I’m sure that most of you have probably heard of the recent events on a Jet Blue flight in which a flight attendant got into an altercation with a passenger who had stood up and was trying to get her bags out of the overhead bin before the plane came to a stop. The attendant then said some choice words to her over the intercom and left the plane, also before the plane came to the gate.
Essayist David Sedaris recently wrote a piece about people behaving badly on airlines. "We're forever blaming the airline industry for turning us into monsters," Sedaris wrote. "But what if this is who we truly are, and the airport's just a forum that allows us to be our real selves, not just hateful but gloriously so?"
I certainly hope that’s not the case and this story stands in contrast to a story covered on This American Life. Allen Wigington, a former chief deputy in the Pickens County Sheriff’s Department in Georgia, recounted an incident he had on a flight. After they had landed, but before they got to the gate, the flight attendant came on and said that there was a soldier sitting at the back of the plane who was returning from his tour in Iraq. She told the passengers that the soldier’s wife and newborn daughter, whom he had never met, were waiting for him, and she asked everyone to remain in their seats so that he could be the first one off the plane. Amazingly, everyone complied with the request, and once the soldier was off, then everything returned to the normal rush that we’ve all experienced.
In my opinion, most of the rude and terrible behavior that we see all around us, and even sometimes have directed at us, is the result of individualism gone wrong. Many times it seems we have lost a sense of community; we focus on the pluribus rather than the unum. When we no longer feel connected to others or believe they have nothing to do with us, then we believe we can treat others as if they are not equals or deserving of respect.
John Wesley, the founder of Methodism said that as Christians we have to think collectively. “Scripture knows nothing of a solitary religion,” he said. In other words, we are all in this together. We should hear this each time we say the Lord’s Prayer, which begins not “My Father,” but instead “Our Father.” In fact, each time a pronoun is used in the prayer it is plural. We are linked together in this prayer, just as we are linked together by our faith.
This does not mean that we sublimate ourselves, but that we recognize that, as Paul tells us, all of us are necessary and important. Even though all of us play different roles in the church, all of us are equals in the eyes of God and so we should also be equal in each others eyes and we are all deserving of respect. As we rapidly move toward a new program year, let’s begin a revolution amongst ourselves, which can spread to the rest of the world, in which we pledge to treat everyone we encounter as a child of God, worthy of value and love.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Realities Of New Freshmen
Each year Beloit College publishes a list of what this year's incoming college freshmen have either always or never known. Here is this year's list, which makes me feel old:
Beloit, Wis. – Born when Ross Perot was warning about a giant sucking sound and Bill Clinton was apologizing for pain in his marriage, members of this fall’s entering college class of 2014 have emerged as a post-email generation for whom the digital world is routine and technology is just too slow.
Each August since 1998, Beloit College has released the Beloit College Mindset List. It provides a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students entering college this fall. The creation of Beloit’s Keefer Professor of the Humanities Tom McBride and former Public Affairs Director Ron Nief, it was originally created as a reminder to faculty to be aware of dated references, and quickly became a catalog of the rapidly changing worldview of each new generation.
The class of 2014 has never found Korean-made cars unusual on the Interstate and five hundred cable channels, of which they will watch a handful, have always been the norm. Since "digital" has always been in the cultural DNA, they've never written in cursive and with cell phones to tell them the time, there is no need for a wrist watch. Dirty Harry (who’s that?) is to them a great Hollywood director. The America they have inherited is one of soaring American trade and budget deficits; Russia has presumably never aimed nukes at the United States and China has always posed an economic threat.
Nonetheless, they plan to enjoy college. The males among them are likely to be a minority. They will be armed with iPhones and BlackBerries, on which making a phone call will be only one of many, many functions they will perform. They will now be awash with a computerized technology that will not distinguish information and knowledge. So it will be up to their professors to help them. A generation accustomed to instant access will need to acquire the patience of scholarship. They will discover how to research information in books and journals and not just on-line. Their professors, who might be tempted to think that they are hip enough and therefore ready and relevant to teach the new generation, might remember that Kurt Cobain is now on the classic oldies station. The college class of 2014 reminds us, once again, that a generation comes and goes in the blink of our eyes, which are, like the rest of us, getting older and older.
The Beloit College Mindset List for the Class of 2014
Most students entering college for the first time this fall—the Class of 2014—were born in 1992. For these students, Benny Hill, Sam Kinison, Sam Walton, Bert Parks and Tony Perkins have always been dead.
1. Few in the class know how to write in cursive.
2. Email is just too slow, and they seldom if ever use snail mail.
3. “Go West, Young College Grad” has always implied “and don’t stop until you get to Asia…and learn Chinese along the way.”
4. Al Gore has always been animated.
5. Los Angelinos have always been trying to get along.
6. Buffy has always been meeting her obligations to hunt down Lothos and the other blood-suckers at Hemery High.
7. “Caramel macchiato” and “venti half-caf vanilla latte” have always been street corner lingo.
8. With increasing numbers of ramps, Braille signs, and handicapped parking spaces, the world has always been trying harder to accommodate people with disabilities.
9. Had it remained operational, the villainous computer HAL could be their college classmate this fall, but they have a better chance of running into Miley Cyrus’s folks on Parents’ Weekend.
10. A quarter of the class has at least one immigrant parent, and the immigration debate is not a big priority…unless it involves “real” aliens from another planet.
11. John McEnroe has never played professional tennis.
12. Clint Eastwood is better known as a sensitive director than as Dirty Harry.
13. Parents and teachers feared that Beavis and Butt-head might be the voice of a lost generation.
14. Doctor Kevorkian has never been licensed to practice medicine.
15. Colorful lapel ribbons have always been worn to indicate support for a cause.
16. Korean cars have always been a staple on American highways.
17. Trading Chocolate the Moose for Patti the Platypus helped build their Beanie Baby collection.
18. Fergie is a pop singer, not a princess.
19. They never twisted the coiled handset wire aimlessly around their wrists while chatting on the phone.
20. DNA fingerprinting and maps of the human genome have always existed.
21. Woody Allen, whose heart has wanted what it wanted, has always been with Soon-Yi Previn.
22. Cross-burning has always been deemed protected speech.
23. Leasing has always allowed the folks to upgrade their tastes in cars.
24. “Cop Killer” by rapper Ice-T has never been available on a recording.
25. Leno and Letterman have always been trading insults on opposing networks.
26. Unless they found one in their grandparents’ closet, they have never seen a carousel of Kodachrome slides.
27. Computers have never lacked a CD-ROM disk drive.
28. They’ve never recognized that pointing to their wrists was a request for the time of day.
29. Reggie Jackson has always been enshrined in Cooperstown.
30. “Viewer Discretion” has always been an available warning on TV shows.
31. The first computer they probably touched was an Apple II; it is now in a museum.
32. Czechoslovakia has never existed.
33. Second-hand smoke has always been an official carcinogen.
34. “Assisted Living” has always been replacing nursing homes, while Hospice has always been an alternative to hospitals.
35. Once they got through security, going to the airport has always resembled going to the mall.
36. Adhesive strips have always been available in varying skin tones.
37. Whatever their parents may have thought about the year they were born, Queen Elizabeth declared it an “Annus Horribilis.”
38. Bud Selig has always been the Commissioner of Major League Baseball.
39. Pizza jockeys from Domino’s have never killed themselves to get your pizza there in under 30 minutes.
40. There have always been HIV positive athletes in the Olympics.
41. American companies have always done business in Vietnam.
42. Potato has always ended in an “e” in New Jersey per vice presidential edict.
43. Russians and Americans have always been living together in space.
44. The dominance of television news by the three networks passed while they were still in their cribs.
45. They have always had a chance to do community service with local and federal programs to earn money for college.
46. Nirvana is on the classic oldies station.
47. Children have always been trying to divorce their parents.
48. Someone has always gotten married in space.
49. While they were babbling in strollers, there was already a female Poet Laureate of the United States.
50. Toothpaste tubes have always stood up on their caps.
51. Food has always been irradiated.
52. There have always been women priests in the Anglican Church.
53. J.R. Ewing has always been dead and gone. Hasn’t he?
54. The historic bridge at Mostar in Bosnia has always been a copy.
55. Rock bands have always played at presidential inaugural parties.
56. They may have assumed that parents’ complaints about Black Monday had to do with punk rockers from L.A., not Wall Street.
