Surviving Life’s Detours

Surviving Life’s Detours

June 6, 2018

Pentecost 2018

 

It was Valentine’s Day – a day in which thoughts turn to love and fancy.  Teenagers arrived at school thinking more about the date than homework assignments.  Within three hours they would be literally running for their lives.  March 8, 2018 parents in another Florida school district received word that their school had averted a similar threat/attack in 2017, thanks to the diligence of a teacher’s spouse and the relationship between teachers and students that led to students informing on the two young men planning the attack.

 

It was a fun-filled, talent-delightful concert directed towards the teenagers in life.  It ended with screams and panic as concert goers prepared to leave the venue after a pop music concert in Manchester, England.  Less than two weeks later, Londoners and tourists alike strolled across the London Bridge, many only to find themselves in the hospital after being struck deliberately by an out-of-control, speeding van.  The three van drivers then fled the scene of mayhem they had created only to run into a restaurant and attempt to kill even more.

 

Life is messy and there are those who have decided their life’s purpose is to perpetuate that messiness and chaos.  Even if it is not something that will make the evening news, our lives have their detours.  For this season of Pentecost, we will discuss dealing with such and, hopefully, find a way to navigate the detours of life.

 

“Le vrai est trop simple, il faut y arriver toujours par le compliqué.”  This translates as “The truth is too simple: one must always get there by a complicated route.”  It was written in a letter to Armand Barbès on 12 May 1867 by George Sand.   I would dearly love to tell you this statement is false but I cannot; there is a great deal of truth within it.

 

This very post is a perfect example of a detour in life.  Between the  school shootings, over fifteen in the US during 2017, the suicide bombing at the concert in Manchester and those killed/injured in London, I really doubted writing about this topic.  And yet, in some ways it seemed more important than ever.  Today, though, is an important anniversary and we must continue to fight for freedom and right to honor that anniversary.

 

The morning of June 6, 1944 marked the largest amphibious military assault the world had ever seen. More than 160,000 American, British and Canadian troops battled their way along a 50-mile stretch of beach in Normandy, France to give the Allies a foothold in Nazi-occupied western Europe and a path to victory in World War II.  A massive airborne operation preceded the Allied amphibious invasion of the Normandy beaches. In the early hours of June 6, 1944, several hours prior to troops landing on the beaches, over 13,000 elite paratroopers of the American 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, as well as several thousand from the British 6th Airborne Division were dropped at night by over 1,200 aircraft. Almost 4,000 more paratroopers would later be brought in by gliders, known as Waco Gliders, during daylight hours. In total 23,000 paratroopers and glider troops would be used in Normandy. 

 

Many died during the events of this day, all which began with three words from General Dwight Eisenhower:  “Okay, let’s go!”  Millions had perished in the years leading up to this day.  Some were killed simply for being alive; others in the throes of battle.  War is chaotic.  During World War II, most of the inhabitants of planet earth had their lives affected in one way or another.  The end result was more about surviving life than in acquiring land or wealth.

 

“Odd, how life makes twists and turns. I never would have guessed that I’d end up where I am now, but I wouldn’t trade it for the world. I wouldn’t trade this path I’m on for the whole solar system, for that matter. If I’ve learned anything these last several months, it’s that sometimes the most scenic roads in life are the detours you didn’t mean to take.”  This sentence by Angela N. Blount in her “Once Upon an Ever After” is how I hope we all begin to approach the detours in our living. 

 

Most of us, fortunately, will never have such a dramatic detour in our effort to survive life.  Still, we do face our own trials and turmoil, unexpected detours that life throws at us.  The truth remains that every detour brings its own amount of stress.  “We all have detours in life.  It is up to us to turn our detour into a pilgrimage of hope,” writes Lisa Copen.   If we take a new perspective on these detours, we might just enjoy the scenery and experience.   We cannot only survive life’s curves and detours  but ride them to victory.

Advertisements

The Chance to Learn & Thrive

The Chance to Learn; the Chance to Thrive

April 17-18, 2018

 

Leonore Zweig grew up the daughter of a bricklayer.  She grew up in a village called Lusatia and upon graduating from what we might call high school, she continued her studies.  She eventually received a doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1921 and worked as a teacher in both England and Berlin, Germany.  In 1923 she married a lawyer named Ernst Goldschmidt and they had two children.

