Magic versus Magical Thinking, a Practical Guide (Part 3): One to Rule Them All

 

Vast swaths of the general public (here, there and everywhere) take great stock in the notion of inevitability. 

This is a very interesting fault in human perspective. The “inevitable” whatever can manifest as concretely positive, negative or neutral, or take a positive, negative or neutral tone. The reason I suggest that this is a human fault is because most people will relate the word inevitable to the word fate, and take both words together as an indication that no action is needed, so why bother to take any?

This is a type of magical thinking. Here are examples of abstract notions people take to be inevitable (aside from the punch lines of an old joke from Daniel Defoe’s 1726 play The Political History of the Devil, As Well Ancient as Modern, famously quoted by Benjamin Franklin: death and taxes): progress, world unity, the end of the world, equality, change makes us better, a simple solution to every question, and God’s will.  I’m sure you can think of a few abstract concepts that are linked to the notion of inevitability. Some of these could be categorized as “pipedreams,” others as apocalyptic fears.

When we think or believe that things or situations are inevitable, do we push back on the notion by trying some alternative or do we give up?

We are asked questions and the manner in which we are taught often implies that there are answers to every question and that we should know what those answers are or how to calculate them. We therefore dutifully attempt to find solutions to every question directed toward us. For example, here is an actual word problem that has been given to children in school:

There are 125 sheep and 5 dogs in a flock. 

How old is the shepherd?

Do you know what the answer is? When children are posed this questions, their first thought is likely: I’ve been given this as a math problem, there must be an answer, therefore, I’d better do something to come up with a solution. 

In reality, sometimes, it might be better to question the question. How old is the shepherd? is intended to be an exercise in logic; it is hoped that students will be able to discern that this question is illogically constructed and unanswerable. Hilarious results ensue, to be sure, when students try to compute answers to such a question. But, let’s be honest, this is a dirty trick to play on kids.

It’s a dirty trick to play on adults as well, who, sadly, also fall prey to the illogical question. The search for a fundamental theory of everything, in my humble opinion, is an adult variety entertaining the illogical question, a high-brow version of magical thinking. There is a lot of grant money being given to further abstract theories of everything, but I find questions along these lines a diversion from the kind of innovation we need—innovation that offers practical solutions to diverse daily problems. For example, it may be more practical to explore non-polluting ways of turning wastewater into biogas that can be safely used as fuel. We, as a species, certainly produce plenty of it! Why not recycle it!

The search for “one and done” solutions is another example of magical thinking. A gullible pubic is socially engineered down a pay-to-play rabbit hole that is papered with bright and misleading advertisements. However, as explored in a previous essay in this series, the world of intense diversity flies in the face of “one size fits all” thinking. We really do know better; one size cannot possibly fit all. Every place presents its own set of circumstances that need to be taken into account, and every individual in a place is liable to present a different set of skills and perspectives that may bear on those challenges. Baking bread is completely different at sea level than it is at high altitude.

Politically, we have in real-time reached that tipping point where utopian literature turns to its darker, fully dystopian side. Every single utopia ever conceived empowers a small elite counsel of elders to dictate what is best for the masses. Plato explored this in The Republic and The Laws, followed by a long line of writers, from Thomas More and Francis Bacon, to Margaret Cavendish and Jonathan Swift, on down to Edward Bellamy and William Morris, thence to appear ever darker in scope with Yevgeny Zamyatin, George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, even unto Margaret Attwood. In the most positive examples of this form of literature, the minority band running the program is intelligent and benevolent; on the flip-side, the leadership is always less than well educated, punitive and totalitarian.

In the United States, circumstances beyond the control of the majority plebiscite has put the fate of our foundational liberalism, which for so long seemed to embody “inevitable progress,” into the hands of a conservative majority of the Supreme Court. This same court seems poised to undo all that has been traditionally (in my lifetime) regarded as “inevitable progress” toward equal recognition and rights for unique personhood, poised instead to enshrine “christian values,” retreat from founding Enlightenment principles to medieval standards of law, promote permissible armed violence, and put certain men in charge of institutions and bodies.

