Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Toynbee's prediction: a prescient foreshadowing or a dystopic dream?

Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now. (Arnold Toynbee)

Although we have moved a distance past the work of Toynbee, can we really doubt the prescience of his observation? Having amassed the largest and most virulent military machine in history, by spending more than all other developed nations combined, and having found her streets, towns and cities erupting in violence, and having the largest and most insatiable appetite for illicit drugs, and having buried the nations’ head in the sand on global warming and climate change, and having wallowed through decades of both war abroad and gridlock in Congress, and having mounted a system of bully pulpits to which almost no one is listening, and having supervised the demise of both political parties through the insurrection of millions taking to the barricades on both the extreme left and extreme right, and having nominated and confirmed (by the end of next week) the most unpopular candidates for president in the nation’s history, and having opened the corporate and billionaires vaults to the political process without restrictions or constraints, and having outsourced the manufacturing processes with their attendant jobs and the research and development on which those highly technical products were based, and having watched the Chinese underwrite at least 40-50% of the national debt while also hacking the computers of not only the Pentagon on many occasions but also the secrets of several of the major U.S. corporations,  and having committed the most serious foreign policy mistake since the Declaration of Independence in invading Iraq, and having armed through the Pentagon and through both the open market sale and the black market trade all military initiatives, with the possible exception of Russia and China, and having developed both a massive missile shield and the most highly sophisticated bombs, drones and missiles the world has ever seen.

The United States of America is now poised to implode on its own literal and metaphoric sword.

Living by the iron and the steel, the gun powder and the nuclear fission and fusion, putting all of her “eggs” in the basket of hard power, and then undergirding that hard power with the multi-trillions in revenue from the sale/trade/barter/bribe of those weapons, the United States has accomplished what no other country has ever done: she has armed the world haphazardly, without regard to whether those deploying their left-over weapons of war were, are or will ever be allies, friends, or enemies. And she has also armed her own citizenry with over 80,000,000 private guns, completely rationalized as “only the good man with a gun is a match for a bad man with a gun” to the point where “open carry” laws permit hand guns and assault weapons to be carried openly and in public in states like Ohio. The state of Texas is about to pass a law permitting the carrying of concealed weapons on university campuses. The sale of guns spikes with every news report of another “lone wolf” shooting, or terrorist massacre, or revenge assassination of police, or assassination of black young men by white police officers, and there is no public will to put restraints on either the sale or the deployment of these weapons of mass destruction, a phrase coined to justify the Iraq invasion, under the threat that Saddam Hussein had biological, chemical and potentially nuclear weapons….posing a serious and immediate threat of a nuclear cloud.

To say that trust is missing in the relationship between the citizens and their government, and also between the two official political parties, and also between the voters and their two presidential candidates, and between the people and their law enforcement arm of government, and between some segments of the citizenry and those same law enforcement agents, and between select allies and the American government….would be an understatement.

Nevertheless, the media consistently narrows the focus of its reporting to say that the people have an unfavourable view of their two presidential candidates, each attempting to outdo the other with a higher unfavourable rating in opinion polls. To write a story that sets out all of the various nefarious parameters of dissolution of the culture, as has been hinted at above, would be treasonous in many quarters. Publishers and editors would resist letting it through their memory sticks into print, even among the most courageous publications such as Truthdig.com.

However, it seems only realistic to look at the trust factor’s atrophy through a bigger lens, one that sees the whole panoply of holes in the Swiss cheese of the U.S. political system.

And, while personalizing national issues, as presidential campaigns tend to permit, may satisfy the fast-food appetite of an electorate that demands instant gratification in the service of each and every one of its appetites, including its dumbing down of the complexities of each issue and each personality it is asked to assess, the process is inevitably and inexorably generating a growing gap between those who study and who comprehend the nuances of the issues, and those ‘shooting from the hip’ and asking questions later. In such a culture of deterioration, it is not surprising that a candidate like Trump would seize control of one of the major political parties, able as he is to provide a considerable portion of the funding for the campaign. Hence, he can say and do almost anything, and then proudly announce that “I could shoot and kill someone on Fifth Avenue without losing any voter support.” Of course, the world wants to believe that he is “dead wrong” but we’re really not sure any more so many pundits’ predictions of his early demise and disappearance from the race have come and gone and lie limp in the trash bins and the recycling machines of the world’s press or in the archives of the world’s television stations.