57. A purple dinosaur has always supplanted Barney Google and Barney Fife.
58. Beethoven has always been a dog.
59. By the time their folks might have noticed Coca Cola’s new Tab Clear, it was gone.
60. Walmart has never sold handguns over the counter in the lower 48.
61. Presidential appointees have always been required to be more precise about paying their nannies’ withholding tax, or else.
62. Having hundreds of cable channels but nothing to watch has always been routine.
63. Their parents’ favorite TV sitcoms have always been showing up as movies.
64. The U.S, Canada, and Mexico have always agreed to trade freely.
65. They first met Michelangelo when he was just a computer virus.
66. Galileo is forgiven and welcome back into the Roman Catholic Church.
67. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has always sat on the Supreme Court.
68. They have never worried about a Russian missile strike on the U.S.
69. The Post Office has always been going broke.
70. The artist formerly known as Snoop Doggy Dogg has always been rapping.
71. The nation has never approved of the job Congress is doing.
72. One way or another, “It’s the economy, stupid” and always has been.
73. Silicone-gel breast implants have always been regulated.
74. They’ve always been able to blast off with the Sci-Fi Channel.
75. Honda has always been a major competitor on Memorial Day at Indianapolis.
Beloit, Wis. – Born when Ross Perot was warning about a giant sucking sound and Bill Clinton was apologizing for pain in his marriage, members of this fall’s entering college class of 2014 have emerged as a post-email generation for whom the digital world is routine and technology is just too slow.
Each August since 1998, Beloit College has released the Beloit College Mindset List. It provides a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students entering college this fall. The creation of Beloit’s Keefer Professor of the Humanities Tom McBride and former Public Affairs Director Ron Nief, it was originally created as a reminder to faculty to be aware of dated references, and quickly became a catalog of the rapidly changing worldview of each new generation.
The class of 2014 has never found Korean-made cars unusual on the Interstate and five hundred cable channels, of which they will watch a handful, have always been the norm. Since "digital" has always been in the cultural DNA, they've never written in cursive and with cell phones to tell them the time, there is no need for a wrist watch. Dirty Harry (who’s that?) is to them a great Hollywood director. The America they have inherited is one of soaring American trade and budget deficits; Russia has presumably never aimed nukes at the United States and China has always posed an economic threat.
Nonetheless, they plan to enjoy college. The males among them are likely to be a minority. They will be armed with iPhones and BlackBerries, on which making a phone call will be only one of many, many functions they will perform. They will now be awash with a computerized technology that will not distinguish information and knowledge. So it will be up to their professors to help them. A generation accustomed to instant access will need to acquire the patience of scholarship. They will discover how to research information in books and journals and not just on-line. Their professors, who might be tempted to think that they are hip enough and therefore ready and relevant to teach the new generation, might remember that Kurt Cobain is now on the classic oldies station. The college class of 2014 reminds us, once again, that a generation comes and goes in the blink of our eyes, which are, like the rest of us, getting older and older.
The Beloit College Mindset List for the Class of 2014
Most students entering college for the first time this fall—the Class of 2014—were born in 1992. For these students, Benny Hill, Sam Kinison, Sam Walton, Bert Parks and Tony Perkins have always been dead.
1. Few in the class know how to write in cursive.
2. Email is just too slow, and they seldom if ever use snail mail.
3. “Go West, Young College Grad” has always implied “and don’t stop until you get to Asia…and learn Chinese along the way.”
4. Al Gore has always been animated.
5. Los Angelinos have always been trying to get along.
6. Buffy has always been meeting her obligations to hunt down Lothos and the other blood-suckers at Hemery High.
7. “Caramel macchiato” and “venti half-caf vanilla latte” have always been street corner lingo.
8. With increasing numbers of ramps, Braille signs, and handicapped parking spaces, the world has always been trying harder to accommodate people with disabilities.
9. Had it remained operational, the villainous computer HAL could be their college classmate this fall, but they have a better chance of running into Miley Cyrus’s folks on Parents’ Weekend.
10. A quarter of the class has at least one immigrant parent, and the immigration debate is not a big priority…unless it involves “real” aliens from another planet.
11. John McEnroe has never played professional tennis.
12. Clint Eastwood is better known as a sensitive director than as Dirty Harry.
13. Parents and teachers feared that Beavis and Butt-head might be the voice of a lost generation.
14. Doctor Kevorkian has never been licensed to practice medicine.
15. Colorful lapel ribbons have always been worn to indicate support for a cause.
16. Korean cars have always been a staple on American highways.
17. Trading Chocolate the Moose for Patti the Platypus helped build their Beanie Baby collection.
18. Fergie is a pop singer, not a princess.
19. They never twisted the coiled handset wire aimlessly around their wrists while chatting on the phone.
20. DNA fingerprinting and maps of the human genome have always existed.
21. Woody Allen, whose heart has wanted what it wanted, has always been with Soon-Yi Previn.
22. Cross-burning has always been deemed protected speech.
23. Leasing has always allowed the folks to upgrade their tastes in cars.
24. “Cop Killer” by rapper Ice-T has never been available on a recording.
25. Leno and Letterman have always been trading insults on opposing networks.
26. Unless they found one in their grandparents’ closet, they have never seen a carousel of Kodachrome slides.
27. Computers have never lacked a CD-ROM disk drive.
28. They’ve never recognized that pointing to their wrists was a request for the time of day.
29. Reggie Jackson has always been enshrined in Cooperstown.
30. “Viewer Discretion” has always been an available warning on TV shows.
31. The first computer they probably touched was an Apple II; it is now in a museum.
32. Czechoslovakia has never existed.
33. Second-hand smoke has always been an official carcinogen.
34. “Assisted Living” has always been replacing nursing homes, while Hospice has always been an alternative to hospitals.
35. Once they got through security, going to the airport has always resembled going to the mall.
36. Adhesive strips have always been available in varying skin tones.
37. Whatever their parents may have thought about the year they were born, Queen Elizabeth declared it an “Annus Horribilis.”
38. Bud Selig has always been the Commissioner of Major League Baseball.
39. Pizza jockeys from Domino’s have never killed themselves to get your pizza there in under 30 minutes.
40. There have always been HIV positive athletes in the Olympics.
41. American companies have always done business in Vietnam.
42. Potato has always ended in an “e” in New Jersey per vice presidential edict.
43. Russians and Americans have always been living together in space.
44. The dominance of television news by the three networks passed while they were still in their cribs.
45. They have always had a chance to do community service with local and federal programs to earn money for college.
46. Nirvana is on the classic oldies station.
47. Children have always been trying to divorce their parents.
48. Someone has always gotten married in space.
49. While they were babbling in strollers, there was already a female Poet Laureate of the United States.
50. Toothpaste tubes have always stood up on their caps.
51. Food has always been irradiated.
52. There have always been women priests in the Anglican Church.
53. J.R. Ewing has always been dead and gone. Hasn’t he?
54. The historic bridge at Mostar in Bosnia has always been a copy.
55. Rock bands have always played at presidential inaugural parties.
56. They may have assumed that parents’ complaints about Black Monday had to do with punk rockers from L.A., not Wall Street.
57. A purple dinosaur has always supplanted Barney Google and Barney Fife.
58. Beethoven has always been a dog.
59. By the time their folks might have noticed Coca Cola’s new Tab Clear, it was gone.
60. Walmart has never sold handguns over the counter in the lower 48.
61. Presidential appointees have always been required to be more precise about paying their nannies’ withholding tax, or else.
62. Having hundreds of cable channels but nothing to watch has always been routine.
63. Their parents’ favorite TV sitcoms have always been showing up as movies.
64. The U.S, Canada, and Mexico have always agreed to trade freely.
65. They first met Michelangelo when he was just a computer virus.
66. Galileo is forgiven and welcome back into the Roman Catholic Church.
67. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has always sat on the Supreme Court.