 

 Upon receiving an inheritance from a murdered cousin, Leonore established her own school in 1934.  Leonore had lost her job the year before she opened her own school.  Working for eight years at the Sophie-Charlotte-Gymnasium in Berlin, she was fired in 1933 because of her religious preference.  You see, Leonore was Jewish.

 

The Private Judische Schule Dr. Leonore Goldschmidt or the Private School of Dr. Leonore Goldschmidt as it would have been known in English was granted a license to hold official examinations in 1936.  In 1937 Leonore’s school became an examination center for the English University of Cambridge.  This meant her students could enter universities in the rest of Europe and North America if they scored high marks on their examinations.  The school was shut down by the German government in 1939 and the Goldschmidt family, along with many students and teachers, immigrated to England.

 

Leaving their German home was not easy for the eighty children that accompanied their school’s founder.  Most left behind parents and many never saw them again.  Those that returned to Germany after World War II found a very different landscape and homeland and many discovered their parents had been victims of concentration camps.

 

A roll call of the students of Dr. Leonore Goldschmidt is something like a Who’s Who of professional and influential people.  Clearly they had potential and all achieved it.  They made contributions to their world and the world was a better place because they lived in it.

 

The purpose of today’s post is to ask you to think about how we limit the opportunities of others simply because we might have a “perception” about them.  The legal definition of the word discrimination has nothing to do with statistics or science.  It does not involve theology or proven results.  It simply is “disparity of treatment”.  Like the Golden Rule that has been around for almost as long as there have been beings that walked upright on two feet, it refers to the treatment of others as we ourselves would like to be treated. 

 

The Golden Rule, reflections of which are found in every code of conduct known to mankind, is an ethic of reciprocity.  It is a moral directive that relates to basic human nature: Treat others as you would like to be treated; do not treat others in any manner that you yourself would not like to be treated; be careful because what you wish upon others you also wish upon yourself.

 

The so-called Golden Rule makes all of mankind inclusive in acknowledging that we feel and receive things similarly.  It is not the same as another maxim of reciprocity, “do ut des”.  That states “I give so that you will give in return.”  The Golden Rule is giving without any expectation of something in return.

 

Dr. Leonore Goldschmidt taught her students without knowing what their lives as adults would be or how far they would go in their studies.  She willingly helped them escape a Nazi regime that would have put them to death simply because she was devoted to creating a chance to learn for all who desired such.

 

I recently received a recipe that touted itself to be the healthiest brownie recipe ever!  Since I am human and like brownies as much as the next person, I was thrilled.  A healthy snack with chocolate is like winning the lottery!  The recipe contains only four ingredients and even a vegan would love it.  With almond butter, protein powder, cocoa powder, and bananas, the recipe would seem like winner, right?  Unfortunately, it is not for me.

 

The perception and headline for this recipe stated nothing incorrect.  I completely understand why their perception that it is healthy would seem an accurate perception.  The problem is that it is not healthy for all people.  The number of people allergic to cocoa powder is low, very low.  Less than four percent of people have actual food allergies and of that four percent, less than half of one per cent are allergic to the cacao bean, the source of cocoa.  A brief note here is probably in order.  The bean or fruit of the cacao plant is called cacao.  Once ground into a usable powder, the name changes to cocoa.

 

Generally speaking, people who are allergic to chocolate are allergic to something added to the chocolate and not the actual cacao bean.  Fortunately for me, I am not allergic to chocolate although my waistline might like it if I was.  I am allergic to several, make that, many things, however, and one is included in this recipe.  I am allergic to bananas.

 

The perception that the recipe is healthy is correct.  It just is not healthy for me.  As someone who is in that four percent and having severe allergic reactions, I have to be a wise consumer of what I eat and put into my body.  IN other words, I have to be a food detective before opening my mouth to consume.

 

We all need to be fact detectives when it comes to deciding what we like or don’t like or what we feel is not in keeping with our beliefs.  Yesterday’s post about Dr. Leonore Goldschmidt is proof that the Jewish are capable of many great things and the Nazi regime’s claim that they held no benefit for mankind was false. 