It is highly ironic that this small, ultra-conservative group (or members thereof) proclaims a literal orthodoxy exists within the text of our constitution, where two centuries of jurisprudence has seemingly seen the text through a lens more flexible and moving with the times. It seems that this portion of the Supreme Court group is throwing modern America back to the time Cotton Mather and the Salem Witch Trials. Note, however: Less well known than his discussion of devils inhabiting the invisible world, Cotton Mather was also a scientist; he was an advocate for inoculation against smallpox, and he wrote a book proclaiming harmony between Newtonian physics and religion. Fact!

Any claims of original this, orthodox that are illogical excuses to proclaim a modern paterfamilias--which is what? This could only mean a totalitarian autocracy the likes of Stalinism. But who would the pater be? Certainly not Jesus, who used parables to teach illiterate people how to navigate oppression while maintaining cultural ethos and personal integrity. The words of Jesus don’t seem to matter at all to “christians" who call for the death of liberal secularism, control of the womb and the right of armed, white hooligans to menace and kill—what resonates more are texts from Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Meanwhile, the average person, having been rendered inert by false notions of inevitability that are accompanied by a blizzard of disinformation, is thrown down a socially engineered rabbit hole. When and where will we land? Shall the landing be hard or soft?

There are 330 million sheeple and 6 dogs in a flock.

Who is the shepherd?

Murmurations

Poetry in aerial motion,
a system poised to tip
and turn in unison,
each member connected
by choice to every other one,
as perceived by one’s
seven nearest neighbors,
seven by seven throughout,
individuals globally correlated,
without a particular leader,
to communicate clearly
and with economy
—at stake, flock survival,
the common good.

This dance above the water,
under the warmth of the sun,
surely offers the clearest portrait
of what democracy looks like.

© 2019 by Elisabeth T. Eliassen

(completed 11:11 on 11/11/19; photo of flocking water birds taken at Elsie Roemer Bird Sanctuary, Alameda, CA on 11/10/19)

Martin Luther King Jr.'s Unfinished Journey

1968 was a bleak and terrible year, when I was just six years old. Here is a list of some of the things that happened:

·        March 16, 1968 would be one of the low points of the Vietnam War when between 374-504 unarmed civilians were killed at My Lai by United States troops. 2nd Lt. William Calley was charged with 22 of the deaths and sentenced to life imprisonment, but only served three-and-a-half years of house arrest.

·        President Lyndon B. Johnson announced on March 31 that he would not be run for president in the 1968 election. 

·         April 4, 1968 Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated on the balcony of his Memphis motel room. Ironically, seven days later the Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress. 

·        Two months and a day after the assassination of Dr. King, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated while celebrating winning the California primary during his 1968 presidential bid.  

·         The Yippies, led by Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, and other radical groups turned the streets of Chicago into a riot zone, battling Chicago police and U.S. Army and National Guard, while the Democratic convention was being held there.

·         Richard Nixon would go on to defeat Senator Humphrey in the general election.

***

Only one of those events is the focus of my commentary on this day, April 4^th. 

Fifty years ago, today, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. The shot that was fired ended the life of Dr. King, but not his dream. To some extent, every step forward towards greater recognition and acceptance of the all the variables that define personhood owes Dr. King and all of his colleagues a huge debt of gratitude.

Although the Civil Rights Movement, in the hands of King and other principals, seemed to be drifting, due to disputes about strategy and the rise and disruption a militant black power movement, as other factors, such as the Vietnam War, and ongoing labor disputes all over the country, the signing Civil Rights Act was a seminal turning point for the entire nation.

But King sought more than this. The Civil Rights Act was only a beginning.  King had truly radical ideas, bordering on democratic socialism. He advocated for government-run national health, a national jobs program and guaranteed income for all Americans. That kind of economic vision would have been as much an uphill battle, to say the least, as the Vietnam War, in a time of recessions, government cut-back in public assistance services and a rising neo-liberal philosophy coming from the elite that advocated cutting taxes for the rich in order to help the poor.

But King saw that the only way to achieve any of these goals was for disparate groups to unite in coalition using non-violent demonstration toward growth and  inclusive outcomes, so that the greatest good, and equal opportunity could be achieved for all Americans. In his speeches to labor groups, he talked about servant-leadership. The American dream was about being truly egalitarian. Social Justices not for just one group, but for all groups.