68. They have never worried about a Russian missile strike on the U.S.
69. The Post Office has always been going broke.
70. The artist formerly known as Snoop Doggy Dogg has always been rapping.
71. The nation has never approved of the job Congress is doing.
72. One way or another, “It’s the economy, stupid” and always has been.
73. Silicone-gel breast implants have always been regulated.
74. They’ve always been able to blast off with the Sci-Fi Channel.
75. Honda has always been a major competitor on Memorial Day at Indianapolis.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Tax Free
Just finished up an all too short vacation, which ended with the Massachusetts tax free weekend. I didn't plan it that way, nor did I really participate in this event. Although I did buy a few things, they were things we needed to get anyways. But I'm a little puzzled about why this is a such a big deal for people.
If a store was to run a promotion in which they were to say "This weekend everything in the store is 6.25% off," would anyone show up? My guess is probably not. But in saying everything is tax free then everyone comes because they think they are getting away with something. Even more puzzling is that the vast majority of people are paying for all these items on their credit cards. So they want to save $62.50 when they buy that $1000 television, but they are going to put it on a credit card at 14% interest (that's the current average, meaning many people are paying a lot more).
If people pay $50 more a month on their credit card to pay this off, they will end up paying $145.38 in fees to the banks rather than to the government. If they pay an extra hundred dollars a month, they end up paying $69.62 in interest fees. Those are both losing propositions. And remember, that would require people to pay more each month on their credit cards. If they kept paying the same amount, or only paying the minimum those rates go through the roof. Making the minimum payment on that $1000 TV at 14% will add an additional $509.57 to the total cost. Good thing they saved the $62.50 in taxes or it would be really expensive.
Now this statement will tell you exactly where I am on the political spectrum, but I would much rather give $62.50 to the government then even the same amount to my credit card company. Do I love paying taxes, no, but I understand their purpose and necessity. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., said that "taxes are the price of civilization," and I would agree with him.
Now some have argued that anyone who makes this statement is really just for big government and against the "people." But I reject that argument on its face. There is simply no way we could operate as a society without taxation in some form. In his book Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond does a great job in elucidating what makes a move from small hunter-gathering tribal groups to larger societies possible, and one of those things is taxes. In fact the oldest known writing, which comes from Egypt, is about taxes.
I personally like having roads, a police and fire department, a community pool and parks, and I even like the social safety net, although I think it should be greatly improved. While I do not like paying for an empire I also gladly pay for that because government is about compromise and if I have to pay for too much military in order to have a system that protects the most vulnerable then that is a compromise I am willing to make. It might not be a good one, but it's the best we have at the moment.
What I'd really like to know, however, is when some politician is going to make the argument about the benefits of taxes and what we all get out of it, even those who hate them. I don't see them refusing to drive on roads, buying buildings that have not been inspected, or refusing to call the fire or police in an emergency. Those are all social goods that can only be provided by a government. These things simply cannot be paid for without taxes. (I know that there are private fire departments, and I've seen them in action and can tell you some stories.)
We need to move beyond the individual and thinking only for ourselves and remember that we are all in this together. That our situation in life has more to do with flukes of nature than with everything we have done (think John Rawls). I know there is no politician willing to stand up and defend taxes, but I would sure love to see it and they would get my vote.
And one comment for all the tea party members, which includes a member of my own family. I understand the argument. There are certainly changes that need to be made, making the system progressive rather than regressive is one. But let's understand a couple of things, besides for what I've already talked about.
First, removing the tax break given by President Bush will not affect your life unless you are in the top 3% of individual income, which is currently about $250,000 a year. Second, as a historian I have to say that if you want to take on the tea party tax protest as your metaphor then you need to study history.
Why was London raising taxes on the colonists? Because they were having a hard time paying for wars and keeping the military up. Having an empire is extremely expensive, and the British regulars had fought several wars in America to protect the colonies and the debts were raking up. What parliament was doing was charging the colonies the fees they felt were necessary to keep a military presence in America, and to pay for the wars they had already fought in America for the colonists. Does this sound familiar?
I am just as concerned about the national debt as anyone because I know who will be paying for it. And just so we're clear, the current budget deficit does not include the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because most of those expenses are extra budgetary items that don't show up in the federal budget. But we cannot continue paying for those expenses, or paying for our empire, without taxes.
The Democrats have been accused of being "tax and spend," but that is better than the last administration which was "don't tax and spend." The money has to come from somewhere and at some point the piper will demand payment. If we want to reduce taxes then we have to face serious realities about military expenditures (which, by the way, includes socialized medicine and housing).
If the tea party wants to make that part of their platform then they will truly began to get support from across the spectrum.
If a store was to run a promotion in which they were to say "This weekend everything in the store is 6.25% off," would anyone show up? My guess is probably not. But in saying everything is tax free then everyone comes because they think they are getting away with something. Even more puzzling is that the vast majority of people are paying for all these items on their credit cards. So they want to save $62.50 when they buy that $1000 television, but they are going to put it on a credit card at 14% interest (that's the current average, meaning many people are paying a lot more).
If people pay $50 more a month on their credit card to pay this off, they will end up paying $145.38 in fees to the banks rather than to the government. If they pay an extra hundred dollars a month, they end up paying $69.62 in interest fees. Those are both losing propositions. And remember, that would require people to pay more each month on their credit cards. If they kept paying the same amount, or only paying the minimum those rates go through the roof. Making the minimum payment on that $1000 TV at 14% will add an additional $509.57 to the total cost. Good thing they saved the $62.50 in taxes or it would be really expensive.
Now this statement will tell you exactly where I am on the political spectrum, but I would much rather give $62.50 to the government then even the same amount to my credit card company. Do I love paying taxes, no, but I understand their purpose and necessity. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., said that "taxes are the price of civilization," and I would agree with him.
Now some have argued that anyone who makes this statement is really just for big government and against the "people." But I reject that argument on its face. There is simply no way we could operate as a society without taxation in some form. In his book Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond does a great job in elucidating what makes a move from small hunter-gathering tribal groups to larger societies possible, and one of those things is taxes. In fact the oldest known writing, which comes from Egypt, is about taxes.
I personally like having roads, a police and fire department, a community pool and parks, and I even like the social safety net, although I think it should be greatly improved. While I do not like paying for an empire I also gladly pay for that because government is about compromise and if I have to pay for too much military in order to have a system that protects the most vulnerable then that is a compromise I am willing to make. It might not be a good one, but it's the best we have at the moment.
What I'd really like to know, however, is when some politician is going to make the argument about the benefits of taxes and what we all get out of it, even those who hate them. I don't see them refusing to drive on roads, buying buildings that have not been inspected, or refusing to call the fire or police in an emergency. Those are all social goods that can only be provided by a government. These things simply cannot be paid for without taxes. (I know that there are private fire departments, and I've seen them in action and can tell you some stories.)
We need to move beyond the individual and thinking only for ourselves and remember that we are all in this together. That our situation in life has more to do with flukes of nature than with everything we have done (think John Rawls). I know there is no politician willing to stand up and defend taxes, but I would sure love to see it and they would get my vote.
And one comment for all the tea party members, which includes a member of my own family. I understand the argument. There are certainly changes that need to be made, making the system progressive rather than regressive is one. But let's understand a couple of things, besides for what I've already talked about.
First, removing the tax break given by President Bush will not affect your life unless you are in the top 3% of individual income, which is currently about $250,000 a year. Second, as a historian I have to say that if you want to take on the tea party tax protest as your metaphor then you need to study history.
Why was London raising taxes on the colonists? Because they were having a hard time paying for wars and keeping the military up. Having an empire is extremely expensive, and the British regulars had fought several wars in America to protect the colonies and the debts were raking up. What parliament was doing was charging the colonies the fees they felt were necessary to keep a military presence in America, and to pay for the wars they had already fought in America for the colonists. Does this sound familiar?
I am just as concerned about the national debt as anyone because I know who will be paying for it. And just so we're clear, the current budget deficit does not include the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because most of those expenses are extra budgetary items that don't show up in the federal budget. But we cannot continue paying for those expenses, or paying for our empire, without taxes.
The Democrats have been accused of being "tax and spend," but that is better than the last administration which was "don't tax and spend." The money has to come from somewhere and at some point the piper will demand payment. If we want to reduce taxes then we have to face serious realities about military expenditures (which, by the way, includes socialized medicine and housing).