 

Nannie Henry Burroughs was a woman who also opened a school.  Her school was in Washington, D.C., the capitol of the United States of America.  Nannie’s father was a free man but her mother was born into slavery.  Born in 1878, Nannie was born free but had few opportunities being a woman of color.  Her father was a Baptist preacher and Nannie herself gained national recognition speaking at the National Baptist Convention at the age of twenty-two years.  Her speech was entitled “How the Sisters Are Hindered from Helping”. 

 

Nannie Burroughs founded the National Training School for Women in 1909, a school which continues today.  She also established the National Association of Colored Women.  Thirty years later a world war would be fought, in part based upon racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination even though Nannie Henry Burroughs had already proven such to be ridiculous.

 

Nannie Burroughs is proof that the perception that race determines ability is false.  She valiantly worked for all wage earners but especially for those of African descent because their discrimination continued even after the War Between the States, commonly called the Civil War.  She would later be appointed to a national position by President Herbert Hoover.

 

The perception that religion calls for us to divide mankind based upon skin hues is an incorrect perception.  No true religion or spirituality embraces such.  The fear that propels such beliefs is just that – fear, not fact.  It is nothing new.  In her book “Jane Eyre”, Charlotte Bronte wrote: “Prejudices, it is well known, are most difficult to eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened or fertilized by education: they grow there, firm as weeds among stones.”

 

In deciding who to feature for this post, I purposely elected to feature women who invented schools and created the chance for education to be received.  I agree with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who said: “It’s an universal law– intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.”

 

“What we need are mental and spiritual giants who are aflame with a purpose . . . We’re a race ready for crusade, for we’ve recognized that we’re a race on this continent that can work out its own salvation.  When [one] learns what manner of [man/woman he/she] is spiritually, [he/she] will wake up all over. [We] will rise in the majesty of [our] own soul.”  The words of Nannie Henry Burroughs ring true even today.

 

Recently several states within the United States have or tried to enact legislation that goes against the chance for all to experience the same opportunities.  Similar legislation has been introduced in other countries and many terrorist groups advocate the same or similar beliefs as those supported by these laws. 

 

When we single another out and label them in such a way that prevents them from having the same chances as others, we discriminate.  Sometimes such discrimination leads to people being fired, refused service or even being captured and killed in concentration with ovens designed to murder those “different” people.

 

Such actions do not give anyone an advantage and they restrict the future of us all.  The students of Dr. Leonore Goldschmidt and the workers helped by Nannie Burroughs are just two examples of how important it is that we recognize the inclusiveness of mankind and not look only at our differences.   When we open up opportunity for one person to learn, we create the opportunity for better living for all of us.  If we want to continue the chance to make a better world, we need to live smart and live with kindness and equality towards all.

 

In-Between to Birth

In-Between to Birth

April 15-16, 2018

 

Last year I joined millions in watching the live feed from an animal park in New York.  A giraffe was due to give birth and the world seemed fascinated.  There were various feeds one could follow and several offered advertising with proceeds in the form of pet supplies and food being given to local animal shelters.  I happily participated in making my watching count.

 

There were those, however, who felt it all a great deal of nonsense.  “Get a life” was the most common negative comment seen.  Some readily admitted to watching in-between commuting and so felt they were not for whom such comments were directed.  Others felt they were being mindful to the miracle of birth.  I claimed to be a part of neither camp.  I watched because I find giraffes fascinating creatures.  I do wonder at their evolution and creation for they seem to be a bit in-between the larger mammals and the delicate faces of the smaller ones.

 

The Rt. Rev Steven Charleston wrote a wonderful blog comment about our being “in-between”.  This time last year as I was watching the birth of the giraffe calf so many had eagerly awaited, Bishop Charleston posted this:  “We are in-between. Right now, we are in-between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. But in reality we are always in-between in life. In-between is where we live and move and make our reality. We go from birth to death between many polarities: health and illness, joy and sadness, hope and despair. We inhabit these spiritual spaces of transition, constantly moving from one level of experience to the next. It is in the in-between that we discover the presence of the sacred, that creative force that helps us transition and adapt. We are the people of the in-between.”

