Okay...latest post is here again:
http://actstwofourtytwo.blogspot.com/2010/11/christ-liberator-chapter-5.html
Monday, November 22, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Dear President Obama, et al.
Well, I don't really see this going viral and actually reaching your ear, but, thought I might as well drop you a note. First, please let me tell you I admire you. Your efforts are appreciated and your genuine desire to change that which you believe is broken. You should know that we disagree philosophically on a few things, but, hey, your the President, and I realize that I'm not. So, I really have no qualms with our philosophical disagreements.
I've been wanting a President like you for a long time. A leader that does what he feels is right regardless of the popular sentiment. A leader that may attract some new dissenters, but will still do what's right. I don't pretend that we live in a popular democracy. Yes, we elected you to make the right decisions because we aren't nearly as qualified as you (and our other elected officials) to make them. And, with a couple of semantic changes to that desire, you have done so. So, thank you.
And I certainly recognize that you've had a rough time. A lot of that, maybe most of that, was inherited. Probably, more than you care to know wasn't inherited, though. And that is wherein truly lies my purpose for this letter to you and to our other large scale politicians.
It's that slight semantics issue I mentioned. Because you did move forward regardless of strong dissension. For that, I'm impressed. But you do appear to have cared what others thought, and instead of addressing why your policies were right and ending your story there, you had to point out why others were wrong and why others were the enemy. Isn't that what the Newt Gingrich's and Nancy Pelosi's of the world do? Hey, frankly, we have enough of them already.
I've been wanting a President like you for a long time. A leader that does what he feels is right regardless of the popular sentiment. A leader that may attract some new dissenters, but will still do what's right. I don't pretend that we live in a popular democracy. Yes, we elected you to make the right decisions because we aren't nearly as qualified as you (and our other elected officials) to make them. And, with a couple of semantic changes to that desire, you have done so. So, thank you.
And I certainly recognize that you've had a rough time. A lot of that, maybe most of that, was inherited. Probably, more than you care to know wasn't inherited, though. And that is wherein truly lies my purpose for this letter to you and to our other large scale politicians.
It's that slight semantics issue I mentioned. Because you did move forward regardless of strong dissension. For that, I'm impressed. But you do appear to have cared what others thought, and instead of addressing why your policies were right and ending your story there, you had to point out why others were wrong and why others were the enemy. Isn't that what the Newt Gingrich's and Nancy Pelosi's of the world do? Hey, frankly, we have enough of them already.
Why did you chose to villanize at a time like this? I remember that you started attempting change by saying that you wanted to hear from everyone - Republicans and Democrats, alike. Well, then you heard some Republicans state that they wouldn't make any concessions from their recommendations. Granted, those Republicans may have been short-sighted, may have been pandering to their constituents, or maybe were just stubborn. But then, you can only be responsible for your actions, right? So you villanized them. Did you not recognize that Democrats wouldn't change either? And, of course, that's fine. Our system is set up so that elected officials can make decisions and make hard decisions. But now you appear not to be our leader, but to be a Democratic, a one party leader, and, as defined by our congress these days, that means a divider.
Look, that sounds like I'm blaming you. I'm certainly not. We do live in a world where people put life into buckets of "fair" and "unfair." I try not to do that, but sometimes I feel that way too. If I were to put this into a bucket, it would be "unfair" for you to have to hold yourself to a standard that other party leaders do not. Frankly, I can't think of a President that wouldn't take advantage of his own party's power in congress to make the other party look bad (maybe Reagan?). But, seriously?! Doesn't that sound childish and below the level of the Presidency?
Here are the three primary groups that you've villanized over the last two years:
- Republicans. With their staunch opposition to your opportunities for change, I can't blame your attitude, but here's how I see it: the Republican party is where most moderate / swing voters stand and where they have stood since the 80's. So, to villanize Republicans without exception, you villanize the moderates and (although the Pelosi's/Gingrich's of the world will completely disagree), the moderates seem to be the ones that maybe could get this stuff right and find some balance between the issues. Please recall that it's only since the second Bush administration that moderates have leaned more blue than red.
- Corporations. Well, I just can't say enough here. When you villanize a Company, you are villanizing people that spur on the economy, people that give jobs, people that have jobs. You are making people that do have jobs forget to appreciate that it is because of their employers that they have a livelihood in the first place. I actually get boiling mad on this issue. So, I'll let it stand alone there.
- The Rich. Did you know that these are not only the people that can help create jobs today, but that they're also the people that created industries spurring on job creation in years past? Take Fred Smith, for example, he created the overnight shipping industry. There are now 100's of thousands of new jobs to serve this industry. Why can't we tap into their minds regarding job creation. Maybe, instead of villanizing these people, we can make it easier for them to create jobs. Oh, and they give more to help the poor than anyone else. Now, maybe that percentage of income is low, but it's not low because of the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of the world. Because they do give and give and give.
