold leadership, they don't have to leave their brains in the parking lot, and real faith is not identified with white middle class Republicanism. This may have helped...
The dsitinctives are:
I like his pointing at Francis as providing a model for the Christian life... and his call for a real embrace of diversity.
So... it is worth a read, especially if you're coming from an evangelical background and feeling as if there must be something more. If you're looking for hints as to what the next incarnation of Church might look like... you'll be a bit disappointed I think. I love to visit other churches when I'm travelling and will look for a member church of this organization as I travel.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR,Part 255.
Let me begin by saying this book frustrates me. A lot. And I think I'll likely be proposing it to my church board for the next all church study book.
So, what about it frustrates me? The author speaks to a post-Evangelical audience. I am so post post-evangelical that those arguments have no interest for me whatsoever.
The argument whether or not we should be centered set vs. bounded set is not one I even see worth entertaining. Indeed, if you need to question who we need to exclude... I don't have time or energy for you.
He writes about a third way when facing controversial issues that allows for room to differ over non-essentials and then defines the essentials as dogma - the ideas included in the Apostolic and Nicene creeds and says that if one does not hold those ideas, then they're talking about a different faith than Christianity. I'm not sure about that. Indeed, I come from a tradition that specifically rejects creedalism in favor of Statements of Faith which a very thoughtful friend of mine said must always be written in pencil. The author defines disputable issues as those that bring together competing implications from dogma and over which otherwise faithful people might reasonably disagree. I like the intent here... but fear we might disagree over what is disputable. Schmelzer includes the issue of LGBTQ folk here. I cannot see that as disputable. Indeed, reject those folk and you're talking about something other than Christianity in my mind. The bottom line is that I'm not sure how one defines the essentials vs. the disputables.
Perhaps most important of all, the author sees this new movement of the church standing on the statement - Solus Jesus (as opposed to sola scriptura). I like that... but I fear we might have a lot of very different understandings of who Jesus is. The implications of that range of images is very serious.
I observed earlier that Schmelzer is writing to a post-evangelical audience. This became most apparent as he embraces ideas that more mainline churches have held for a long time as if they are new ideas. He treats centered set as if it is new (he does give credit to a theologian from Fuller who wrote about it in the 70's) but in my circles it was part of the discussion in the 1980's. He speaks of joyful engagement with secular culture when the mainline church never rejected scientific inquiry, the arts, etc. etc. He calls for ecumenism when the mainline church embraced that wholeheartedly in the 50's and went on to wrestle with the even larger issues of interfaith connectedness.
Finally, the book doesn't really address the institutional questions with which I struggle daily. What does the coming Church look like? How does it work in society? What forms might worship take? Ministry? Do we have trained leadership and if not, what happens to a body of knowledge and wisdom that has been gained through centuries and requires a kind of commitment to it which lay folk don't have time or skills to address?
So... what do I like?
Their six distinctives are a good start... and especially for those in the post-evangelical world. I have a bunch of younger friends who grew up in evangelical churches, left as they became more mature, and have been inoculated against church, thinking that all real Christian churches believe and act like the ones they abandoned. There was no convincing them that something else exists out there where their gay friends would be welcomed, women can hold leadership, they don't have to leave their brains in the parking lot, and real faith is not identified with white middle class Republicanism. This may have helped...
The dsitinctives are:
- Our primary framework is SOLUS JESUS
- Our primary metaphor is CENTERED SET
- Our approach to spiritual development is CHILDLIKE FAITH
- Our approach to controversial issues in THIRD WAY
- Our approach to other churches is ECUMENICAL
- Our engagement to secular culture is JOYFUL ENGAGEMENT
I like his pointing at Francis as providing a model for the Christian life... and his call for a real embrace of diversity.
So... it is worth a read, especially if you're coming from an evangelical background and feeling as if there must be something more. If you're looking for hints as to what the next incarnation of Church might look like... you'll be a bit disappointed I think. I love to visit other churches when I'm travelling and will look for a member church of this organization as I travel.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR,Part 255.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Monster 7 Red Microphone by Sire - review
 | ||
| Sire Monster 7 Red |
I’m doing a review here
of the Monster 7 microphone built by Sire, a company known for its very high
quality basses built to Marcus Miller’s specs at a crazy price point to quality
ratio. I received the mic for free from
the company and was asked to share my thoughts about the mic. There was no requirement that I give a
positive review for the mic so these thought are my own and represent my honest
assessments of the mic.
OK, now some background. I play as a side player on acoustic guitar
and on fretless bass with a number of different folk, play fretless bass in a church band at Cambridge Drive Community Church in Goleta, CA (outside of Santa Barbara),
and produce a small acoustic music series at the church called
Cambridge Drive Concerts.
No microphone reproduces
exactly what goes into it. Each adds a
little bit here and takes away a little there, giving each model its own sonic
signature. As a result, no microphone is
perfect for every singer. Some sound
better with a given voice than others.
Then there are other characteristics such as pick-up patterns,
susceptibility to pops and handling noise, gain available, how robust the
construction, proximity effect, etc. etc. that also contribute to how well a
mic works under given circumstances.
So I have a couple of
personal mics and we have a couple of other choices for the 4 singers in the
church band and the performers at our series.
My first test was to line up 5 different mics and then have the 4
singers from the church band go down the line, singing through each. They shared their opinion of which mic they
preferred for themselves and the members of the church band shared their
opinions.
 |
| Heil PR35, AKG 535, Monster 7, Heil PR20, ECM-80 |
The line up was a Heil PR35, AKG 535, Heil PR20, the Monster 7, and a Gauge ECM-80 - all some pretty good mics. Just for information we have more than one of
a couple of those mics and in addition have an Audix OM3 and an old Ibanez mic
from the 70’s built to compete with a Shure SM58 that we left out of the
line-up. Other than the Monster, the
price points range from the mid $100’s up to about $375. We have a very high quality sound system
through which we were testing the mics.
The four singers are
each fairly different. There are two
males: both baritones but with fairly different tonalities; and two females:
a richer alto voice and a thinner soprano.
The first surprise was
that for 3 of 4 singers, the Monster was either the first or second choice. It sounded very good with each voice. Only one singer (one of the males) strongly preferred a different
mic above the Monster. For the other singers it was always
I like the _____ and the Monster the best.
The listeners agreed in large degree with the thoughts of the singers. The Monster sounds most similar to the AKG
535 or the Heil PR35 from our choices – two excellent mics at the higher price points. Indeed, those two mics re always my first choices for the concert series. The Monster does have significantly less
handling noise or susceptibility to plosives than the PR35 and slightly better
than the 535. Sire says it has a cardiod
pick-up pattern and it seemed very similar to the Heil in that respect.
In the end, we ended up chosing a Monster
on the lower female voice, the Heil PR 35 on one of the males (although we may
cycle it out and replace it with a second Monster), the AKG for the higher female voice
and the other male singer strongly preferred the bigger low end of the Heil
PR20. That is the line up we used this past Sunday and will going forward with the possibility of swapping the PR35 out for the other Monster 7.
My second test was at a
fundraiser concert for a wonderful singer/songwriter who has been struggling
with the financial burden of a serious illness.
We had 10 acts – male and female singers, some of whom are touring pros,
a couple of professional producers, a couple of journeyman performers, and one who is a highly skilled
amateur. We had three set ups on stage –
the two primary set-ups had Monster 7’s as the vocal mic and the third (at the grand piano) had the Heil PR35. I asked the performers to let me know what they thought about the mics. One did.