If the tea party wants to make that part of their platform then they will truly began to get support from across the spectrum.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
An A-Bomb by A-Rod
Congratulations go out to Alex Rodriguez who hit his 600th home run yesterday, becoming just the seventh player in Major League history to reach that plateau. Now many sports commentators are playing down the significance of this because it is unknown how many home runs were assisted by means of "performance enhancing drugs." If you've been reading this blog for any period of time you already know my thoughts on this, which is that it is bogus.
First, as my beautiful bride said last night, how come all they ever talk about is hitters, why don't they talk about pitchers? Half of all the people who have tested positive have been pitchers, so does that effect how we look at the debate?
Second, the steroid area extends from at least 1986, which is the year pegged by Peter Gammons, although I think you need to go back to 1983 or 1984, up through maybe 2004 or later if you think everyone just moved to untraceable drugs like HGH. As much as I can't stand Jose Canseco, so far he has been right about almost everything he said, which includes the fact that at least 85% of all players were using during this time period.
This was an issue for at least 20 years, so let's stop talking about who is clean and who isn't, because there is absolutely no way of knowing. Frank Thomas and Ken Griffie, Jr., are routinely said to have no indications that they ever used, and I hope they didn't, but there is simply no way of knowing. I am no longer surprised by any one's name I hear being mentioned. There are certainly some that disappoint me, but none are surprising. Unless you are going to discount all numbers for all players during that decade let's just deal with it and move on.
Finally, as one person said, Babe Ruth never had to face Satchel Page, so wasn't that an advantage? A-Rod has the advantage of having better supplements and work out routines that are legal, as well as the fact that he can go into the locker room immediately after each at bat and watch what just happened so that he can make real-time adjustments to a pitcher, as well as having scouting reports that were just simply unimaginable forty years ago. Imagine what Ted Williams could have done had he had this technology? Do we discount his home runs because of that advantage.
Here is my solution. If we don't want Bonds or A-Rod to be the home run champion then let's put the title where it rightfully belongs, which is with Josh Gibson, who is arguably the greatest home run hitter of all time. It is estimated that he hit 800-1000 home runs in his very short career (he died of a brain tumor at age 35). The "official" records for the negro leagues credit him with 115 home runs in 1855 at bats over 510 games (although these are known not to be fully accurate), and the full total will simply never be known. The "official" numbers do not include all the games he played in when his teams were just barnstorming and not playing other negro league teams.
Based on the "official" numbers, Gibson hit one home run every 16.1 at bats. A-Rod has hit a home run every 14.5 at bats, Hank Aaron hit one every 16.4, Ruth every 11.8, Willie Mays every 16.5, and Ken Griffey, Jr. every 15.6.
Let's put Josh Gibson's name where it belongs since the only reason he was never given a chance to prove how good he was was because he was not white. That certainly seems to me as egregious a crime as someone taking steroids was, if not worse.
So how do we deal with those numbers and the numbers of the white pitchers who never had to face him in a line-up? Baseball is all about numbers, but they've also always been somewhat artificial and not really comparable across decades and generations. We've put an asterisk on a home run record in the past, and we all know now what a terrible mistake that was, so why do we want to do it again? Haven't we learned anything?
So congratulations A-Rod. You might not get the credit you deserve from some, but no one can truly take those numbers away from you.
First, as my beautiful bride said last night, how come all they ever talk about is hitters, why don't they talk about pitchers? Half of all the people who have tested positive have been pitchers, so does that effect how we look at the debate?
Second, the steroid area extends from at least 1986, which is the year pegged by Peter Gammons, although I think you need to go back to 1983 or 1984, up through maybe 2004 or later if you think everyone just moved to untraceable drugs like HGH. As much as I can't stand Jose Canseco, so far he has been right about almost everything he said, which includes the fact that at least 85% of all players were using during this time period.
This was an issue for at least 20 years, so let's stop talking about who is clean and who isn't, because there is absolutely no way of knowing. Frank Thomas and Ken Griffie, Jr., are routinely said to have no indications that they ever used, and I hope they didn't, but there is simply no way of knowing. I am no longer surprised by any one's name I hear being mentioned. There are certainly some that disappoint me, but none are surprising. Unless you are going to discount all numbers for all players during that decade let's just deal with it and move on.
Finally, as one person said, Babe Ruth never had to face Satchel Page, so wasn't that an advantage? A-Rod has the advantage of having better supplements and work out routines that are legal, as well as the fact that he can go into the locker room immediately after each at bat and watch what just happened so that he can make real-time adjustments to a pitcher, as well as having scouting reports that were just simply unimaginable forty years ago. Imagine what Ted Williams could have done had he had this technology? Do we discount his home runs because of that advantage.
Here is my solution. If we don't want Bonds or A-Rod to be the home run champion then let's put the title where it rightfully belongs, which is with Josh Gibson, who is arguably the greatest home run hitter of all time. It is estimated that he hit 800-1000 home runs in his very short career (he died of a brain tumor at age 35). The "official" records for the negro leagues credit him with 115 home runs in 1855 at bats over 510 games (although these are known not to be fully accurate), and the full total will simply never be known. The "official" numbers do not include all the games he played in when his teams were just barnstorming and not playing other negro league teams.
Based on the "official" numbers, Gibson hit one home run every 16.1 at bats. A-Rod has hit a home run every 14.5 at bats, Hank Aaron hit one every 16.4, Ruth every 11.8, Willie Mays every 16.5, and Ken Griffey, Jr. every 15.6.
Let's put Josh Gibson's name where it belongs since the only reason he was never given a chance to prove how good he was was because he was not white. That certainly seems to me as egregious a crime as someone taking steroids was, if not worse.
So how do we deal with those numbers and the numbers of the white pitchers who never had to face him in a line-up? Baseball is all about numbers, but they've also always been somewhat artificial and not really comparable across decades and generations. We've put an asterisk on a home run record in the past, and we all know now what a terrible mistake that was, so why do we want to do it again? Haven't we learned anything?
So congratulations A-Rod. You might not get the credit you deserve from some, but no one can truly take those numbers away from you.
Monday, August 2, 2010
What is Enough?
Here is my sermon from yesterday. The passage was the parable of the rich fool in Luke 12:13-21. If you would like to receive one of the contentment keytags that were given out, please let me know.
Now I know that in hearing today’s passage from Luke, which is a story we think we would normally hear later in the fall some of you are probably thinking to yourselves, “man, they are really moving the stewardship campaign earlier and earlier.” But, this is one of the times when as a preacher it’s useful to use the lectionary, because I can blame the lectionary for causing me to cover this topic. It also gives me plenty of ideas for songs to sing after the gauntlet was thrown down for me by Greg Yanchenko last week. But there is no need to worry about the money sermon today, because today’s scripture is not really about money. Instead, it’s about something that may be even worse than hearing about money, it’s about hearing about our stuff. As George Carlin told us, “If you didn’t have so much stuff, you wouldn’t need a house. A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it,” he said. “Sometimes you gotta move, gotta get a bigger house. Why? No room for your stuff.”
Now I know that in hearing today’s passage from Luke, which is a story we think we would normally hear later in the fall some of you are probably thinking to yourselves, “man, they are really moving the stewardship campaign earlier and earlier.” But, this is one of the times when as a preacher it’s useful to use the lectionary, because I can blame the lectionary for causing me to cover this topic. It also gives me plenty of ideas for songs to sing after the gauntlet was thrown down for me by Greg Yanchenko last week. But there is no need to worry about the money sermon today, because today’s scripture is not really about money. Instead, it’s about something that may be even worse than hearing about money, it’s about hearing about our stuff. As George Carlin told us, “If you didn’t have so much stuff, you wouldn’t need a house. A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it,” he said. “Sometimes you gotta move, gotta get a bigger house. Why? No room for your stuff.”
If you do a search for home many times fool appears in the bible, you will find that it, along with derivates like foolish, fools, etc, appears 173 times. 103 of those are found in the psalms, proverbs or Ecclesiastes, which you might expect since they are part of the wisdom literature. The word appears only 38 times in the New Testament, 10 of those in the gospels, with six in Matthew and 4 in Luke. But of all of the 173 times it is found, only once does God say it. Jesus calls people fools several times, including calling the Pharisees fools just previous to today’s reading, but what seems striking to me, is that when God comes a calling, God is the one who calls the man a fool. I don’t quite know what to make of that yet.