President Obama, can you fill in the gap that the Republican party seems to really have missed? To me, Republicans tend to want a smaller government with less spending (as the emergence of the Tea Party suggests), but they only focus on the economy by focusing on businesses. Maybe you can be the Democratic leader that is "for the people" as the Party suggests.
Can you focus on the people without acting like everyone who isn't on your side is the enemy? I want my leader to say, "We have a vast deficit, and are emerging from very difficult economic times. I will work as your leader to give the necessary resources from the government to fix these problems, but I'm asking the same efforts from you, a great American people and great American businesses." Now, of course, you need to have a plan in place to finish this statement. "Congress has just passed my bill to extend benefits and resources to you. We've made it easier to give of your individual time and resources to those in need. We've taken away the uncertainty and added incentives so that businesses can begin creating new jobs. I'm asking you individually and collectively to be great, to be strong and to be proud just as our Nation deserves."
So, President Obama, et al. (because you will need help from the rest of Congress), can you now enter a new era? An era where we work together? An era of humility for mistakes made and an era of change where it's not "the government" or "business" that resolves all of our issues, but the government, business, education and individuals that work together to resolve our problems?
Sincerely,
Monday, January 11, 2010
"O, the Wild Rose Blooms," said the Soccer Ball
My thoughts often run much like the beginning of A Portrait of a Young Man as an Artist by James Joyce. Those thoughts are full of streams of consciouscness, jumping from one ponderance to the next - each being somehow related, and yet somewhat difficult to discern how so. Here is just half of the first page of that novel.
"Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and the moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo...
His father told him that story: his father looked at him through a glass: he had a hairy face.
He was a baby tuckoo. The moocow came down the road where Betty Byrne lived. She sold lemon platt.
O, the wild rose blossoms
On the little green place.
He sang that song. That was his song.
O, the green wothe botheth.
When you wet the bed it is warm then it gets cold. His mother put on the oil sheet. That had the queer smell.
His mother had a nicer smell than his father...."
Now, with that introduction of streams of consciousness, you may just understand how this thought that I am about to explain came to me. You might also now better understand why I'm so difficult to understand sometimes - I may know how I got to my conclusion, but just might not be able to explain it!
Okay, then. The thought. It wasn't much of a thought, but I still decided to put pen to paper...well, so to speak as this is a blog.
I was walking around our backyard trying to find the sun (as the 15 degree wind chill feels much better in the sun than in the shade) and I saw our knee high soccer goals had moved around in our backyard. This took me back to a time...granted it didn't take me back very far in time...to when Luke began playing soccer.
He seemed so good at soccer in the backyard - especially kicking goals. Additionally, his natural athleticism is good. So, it baffled me for the 90% of the year why Luke only kicked the ball on place kicks during his soccer season. Just before the last game, I asked him, "You know that it's okay to run in and try to kick the ball, right?" He responded excitedly, "Yes, Daddy. Once you line up behind the ball, you kick it to the goal!"
All of the sudden, it was clear to me. Luke wasn't getting the ball because he thought he needed to line up and square to the ball to get a good shot at goal or good kick upfield. Well, the ball is essentially never at rest, and it is always surrounded by a hoard of other 4 year-olds.
After a quick mention that he just needed to try to get a foot on the ball, not square up, Luke proceeded, in the last game of the year mind you, to kick, dribble, etc. more than he had done the entire rest of the season combined. Of course, he didn't have the whole season to practice getting it there, shooting, etc. Therefore, he didn't score, but he made huge progress with some relatively small advice. (Incidentally, he did a great job at goalie every time he played that position, and he always ran a lot. So, this wasn't a statement that Luke had a bad season).
Okay now. We got from James Joyce to a cold day outside to knee high soccer goals to Luke's soccer learnings. Could all of these things have almost no relation to my final conclusion? Simply put, yes. They have almost no relation. So, I move onward toward that conclusion.
I spent the whole season not knowing how to address Luke's concerns - thinking he was scared of not being perfect, intimidated by bigger players on the other teams, etc. Had I just asked that same question ("You know that it's okay to run in and try to kick the ball, right?") after the first or second game of the season, he may have enjoyed his first year of soccer much more. Therefore, I realize that I am flawed. I do the wrong thing as a parent, co-worker, sunday school teacher, child of God, husband, etc. Plain and simple, I'll say it again: I am flawed.
So, alas, I must now draw to conclusion what this simple minute in my backyard showed me: Given the right circumstance, my being utterly flawed in practically every area of my life gives me a great ability to see what it takes to learn. How nice to have such a benefit out of my own flaws.