Again, it was apparent
that everyone sounded good with the Monster 7 although I did notice a bit of
thinness on one of the thinner female voices.
She may have benefited from something with a more hyped low end. It was nothing that I couldn’t fix with a
little EQ adjustment though. That is exactly what I did - bring the bass up a tiny bit - and all was good. We did have
problems with plosives from a few of the performers. I didn't pay close enough attention to tell if that reflected some
difference between our two Monsters, if the problem was there with both, or if
it was just a reflection of less than perfect technique on the part of the singer. The Monster was still less susceptible to plosives than either Heil. One of the female performers said that she felt
the Monster was very sensitive to distance and that she had to be right on top of
it and on axis for it to sound good. I
didn’t notice that as being more so than any other mics we have.
Here's a little video from the concert... the singers are on Monster 7's and the recording was done on an Iphone (thanks Lars!). The primary singer/guitarist is Rebecca Troon with vocal back-up from Penny Nichols and Susan Marie Reeves with Dale LaDuke on accordion and me on bass. It gives a taste of the mics...
Monday, June 05, 2017
Biased Press
There have been scores of recent articles decrying the bias of the press against Donald Trump. As proof they compare the percentage of negative articles written about Trump during these first months of his presidency vs. the percentage of negative articles written about other presidents. Regardless of the veracity of those numbers, the argument falls down for two reasons or at the very least requires significantly more investigation before those numbers really mean anything.
The first is that while there clearly are news outlets with bias (Fox News is clearly one, but so is MSNBC), as a general rule, the news media is biased towards the sensational. In a world where they compete with the internet and truly fake news, they look for the sensational to catch the attention of an audience. Whatever one thinks about Donald Trump, he pours out the sensational each and every day. Stories that under normal circumstances would be front page - the attack by the Turkish president's body guards on US citizens on a Washington DC street - barely get any mention because there simply isn't room. It can be argued that the overwhelming coverage of his campaign by the mainstream press was the equivalent of millions of dollars worth of free advertising and clearly contributed to his winning. Donald is always on the news because he is always doing something sensational.
Now, this leads to the real question... how many of those sensational actions of DT are negative? If one president does 50 negative things while andother does 100, doesn't it make sense that the second one would have twice the negative articles? If one acomplishes three major legislative intitiatives while another accomplishes 1, doesn't it make sense that the first one would get 3X's the positive press? So, does DT do 40% more negative things than did a given previous president? I would argue, "yes." I'd be hard pressed to come up with anything I could point to as a positive thing done by the current administration and the negatives roll off the tongue. From everything that I can see, reality has a negative take on DT's administration.
One might argue that the reason that is so is because I am a stooge for the mainstream news, the "enemy." Actually, my local paper (which I do read) is one of only two I believe that endorsed Trump for president. If there is a biased outlet, it is that one and it is clearly pro-Trump. I do read some articles in the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian online but I am aware of what the "other side" is saying.
Clearly I am not pro-Trump. My avatar on Facebook still says "resist" and will until this administration and the spineless Republican legislators who keep putting power before country are gone. I was never one willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because I agreed with almost nothing he promised during his campaigns and find him as a person utterly with redeeming qualities. That does not stop me from acknowledging that the rise in the stock market increased after his election (maybe a good thing). The point is that if I saw something that looked positive, I think I could grudgingly agree it was there.
Nope... the press is not biased against Trump nor are they out to get him. He simply is an easy target who keeps doing ridiculously stupid things. As long as that continues... that is what we will see in the news.
The first is that while there clearly are news outlets with bias (Fox News is clearly one, but so is MSNBC), as a general rule, the news media is biased towards the sensational. In a world where they compete with the internet and truly fake news, they look for the sensational to catch the attention of an audience. Whatever one thinks about Donald Trump, he pours out the sensational each and every day. Stories that under normal circumstances would be front page - the attack by the Turkish president's body guards on US citizens on a Washington DC street - barely get any mention because there simply isn't room. It can be argued that the overwhelming coverage of his campaign by the mainstream press was the equivalent of millions of dollars worth of free advertising and clearly contributed to his winning. Donald is always on the news because he is always doing something sensational.
Now, this leads to the real question... how many of those sensational actions of DT are negative? If one president does 50 negative things while andother does 100, doesn't it make sense that the second one would have twice the negative articles? If one acomplishes three major legislative intitiatives while another accomplishes 1, doesn't it make sense that the first one would get 3X's the positive press? So, does DT do 40% more negative things than did a given previous president? I would argue, "yes." I'd be hard pressed to come up with anything I could point to as a positive thing done by the current administration and the negatives roll off the tongue. From everything that I can see, reality has a negative take on DT's administration.
One might argue that the reason that is so is because I am a stooge for the mainstream news, the "enemy." Actually, my local paper (which I do read) is one of only two I believe that endorsed Trump for president. If there is a biased outlet, it is that one and it is clearly pro-Trump. I do read some articles in the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian online but I am aware of what the "other side" is saying.
Clearly I am not pro-Trump. My avatar on Facebook still says "resist" and will until this administration and the spineless Republican legislators who keep putting power before country are gone. I was never one willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because I agreed with almost nothing he promised during his campaigns and find him as a person utterly with redeeming qualities. That does not stop me from acknowledging that the rise in the stock market increased after his election (maybe a good thing). The point is that if I saw something that looked positive, I think I could grudgingly agree it was there.
Nope... the press is not biased against Trump nor are they out to get him. He simply is an easy target who keeps doing ridiculously stupid things. As long as that continues... that is what we will see in the news.
Friday, June 02, 2017
Rules for Revolutionaries: How Big Organizing Can Change Everything - book review
If by some chance you haven't read anything I've posted in the past, I am a leftist. I half joked that Bernie Sanders was not liberal enough for me... and it was only half a joke. I am a child of the 60's. The Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-War Movement were important parts of my formation. I am also a Christian and a pastor of a Christian church. I believe in radical transformation. I believe we are on the cusp of significant change as a culture, as a world, and in the Church.
When this title by Becky Bond & Zack Exley, Rules for Revolutionaries: How Big Organizing Can Change Everything, presented itself as a possibility for a book review, I envisioned 5 Easy Steps to Changing the World... or maybe even 5 Really Hard Steps to Changing the World. I was hoping that the book would pick up where Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything left off and do a better job of providing direction than Tom Sine's, Live Like You Give a Damn did. As a parenthesis, if you haven't read Klein's book, it is a must read for anybody concerned about the direction our world is going. I was hoping for some insights that might apply to the Church and to churches as we seek to navigate this turbulent time.
I got what I wanted... sort of... and didn't get what I wanted... sort of... The book claims to not just be a re-hashing of what happened in the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign and then proceeds to be exactly that. For those who are interested in understanding how the Sanders campaign worked and why it was as successful as it was, this book is a must read. For whoever decides to run for the Democrats in 2020, it is likewise a must read. For change smaller that a presidential campaign, the book requires a bit more work to make relevant. Still, there are some key ideas that speak to anyone involved in working for significant change whether on the macro level or the more local one. A couple that jumped out at me are:
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR,Part 255.