In doing my research on this passage, I find that many of the commentators focus on the story of the fool, but totally skip what sets the story up; a man comes to Jesus and tells Jesus to tell the man’s brother to divide the inheritance with him. If you were here two weeks ago when Elizabeth Windsor preached you might remember that her passage had Martha telling Jesus that he should tell Mary to help her do the work around the house. I think there is a definite connection between these two stories. You might also hear echoes of the story of the parable of the Good Samaritan in the way this parable is set-up in telling us about a certain man and what is required of us.
Jesus obviously knows some background information about the brother’s request for help that we do not have. The man’s request would not have been an unusual as there is certainly a tradition for people to go to religious leaders, including Moses, and have them intervene on these issues. But Jesus’ response seems a little strange in that he automatically changes the request from a man seeking justice to be done, to one of a man driven by greed asking for assistance in getting his desires, which allows Jesus to tell this rather strange story of a certain rich man.
Now although the claim that the man was rich would certainly have raised connotations for the original audience hearing this parable, especially the fact that he was rich in land, we are not told anything about him. In fact there is no judgment raised about the man. We are not told that he is bad or evil, or that he will be eternally damned, as happens in other stories. We are not told that he lied, cheated or stole in order to accumulate his fortune, all we are told is that he is a certain rich man. No judgment is made about his possessions per say, but instead about how he views the possessions and what he does with them.
This parable is also not against saving for a rainy day, in fact scripture supports that, we need look no further than Joseph telling the pharaoh to put away grain for the coming seven year drought. You should be saving for your retirement, and you should also be saving for a rainy day. The current estimate from financial planners is to have seven months income set aside to protect you, that is in addition to your retirement accounts. This is part of what it means to be a good steward, but this is very different than what the man in today’s parable is doing. The man is not stockpiling for a rainy day, or to help out those in need, he is gaining more and more simply for the sake of gaining more and more so that he can enjoy himself.
That is what he says, and this is the key portion of this passage, the man says to his soul, “Soul, you have ample good laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink and be merry.” Of course, he missed out on the final portion of that statement, found most famously in Isaiah, which is that tomorrow you die, and of course that is exactly what happens. That is why God calls him a fool. The man is making assumptions and acting and living as if there is not a God, and as if he controls the length of his life. The word translated here as soul, in Greek is psyche, meaning closer to self.
The man believes that he is in control of everything in his life, so much that he can even sort of refer to himself in this way and tell himself what to do. If you are familiar with Aristotelian philosophy, he is the prime mover in his own life. Notice how much I is used in the story, the man says “I will” do something four times, and it is also “my barn, my grain, my goods.” Everything is entirely about the man. He talks to no one else, and no one else is even mentioned in the story until the one who can actually control things, God, comes in and demands the man’s life.
The real problem with possessions we are told is that they cause us to believe that we are self-sufficient that we don’t need anything or anyone else, we can do it all ourselves. Even those who helped him are never mentioned. Certainly he was not planting, harvesting or putting his crops away himself, nor was he building his own barns, but those who were assisting him are never mentioned because he believes that he is doing everything himself. He doesn’t believe that he owes anything to anyone else, because he foolishly believes he is the one in control, that he is self-sufficient that he has everything he needs, so much so that he can tell himself what he is going to do not only with his property but even with the rest of his life. But what he finds out is that he is not in control of his life, and that the things that he has built up make no difference at the end of his life.
The man believes that he is self-sufficient, that he doesn’t need anyone else, including God, and that is the way he lives his life, but no matter how much stuff he accumulates, no matter how big his barns are, no matter how many years’ savings he has, he is not alone in the world and he does not control his future. You can live as if God does not exist, but that does not change the reality that we can be called to meet God at any time. The man makes his possessions the entirety of who he is.
Now in our culture, keeping up with the joneses is not only a saying it is a reality, and what studies have also found is that this is worse in economically diverse communities. If you routinely have exposure to people who have bigger and more stuff than you do, then we want to move up to what they have so that we can feel good about ourselves. It’s like the old Janis Joplin song: “O Lord won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz, my friends all drive Porches I must make amends, worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends, O lord won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz.” Why does she need a Mercedes? Because her friends all drive Porches.
We are continually told to accumulate, to gather, to build bigger and get more. We are inundated by stuff, and more stuff than we can keep. Our houses have become so full that we need storage units in order to keep it all. In the US, we currently have 2.3 billion square foot of storage unit space, which is three times the size of Manhattan, and that’s with the square footage of the average home having more than doubled in the last thirty years. Do you know what it would cost to provide clean water to every person in the world? $10 billion. We spend $22 billion dollars annually on storage units, and yes that is a capital B billion, and storage usage has increased 65% in the last 15 years and is still growing. In fact it is one of the fastest growing sectors of the real estate market.
Now just to let you all know, this is not me banging a stick over your heads as if I am not guilty of the same issues, because it’s not true. When we moved into the parsonage, which was the biggest house we’ve ever lived in, and more house than we need, what was the first thing we did? We went out and bought new things to fill up the space. We had extra space and so we had to fill it up. But is there another way to live? Are we as Christians called to walk a different path and to live a different life? After my Thanksgiving sermon last year, someone came up to Pastor Joel and said that he didn’t really need anything else for Christmas, and was wondering what we as a church could do to change our practices, that would allow us to give that money to those truly in need. We didn’t have the time to implement anything at the time, but I did a little research and found a program called Advent Conspiracy which we will be running this year.
The program seeks to take the focus of Christmas off of us and the accumulation of things and put it back onto the birth of Christ. Each year in America we spend $450 billion dollars on Christmas. $10.6 billion alone is spent on the Friday after Thanksgiving, traditionally known as black Friday. The four churches that got together to form the program said that rather than running around like chickens with our heads cut off spending money we don’t have on gifts people don’t need or want, what if instead we created a new tradition in which we focused on things that really matter, like spending time with our families and friends, and what if we took the money we didn’t spend on Christmas and used it for other purposes, like relieving our own personal debt, or setting up an emergency fund, or spending it to further the kingdom of God by providing the world with clean water.
We can live our lives in one of either two realities. We can either live lives of contentment, or we can live lives of discontentment. Those are the two realities. Discontentment leaves us uncertain, questioning and hungering for something, anything to make us content. That is what advertising is all about, making you feel that you cannot be content in your life without this widget in your life, and you know you have to have it because everyone else has it as well, or they have last year’s model and so you want to be better than they are so you need this year’s model. As the saying goes, we end up buying things we don’t need, with money we don’t have to impress people we don’t like. But we don’t have to live that life.
We can also choose to be content with what we have, and in order to help us make a move in that direction, the ushers are going to be passing out these little key tags. On one side they say contentment, and on the second side they have a prayer. The prayer says “Lord, help me to be grateful for what I have, to remember that I don’t need most of what I want, and that joy is found in simplicity and generosity.” We have plenty, so take one for each key ring you want it to be on, put it right next to all the keytags you get for discounts at other places like the grocery store, or place it in your wallet, glue it to the credit card you use the most, put it wherever you think you need it the most. If you want to take some to give out to friends, relatives, neighbors, please do, but don’t take them if all they are going to do is be added to your collection of stuff. The purpose is to help us eliminate the stuff and clutter or our lives, not to increase it.
Whenever you are feeling discontentment and thinking that you need to buy something in order make yourself feel better, pull it out and say the prayer. When you are at the grocery store and you pull out your keys to give to the cashier look at it, say the prayer and ask if you really need everything you are buying, or do you just want it. Don’t bury this in the middle of all of your other keytags, make sure it is the first thing you see.