The Civil Rights Act was but the first jewel in the crown. What King suggested, next, because of the overlapping issues, was joining Organized Labor and Civil Rights for People of color in coalition. After all, the March on Washington’s full title was “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.” King and his colleagues knew that black workers and their lives were inextricably intertwine with the lives of white workers when it came to all issues of economic security and anti-discrimination. King’s rallying cry was, “All Labor Has Dignity.” But the stumbling block was that this was a battle not just about race, but also about class.

More than any other aspect of his radical thinking, this is what pulled the trigger on King, this day 50 years ago. King’s stance on Vietnam couldn’t have been enough to get him killed; but it was about Jim Crow and segregation, and specifically, poor white Southern labor was not going to stand for an educated and eloquent black man being the putative leader of a movement that combined race and class.

Here we are 50 years on, fighting the same battle, without King, without Ruether, without Abernathy and so many others who were critical to the movement in 1968.  We need to continue King’s journey without him. The future of our world depends on this, and this assertion is no mere hyperbole. Justice can only exist when there are no double standards, and when all people are treated with respect, dignity and equal access.

I may write on this topic more, as time goes by, but I’ll leave you with this excerpt from King's 1967 book, “Where Do We Go From Here; Chaos or Community”:

“Why is equality so assiduously avoided? Why does white America delude itself, and how does it rationalize the evil it retains?

“The majority of white Americans consider themselves sincerely committed to justice for the Negro. They believe that American society is essentially hospitable to fair play and to steady growth toward a middle-class Utopia embodying racial harmony. But unfortunately this is a fantasy of self-deception and comfortable vanity. Overwhelmingly America is still struggling with irresolution and contradictions. It has been sincere and even ardent in welcoming some change. But too quickly apathy and disinterest rise to the surface when the next logical steps are to be taken. Laws are passed in a crisis mood after a Birmingham or a Selma, but no substantial fervor survives the formal signing of legislation. The recording of the law in itself is treated as the reality of the reform.

This limited degree of concern is a reflection of an inner conflict which measures cautiously the impact of any change on the status quo. As the nation passes from opposing extremist behavior to the deeper and more pervasive elements of equality, white America reaffirms its bonds to the status quo. It had contemplated comfortably hugging the shoreline but now fears that the winds of change are blowing it out to sea.

“The practical cost of change for the nation up to this point has been cheap. The limited reforms have been obtained at bargain rates. There are no expenses, and no taxes are required, for Negroes to share lunch counters, libraries, parks, hotels and other facilities with whites. Even the psychological adjustment is far from formidable. Having exaggerated the emotional difficulties for decades, when demands for new conduct became inescapable, white Southerners may have trembled under the strain but they did not collapse.

“Even the more significant changes involved in voter registration required neither large monetary nor psychological sacrifice. Spectacular and turbulent events that dramatized the demand created an erroneous impression that a heavy burden was involved.

“The real cost lies ahead. The stiffening of white resistance is a recognition of that fact.”

Labor Day, To Honor Workers

Labor Day,
to Honor Workers;
a holiday,
a reason for rest,
no doubt,
a reason to party
and shout,
a reason to forget
what it’s about:
We made it a Holiday,
so we’d never have to
think about it again.

To Honor Workers
takes more than a day,
takes more than a say
in safety and pay.

To Honor Workers
takes more than a job,
more than a car-key fob,
more than a tip can swab.

To Honor Workers,
we need to know,
we need to grow,
and we need to sew
the world in our work.

To Honor Workers,
know the world is our work,
grow this job we cannot shirk;
sew us, from laborer to clerk,
in policies that truly care,
in wages that are truly fair,
in the one-to-one parity we share
because we are human individuals.

To honor Workers,
take people off the streets,
give them a job and a place;
give them a reason to be,
a community to be for,
give a damn about the people
and what they, what we, need;
we’re all here to be for one another.

Labor Day,
To Honor Workers,
this is indeed the test,
to understand the latitude,
to find the right amplitude,
build character and attitude
fitting for a world of work,
for the whole World of Workers.