When this title by Becky Bond & Zack Exley, Rules for Revolutionaries: How Big Organizing Can Change Everything, presented itself as a possibility for a book review, I envisioned 5 Easy Steps to Changing the World... or maybe even 5 Really Hard Steps to Changing the World. I was hoping that the book would pick up where Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything left off and do a better job of providing direction than Tom Sine's, Live Like You Give a Damn did. As a parenthesis, if you haven't read Klein's book, it is a must read for anybody concerned about the direction our world is going. I was hoping for some insights that might apply to the Church and to churches as we seek to navigate this turbulent time.
I got what I wanted... sort of... and didn't get what I wanted... sort of... The book claims to not just be a re-hashing of what happened in the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign and then proceeds to be exactly that. For those who are interested in understanding how the Sanders campaign worked and why it was as successful as it was, this book is a must read. For whoever decides to run for the Democrats in 2020, it is likewise a must read. For change smaller that a presidential campaign, the book requires a bit more work to make relevant. Still, there are some key ideas that speak to anyone involved in working for significant change whether on the macro level or the more local one. A couple that jumped out at me are:
- The first is that change can happen... but if we want to see real change we have to embrace something big that includes all of the issues AND we must envision radical change rather than incremental change. People are willing to work if they are inspired. Incremental change doesn't inspire folk.
- Personal contact is central to everything
- Institutions and practices that used to work just get in the way now.
- Let volunteers run with their gifts.
- Be willing to make mistakes.
- Expect pushback even from folk you expected would be on your side.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR,Part 255.
Thursday, April 06, 2017
The Problem with Health Insurance
Health insurance is complicated... who knew?
In the bass guitar world technology has been pushing the limits with lighter weight, smaller cabinets, massive power, and more low end extension. My 6 pound head can run rings around the 65 pound heads of my youth and my 34 pound cab puts out more low end than the refrigerator sized (and weight) cabs of that same time period. Still, common wisdom is that you cannot have cheap, light, loud, and low all in one package. The laws of physics still apply along with basic economics.
In order to fix our medical care system, we must first acknowledge that the rules of math apply. It is not possible to have everyone covered with good comprehensive coverage at lower prices that are affordable to everyone without government funding and government interference. Lower priced plans with reduced coverage are only helpful until they are not. Cutting payment to physicians or other providers can only go so far before the math no longer works. A for profit entity has a bottom line commitment to the bottom line... and something eventually has to give in order for the company to make its profits. All that adds up to one inescapable conclusion.: before the ACA, the system was broken. Too many people were not insured. Too many people went bankrupt because of medical bills. Too many died because of lack of care. Treatment plans were often chosen by bean counters rather than because of efficacy. The training of physicians is expensive and favors some specialties over others regardless of actual social needs. The nature of healthcare makes it impossible for it to respond to market pressures in the same way that other industries do.
The ACA attempted to fix some of the presenting problems without addressing underlying issues. It succeeded in that small way and would have been more successful had the Republican Party not worked so hard to obstruct it. (We hear how the CBO's numbers were so off... but that ignores the fact that their numbers were based on the plan actually being adopted while 29 states refused the Medicare expansion part of the program). Because the ACA sought to work within the then, current system of for profit private insurance companies, etc., it could never deliver the product it promised of affordable, comprehensive coverage for all.
To get the product that a civilized country deserves requires a complete overhaul from top to bottom including training of physicians, funding of medical research, decisions regarding what care is provided (and not provided), how funding is allocated and what fee structures look like. It will take years to accomplish... possibly decades... but if we do not begin the process, we will see our broken system continue to deteriorate and all but the very rich will suffer.
In the bass guitar world technology has been pushing the limits with lighter weight, smaller cabinets, massive power, and more low end extension. My 6 pound head can run rings around the 65 pound heads of my youth and my 34 pound cab puts out more low end than the refrigerator sized (and weight) cabs of that same time period. Still, common wisdom is that you cannot have cheap, light, loud, and low all in one package. The laws of physics still apply along with basic economics.
In order to fix our medical care system, we must first acknowledge that the rules of math apply. It is not possible to have everyone covered with good comprehensive coverage at lower prices that are affordable to everyone without government funding and government interference. Lower priced plans with reduced coverage are only helpful until they are not. Cutting payment to physicians or other providers can only go so far before the math no longer works. A for profit entity has a bottom line commitment to the bottom line... and something eventually has to give in order for the company to make its profits. All that adds up to one inescapable conclusion.: before the ACA, the system was broken. Too many people were not insured. Too many people went bankrupt because of medical bills. Too many died because of lack of care. Treatment plans were often chosen by bean counters rather than because of efficacy. The training of physicians is expensive and favors some specialties over others regardless of actual social needs. The nature of healthcare makes it impossible for it to respond to market pressures in the same way that other industries do.
The ACA attempted to fix some of the presenting problems without addressing underlying issues. It succeeded in that small way and would have been more successful had the Republican Party not worked so hard to obstruct it. (We hear how the CBO's numbers were so off... but that ignores the fact that their numbers were based on the plan actually being adopted while 29 states refused the Medicare expansion part of the program). Because the ACA sought to work within the then, current system of for profit private insurance companies, etc., it could never deliver the product it promised of affordable, comprehensive coverage for all.
To get the product that a civilized country deserves requires a complete overhaul from top to bottom including training of physicians, funding of medical research, decisions regarding what care is provided (and not provided), how funding is allocated and what fee structures look like. It will take years to accomplish... possibly decades... but if we do not begin the process, we will see our broken system continue to deteriorate and all but the very rich will suffer.
Thursday, February 09, 2017
Sermons now on YouTube
The church I serve has begun to put videos of the sermon up
on youtube each week. The program has
raised some interesting issues.
First, there are the aesthetic questions. We’re using an inexpensive camera (Zoom Q4n)
and trying to be as unobtrusive as possible so there is one camera angle with a
bit of fisheye to the image. The camera
allows an AB or XY microphone arrangement so we tried both to see what would
give us better sound. I also quickly
learned that a dark jacket works better against the background of the
sanctuary. Watching myself also has me thinking about how I move when I'm preaching, what I do with my hands, etc. etc.
The more important questions have had to do with the shaping
of the sermon itself. I preach from the
lectionary. For those unfamiliar with a
lectionary, it is a list of 4 scripture readings for each Sunday of the church
year in a three year cycle. The readings include an historic passage (usually from the Old Testament), a Psalm, a
gospel passage, and a reading from the letters in the New Testament. The passages are chosen to fit together (in
the eyes of those who put the lectionary together) and are intended to go
through all of the major themes of the Bible over the three year cycle. More liturgical churches read all four
lections each Sunday. Because we’re in
the free church tradition, we have no such expectation. Indeed, using the lectionary at all is a choice I make. From the 4 readings, I choose two passages for each Sunday and
preach on the second one. It seems
important to me that we, who call ourselves Biblical Christians, read at least
two passages each Sunday. (many more conservative churches don't really read any passages from the Bible, instead just proof-texting during the sermon to prove whatever preconceptions they already hold). Again, being
in the Free Church tradition, I am not compelled to use the lectionary and
indeed, there are times when I stray from it.
Still, for me, it is a discipline that forces me to preach on passages
that I might not choose otherwise and to wrestle with themes that are uncomfortable for me. Of
course, I do still pick from among the four readings.
All of that said, I try to choose passages that I think
relate to the context of Cambridge Drive Community Church. And I try to construct a sermon that speaks
to the issues with which we’re living at the moment. A sermon out there in the ether is divorced
from that context and may or may not speak in the same way to someone watching
in a very different setting. While
Cambridge Drive is by no means homogeneous theologically or otherwise, I can
reasonably expect that someone might watch one of these sermons who comes from
a very different place culturally or theologically than those sitting in the
sanctuary. And the folk in the chairs in our sanctuary know me well enough to know how to take things, when I'm joking, what struggles the passage imposes on me... To what degree do I try to
generalize my sermon for those outside?