As the ushers pass the tags out, I would like to sing one more song, thank you Mr. Yanchenko. You will recognize the tune because we use it for Lord of the Dance, but it’s originally from a Shaker song called Tis the Gift to be Simple, and it goes like this:
Tis the gift to be simple tis the gift to be free
Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
Twill be in the valley of love and delight
When true simplicity is gained,
To bow and to bend we shan’t be ashamed
To turn, turn will be our delight
Till by turning, turning we come round right
Martha was distracted by the many things, but this man and the brother are distracted by one thing. The brother is focused on the things he does not yet have, but wants, and the rich fool is focused on what he has, and wants more of, and they distract them from seeing and focusing on God. They view economics and things as a zero-sum game, in which there are those who have and those who have not, but that is our economic system, that is not God’s economic system. In God’s system the Israelites are fed with manna falling from the sky and with water from a rock, in God’s system 5000 people are fed with five loaves and two fish, in God’s system 4000 are fed with seven loaves and fish, God’s economic system feeds all of us from a loaf of bread and a cup of wine. God’s system is not a zero-sum game, because when we choose it there is enough for everyone because when we are focused on God we realize what is truly important, we push everything else to the side, we focus on the one thing and we are rich towards God and towards each other. This parable is not about being rich or poor, having lots of things or few things, it is about where our allegiance is and where our focus lies, is it on God or on things, is it on what we have or want or is it on God, is it on what we need or on what we desire?
Tis the gift to be simple tis the gift to be free
Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
Twill be in the valley of love and delight
When true simplicity is gained,
To bow and to bend we shan’t be ashamed
To turn, turn will be our delight
Till by turning, turning we come round right
Martha was distracted by the many things, but this man and the brother are distracted by one thing. The brother is focused on the things he does not yet have, but wants, and the rich fool is focused on what he has, and wants more of, and they distract them from seeing and focusing on God. They view economics and things as a zero-sum game, in which there are those who have and those who have not, but that is our economic system, that is not God’s economic system. In God’s system the Israelites are fed with manna falling from the sky and with water from a rock, in God’s system 5000 people are fed with five loaves and two fish, in God’s system 4000 are fed with seven loaves and fish, God’s economic system feeds all of us from a loaf of bread and a cup of wine. God’s system is not a zero-sum game, because when we choose it there is enough for everyone because when we are focused on God we realize what is truly important, we push everything else to the side, we focus on the one thing and we are rich towards God and towards each other. This parable is not about being rich or poor, having lots of things or few things, it is about where our allegiance is and where our focus lies, is it on God or on things, is it on what we have or want or is it on God, is it on what we need or on what we desire?
It is not our possessions in and of themselves that are the problem. It is the love of things that is the problem. The things themselves are neutral, it is all in our relation to them. Do we put our trust in them, or in God? Do we put our allegiance in things or in God? Do we worship our stuff, or do we worship God? Do we believe that we are self-sufficient and independent, and live as if there is no God, or do we believe that we are connected to each other and to God? Or, ultimately, does our faith in God have any impact on the practical matters of life? When you look for things to fill your life, then there can never be enough, you will always need more, but when you look instead to God your blessings will overflow and you will never be lacking. Amen.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Concussions
Last December Chris Henry, who played for the Cincinnati Bengals, died after he fell out of the back of a truck following an argument with his fiance. As part of a study supported by the NFL, his brain was removed and sent to the Brain Injury Research Institute at West Virginia University.
The researchers there found that Henry had "chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) -- a form of degenerative brain damage caused by multiple hits to the head," which was unrelated to his death. What was even more concerning about this discovery in Henry's brain was the fact that he had never been diagnosed with a concussion during his playing career.
Concussions have been suspected as the leading cause of the brain impairment that many former athletes who have played violent sports have developed, but this finding says that it may be more than just concussions contributing to the problem. All violent hits to the head, whether leading to a concussion or not, cause damage and the cumulative effects may be devistating. Henry's family is now wondering whether the CTE even helped contribute to his death by causing his brain not to function properly leading him to become involved in the situation that led to his death.
Although the NFL, as late as three years ago, was denying any link between concussions and later brain impairment, they are now changing their tune and yesterday released a new poster which will be put in all locker rooms talking about the dangers of concussions.
In particular, it states that "Traumatic brain injury can cause a wide-range of short- or long term changes affecting thinking, sensation, language or emotion. These changes may lead to problems with memory and communication, personality changes, as well as depression and the early onset of dementia. Concussions and conditions resulting from repeated brain injury can change your life and your family's life forever."
Michael Wilbon, who is a columnist for the Washington Post and also works for ESPN, has said that his concern is so great that he will not allow his son, who is two at the moment, to play football because of the long-term ramifications. My brother has stopped watching football because he cannot morally justify watching a sport which does permanent physical damage to its participants as a form of entertainment. I struggle with the same issue, but I like football too much at the moment to take that step.
But I do have serious concerns about the long-term impact it has, and the more information that is discovered the more scarry this reality becomes. So, I applaud the NFL for their change in attitude towards this issue and for making this move. It is a step in the right direction, but it is only a small step. I hope that similar posters are also displayed in every lockerroom in America, especially in high schools.
The researchers there found that Henry had "chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) -- a form of degenerative brain damage caused by multiple hits to the head," which was unrelated to his death. What was even more concerning about this discovery in Henry's brain was the fact that he had never been diagnosed with a concussion during his playing career.
Concussions have been suspected as the leading cause of the brain impairment that many former athletes who have played violent sports have developed, but this finding says that it may be more than just concussions contributing to the problem. All violent hits to the head, whether leading to a concussion or not, cause damage and the cumulative effects may be devistating. Henry's family is now wondering whether the CTE even helped contribute to his death by causing his brain not to function properly leading him to become involved in the situation that led to his death.
Although the NFL, as late as three years ago, was denying any link between concussions and later brain impairment, they are now changing their tune and yesterday released a new poster which will be put in all locker rooms talking about the dangers of concussions.
In particular, it states that "Traumatic brain injury can cause a wide-range of short- or long term changes affecting thinking, sensation, language or emotion. These changes may lead to problems with memory and communication, personality changes, as well as depression and the early onset of dementia. Concussions and conditions resulting from repeated brain injury can change your life and your family's life forever."
Michael Wilbon, who is a columnist for the Washington Post and also works for ESPN, has said that his concern is so great that he will not allow his son, who is two at the moment, to play football because of the long-term ramifications. My brother has stopped watching football because he cannot morally justify watching a sport which does permanent physical damage to its participants as a form of entertainment. I struggle with the same issue, but I like football too much at the moment to take that step.
But I do have serious concerns about the long-term impact it has, and the more information that is discovered the more scarry this reality becomes. So, I applaud the NFL for their change in attitude towards this issue and for making this move. It is a step in the right direction, but it is only a small step. I hope that similar posters are also displayed in every lockerroom in America, especially in high schools.
Everything Changes... Part 3
Dez Bryant, a rookie wide receiver for the Dallas Cowboys, is receiving widespread news coverage lately, but, depending on whose reporting, maybe not for the right reasons. It has been tradition for NFL rookies to carry the equipment of older players. This is just one of many different "traditions" that rookies must undergo. But, on Monday Bryant refused to carry the pads of fellow wide receiver Roy Williams, which were left for him.
"I feel like I was drafted to play football, not carry another player's pads," Bryant said.
Williams disagreed, as did much of the sports media. "Everyone has to go through it," Williams said. "I had to go through it. It doesn't matter if you're a number one pick or the 7,000 pick, you've still go to do something when you are a rookie. I carried pads. I paid for dinners. I paid for lunches. I did everything I was supposed to do, because I didn't want to be that guy."
Another sports reporter, whom I like, said that people a lot better then Bryant have had to carry shoulder pads and do other things so he should basically just do it and shut up.
My take on this is that this is hazing, a very mild form, but hazing none the less, and as we've all seen hazing can have serious negative consequences. It is William's last line that speaks volumes. Hazing takes place, and is allowed to continue, because no one is willing to step up and be "that guy" and refuse to do it. Everyone wants to belong to the group on the inside that is perpetrating the hazing. And then once you are on the inside you become the perpetrator, if for no other reason than the one that Williams said, "I did it, and so you are going to have to do it too."
Studies have also shown that people will self-justify these sorts of incidents on the back end in order to make them seem necessary and important. Because if they were unnecessary and unimportant then you have to face the realization that their only purpose was to demean, humiliate and degrade you, and who wants to say they intentionally chose to do that for no good reason? And so we justify it, and say it's about building "team", "camaraderie", "tradition" and other catch phrases to make them sound good. But ultimately it's not, it's about demoralizing another person in order to make yourself feel better and more important. And hazings finally stop when when someone is brave enough to stand up and point out how wrong the behavior and activities are, that their only purpose is about power and to show who has it and who doesn't.