This man simply has no public doubt about his capacity to do whatever ridiculous scheme he dreams up, and the public is so starved for something visceral to gobble and to digest, given what it considers the pablum of talking points, nuanced policies and insults from dictators like Putin, as well as their own joblessness, and their own hopelessness.

And yet, as Eric Sevareid once commentedBetter to trust the man who is frequently in error than the one who is never in doubt.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/search_results.html?q=eric+sevareid

And in a political culture believing itself starved of potency, uttering personal doubt is forbidden by American Rule #1, if the electorate is making the rules. And they may be….
*Nevertheless, it is not because she is a woman that Hillary Clinton says she regrets her choice of a private server for her emails when she was Secretary of State. 
*It is not because she is a woman that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly acknowledged her failure to bring in universal health care, as First Lady. 
*It is also not because she is female that she publicly acknowledges her grief and her despondency over the loss of four American civilians, including her friend the Ambassador in the Benghazi debacle.
 *It is not because she is a woman that Hillary Clinton, in a sterling interview with Charlie Rose last night on Bloomberg Television, that she has ‘plans’ for many public issues, pokes fun at herself gently saying ‘we all bring different skills’ to public service.

Over against these doubts and potential errors of Ms Clinton, Mr. Trump refuses to admit, at any point over any issue, including the issue of the thousands who have filed a class action law suit against Trump over the debacle called Trump University, any doubts, never mind having made any mistakes. Apparently, if one listens to Mr Trump, one is left with the distinct impression that  the man has never made an error. As a prototype of the 'ideal' American or even a role model American for young people to emulate, Trump is an abject failure.

He might believe that he can convince himself and his acolytes that he can and does ‘walk on water’; however, he cannot and must not convince the American people of his invincibility.

And, as for the long-term future of the republic, whether Toynbee’s foreshadowing can help the American people turn the page and the chapter and even close the book on this angry, violent, abusive, diagnosis and prescription-and-legislation-free dark period in their political life, only the unfolding, or the unravelling of the months and years to come.

And the world will be watching and holding our breath!  

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Are the American people about to surrender the farm to the ultimate huckster?

We are enraptured by scoundrels. They showcase our passion for ingenuity and resourcefulness. Rules don’t matter in a culture that constantly reinvents itself. In the world of flimflam, con artists are American prototypes who exemplify the land of opportunity. Aren’t we all searching for the trickster Wizard at the end of the yellow brick road? (By Amy Henderson, The Smithsonian, January 30, 2014)

How do the American people “square the circle” by even considering the option of putting this scoundrel into the White House?

Certainly the world is running amok. Certainly the text books and the theses that inform and drive the Pentagon are straining to demonstrate their relevance and their effectiveness. Certainly the political theorists who documented the last two-plus hundred years of political campaigns are struggling to hang on to the keel of the apparently overturned ship of state. While the law books and libraries are filled with “precedents” for the obviously valid reason that they comprise the foundation of the rule of law, there is an obvious oxymoron in the term “huckster president”.

When Richard Nixon ran for president, more than once, books were written comparing his campaign to the selling of a “Coke” so similar were the processes and the patterns of the packaging and the marketing of both the candidate and the sugar soda. And Madison Avenue owns the reputation of making a “silk purse out of a sow’s ear” something realists find not only oxymoronic but impossible.

The missing ingredient in the transformation of sow’s ear into silk purse, is the ultimate gullibility of the consumer who simply wants the extreme thrill of trying anything once, without regard to whether or not the experience is worth even one try. The Brits recently went too far in their vote to leave the European Union, having been seduced by many lies laid on them by the hucksters of the “Leave” campaign. Political doctoral theses will be written for decades, perhaps even centuries, documenting the political calculations of David Cameron who, in his failed attempt to heal party divisions in the Conservative Party by counting on the public to vote “Remain”, is now something of a footnote in British history, “I was once the future too!” as he fondly reflected in his farewell address to parliament.

In 2003, another failed exploit, this time in American history under the presidency of George W. Bush, found the necessary votes in the U.S Congress, sold by people like Condoleesa Rice and Colin Powell, the latter having been publicly shamed into being  sent out to the United Nations to “sell” a pack of intelligence lies to secure a supportive vote to declare war on Iraq. (If Canada were a truly supportive culture of her leaders, the Canadian Prime Minister who rejected Dubya’s request to join the coalition of the willing would have been showered with honorary doctorates for his honourable and courageous decision.) Back in the campaign of 1988, George H.W. Bush told the Republican National Convention that elected him their presidential candidate, “Read My Lips” (there will be no tax increase) only to have to eat those words. Pierre Trudeau, when running against Progressive Conservative leader, Robert Stanfield, promised the voters there would be no wage and price controls, only to introduce them immediately following his election as Prime Minister.