© 2017 by Elisabeth T. Eliassen

Interdependence Day

The holiday is about "independence". We should all reflect on what that means. We should be thankful, yes, but also mindful of the tremendous costs of freedom, choice, relationship, unintended consequences, and war. A recognition of interdependence is necessary at this point in human history. Let us pray for that, even as we remember the costs dearly paid for our constitution, in life, in liberty and in happiness.

~ Elisabeth T. Eliassen, Facebook entry July 3, 2010 

I was reading today’s issue of the San Francisco Chronicle. Homelessness has been at the heart of all the reporting in the Chronicle, this week, culminating in the front page being complete devoted to an editorial on the issue of homelessness, in San Francisco but also everywhere.

Reading further into the paper, I struck by a comment from Willie Brown’s column. He wrote, “The goal of any movement for freedom and justice is ultimately to work itself out of business.” I think he is correct in his assertion, but frankly, the long road toward such eventualities stretches before us.

Identity politics is a thing precisely because freedom and justice are not available for all. Law is not justice when there are double standards; law is only successful when it meets the needs and situations of all. Instead, what we find, over and over again, is that law is created and applied divisively. Some have access, while others do not.

What we need to evolve beyond, as a race of beings we call “humanity,” is the notion that inhumanity is okay. Inhumanity is never okay, just like being a bully is never okay. But, while power and privilege are constantly being called into question, they are never being addressed for what they are: Deep societal deficits and ills. Is the billionaire better than the homeless person living under an overpass? That is entirely the wrong question to be considering, but laws and programs seem to lean in favor and support those who have everything but need. Programs for people in need are authored in nonsensical terms and conditions, meted out in nonsensical ways from locations not sensible to the transit needs of those without transit.

But to look deeper, we have got to see that, to echo the immortal words of Langston Hughes, the dream has been deferred for too many, and not by accident. There is been a dark and fatal intentionality about inequality and the plaque buildup of political walls, separating every single demographic that is used as a measurement. This is “divide and conquer.”  

“United we stand; divided we fall” sums it up beautifully, whether filtered through the Aesop fables, the gospel of Mark, Patrick Henry, or any other source. As Americans, we claim the first clause as our national gospel, but that is not the reality here. Division is our meat and potatoes, or at least it is food for some.

These states are united, except that they really are not. The people are united, except that they really are not. Why is it that the haves and have nots are now divided over who has a right to use a public toilet? It is as ridiculous a political ploy as any schoolyard bully’s power trip over a shy and fragile child. Ridiculous! And insulting!

If these states are to live up to the label “United,” we need to grow up. The schoolyard bully games are played in order to veil corruption, the kind of corruption that allows fewer people to have what they need, so that a few can have more than they could ever use. We need to grow up, to realize that all people are important, have a place and a vital role in our diverse society.

We are not independent. “Independence” is a lie that people use as a rhetorical tool to deny dignity and wellbeing to others. We must learn about dignity and that it is applicable everywhere. We must learn about our interdependence on each other.

We are all, whether we recognize this or not, teachers. But what are we teaching? I look around and I see some people learning anger, disappointment and deviousness; I look around and I see other people learning about value, generosity and kindness. I wish all teachers were among this later group; such are the people who understand true citizenship.

The dream can only become reality if we march forward as global citizens, but we have to become good citizens here at home; it all begins at home. Business and law need to serve human dignity, not the other way around. We need to march forward, not as individual political blocks pitted against each other, but as citizens who are for everyone’s success.

“When will we be satisfied?” Dr. King asked. I take a liberty to update the words from his immortal speech when I say that “we can never be satisfied as long as” any of our people “are stripped of their dignity. We cannot be satisfied as long as” people “are denied the vote, or believe they have nothing for which to vote.” We cannot be satisfied as long as we remain dysfunctionally disunited, as long as we fail to live out our creed that all are created equal.

We cannot be satisfied until the dream becomes a reality for every person.

© 2015 by Elisabeth T. Eliassen

Good Neighbors: 4. Thursday

Have pity on me,

have compassion;
you are a person just like me,
so try to understand;
accept me, and I'll feel okay.