 

Watching the young giraffe calf be born, along with millions around the world, I realized that we were all in-between and teetering on the edge of something very similar to world peace.  This young calf and his two giraffe parents had united millions around the world, something no politician or political party had ever been able to accomplish.  As we spent time in the in-between of a fifteen-month pregnancy and its culmination in birth, we were all feeling hope and fear, joy and wonderment.

 

Being mindful of our living is something we often fail to experience.  The reality of this birth was beautiful.  As the calf slowly edge his way out, the mother would welcome him with her tongue and kisses.  It was as if she realized her calf’s reality was changing drastically and she wanted to encourage him and comfort him that all would be all right. 

 

It has become very trendy to engage in the practice of mindfulness.  The experiences of “being mindful of the moments we live” are said to bring one joy and enlightenment in your living.  Life is all around us and while we need to spend less of it online and more of it in person, we can learn from all aspects of it.  Every day is a new day and our reality changes with the dawn of each new day.  Let us give thanks for this new day and recognize the new life ahead of us all.

 

The first few days of Easter this year I have looked to past blog posts and themes in an effort to be more mindful of what is and what will come.  History is a great teacher if we take the time to learn from our past.  Nothing is lost in the present if we take the time to really be in each moment.  Each day is a new birth for us.  It is our responsibility to live the life we have been given.  The future is there waiting for us to make it something meaningful.

I Think. I Feel. Is That Wrong?

I Think.  I Feel.  Is that Wrong?

April 11-13, 2018

 

Philosophy is the quest for knowledge, the searching to determine, analyze, and arrive at conclusions that are either proven or taken as proof.  Philosophy asks “What are we?”  Emotional intelligence is using knowledge in a social setting, recognizing emotions, both of one’s self and of others.  Emotional intelligence is learning what different feelings are, how to discern them, and how to apply them in making choices and in one’s behavior.

 

There are three basic models of Emotional Intelligence.  The “ability model” was developed by Peter Salovey and John Mayer.  Aptly named, this model is concerned with a person’s ability to process emotional information and then the application of that knowledge in social settings.  Konstantin Vasily Petrides proposed the “trait” model.  Defined as the ability to encompass “behavioral dispositions and self-perceived abilities”, this form of emotional intelligence is determined through self-reporting.  The third model is a combination of the other two and was suggested by Daniel Goleman who determined that emotional intelligence was a combination of abilities and traits.  Goleman maintained that this array of skills and characteristics was vital in leadership ability.

 

While it may seem like emotional intelligence is counter-intuitive to the early teachings of ancient philosophers, it cannot be discounted.  Scientific studies indicate that people with high emotional intelligence also have greater mental health, perform better in their careers, and make more effective leaders.  Does this type of intelligence exist, though?  How does it interact with established belief systems?

 

One of the earliest forms of emotional intelligence is often overlooked, in my humble opinion.  In my brief research of this subject, I found no mention of the earliest admonitions by both eastern spiritualties and early Abrahamic religions which speak on this subject.  As discussed a variety of ways and times on this blog, the so-called Golden Rule addresses emotional intelligence quite simply by encouraging us to think of others as we would want them to think of us.

 

A growing concern worldwide is the attraction young adults have towards joining internet families which encourage them to maim, kill, and even commit suicide.  These are not young people without families.  They are, however, young people who feel disenfranchised from their environment.  Some might say they have poor emotional intelligence.  Is the problem really with them or with us?

 

Man is a social animal.  Much like the wolves that roam forested regions across the planet, man is a pack animal and seeks companionship.  Young people will find their own “pack”.  How we employ our own emotional intelligence often determines whether or not these young people will connect with their physical neighbors or their internet friends, sadly many of whom are false friends.

 

Young people are knowledge seekers.  They thrive in exploring the wonders of the world and, like any young thing, need guidance in their explorations.  Emotional intelligence should be more than a way of connecting and convincing others of our own beliefs, though.  True leadership means guiding people towards what is ultimately healthy for everyone, not just one particular set or cliché.

 

Too often, these young people are being swayed by promised of family, of communion, or belonging.  They are welcomed with what appears to be open acceptance and are encouraged that they are valued for being themselves.  Their energy is what is valued, not their being or personality.