Should I avoid context specific remarks, knowing that doing so might
make the sermon less effective for those in the congregation while making it
more effective for some hypothetical watcher from elsewhere? Do I downplay the relationships I have with my congregation to make a sermon more general or do I just allow the outside to overhear what is going on here?
I spoke with a friend this morning about those questions and she asked whether my sermons have changed since we began videoing them. I responded that I'm not sure... but I am certainly being more thoughtful about what I say and how I say it.
In any case... the sermons are now up there for any to see... Here's the link to the channel
And here's the sermon from February 5 for an easier look...
Let me know what you think...
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Tiny Desk
Many of you know that back in the late 90's I performed in a duo with my daughter under her name, Alexis d, mostly around the Hudson & Pioneer Valleys in upstate NY & Massachusetts. It was one of the most musically satisfying times of my life.
Life goes on and things change but Alexis and I still perform occasionally and still write every now and then. This year, we have submitted a song to the NPR Tiny Desk Contest.
Check it out...
Here are the lyrics...
Chorus
Life goes on and things change but Alexis and I still perform occasionally and still write every now and then. This year, we have submitted a song to the NPR Tiny Desk Contest.
Check it out...
Here are the lyrics...
V.
Don't know where I'm going
Not sure where I've been
It's the biggest hot mess
This thing I'm in
I call up experience
My blessings and my sins
But I still don't know,
The next step or when.
Chorus
We can talk about the future,
We can wish about the past
But all I want
Is the gift I know'll last
V2
I've traveled around the
world
I've sure seen a lot
I've been granted riches
So others envy what i've got.
But all I know,
Is when I look at you,
That's got to be the best
thing
I could ever choose.
Chorus
Bridge
Let's spend a little time
Just us two
That's the present,
I'll give to you.
V3
I might be lost
I might get found,
I may be up
I've certainly been down,
Truth be told,
Only one way to be,
Only one place,
That's where you're with me.
Chorus
Bridge
Tag
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Trump, Streep, and what happened
Most of us have heard at least exerpts from Meryl Streep's Golden Globe speech where she reamed the president elect for mocking a disabled reporter.
Here's the referenced video from Trump...
Here's the referenced video from Trump...
So, here's the argument we're hearing from the right wing... "Trump makes these same movements when he is making fun of people who are not disable, like Ted Cruz. Therefore, he is not mocking the disabled reporter." They often go on to acknowledge that Trump is rude, but state emphatically he is not guilty of mocking a disability.
I find that one of the most ridiculous defenses I have ever heard. Let me give a parallel example. If I called someone a "retard" who did not have a mental deficiency and then turned around and called someone who was intellectually challenged a "retard" would that mean I wasn't making fun of their disability? No. Indeed it would be worse because in the first instance, where I used that slur against someone without a disability, I was holding up the disabled person's condition as a slur. The intellectually challenged person becomes the living embodiment of the slur.
That is precisely what Trump was doing when he used the same movements in mocking Cruz. He was saying "Cruz is comparable to one of those people who are worthy of disdain and mockery." That he used the same movements when mocking someone who actually has a disability does not make it less offensive. Indeed, it is more offensive.
There are no excuses. That behavior clearly sets an example for others and normalizes behaviors that are despicable.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Failing presidents & hypocrisy
I've heard the word "hypocrite" a lot lately, referring to Democrats who complained about Republicans who pledged to obstruct Obama at every opportunity and yet seem determined to do exactly the same thing with Donald Trump. It isn't the same and here is why.
1. In spite of what we heard on Right Wing Talk Radio & TV, Obama is not and never was a communist out to destroy our country. He is a centrist, committed to working across the isle, many of whose ideas actually reflected Republican ideas. Take the ACA. It was a program very similar in its most important details to a health care proposal put forward by the right wing Heritage Foundation. It was centered around the private sector and enfranchised the insurance industry. Had he truly been a leftist, Obama would have argued for Medicare for all as Bernie Sanders has done.
Trump, on the other hand, seems to be poised to blow up the entire government. He has already skirted many of the common practices of the past such as releasing his tax returns so we can all see whether his interests conflict with those of the American people. He has chosen to avoid intelligence briefings, either because he truly believes there is nothing he needs to learn or because he doesn't trust the intelligence agencies. His cabinet appointees so far seem almost all to fall into one of two categories... either they have no experience and no knowledge of the area they will be heading or they are committed to destroying the role of the very agency they will head.
2. Obama clearly fell in line with the general trajectory of history. Whether we like what he dd or not, he didn't do anything that made people go, "What?"
Even before he is inaugurated, Trump is already breaking with policies and ideas that are foundational to our security both nationally and internationally. His thoughtless actions regarding our treaties have already begun to push Asian allies towards China and he has unnecessarily provoked China by skirting the one China doctrine. His relationship to Russia is troubling at best. His calls for the US military to commit war crimes and his commitment to sidestepping accepted rules that have to do with nepotism and conflicts of interest are equally troubling.
On the national level, he is either allowing or directing the dismantling of many of the social safety nets upon which many people depend.
3. Obama knew what government is and what its role is. Trump doesn't seem to understand that government is not a business and the rules by which it operates are not the same. If his business fails, it can declare bankruptcy and at least Donald walks away unscathed. It has happened multiple times. If government fails... that is something altogether different.
4. Obama knows that when the president speaks, things happen, so he is careful about what he says. Trump has no such wisdom or he enjoys the chaos that happens when he says something unwise. In either case... it is not good.
5. Obama has a heart to leave the world a better place. You may not agree with his vision of that, but you cannot argue the point. Nothing that Trump has ever done in his entire life would indicate that he has any concerns beyond himself. There is nothing beyond his skin that he seems to truly care about beyond the way that it impacts him.
6. The best you could say about the Republican obstructionists might be that some were acting consistently with their values - that they hate the federal government and literally want it to fail so by obstructing a president as thoughtful and charismatic as Obama who began his presidency with a real mandate, they were working to that end. And now they find a kindred soul in Trump, who wants to see government curtailed not out of some political ideology but because it constrains his personal behavior.
Democratic obstructionists will be working to preserve the rights and safety nets, some of which have been in place for decades and upon which many people depend. Without those safety nets, people will die.
So... are there areas where Dems should support Trump? Say, like if he proposes working on infrastructure? I have mixed feelings. I should say that I believe he will only propose improving the infrastructure if he will personally benefit from it. Still there clearly are areas where he may see his self-interests and those of the nations align... so yes, I would argue that we work on those issues with him. But we must never allow those issues to cause us to lose sight of the other things he is doing or allowing to not be done.
If Trump and the Republicans in office work to tear apart Social Security, Medicare, and the ACA (all of which they propose to do), I will do what I can to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same. I want them to fail there. If they want to tear up treaties and alliances with other nations and put the entire world at risk, I will work to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same. I want them to fail. If they continue to enfranchise hate groups and normalize the kind of behavior I would punish my grandson for, I will do what I can to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same. I want them to fail. If the Republicans continue their march to destroy our government by undermining trust in all facets of it, I will do what I can to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same. I want them to fail. If the Trump administration actually becomes the kleptocracy I expect it will be, I will do what I can to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same. I want them to fail.