I came here to make a better life.
I share a room with five other guys,
so I can send my earnings home.

I know I don’t belong here,
I would rather be at home;
I know my presence offends you,
but you need me to do all the work
you cannot bring yourself to do.

It’s not that I look different,
not that I trip over your words;
my sin is that I am here.

You call it free country,
and then you take it back;
I work for you, and you speak against me
—you think of me as inferior.

I was born of inequality;
this is the stain you helped make,
a stain you cannot wash out
—the truth is on you.

Greet me,
and I’ll feel acknowledged;
pay me,
and I’ll feel my worth
—an honest share will bring me joy,
and I’ll forget how tired I am;
my spirit will be uplifted,
and I will call you fair.

Don’t push me out;
you need me too much,
and I need you, too
—we need one another.

If we can share this beautiful life,
if we can stand together for what is just,
the world will be a better place for everyone.

We both put our heart out there,
we both make sacrifices;
let’s build, from small kindnesses,
a world we can all share,
where everyone has a rightful place.

© 2015 by Elisabeth T. Eliassen

This poem is part of a cycle based on the so-called seven Penitential Psalms. The subtitle of the cycle is “Psalms from the Streets”. This entry is based on Psalm 51, and could be subtitled, “The Alien.”

Thoughts on International Women’s Day

Today is International Woman’s Day. This is not a day I celebrate; it is a reminder to me that, while “Baby” (Wow! Remember that patronizing Virginia Slims ad slogan?) has come a long way, there is still a huge distance that needs to be crossed before there is anything remotely like equality among genders, let along among races. This kind of recognition day seems a hollow sort of political lip service, not a day of genuine respect and honor.

Here is brief rundown of a few of recent international news items that prove the dream of gender equality and mutual respect is still a dream:

•  Todd Aikin, former republican member of the House of Representative, serving Missouri’s second district declares that women who are “legitimately raped” do not get pregnant.
• A female medical student in South Delhi is gang raped, her male companion beaten. This woman died of her injuries. In Delhi, incidents of rape are reported to authorities every two hours.
• Rainer Bruderle, a pro-business Free Democrat in Germany reportedly commented how well one female journalist could “fill out a dirndl.”
• An Indonesian high-court judge, interviewing for a position on the Indonesian Supreme Court, suggested that women might "enjoy" being raped. (He did not get the appointment he sought.)
• A Vatican assessment found that The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, whose members represent 80% of Catholic nuns in the United States, have fallen under the sway of radical feminism and needed to hand control of their group over to a trio of bishops.
• Malala, twelve-years-old student and education activist from Pakistan is shot in the head.
• Ireland has only just acknowledged and officially apologized for governmental complicity in consigning women who had been labeled as “fallen women” to prison-style laundries run by Catholic nuns, where they labored for no pay. More than 10,000 women worked in 10 laundries from 1922 to 1996.
• Medical research tends to focus on male research subjects.

I could report more, but I think that is unnecessary. Women of today, if they are allowed to work, earn between 20% and 30% less than men for the same work. Women are frequently denied reproductive, as well as other, health choices and resources. There are governments and religions that do not allow women to work outside the home, to receive education, to show their faces in public, to be seen in the company of men other than male relatives. The women are told that these policies are made out of respect for them, that men were made to serve women; however, if disputes occur where there is a woman involved, it is always alleged to be the fault and responsibility of the woman, and the woman is made to suffer abuse and punishment at the hands of spouse or other male family members that is either condoned or ignored by officials. Millions of women and their children, worldwide are endangered by domestic abuse, war, trafficking, slavery, pollution, political and financial inequity.

The celebration of the beauty, strength and bravery of women should happen everyday. Likewise, men need to be celebrated, too. I am grateful for the many women in my life, starting with my own mother, who have shaped me as a person by being strong role models, pioneers and trail blazers. And I am grateful for men who have been role models, pioneers and trail blazers.

I would rather see all such recognition days fade away into the kind of world community that offers mutual respect as a primary motivating force within a Commonwealth of Humanity.