Sadly to say, this behavior also takes place in the church, and especially in the ordination process. I have experienced things and have witnessed it for others, which I will not share for my own protection and those of the other victims, that should not have ever taken place but did. Although I have not been told this by the perpetrators, but other elders have said it to me, it happens all to often simply for the reason that those now doing it had it done to them, and so they are simply passing it down the line. When does this stop?
My position, and others in hazing situations are a little different than Bryants, because Roy Williams does not control Bryant's future. My future as a minister rests in the hands of a small group, the vast majority of whom use their power with good judgement and kind hands, but there are some who abuse it. And, they can abuse it with impunity because there is no method of redress or recourse for those of us in the process, and so far no one who is "protected" by being an elder in full connection has stepped forward to publicly address it.
There have been some who work through back channels, but unfortunately until someone steps forward publicly and says "this is ridiculous and it needs to stop," it will never stop. We will continue to have to carry other people's pads, and then some of us will force those behind us to do the same in order to justify our own treatment.
Similar things also happen in the local church. I know one pastor who was hounded by a member of the SPRC because she was not working enough or spending enough time at the church. But, what was really at work was that the SPRC member's husband had also been a minister and routinely put his family and other responsibilities on the back burner in order to work at the church. And so now the woman either had to say that her husband had been wrong in the decisions he had made and that he should have spent more time at home rather than making his ministry his primary concern, or she was going to have to prove that he had made the right decisions by forcing someone else to do the same.
In order to justify our own victimhood, and to put a positive spin on what we went through, we perpetuate negative situations and cause the hurt and the disgrace to continue. So, although my opinion doesn't make a difference in this situation, I say good job Dez Bryant, you have made the right decisions and you have my support.
"I feel like I was drafted to play football, not carry another player's pads," Bryant said.
Williams disagreed, as did much of the sports media. "Everyone has to go through it," Williams said. "I had to go through it. It doesn't matter if you're a number one pick or the 7,000 pick, you've still go to do something when you are a rookie. I carried pads. I paid for dinners. I paid for lunches. I did everything I was supposed to do, because I didn't want to be that guy."
Another sports reporter, whom I like, said that people a lot better then Bryant have had to carry shoulder pads and do other things so he should basically just do it and shut up.
My take on this is that this is hazing, a very mild form, but hazing none the less, and as we've all seen hazing can have serious negative consequences. It is William's last line that speaks volumes. Hazing takes place, and is allowed to continue, because no one is willing to step up and be "that guy" and refuse to do it. Everyone wants to belong to the group on the inside that is perpetrating the hazing. And then once you are on the inside you become the perpetrator, if for no other reason than the one that Williams said, "I did it, and so you are going to have to do it too."
Studies have also shown that people will self-justify these sorts of incidents on the back end in order to make them seem necessary and important. Because if they were unnecessary and unimportant then you have to face the realization that their only purpose was to demean, humiliate and degrade you, and who wants to say they intentionally chose to do that for no good reason? And so we justify it, and say it's about building "team", "camaraderie", "tradition" and other catch phrases to make them sound good. But ultimately it's not, it's about demoralizing another person in order to make yourself feel better and more important. And hazings finally stop when when someone is brave enough to stand up and point out how wrong the behavior and activities are, that their only purpose is about power and to show who has it and who doesn't.
Sadly to say, this behavior also takes place in the church, and especially in the ordination process. I have experienced things and have witnessed it for others, which I will not share for my own protection and those of the other victims, that should not have ever taken place but did. Although I have not been told this by the perpetrators, but other elders have said it to me, it happens all to often simply for the reason that those now doing it had it done to them, and so they are simply passing it down the line. When does this stop?
My position, and others in hazing situations are a little different than Bryants, because Roy Williams does not control Bryant's future. My future as a minister rests in the hands of a small group, the vast majority of whom use their power with good judgement and kind hands, but there are some who abuse it. And, they can abuse it with impunity because there is no method of redress or recourse for those of us in the process, and so far no one who is "protected" by being an elder in full connection has stepped forward to publicly address it.
There have been some who work through back channels, but unfortunately until someone steps forward publicly and says "this is ridiculous and it needs to stop," it will never stop. We will continue to have to carry other people's pads, and then some of us will force those behind us to do the same in order to justify our own treatment.
Similar things also happen in the local church. I know one pastor who was hounded by a member of the SPRC because she was not working enough or spending enough time at the church. But, what was really at work was that the SPRC member's husband had also been a minister and routinely put his family and other responsibilities on the back burner in order to work at the church. And so now the woman either had to say that her husband had been wrong in the decisions he had made and that he should have spent more time at home rather than making his ministry his primary concern, or she was going to have to prove that he had made the right decisions by forcing someone else to do the same.
In order to justify our own victimhood, and to put a positive spin on what we went through, we perpetuate negative situations and cause the hurt and the disgrace to continue. So, although my opinion doesn't make a difference in this situation, I say good job Dez Bryant, you have made the right decisions and you have my support.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
What's In A Name?
A recent story in the Boston Globe Magazine, Karen Tuttle wrote about her son calling her husband by his first name. This was a new trend, and they figured it would pass, but her husband was still concerned about it because, in his family children did not address adults by their first names. She attributed this concern to his African-American background in which an informality in regards to names was a way that whites could, in her words, "demean and diminish" African-Americans. I certainly cannot discount that, but I also wonder about some generational differences that are taking place.
I recently saw Precious for the first time, and would highly recommend it, but during the commentary the director said something interesting. In one of the early scenes at school, a teacher says "boys, let's settle down," to a group of African-American youth. One of the students responds that he is not a "boy." The director said in shooting this scene he had to explain to the actors why a white man using the term "boy" would be considered derogatory to them. They simply did not have them context or history and so did not understand why they would respond the way the script said or why they would be upset. This, of course, is good to hear that this derogatory language is no longer part of their experience.
But, Tuttle's article got me to wondering about what's in a name and the names we use or prefer to have others call us?
One day during worship I inadvertently told the children to go with someone, and referred to her by her first name. She quickly corrected me that she was Mrs. X. I was a little taken aback with the stridency with which she voiced her dissent, but she is of a different generation then I am in which there are certain expectations about these things. There is another member of the congregation who always refers to me as pastor. She could be my mother, but refuses to call me by my first name out of respect for my position. Even Joel insists on being called Pastor Joel, and almost always uses that term even when writing informally.
I, however, would prefer people to just call me John, and this is true even for the youth. People will either respect me or they won't, and I don't think a title will make much of a difference to that reality. I know this is a generational difference. I want to earn people's respect not have it given to me simply because of the seat I sit in on Sunday morning.
There is also a power issue at play, that I think simply doesn't matter to my generation, for many of the same reasons I just stipulated. If you are competent then you will gain respect, regardless of position, and if you are incompetent then you will not be given respect, again regardless of position. (You will be treated with respect, but simply because that is how you treat people not because of position.) Your position might gain you an initial hearing, but that's as far as it will go. If you can't gain my respect through ability and competence, then position will get you nowhere.
I cannot speak for the entirety of my generation, or for those younger, but I find this to be generally true, and so I'm wondering how to reconcile these differences or can I?
I recently saw Precious for the first time, and would highly recommend it, but during the commentary the director said something interesting. In one of the early scenes at school, a teacher says "boys, let's settle down," to a group of African-American youth. One of the students responds that he is not a "boy." The director said in shooting this scene he had to explain to the actors why a white man using the term "boy" would be considered derogatory to them. They simply did not have them context or history and so did not understand why they would respond the way the script said or why they would be upset. This, of course, is good to hear that this derogatory language is no longer part of their experience.
But, Tuttle's article got me to wondering about what's in a name and the names we use or prefer to have others call us?