1. In spite of what we heard on Right Wing Talk Radio & TV, Obama is not and never was a communist out to destroy our country. He is a centrist, committed to working across the isle, many of whose ideas actually reflected Republican ideas. Take the ACA. It was a program very similar in its most important details to a health care proposal put forward by the right wing Heritage Foundation. It was centered around the private sector and enfranchised the insurance industry. Had he truly been a leftist, Obama would have argued for Medicare for all as Bernie Sanders has done.
Trump, on the other hand, seems to be poised to blow up the entire government. He has already skirted many of the common practices of the past such as releasing his tax returns so we can all see whether his interests conflict with those of the American people. He has chosen to avoid intelligence briefings, either because he truly believes there is nothing he needs to learn or because he doesn't trust the intelligence agencies. His cabinet appointees so far seem almost all to fall into one of two categories... either they have no experience and no knowledge of the area they will be heading or they are committed to destroying the role of the very agency they will head.
2. Obama clearly fell in line with the general trajectory of history. Whether we like what he dd or not, he didn't do anything that made people go, "What?"
Even before he is inaugurated, Trump is already breaking with policies and ideas that are foundational to our security both nationally and internationally. His thoughtless actions regarding our treaties have already begun to push Asian allies towards China and he has unnecessarily provoked China by skirting the one China doctrine. His relationship to Russia is troubling at best. His calls for the US military to commit war crimes and his commitment to sidestepping accepted rules that have to do with nepotism and conflicts of interest are equally troubling.
On the national level, he is either allowing or directing the dismantling of many of the social safety nets upon which many people depend.
3. Obama knew what government is and what its role is. Trump doesn't seem to understand that government is not a business and the rules by which it operates are not the same. If his business fails, it can declare bankruptcy and at least Donald walks away unscathed. It has happened multiple times. If government fails... that is something altogether different.
4. Obama knows that when the president speaks, things happen, so he is careful about what he says. Trump has no such wisdom or he enjoys the chaos that happens when he says something unwise. In either case... it is not good.
5. Obama has a heart to leave the world a better place. You may not agree with his vision of that, but you cannot argue the point. Nothing that Trump has ever done in his entire life would indicate that he has any concerns beyond himself. There is nothing beyond his skin that he seems to truly care about beyond the way that it impacts him.
6. The best you could say about the Republican obstructionists might be that some were acting consistently with their values - that they hate the federal government and literally want it to fail so by obstructing a president as thoughtful and charismatic as Obama who began his presidency with a real mandate, they were working to that end. And now they find a kindred soul in Trump, who wants to see government curtailed not out of some political ideology but because it constrains his personal behavior.
Democratic obstructionists will be working to preserve the rights and safety nets, some of which have been in place for decades and upon which many people depend. Without those safety nets, people will die.
So... are there areas where Dems should support Trump? Say, like if he proposes working on infrastructure? I have mixed feelings. I should say that I believe he will only propose improving the infrastructure if he will personally benefit from it. Still there clearly are areas where he may see his self-interests and those of the nations align... so yes, I would argue that we work on those issues with him. But we must never allow those issues to cause us to lose sight of the other things he is doing or allowing to not be done.
If Trump and the Republicans in office work to tear apart Social Security, Medicare, and the ACA (all of which they propose to do), I will do what I can to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same. I want them to fail there. If they want to tear up treaties and alliances with other nations and put the entire world at risk, I will work to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same. I want them to fail. If they continue to enfranchise hate groups and normalize the kind of behavior I would punish my grandson for, I will do what I can to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same. I want them to fail. If the Republicans continue their march to destroy our government by undermining trust in all facets of it, I will do what I can to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same. I want them to fail. If the Trump administration actually becomes the kleptocracy I expect it will be, I will do what I can to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same. I want them to fail.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Russia
I don't know whether Russia interfered with the election in any substantive way. I don't know whether anyone in the Trump organization colluded (if Russia did). I don't know why Russia might have preferred Trump to win (although I can infer). I don't know what might have happened had Russia not interfered (if they did) or whether the outcome would have been different.
I do know that information was released that likely damaged Hillary Clinton's campaign both by the FBI and via other avenues. I know that information was not released on the Trump campaign including from the CIA who believed that Russia was helping out the Trump campaign...
Sooooo... an investigation seems critical. If a foreign government is interfering in our elections, we need to know and it needs to be addressed. As one former CIA chief has said, this is "the political equivalent of 9/11."
To those Republicans who investigated Bengazi 7 times, each time hoping for a different result but each time claiming that the American people deserve to know and who are now saying that an investigation into possible interference by Russia into the presidential election is not necessary... once again, you are showing that you have no real interest in the truth or in justice, but only in power. Your hypocrisy is astounding and blatantly obvious.
I do know that information was released that likely damaged Hillary Clinton's campaign both by the FBI and via other avenues. I know that information was not released on the Trump campaign including from the CIA who believed that Russia was helping out the Trump campaign...
Sooooo... an investigation seems critical. If a foreign government is interfering in our elections, we need to know and it needs to be addressed. As one former CIA chief has said, this is "the political equivalent of 9/11."
To those Republicans who investigated Bengazi 7 times, each time hoping for a different result but each time claiming that the American people deserve to know and who are now saying that an investigation into possible interference by Russia into the presidential election is not necessary... once again, you are showing that you have no real interest in the truth or in justice, but only in power. Your hypocrisy is astounding and blatantly obvious.
Tuesday, December 06, 2016
Jurisdiction
I've been reading Father Gregory Boyle's wonderful book Tattoos on the Heart. It is a collection of inspiring and heart-breaking stories from his years of ministry with gang members in LA. A story from chapter six (and Father Boyle's interpretation of it) particularly resonated with me today and related to things I've been thinking about.
In the aftermath of the election I've been thinking a lot about community and about the way we relate to other folk, near and far. One morning as he arrived at his office for work, Junior called out from his second story apartment window, "Love you G dog!"
Father Boyle answered back, "Thank you Junior. That was a very nice thing to say."
Boyle goes on, "He waves me on as if papally blessing me on my day. 'O come on now G, you know. You're in my jurisdiction.'"
In the interpretation of the story, Boyle observes that the gang members have very limited jurisdictions, areas and communities they know and for which they care. He doesn't outright say but implies that the barriers at the edge of those jurisdictions are as solid as they can be. He goes on that our call as Christians is to widen our jurisdictions.
As I've been watching the aftermath of the election both in the larger world and in my heart this call speaks loudly. We all have a variety of concentric jurisdictions, with each further one getting a little less commitment and caring. The primary jurisdiction is always the one that gets our deepest commitment. Sometimes the barriers are porous. Sometimes they are as solid as they can be. We all have a point at which the jurisdictions end.
Personally, before the election I would have felt that my primary jurisdiction was pretty big... or at least my second one was. Afterwards, I see it was not nearly as large as I thought, but that the barrier between it and the next level was extremely porous. After the election, everything in my heart, which had been deeply hurt and disappointed, wanted to shore up that barrier and close up any openings shutting out those beyond my closest jurisdictions.
It is frightening to open those barriers and it is dangerous. The more open you are, the more vulnerable you feel. It could be argued that that fear is exactly what fueled the election... fear of the one outside of my jurisdiction taking something that is rightfully mine. And so the walls go up both literal and figurative. Our role is to risk... to tear down the walls and to see whoever is standing on the other side as "in my jurisdiction."