Unwittingly Enabling Elitism

There is an undercurrent among the sea of averageness. Can you feel it? This undercurrent is described in various ways, but the word “elitism” seems to appear with some frequency.

The unfortunate truth is that we unwittingly promote and comply with the spread of elitism.

Here is an example. Parents of boys who want to play baseball sign their sons up for Little League. The Little League mission is stated on their website:

Through proper guidance and exemplary leadership, the Little League program assists children in developing the qualities of citizenship, discipline, teamwork and physical well-being. By espousing the virtues of character, courage and loyalty, the Little League Baseball and Softball program is designed to develop superior citizens rather than superior athletes.

Parents read this statement and they think they are getting their boys in on the ground-floor of an equal playing field, one where their sons will have an equal opportunity to learn the sport and improve their skills.

Sadly, the reality is that there is no equal playing field.

My own son played in Little League for three years. For him, they were three years of hell.

He joined because his friends were in Little League. He wanted to play ball. He wanted to play ball with his friends. He never ended up on a team with a single one of his friends.

He started in the whole Little League thing late, as a 10 year old. Fortunately, he has great hand-to-eye coordination. He learned the game, not without some struggle, and many times without any encouragement from teammates. In fact, most of the time, my son was shunned by his teammates, or key teammates, at least.

What do I mean by key teammates? Key teammates are the coaches’ sons and the friends of the coaches’ sons. How does this work? Well, the key players are always put at the top of the batting line-up, no matter what. The key players are placed in in-field positions that they own all season long. The rest of the team is filled out with boys that do not get the attention or the opportunity to show any talent or skill; if these “filler boys”—by this, I mean all the other kids that are selected to fill out the team roster—show talent, they are shuffled to either far left or right field, or they warm the bench. There is no meritocracy; these “filler boys” are only there to fill out the roster, so that the key teammates can play games and be stars.

What I am saying here is outrageous. Many people will object strenuously to my observations, perhaps because they have not had the same experience with their sons. I am happy everyone has not had the same experience my son did. I can also report that my son is not the only boy to experience the worst that Little League has to offer.

How could such a scenario, as I have briefly described, happen? The answer is quite simple: the program is run by parent volunteers, whose sons are enrolled in the program. Everyone from coaches and score-keepers to umpires and the mom that runs the snack bar, and don’t forget the parent whose business sponsors the team. Look carefully. At the end of the year, when the awards are handed out, see whose children receive the sportsmanship awards (it was so blatant in our case—all four sons from one family received the sportsmanship awards), see whose parents receive the volunteer awards.

Sour grapes? Well, it only dawned on me, after my son played summer recreation ball in another town, having a great time and becoming a skilled player, that there was something seriously wrong. I mean, why would a coach bench a player who is good? One who can catch the ball and make plays? Why would a good batter be buried far down in the batting order? Why would kids who cannot catch the ball be placed in positions like shortstop and third base (as happened on my son's team last year), and never rotated out?

It all makes sense when you understand who makes up the inner circle. The key players have a sense of entitlement. They know that they own their infield positions. They know they own their batting order spots. They know that they do not have to worry about anyone upstaging them. The sense of entitlement extends to teasing, shunning, even bullying other kids on their team. The kids that are treated to this have to shut up and take it, if they want to play ball. But these boys don’t really get to play ball; they are just filler. The inner circle boys are treated to extra coaching. Extra practices are extended to everyone, but, mostly, at the last minute, so if you have a prior commitment, too bad.  From another parent, I found out that the inner circle on his sons’ team all went camping together, and had done for years.

Unwittingly, we parents who are not coaching or volunteering in some other big way for the league can report the same experience for our sons as that I described above. Unwittingly, we are paying to have our sons marginalized, even picked on. We are financing the entitlement of a few and the marginalization of a broader group.

The point must be made, with Little League as an example.

Now, I’ll ask you to extrapolate. If it is happening in Little League, chances are, it is happening in the local soccer league. So, where else is it happening? Chances are, it is happening higher up the chain than kids sports groups. How much are you paying to enable the abuse of your good will?

I am asking you to look at the systems you pay into through a different lens. You may be surprised by what you observe. And you may be further surprised to realize that you are paying into systems that give you the short end of the stick, while maximizing benefits to a small group of certain others.