Let me give you a few examples. I can tell you that if your child isn't playing a sport the same way his or her teammates are, you should find the root difference (i.e. never getting near the ball when it is in play) and ask them if they know they can do it / why. Don't make assumptions on their behalf as mine would have been wrong. I'll also point out that you should do so an an inoffensive manner - which was key with my child.
When I teach Sunday School, I feel so utterly flawed in my Christian life that I can easily point out the traps, the pitfalls, the challenges that we face. And with that, we might even find a way to get around those pitfalls.
When I taught Spanish to High Schoolers, my base came from my own knowledge about why I wasn't able to converse in Spanish after High School. It was because I wasn't immersed in an all Spanish environment, and I didn't understand how or when to use verb tenses. Therefore, I focused on those areas for my students.
I could name others, but I'd rather just leave it at those few. Therefore, in conclusion, I am flawed, but I think God finds great ways to use those flaws so that I, and maybe others, can learn. How about you?
"Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and the moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo...
His father told him that story: his father looked at him through a glass: he had a hairy face.
He was a baby tuckoo. The moocow came down the road where Betty Byrne lived. She sold lemon platt.
O, the wild rose blossoms
On the little green place.
He sang that song. That was his song.
O, the green wothe botheth.
When you wet the bed it is warm then it gets cold. His mother put on the oil sheet. That had the queer smell.
His mother had a nicer smell than his father...."
Now, with that introduction of streams of consciousness, you may just understand how this thought that I am about to explain came to me. You might also now better understand why I'm so difficult to understand sometimes - I may know how I got to my conclusion, but just might not be able to explain it!
Okay, then. The thought. It wasn't much of a thought, but I still decided to put pen to paper...well, so to speak as this is a blog.
I was walking around our backyard trying to find the sun (as the 15 degree wind chill feels much better in the sun than in the shade) and I saw our knee high soccer goals had moved around in our backyard. This took me back to a time...granted it didn't take me back very far in time...to when Luke began playing soccer.
He seemed so good at soccer in the backyard - especially kicking goals. Additionally, his natural athleticism is good. So, it baffled me for the 90% of the year why Luke only kicked the ball on place kicks during his soccer season. Just before the last game, I asked him, "You know that it's okay to run in and try to kick the ball, right?" He responded excitedly, "Yes, Daddy. Once you line up behind the ball, you kick it to the goal!"
All of the sudden, it was clear to me. Luke wasn't getting the ball because he thought he needed to line up and square to the ball to get a good shot at goal or good kick upfield. Well, the ball is essentially never at rest, and it is always surrounded by a hoard of other 4 year-olds.
After a quick mention that he just needed to try to get a foot on the ball, not square up, Luke proceeded, in the last game of the year mind you, to kick, dribble, etc. more than he had done the entire rest of the season combined. Of course, he didn't have the whole season to practice getting it there, shooting, etc. Therefore, he didn't score, but he made huge progress with some relatively small advice. (Incidentally, he did a great job at goalie every time he played that position, and he always ran a lot. So, this wasn't a statement that Luke had a bad season).
Okay now. We got from James Joyce to a cold day outside to knee high soccer goals to Luke's soccer learnings. Could all of these things have almost no relation to my final conclusion? Simply put, yes. They have almost no relation. So, I move onward toward that conclusion.
I spent the whole season not knowing how to address Luke's concerns - thinking he was scared of not being perfect, intimidated by bigger players on the other teams, etc. Had I just asked that same question ("You know that it's okay to run in and try to kick the ball, right?") after the first or second game of the season, he may have enjoyed his first year of soccer much more. Therefore, I realize that I am flawed. I do the wrong thing as a parent, co-worker, sunday school teacher, child of God, husband, etc. Plain and simple, I'll say it again: I am flawed.
So, alas, I must now draw to conclusion what this simple minute in my backyard showed me: Given the right circumstance, my being utterly flawed in practically every area of my life gives me a great ability to see what it takes to learn. How nice to have such a benefit out of my own flaws.
Let me give you a few examples. I can tell you that if your child isn't playing a sport the same way his or her teammates are, you should find the root difference (i.e. never getting near the ball when it is in play) and ask them if they know they can do it / why. Don't make assumptions on their behalf as mine would have been wrong. I'll also point out that you should do so an an inoffensive manner - which was key with my child.
When I teach Sunday School, I feel so utterly flawed in my Christian life that I can easily point out the traps, the pitfalls, the challenges that we face. And with that, we might even find a way to get around those pitfalls.
When I taught Spanish to High Schoolers, my base came from my own knowledge about why I wasn't able to converse in Spanish after High School. It was because I wasn't immersed in an all Spanish environment, and I didn't understand how or when to use verb tenses. Therefore, I focused on those areas for my students.
I could name others, but I'd rather just leave it at those few. Therefore, in conclusion, I am flawed, but I think God finds great ways to use those flaws so that I, and maybe others, can learn. How about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