One day during worship I inadvertently told the children to go with someone, and referred to her by her first name. She quickly corrected me that she was Mrs. X. I was a little taken aback with the stridency with which she voiced her dissent, but she is of a different generation then I am in which there are certain expectations about these things. There is another member of the congregation who always refers to me as pastor. She could be my mother, but refuses to call me by my first name out of respect for my position. Even Joel insists on being called Pastor Joel, and almost always uses that term even when writing informally.
I, however, would prefer people to just call me John, and this is true even for the youth. People will either respect me or they won't, and I don't think a title will make much of a difference to that reality. I know this is a generational difference. I want to earn people's respect not have it given to me simply because of the seat I sit in on Sunday morning.
There is also a power issue at play, that I think simply doesn't matter to my generation, for many of the same reasons I just stipulated. If you are competent then you will gain respect, regardless of position, and if you are incompetent then you will not be given respect, again regardless of position. (You will be treated with respect, but simply because that is how you treat people not because of position.) Your position might gain you an initial hearing, but that's as far as it will go. If you can't gain my respect through ability and competence, then position will get you nowhere.
I cannot speak for the entirety of my generation, or for those younger, but I find this to be generally true, and so I'm wondering how to reconcile these differences or can I?
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Future of Reading
Two recent items from the newest issue of the Christian Century caught my eye.
The first is entitled "Readers Wanted" and reports that a librarian at the University of Denver says that 47% of the books acquired from 2000-2009 where never checked out. The University of Arizona says they spent $19 million on books over the last decade that have never been used. Both libraries are going to be implementing a new system in which new books will be rented as e-books upon request, and then after demand is shown they may be purchased for the libraries collection.
After writing so much about having to make changes to keep up with changing technology, I can't really say that I am necessarily opposed to this, but I do have some concerns. The first is that, while almost half of the books weren't checked out, more than half were. What is also unknown is how these numbers compare to prior decades. Has there been a real change, or just a perceived one. I certainly know that a lot of research is done on the web today, but does that mean that the books are not needed? Also just because the books are not checked out does not mean they are not used. Which leads me into my second concern.
As someone who studies church history, I am often checking out books that have not been checked out in decades. When I was working on my thesis I would often be the first person checking a book out in the past 75 years, and one of them the library has had for 120 years and I was only the third to check it out. That of course does not mean that others didn't use it in the library, but I was certainly glad the library had it because it would not have been available to me otherwise. I also used Google books, and would not have been able to complete my thesis without them. If you haven't gone tried them you should. Again I was able to gain access to old texts that it would have taken me months to acquire through inter-library loans. Many of the books I used were digitized by libraries out of their collections in order to be more freely available to people who needed them, as well as to preserve them for future generations to use.
We are embarking on a significant change to how books and information are gathered and retained, but I'm not quite ready to say that the way that libraries operate at the moment has fundamentally changed. Even when I was getting books electronically, I was still printing them to read. I have looked at e-book readers and know people who love them, but I'm not quite there yet. Although having a book electronically in order to search them has been a God send on many occasions (again try Google books for this), but I have still gone back to the hard-copy to read the text.
Libraries, to me at least, still serve as the repository for information and they simply must have books that have little interest to most people, because no one else will carry them. If libraries start only being concerned with making sure all their books are popular, then we are in trouble. Most of the books I read cannot be found in normal bookstores, but are often available in libraries. Libraries do need to be concerned about shelving space, and digital books will make a significant difference for this, but when I want to pick up a book on the religious life of American youth I either have to buy it, or check it out of the library. Now there is certainly not much demand for this type of book, but does that mean the library shouldn't have it even if no one checks it out for several years? And if libraries aren't purchasing these books will publishers even publish them anymore?
Which leads into the second blurb entitled "Slow Reading." Apparently there is now a movement encouraging people to slow down their reading by employing two different strategies. The first is to have people read out-loud and the second is to focus on memorization, both of which force people to slow down and focus on the words. Lindsay Waters, an editor for Harvard University Press, said "Instead of rushing by works so fast that we don't even muss our hair, we should tarry, attend to the sensuousness of reading, and allow ourselves to enter the experience of words."
I guess the end gist of this is to go ahead and download that book to your i-pad or kindle, but then read it out loud.
The first is entitled "Readers Wanted" and reports that a librarian at the University of Denver says that 47% of the books acquired from 2000-2009 where never checked out. The University of Arizona says they spent $19 million on books over the last decade that have never been used. Both libraries are going to be implementing a new system in which new books will be rented as e-books upon request, and then after demand is shown they may be purchased for the libraries collection.
After writing so much about having to make changes to keep up with changing technology, I can't really say that I am necessarily opposed to this, but I do have some concerns. The first is that, while almost half of the books weren't checked out, more than half were. What is also unknown is how these numbers compare to prior decades. Has there been a real change, or just a perceived one. I certainly know that a lot of research is done on the web today, but does that mean that the books are not needed? Also just because the books are not checked out does not mean they are not used. Which leads me into my second concern.
As someone who studies church history, I am often checking out books that have not been checked out in decades. When I was working on my thesis I would often be the first person checking a book out in the past 75 years, and one of them the library has had for 120 years and I was only the third to check it out. That of course does not mean that others didn't use it in the library, but I was certainly glad the library had it because it would not have been available to me otherwise. I also used Google books, and would not have been able to complete my thesis without them. If you haven't gone tried them you should. Again I was able to gain access to old texts that it would have taken me months to acquire through inter-library loans. Many of the books I used were digitized by libraries out of their collections in order to be more freely available to people who needed them, as well as to preserve them for future generations to use.
We are embarking on a significant change to how books and information are gathered and retained, but I'm not quite ready to say that the way that libraries operate at the moment has fundamentally changed. Even when I was getting books electronically, I was still printing them to read. I have looked at e-book readers and know people who love them, but I'm not quite there yet. Although having a book electronically in order to search them has been a God send on many occasions (again try Google books for this), but I have still gone back to the hard-copy to read the text.
Libraries, to me at least, still serve as the repository for information and they simply must have books that have little interest to most people, because no one else will carry them. If libraries start only being concerned with making sure all their books are popular, then we are in trouble. Most of the books I read cannot be found in normal bookstores, but are often available in libraries. Libraries do need to be concerned about shelving space, and digital books will make a significant difference for this, but when I want to pick up a book on the religious life of American youth I either have to buy it, or check it out of the library. Now there is certainly not much demand for this type of book, but does that mean the library shouldn't have it even if no one checks it out for several years? And if libraries aren't purchasing these books will publishers even publish them anymore?
Which leads into the second blurb entitled "Slow Reading." Apparently there is now a movement encouraging people to slow down their reading by employing two different strategies. The first is to have people read out-loud and the second is to focus on memorization, both of which force people to slow down and focus on the words. Lindsay Waters, an editor for Harvard University Press, said "Instead of rushing by works so fast that we don't even muss our hair, we should tarry, attend to the sensuousness of reading, and allow ourselves to enter the experience of words."
I guess the end gist of this is to go ahead and download that book to your i-pad or kindle, but then read it out loud.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
A Meadowlark Sang
I borrowed this from the website for First UMC in Westborough:
The man whispered, "God, speak to me!" and a meadowlark sang.
But the man did not hear.
So the man yelled, "God, speak to me!" and the thunder rolled across the sky.
But the man did not listen.
The man looked around and said, "God let me see you," and a star shone brightly.
But the man did not notice.
And the man shouted, "God show me a miracle", and a life was born.
But the man did not know.
So, the man cried out in despair saying, "Touch me, God, and let me know you are here!"
Whereupon God reached down and touched the man.
But the man brushed the butterfly away and walked on.
- Ravinda Kumar Karnani
"Don't miss out on a blessing because it isn't packaged the way you expect."
The man whispered, "God, speak to me!" and a meadowlark sang.
But the man did not hear.
So the man yelled, "God, speak to me!" and the thunder rolled across the sky.
But the man did not listen.
The man looked around and said, "God let me see you," and a star shone brightly.
But the man did not notice.
And the man shouted, "God show me a miracle", and a life was born.
But the man did not know.
So, the man cried out in despair saying, "Touch me, God, and let me know you are here!"
Whereupon God reached down and touched the man.
But the man brushed the butterfly away and walked on.
- Ravinda Kumar Karnani
"Don't miss out on a blessing because it isn't packaged the way you expect."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)