 

What makes us unique individuals is not what we have in common but what we have that sets us apart.  In a world that values popularity, though, the uniqueness is seen as a threat.  Conformity based upon popular trends is the barometer, not individuality.  If a young person who rebels against wearing a school uniform suddenly runs away to join a faction that requires everyone to look alike or women to completely cover and hide themselves, what is our correct emotional response?

 

I do not try to deny emotional intelligence.  I think it could be the saving grace for the world and the one sure road to peace.  We must be certain, however, that we do not insist others be just like us because that then will lead us nowhere.  Mankind is a group of unique individuals that share commonalities but we are all individuals.  As such we have the right to develop our own beliefs and traits.  If we gauge another’s emotional responses based upon our own set of standards and our own personality, then the other person will never measure up because they are not us.  All too often those who are different from us are seen as being “freaks”.  IN a world where many seek to find their own individuality, will they find it only to become labeled as aberrations, weird, wrong for being themselves?

 

People with what is termed “high emotional intelligence”, often called “EI”, recognize their emotions and are able to describe them accurately.  “Sad” is a term that covers a variety of feelings.  Someone with high EI seldom says they are sad; they are frustrated, depressed, scared, irritable, anxious, worried, etc.  They are curious and embrace change, knowing when to learn from the past and when to let go.  People with high EI accept themselves and their strengths as well as their weaknesses.  Acceptance does not mean one stops trying to improve; it means one knows where the starting point for improvement is.

 

Life takes courage to live and learning takes greater courage.  As we go through our daily living, we cannot forget the basic reason for such – learning about life.  Aristotle once said “Happiness depends on ourselves.”  We must take care of ourselves and be healthy physically in order to develop good emotional health and intelligence.  Perhaps the greatest thing to learn is that life must be lived and lived wisely in order to gain wisdom.

 

 

 

 

The Monopoly of Life

The Monopoly  of Life

Easter – April 1, 2018

 

ON this day when many celebrate the victory of one over death, I want to speak to those who see life as a game.  Certainly there are many video games based upon this concept.  We should never mistake our breathing as being the same as an inanimate character on a video screen, however.  Life is far too precious to reduce to a competitive activity played for entertainment.  We need to own our living and make it count.

 

Ownership is usually considered when discussing material things like house, cars, business, or property.  The concept of land ownership is both new and old and is the reason behind many lawsuits, disagreements, and wars.  Throughout time cultures have advocated the communal use of the land while at the same time wanting to control such lands.  It may sound complicated but think of the game Monopoly.   Elizabeth Magie used this game she invented to protest unfair economic policy.

 

The point of Monopoly is to obtain properties (or at least cards with titles to spaces on the game board that signify properties0 and then allow others to use your land in the form of rent paid to the property or card owner.  The game player becomes the landlord and every time someone lands on a space for which he/she “owns” the card, rent must be paid.  Sound a bit unfair?  Elizabeth Magie thought so, too.

 

A monopoly is when a person or company is the only one offering a certain product, usually a necessary commodity.  A monopsony is a single entity’s control of a particular market to obtain an item and oligopoly is a few businesses dominating a particular field or industry.  Who would have thought all of these could be expressed in a game?  Elizabeth Magie did.

 

The examples I will use are found in the United States of America but none of these terms or economic policies are the sole characteristic of the U.S.A.  Every country on earth has them – regardless of their political structure.  In fact, the more restrictive a government, the more these terms are present and carried out in life.

 

If I want to see a professional baseball game in the U.S.A., I have to go see a team that is part of Major League Baseball.  There simply are no other professional baseball teams in the United States.  That was not always the case, however.  In the early 1900’s there were a number of professional leagues that were trying to make money by playing before paying crowds.  Baseball was a most popular sport, often called “America’s Game” although variations are found in many cultures worldwide.

 

These different leagues were not always playing fair or as gentlemen and in 1915, the Federal Baseball Club in Baltimore sued the National and American Leagues under the Clayton Antitrust Act, a law designed to help protect consumers.  If only one business offered a necessary product, that business could charge whatever it desired and consumers would be at the mercy of said business’s possible price-gouging.  The Federal baseball Club wanted to have a fair share of the public’s affinity for baseball but could not compete with the larger National and American Leagues.  Pardon my pun but they wanted to level the playing field, so to speak.