An observation... we would hope that our elected leaders are people who have wide jurisdictions that at the very least include everyone in the nation along with the ecosystem. It is better yet when the barrier to their next level is porous and yearns for the very best not only for the US but the rest of the world.
Sometimes we have had leaders like that. More often they fall short. Unfortunately there is something about the role of elected leader that calls to the narcissist. The narcissist's jurisdiction is as narrow as it can possibly be... it ends at their own skin. The only time they care about anyone or anything else is when it impacts them. A talented narcissist can be charming and even effective... but it is all about ME... ALWAYS.
In the aftermath of the election I've been thinking a lot about community and about the way we relate to other folk, near and far. One morning as he arrived at his office for work, Junior called out from his second story apartment window, "Love you G dog!"
Father Boyle answered back, "Thank you Junior. That was a very nice thing to say."
Boyle goes on, "He waves me on as if papally blessing me on my day. 'O come on now G, you know. You're in my jurisdiction.'"
In the interpretation of the story, Boyle observes that the gang members have very limited jurisdictions, areas and communities they know and for which they care. He doesn't outright say but implies that the barriers at the edge of those jurisdictions are as solid as they can be. He goes on that our call as Christians is to widen our jurisdictions.
As I've been watching the aftermath of the election both in the larger world and in my heart this call speaks loudly. We all have a variety of concentric jurisdictions, with each further one getting a little less commitment and caring. The primary jurisdiction is always the one that gets our deepest commitment. Sometimes the barriers are porous. Sometimes they are as solid as they can be. We all have a point at which the jurisdictions end.
Personally, before the election I would have felt that my primary jurisdiction was pretty big... or at least my second one was. Afterwards, I see it was not nearly as large as I thought, but that the barrier between it and the next level was extremely porous. After the election, everything in my heart, which had been deeply hurt and disappointed, wanted to shore up that barrier and close up any openings shutting out those beyond my closest jurisdictions.
It is frightening to open those barriers and it is dangerous. The more open you are, the more vulnerable you feel. It could be argued that that fear is exactly what fueled the election... fear of the one outside of my jurisdiction taking something that is rightfully mine. And so the walls go up both literal and figurative. Our role is to risk... to tear down the walls and to see whoever is standing on the other side as "in my jurisdiction."
An observation... we would hope that our elected leaders are people who have wide jurisdictions that at the very least include everyone in the nation along with the ecosystem. It is better yet when the barrier to their next level is porous and yearns for the very best not only for the US but the rest of the world.
Sometimes we have had leaders like that. More often they fall short. Unfortunately there is something about the role of elected leader that calls to the narcissist. The narcissist's jurisdiction is as narrow as it can possibly be... it ends at their own skin. The only time they care about anyone or anything else is when it impacts them. A talented narcissist can be charming and even effective... but it is all about ME... ALWAYS.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Election 2016 #6 - my fantasy
From everything I can see, I do not believe that Donald Trump ever actually wanted or expected to be president. I truly think he was just screwing with us all. Now that he has won and we see the amazing disarray and ineptitude of his transition team, I have to wonder whether he is looking for a way out.
OK, this is a fantasy and I have zero expectation that it will happen... but it could happen. Indeed, I believe there are really good reasons to make it happen. So, maybe we should float this idea out there in hopes it gets Trump's ear. If it catches your imagination, share it far and wide.
So... first some factual observations.
Trump's presidency will be a failure. He cannot possibly meet the expectations of those who voted for him and they will come after him with pitchforks and torches in 2 and then 4 years. His brand will be destroyed. History will dismiss him. As a narcissist, this is the worst possible outcome for Trump.
The electors of the electoral college can vote for whoever they want. Even in states where they are legally required to vote for the winner of their state, the penalty for not doing so is very small.
If Trump were to become president and then resign, that would make Pence president... and from everything I can see, Trump does not share any ideological beliefs with Pence so Trump would not want that outcome. Plus resigning would be embarrassing.
Here's the fantasy... Trump could send his minions to privately see the electors and encourage them to switch their votes and put Hillary in. We're still not sure how many electors he actually has but likely a switch of about 25 would do the trick, maybe a few more. They could justify their switch as trying both to fulfill the original intent of the electoral college to keep unfit candidates from winning AND as honoring the will of the majority. As of this writing, HRC has won the popular vote by over 1 million votes. Alexander Hamilton saw the role of the electors to ensure that “the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Duh!
So what does Trump get in my fantasy? He doesn't have to fail at president. He can yell all he wants that the election was rigged against him and become not only the leader of his base but also a martyr for their cause. His dream of a media empire will take off like wildfire. He could become the true leader of a new political movement and perhaps even a new political party. None of his shady dealings with foreign governments need ever come out. If, and I do mean if, he has any degree of patriotism in him, he gets to save the US from a disaster he has to know is coming if he becomes president.
So, Donald, are you up for this?
OK, this is a fantasy and I have zero expectation that it will happen... but it could happen. Indeed, I believe there are really good reasons to make it happen. So, maybe we should float this idea out there in hopes it gets Trump's ear. If it catches your imagination, share it far and wide.
So... first some factual observations.
Trump's presidency will be a failure. He cannot possibly meet the expectations of those who voted for him and they will come after him with pitchforks and torches in 2 and then 4 years. His brand will be destroyed. History will dismiss him. As a narcissist, this is the worst possible outcome for Trump.
The electors of the electoral college can vote for whoever they want. Even in states where they are legally required to vote for the winner of their state, the penalty for not doing so is very small.
If Trump were to become president and then resign, that would make Pence president... and from everything I can see, Trump does not share any ideological beliefs with Pence so Trump would not want that outcome. Plus resigning would be embarrassing.
Here's the fantasy... Trump could send his minions to privately see the electors and encourage them to switch their votes and put Hillary in. We're still not sure how many electors he actually has but likely a switch of about 25 would do the trick, maybe a few more. They could justify their switch as trying both to fulfill the original intent of the electoral college to keep unfit candidates from winning AND as honoring the will of the majority. As of this writing, HRC has won the popular vote by over 1 million votes. Alexander Hamilton saw the role of the electors to ensure that “the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Duh!
So what does Trump get in my fantasy? He doesn't have to fail at president. He can yell all he wants that the election was rigged against him and become not only the leader of his base but also a martyr for their cause. His dream of a media empire will take off like wildfire. He could become the true leader of a new political movement and perhaps even a new political party. None of his shady dealings with foreign governments need ever come out. If, and I do mean if, he has any degree of patriotism in him, he gets to save the US from a disaster he has to know is coming if he becomes president.
So, Donald, are you up for this?
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Election 2016 #5 - now what?
Like many other folk, I found myself reeling at the results of the presidential election. I had difficulty understanding why anyone would vote for Donald Trump. I was (and am) afraid of what the future might bring. I posted a statement on Facebook - "I wonder whether this is a country in can live in." By that I meant that I was considering emigrating somewhere. I did play some of those scenarios out and indeed, depending on what happens with medical insurance, I may have to. Since last Wednesday I've thought differently... it most definitely is not a country in which I want to live, so I am committing myself to work harder to make it the country in which I do want to live. OK, now what? What do we do?
None of these thoughts are original. I've listened a lot to Van Jones recently. Some of what he has said is reflected here. I also found an article by Masha Gessen on how to live under an autocratic ruler that I found extremely helpful.