I do not suggest that we all take on the mantle of bitterness over these circumstances, merely that we look more carefully at such situations and learn from them.

I told my son that I was sorry his experience had been so poor; it had taken me three years to figure out this whole thing and see how it really worked. My son ended his Little League career as a champion. The driven coaches and their key player sons really went to town! Alas, my son didn’t care about the first place trophy; all he wanted do was to burn the shirt contained his name and the names of all his tormenters.

I told my son that his experience was unfortunate, and we were sorry that we couldn’t do anything to improve his situation. We had spoken to the coach this year about the bullying, and, in the nicest possible way, he first did not “believe it”, and then claimed my son must have done something to bring it on himself. Isn’t that called “Blame the Victim”? At one point, my son went to one of the assistant coaches and told him that his son was picking on him. The assistant coach told my son “get better, and he’ll stop.” First of all, asserting that my son was a bad player (or at least not as good a player as his son); second of all, letting my son know that he would not censure his son’s behavior; third of all, condoning the behavior.

I told my son that he has to learn how to deal with all types of people and situations. Sometimes, this learning process is not pleasant.

I signed him up for summer recreation ball in a neighboring town. He’s having a good time. I suggested that he might consider continuing with recreational baseball, bypassing Babe Ruth League. If he keeps playing, he could tryout for the high school baseball team.

Meanwhile, I find it disturbing that this is the kind of society we live in. The inner circles make themselves the elite and cut everyone else out of the good stuff, as far as they can. These inner circles move concentrically outward from Little League and soccer to the School Board, your local Municipal government, the Police and Fire Unions, the Democratic or Republican Parties, Wall Street, and so on. Get the picture? This ethos has nothing really to do with volunteer organizations, but it does seem to figure into absolutely every aspect of our culture that involves some sort of prize to be won, whether it is a trophy or a government contract. The extent to which this can be done depends on how much oversight there is. Most of the time, there is very little.

Meanwhile, back on the Little League fields, adults are modeling the very worst behavior and ethics; and they are passing them on by example to their children, and maybe even to yours. On Your Dime. And using your children to reap rewards for their own.

Think about that.

Don’t be silent; speak out.

You never know who you will help by being aware, by getting more involved, and by sharing information.

Reflections on Reality, Love and Family

There have been so many things, lately in the news, that have made me reflect on the concept of "reality."

For example, when you read an entire arc of written history and find that the ancient notion of Trinity has been purposely derailed from being Father-Mother-Child to Father-Son-and-[(female in name origin only) Holy Spirit], you tend to suspect that the proper order of things has been usurped to fit a human agenda that can often seem less evolved and fit for holy work than one would hope for humanity (which claims to want peace even while raising their weapons to conquer).

The historical model Father-Mother-Child really needs a more modern amendment to  acknowledge the actually exisiting model of [Responsible&Committed Parent(s)-Grandparents-Guardians-Villagers]-Child(ren—history reveals this to be the reality of what has actually happened, through times ancient and modern, in thick and thin, in times of war and peace.

I just wish that reality what actually happens didn’t have to constantly obscured, diminished, denied, denigrated, fought over and legislated, so we could all get on with the actual (and more important) holy business of loving each other—from within the sacred choices we have made about our identities—and caring for each other and our beautiful planet, which is, after all, supposed to be the whole point of this existence.

Maybe someday there will be a holiday called “Stipulation Day”, where everyone could remember the day we all said, Okay, we’re ALL so COOL! Let’s CELEBRATE that we’re all taking care of each other, and that this is the way it should be!


(sigh)

But, the problem with holidays is that we have parades where we all line up in separate groupings. We reduce everything to sentiments that are printed on cards and balloons. Over time, we forget what the holiday was ultimately all about, and why it was needed.

Perhaps a better solution is to make everyday a Sabbath day, where there is time for work, time for play, time for celebration, time for reflection and time for rest. Is it possible? Could life be like that?

Meanwhile, I feel so VERY LUCKY to live in a part of the world were there is so much more consciousness about the multiple definitions and dimensions of family and neighbor--and life.