 

The court case made its way through the court system and eventually ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court.  The 1922 decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes has resulted in professional baseball being the only sport in America exempt from antitrust laws, a sport often called “America’s favorite monopoly.”  FYI – Major League baseball will begin its 140th season on April 3, 2016.

 

In writing the decision of the court, Justice Holmes penned:  “The fact that, in order to give the exhibitions, the Leagues must induce free persons to cross state lines and must arrange and pay for their doing so is not enough to change the character of the business. …  The transport is a mere incident, not the essential thing. That to which it is incident, the exhibition, although made for money, would not be called trade of commerce in the commonly accepted use of those words. …  Personal effort not related to production is not a subject of commerce. That which in its consummation is not commerce does not become commerce among the states because the transportation that we have mentioned takes place.”

 

Let me make his eloquent words more easily understood.  Baseball is not commerce because it does not “produce” anything.  Antitrust or monopoly laws refer to things that are produced and because baseball does not produce anything, it is not commerce and therefore not subject to laws of commerce.

 

Land ownership and land value might seem to fall under the same sort of issue.  Early American patriots advocated that the land was for all and all should benefit equally from its usage.  Certain economics philosophies such as Georgism gained popularity with many followers.  Georgism was so named after Henry George, the author of “Progress and Poverty”, a book in which George upheld that while people may individually own what they create, natural opportunities such as land belong equally to all.

 

Elizabeth Magie was a follower of Henry George and led an active life with varied careers.  In the early 1880’s she worked as a stenographer and was a writer.  She also worked as a comedian, actress on stage, an engineer, and not surprisingly, a feminist.  By the dawn of the 1900’s she had a job as a newspaper reporter and at the age of 44, married.

 

Magie invented a board game which was designed to demonstrate the ill effects economically of land monopolies and how land taxes could alleviate such problems.  She called her game “The Landlord’s Game” and obtained a patent on January 5, 1904.  In 1932 she revised the game and obtained a new patent for the newly named “The Landlord’s Game and Prosperity”.

 

Elizabeth Magie followed her own economic philosophies of Georgism with her game.  She did not have it sold to a commercial manufacturer.  Burton Wolfe explains:  “Players… made their own game boards so that they could replace the properties designated by Lizzie Maggie with properties in their own cities and states; this made playing more realistic. As they drew or painted their own boards, usually on linen or oil cloth, they change the title “Landlord’s Game” to “Auction Monopoly” and then just “Monopoly”.  One enthusiastic player of the game was student Priscilla Robertson who would later become the editor of “The Humanist”.  “In those days those who wanted copies of the board for Monopoly took a piece of linen cloth and copied it in crayon.”

 

The game grew a following and in 1932 Charles Darrow obtained a copyright for his version of the game.  It included the familiar white box of classic Monopoly games.  Also in 1932 Parker Brothers company bought Elizabeth Magie’s original patent for the sum of five hundred dollars.  In keeping with her original purpose of the game which was to popularize and spread the Georgism economic philosophy, by now whose followers were misnamed as “Single Taxers”, she was not interested in making money from her game but in illuminating the public.  She also insisted that Parker Brothers not make any changes to her game.  They reissued the game to the public but then immediately recalled it with very few being sold.

 

In 1940 just four years before her death, Elizabeth Magie, the original inventor of the game Monopoly, was still a strong voice for supporting what one believed.  “What is the value of our philosophy if we do not do our utmost to apply it? To simply know a thing is not enough. To merely speak or write of it occasionally among ourselves is not enough. We must do something about it on a large scale if we are to make headway. We must not only tell them, but show them just how and why and where our claims can be proven in some actual situation…”  Living one’s beliefs was not a game to Elizabeth Magie; it was life itself.

 

#MarchForOurLives

March 20-24, 2018

 

Today is Lent 39 but more importantly, it is the day in which Americans exercised their right to stand up for themselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hundreds-of-thousands-march-for-gun-control-in-the-us/ar-BBKCX1Q?ocid=spartandhp

 

With thanks and apologies to songwriters ALAIN ALBERT BOUBLIL, CLAUDE MICHEL SCHONBERG, HERBERT KRETZMER, JEAN MARC NATEL ….

 

Do you hear the people sing?

Singing the songs of school children?

It is the music of the people

Who want no one killed again!