There is a phrase that's going around (from Salena Zito?) in a number of slightly different variations, "Trump's supporters take him seriously but not literally while his detractors take him literally but not seriously." I will take him seriously now and I will continue to take him literally. Gessen's first rule is to believe what the autocrat says. When Trump says he wants to make Muslims register, believe him. When Trump says he will repeal the ACA, believe him. When he says he wants to deport 11 million people, believe him. When he says that women who have abortions should be prosecuted, believe him. Now it is possible that he didn't mean what he said in at least a few instances but I would rather be prepared for the worst than be surprised when he follows up. It is possible that even the Republicans will stand against some of his excesses (although I doubt that) and he won't be able to accomplish some of his plans. Be vigilant and be ready.
Be aware of what he actually said but also how he has followed up in action. He spoke out against racists (rather softly) but then turned around and hired Steve Bannon.
Watch those behind the scenes. Trump does not seem to have any real ideology. Those behind him do.
Work to build relationships and community so we can stand against the damages his administrations wants to do. Be a part of a religious body that takes seriously the calls of faith. If you can't do religion, get together with a bunch of other people regularly an build something that is working towards being the Blessed Community. You can't change the world alone but together...
And be persistent. Wilburforce took 13 years to get his anti-slavery bill passed. As Hillary quoted in her concession speech, "So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time if we do not give up. (Gal. 6:9, NRSV)
Listen to those who voted for Trump and keep the truth in front of them. I truly believe we have a lot in common. I was not happy with the direction of the nation either and felt disappointed that Obama did not push more aggressively. I think we have at least some common goals. Let's find them and hold them up. Then, remind them when Trump fails to meet their expectations, as he will, and continue to point out the evils there. Most importantly, build relationships across lines.
Be outraged. It is tempting to look for ways to find the good in Trump. There may indeed be some areas where he does some good things. Do not allow that to dim your vision. See what is outrageous and call it out.
In two years we have the midterm elections. Throw the Republicans out. OK, I know it isn't that simple but those of us standing against the goals of this administration must organize and work to turn things around. A Democratic House and Senate would make things soooooo much easier. More Democratic legislatures and executives at the state level would make standing for what is right and good so much easier. Let us put everything we can into making that happen.
Work hard on the issues that are critical. We must stand with our Muslim friends. If they do try to register Muslims, be registered as a Muslim. I commit to do so. Work with Democratic legislators to guard the SCOTUS. Work to do all we can to meet the challenges of climate change.
Work to provide a safe place for those communities most threatened by this political change.
Finally, remember that time is on our side. The arc of history is long but it always bends towards justice. The fears that motivated the alt-right in this election are based in reality. The nation is becoming more diverse in every way. That cannot be stopped. Millenials didn't show up nearly as much as they needed to, but the election map of those under 25 is almost completely blue. Yes, the map that went around immediately following the election was not accurate and reflected polling from a few weeks before the election but the real one still looks like this
Time is on our side.
None of these thoughts are original. I've listened a lot to Van Jones recently. Some of what he has said is reflected here. I also found an article by Masha Gessen on how to live under an autocratic ruler that I found extremely helpful.
There is a phrase that's going around (from Salena Zito?) in a number of slightly different variations, "Trump's supporters take him seriously but not literally while his detractors take him literally but not seriously." I will take him seriously now and I will continue to take him literally. Gessen's first rule is to believe what the autocrat says. When Trump says he wants to make Muslims register, believe him. When Trump says he will repeal the ACA, believe him. When he says he wants to deport 11 million people, believe him. When he says that women who have abortions should be prosecuted, believe him. Now it is possible that he didn't mean what he said in at least a few instances but I would rather be prepared for the worst than be surprised when he follows up. It is possible that even the Republicans will stand against some of his excesses (although I doubt that) and he won't be able to accomplish some of his plans. Be vigilant and be ready.
Be aware of what he actually said but also how he has followed up in action. He spoke out against racists (rather softly) but then turned around and hired Steve Bannon.
Watch those behind the scenes. Trump does not seem to have any real ideology. Those behind him do.
Work to build relationships and community so we can stand against the damages his administrations wants to do. Be a part of a religious body that takes seriously the calls of faith. If you can't do religion, get together with a bunch of other people regularly an build something that is working towards being the Blessed Community. You can't change the world alone but together...
And be persistent. Wilburforce took 13 years to get his anti-slavery bill passed. As Hillary quoted in her concession speech, "So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time if we do not give up. (Gal. 6:9, NRSV)
Listen to those who voted for Trump and keep the truth in front of them. I truly believe we have a lot in common. I was not happy with the direction of the nation either and felt disappointed that Obama did not push more aggressively. I think we have at least some common goals. Let's find them and hold them up. Then, remind them when Trump fails to meet their expectations, as he will, and continue to point out the evils there. Most importantly, build relationships across lines.
Be outraged. It is tempting to look for ways to find the good in Trump. There may indeed be some areas where he does some good things. Do not allow that to dim your vision. See what is outrageous and call it out.
In two years we have the midterm elections. Throw the Republicans out. OK, I know it isn't that simple but those of us standing against the goals of this administration must organize and work to turn things around. A Democratic House and Senate would make things soooooo much easier. More Democratic legislatures and executives at the state level would make standing for what is right and good so much easier. Let us put everything we can into making that happen.
Work hard on the issues that are critical. We must stand with our Muslim friends. If they do try to register Muslims, be registered as a Muslim. I commit to do so. Work with Democratic legislators to guard the SCOTUS. Work to do all we can to meet the challenges of climate change.
Work to provide a safe place for those communities most threatened by this political change.
Finally, remember that time is on our side. The arc of history is long but it always bends towards justice. The fears that motivated the alt-right in this election are based in reality. The nation is becoming more diverse in every way. That cannot be stopped. Millenials didn't show up nearly as much as they needed to, but the election map of those under 25 is almost completely blue. Yes, the map that went around immediately following the election was not accurate and reflected polling from a few weeks before the election but the real one still looks like this
Friday, November 11, 2016
Election 2016 #4 more personal
I thought this was one of the most important comments on Tuesday evening as election results came in. It is a real and deeply important question - what does the elction of Donald Trump say to our children and grandchildren? In electing him we have legitimized his behavior - after all we chose him to be the leader of the USA. We have legitimized bullying. We have legitimized sexual predation. We have legitimized bigotry. We have legitimized racism. Racism, bigotry, predation, and bullying were a part of the American experience but before Tuesday we worked against them all. People were embarrassed to be bigoted and careful to express those kinds of thoughts. Now even those who previously called themselves "morals voters" have put their stamp of approval on all of the above.
I do not want my grandson to see Donald Trump as a man whose behavior he is to emulate. I don't want him to see a world where a man like that is rewarded with the highest office in the land. I don't want him to believe that any of those things are OK. Ever.
I do not want my granddaughter to grow up in a country where the leader brags about committing sexual battery and churches lift him up as their choice. I don't want her to ever experience being touched by any man without first giving her consent.
I don't want my Muslim, immigrant, gay friends to live in a nation where they must live in fear.
Yet, we are already seeing a multitude of reports of all of these kinds of behaviors on the rise.
On Tuesday I posted a comment on Facebook - I wonder whether this is a country in which I can live... I was pondering the possibility of moving somewhere else... Today, my answer is still "no," but my path is not to leave. I was too complacent before. No longer. I will work harder and harder to make this the country in which I want to live.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Election Results 2016 - let's get personal #1
OK... one of the issues we hear about most regarding the Obama years is the ACA and more than once I heard people say that "Hillary will double down on Obamacare." Trump has said that on day 1 he will repeal the ACA. I'm not sure how that is possible but... From what I can see the closest that the GOP has come to a proposed alternative is Paul Ryans 37 pages of talking points (it lists goals but doesn't really say how we get to any of them... and as the ACA has shown, the proof really is in the implimentation) or Trump's promise of something better with no details and as far as anyone from the outside can see, no work having been done on what would be a tremendously complex issue. Of course, the option of just repealing the ACA without replacing it with any legislative alternative is a real possibility... with all of the attendant chaos that would bring.
This one is very personal for me. I have an hereditary condition called heterozygous familial hyperlipidemia. What that means is that my liver doesn't fully function with regards to processing cholesterol and I end up with crazy high numbers of the bad kind (when I was first tested, my overall cholesterol was 613). That results in severe artery disease. Most of the men in my biological family died of heart attacks in their thirties (my father at 31). That means that on the private market I am simply uninsurable.
When it was discovered that I have this condition, my arteries were in very bad shape to the point that surgical intervention would do no good. I had not had a heart attack though. The medications (expensive) work very well for me and my cholesterol has been under control for nearly 30 years. I still have not had a heart attack and some of the arterial damage has healed itself.
Under the old system, health insurance differed dramatically from one state to another. In New York, I got excellent insurance at a reasonable price through the local council of churches which acted as a group. In California, I had to get it either through the denomination or as private insurance. Private was not available to me. Period. The broker literally laughed when he saw the medical history portion of my application. So we got it through the denomination which, because everyone who could get insurance cheaper had moved to another source, became a group of older individuals with more medical issues. I got insurance... but the year prior to the ACA, it cost nearly $4000 a month for my spouse and I. Yes. That is the correct number of zeros. When the ACA was implemented, that program disappeared because nobody was able for it to continue. Even under the ACA, our insurance started at $2000 a month... but that still was a savings of over $24000 a year.
Long story short... if the ACA is repealed without a replacement that provides insurance to people like me at a reasonable cost, I will likely die. I'm not trying to be dramatic here... only stating a reasonable understanding of what will happen.
Before the ACA, 45,000 died each year from the results of lack of insurance. 20 million people who had been uninsured got health insurance under the ACA. That number dropped significantly. If the ACA is repealed without a suitable replacement, we'll be looking at those numbers again... and I will likely be one of them.
This one is very personal for me. I have an hereditary condition called heterozygous familial hyperlipidemia. What that means is that my liver doesn't fully function with regards to processing cholesterol and I end up with crazy high numbers of the bad kind (when I was first tested, my overall cholesterol was 613). That results in severe artery disease. Most of the men in my biological family died of heart attacks in their thirties (my father at 31). That means that on the private market I am simply uninsurable.
When it was discovered that I have this condition, my arteries were in very bad shape to the point that surgical intervention would do no good. I had not had a heart attack though. The medications (expensive) work very well for me and my cholesterol has been under control for nearly 30 years. I still have not had a heart attack and some of the arterial damage has healed itself.
Under the old system, health insurance differed dramatically from one state to another. In New York, I got excellent insurance at a reasonable price through the local council of churches which acted as a group. In California, I had to get it either through the denomination or as private insurance. Private was not available to me. Period. The broker literally laughed when he saw the medical history portion of my application. So we got it through the denomination which, because everyone who could get insurance cheaper had moved to another source, became a group of older individuals with more medical issues. I got insurance... but the year prior to the ACA, it cost nearly $4000 a month for my spouse and I. Yes. That is the correct number of zeros. When the ACA was implemented, that program disappeared because nobody was able for it to continue. Even under the ACA, our insurance started at $2000 a month... but that still was a savings of over $24000 a year.
Long story short... if the ACA is repealed without a replacement that provides insurance to people like me at a reasonable cost, I will likely die. I'm not trying to be dramatic here... only stating a reasonable understanding of what will happen.
Before the ACA, 45,000 died each year from the results of lack of insurance. 20 million people who had been uninsured got health insurance under the ACA. That number dropped significantly. If the ACA is repealed without a suitable replacement, we'll be looking at those numbers again... and I will likely be one of them.
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Election 2016 Results #2
A newspaper writer in Pittsburgh commented a few weeks ago that those who opposed Trump took him literally but not seriously while those who supported his candidacy took him seriously but not literally.
Today we see they were both wrong. Trump is as serious as a heart attack (I choose that metaphor purposefully) and that is precisely because of his plans... plans that will likely be unimpeded since he'll have a Republican congress and, at least theoretically, a partisan judiciary.
11 million people deported... imagine what that does to our economy. And then imagine what that does to the places to which they are sent.
The ACA repealed... Perhaps as many as 20 million people who had been uninsured, who got insurance under the ACA, now uninsured again. 45,000 annual deaths in the US due to lack of insurance before the ACA and we'll be back there again. I have a very good chance of being one of them... more in a later post.
Fundamental threats to the freedom of the press and to the civilized transfer of the political process ("lock her up," or worse, "execute her").
Trade agreements torn up.
Social safety net shredded and replaced with privatized schemes.
Bigotry being enshrined under the cloak of religious freedom
Any desire to address the biggest issue we face today - climate change - in a substantive way is simply discarded.
People of color and LGBTQ folk being completely disenfranchised.
No checks or balances.
Today we see they were both wrong. Trump is as serious as a heart attack (I choose that metaphor purposefully) and that is precisely because of his plans... plans that will likely be unimpeded since he'll have a Republican congress and, at least theoretically, a partisan judiciary.
11 million people deported... imagine what that does to our economy. And then imagine what that does to the places to which they are sent.
The ACA repealed... Perhaps as many as 20 million people who had been uninsured, who got insurance under the ACA, now uninsured again. 45,000 annual deaths in the US due to lack of insurance before the ACA and we'll be back there again. I have a very good chance of being one of them... more in a later post.
Fundamental threats to the freedom of the press and to the civilized transfer of the political process ("lock her up," or worse, "execute her").
Trade agreements torn up.
Social safety net shredded and replaced with privatized schemes.
Bigotry being enshrined under the cloak of religious freedom
Any desire to address the biggest issue we face today - climate change - in a substantive way is simply discarded.
People of color and LGBTQ folk being completely disenfranchised.
No checks or balances.
election 2016 results #1
I believed the polls. I did expect that there would be some folk who came out and voted for Trump who were ashamed to tell anyone that was their plan, but I expected that number to be relatively small. So I believed the polls. I expected a Hillary win yesterday, perhaps even a landslide.
Here's why... I believed in the general goodness of the American people. I believed that as a nation we are moving beyond sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and toward a new community. Yes, I knew all of those things are still very real but I also believe they are fundamentally at odds with who and what we claim to be as a people. I believe in generosity, in community, in compassion... I simply could not believe that a person like Donald Trump could be elected to the presidency of the USA.
I am in shock now. I don't know what to do next but I am sure that the task before us is harder than I ever imagined and the work more urgent. But today... I just can't
Here's why... I believed in the general goodness of the American people. I believed that as a nation we are moving beyond sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and toward a new community. Yes, I knew all of those things are still very real but I also believe they are fundamentally at odds with who and what we claim to be as a people. I believe in generosity, in community, in compassion... I simply could not believe that a person like Donald Trump could be elected to the presidency of the USA.
I am in shock now. I don't know what to do next but I am sure that the task before us is harder than I ever imagined and the work more urgent. But today... I just can't
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