When the beating of your heart

Echoes the beating of the drums

There is a life about to start

When tomorrow comes!

Will you join in our crusade?

Who will be strong and stand with me?

Somewhere beyond the NRA

Is there a world you long to see?

Then join in the fight

That will give you the right to be free!

Do you hear the people sing?

Singing the songs of our children?

It is the music of the people

Who wish their friends were alive again!

When the beating of your heart

Echoes the beating of the drums

There is a life about to start

When tomorrow comes!

Will you give all you can give

So that our children may advance

Some will fall and some will live

Will you stand up and take your chance?

The blood of these martyrs

Will flow in the halls of schools!

Do you hear the people sing?

Singing the prayers of our children?

It is the music of the people

Who protest the risks again!

When the beating of your heart

Echoes the beating of the drums

Take a stand so they can live

When tomorrow comes.

 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President of the United States, proclaimed December 7, 1941 as a “day that will live in infamy”.  According to the National Park Service, there were 1998 Navy personnel, 109 Marines, 233 Army personnel and 48 civilians killed at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. This comes to a total of 2388 Americans killed during this World War act of aggression.  

 

I propose that every day that the Congress of the United States and those who accept payment for their campaigns from the gun lobby are living each day in infamy.  There is no reason that this problem cannot be reduced and/or solved.  Our children are going to school, trying to obtain an education.  There is nothing about that which should make school shootings an acceptable effect of the Second Amendment.    

 

Since the first recorded school shooting in 1764 in Greencastle, Pennsylvania, 1546 children have been injured or killed simply because they went to school.  We need to take a stand so our children can be alive when the end of the school day comes.  Infamy means dishonor.  It is not honorable to let children and/or teachers die.

#MarchForOurLives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EQr5nzSiTM

Mirror Image

Mirror Image

March 18-19, 2018

 

“The worst loneliness is to not be comfortable with yourself.”   Mark Twain spoke golden words when he said that.  How often do we look in the mirror and think we are not as good as we should be?  What happens when we are too full of ourselves?  When are we being prideful and when are we practicing self-respect?

 

Many would say that pride and self-respect and the same thing while others have written that they are two different sides of the same coin.  I have no worldly wisdom here.  Let me say that before we go any further.  As stated many times before, I am on a quest.  If I was perfect and/or had all the answers, I would no longer being seeking.  I would have arrived.

 

In my humble opinion, pride is fine as long as it does not include a sense of betterness, of being on a higher plane of existence than anyone else.  I might even go so far as to say there are many times in which pride and self-respect can be synonyms.  However, pride that elevates one’s personal worth to being “better” than another is wrong.

 

Self-respect means seeing the value in one’s existence.  That existence will not be perfect and it will have its challenges.  It will be a journey and like most journeys, have its detours and delays.  However, the journey will have a purpose and value.

 

The Reverend Peter Marshall once said Americans should not look to their Constitution as carte blanche to do whatever they wanted but rather as an opportunity to do right.   When you live with intentions, you live with purpose.  Anyone who lives with a purpose has to have self-respect.  You cannot and should not separate one from the other.

 

The dilemma about self-respect and building it is not a new challenge.  In his “History of the Peloponnesian War”, Thucydides spoke of it.  “Self-control is the chief element in self-respect, and self-respect is the chief element in courage.”
 

When we look into a mirror, we see a reflection staring back at us.  That reflection is just an outer covering.  What we should respect is the deeper self the character within the outer shell.  Joan Didion explains:  “Character — the willingness to accept responsibility for one’s own life — is the source from which self-respect springs.”
Life is not for the weak or lazy.  It takes courage and it requires an intention to live.  When we accept those two gauntlets that being born shoves on us, then we can live and build our self-respect.  Author Adrienne Rich agrees.  “Responsibility to yourself means refusing to let others do your thinking, talking, and naming for you; it means learning to respect and use your own brains and instincts; hence, grappling with hard work.”

 

The reward to really being the image we want to see in the mirror is the best prize of all.  We gain self-respect and control over our being.  No one can ever deny us that.  You will never be without yourself when you can respect yourself.  Happiness requires that we have some measure of self-respect.  Be happy and start building your own bed of self-respect.  Life is much easier when you look into the mirror and can smile at your own reflection.