These isolated examples of “buyer beware” pale in comparison to the historic return of Prime Minister Chamberlain from Berlin, declaring “Peace in our Time” following his visit with the Fuhrer. And the American people are now facing a historic moment, in which they could and might very likely tip the balance of geopolitical power in favour of the huckster.

Long-term Republican veterans of both Houses of Congress are loud in their denunciation of Trump’s lack of knowledge about, or concern to learn the rules of parliamentary, the traditions of democratic government, the history of the country’s long battle for civil rights, for fair labour laws, for the beginnings of equality between the genders, and for equality for members of the LGBT community. In fact, the Republican platform imposes taxes on the LGBT community and on those who choose abortion.

Just because the American people, as do all people in the world, feel a sense of angst over many colliding issues: carbon emissions, terrorist attacks, Putin’s impromptu incursions (invasions), Assad’s treachery and assassination of innocents in the hundreds of thousands, a moving giant river of homeless refugees, the gutting of the  middle class and the manufacturing sector in the United States, the virtual paralysis of the American government (largely the result of Republican obstruction), the spike in violence on the streets of American towns and cities especially the violence between races (white law enforcement and black men, primarily, given that violent crime is down (with the obvious exception of the city of Chicago)….

All of these pressures are still no reason to throw one’s lot in with the NRA, the Koch brothers, the climate deniers, the muscle-flexing “bomb the hell out of all our enemies”, those who want to create the latest version of the American fortress, moated, this time by the Panama Canal, and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (with Canada sitting on their northern border). Hucksters are skilled at playing to the fears of their “innocents” especially when they operate from the premise that ordinary people are both stupid and disengaged, or if not, drugged into unconsciousness. How dare the Trump cabal claim they wrote the presumptive first lady’ speech last night, when the whole world knows large chunks were lifted from the Michelle Obama address to the Democratic Convention of 2008. How dare the Trump cabal highjack the Republican party from former presidents and presidential candidates….and do it with the impunity offered by emasculated Republican leaders like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the latest “Charlie McCarthy puppet, Mike Pence? How dare the national and the international media gag itself in order to maximize profits and ratings, as if the political convention is the latest in a string of reality television shows, filled with testosterone, yet empty of both reflective thought and responsible debate.
Is there any limit to the number and the depth of the insults the trump cabal is willing, even eager, to dump on the American political system, in the first instance, and then all international relationships, including but not restricted to Islam, and radical Islam, including all immigrants, especially those seeking a better life, whose history and vetting will demonstrate unequivocally, their bona fides and their gratitude for admission into and the opportunity to serve their new homeland, The United States of America.

And also is there a limit to the level of patronizing, condescension and put-downs which the American people will tolerate?
The answer to both of those questions seems to be “NO!”

And the collision of those two unbridled forces could explode into a far more damaging political volcanic eruption than the world has witnessed for decades.
Words like “unfit”, “untrustworthy,” “ crooked”, “lying” “imprisoned”, “murderer”, thrown like verbal grenades in what has become the most violent and virulent presidential campaign for many years, do not belong on our television and ipad screens.


  • ·      Just because corporations like Volkswagen will subvert the emission testing process, by inserting software that makes such subversion feasible, and
           just because Tanaka  manufactures millions of defective airbags that kill drivers and passengers with shrapnel, and

·       just because pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing drugs that have more serious side effects than healing impacts, and

·      just because there are loop holes in the tax code permitting mega corporations to hide billions in off-shore tax havens with impunity, and far into the future if the Republicans maintain control of both Houses of Congress,  

·      just because the Koch brothers and the energy companies spend billions to counteract the science of climate change and global warming, and

·      just because white police officers shoot and kill innocent black men, and

·      just because retaliation from military trained shooters kill black policemen….

These are not excuses for a political campaign that snubs its nose at the world, at the voters, at the science, and all the options available for reconciliation, collaboration, mediation and healing. However, as we all know, such processes are slow, complicated, needing skilled and trained participants, dependent on a “good faith” foundation from which to begin and rely on both professional attitudes and vocabulary, deep and profound and experienced thinkers and patience.

Apparently, neither Trump nor the American people have banked a reserve of patience, tolerance, balance and long-term vision to generate a culture that would render this candidacy not only subversive and dangerous, but also impotent and out of bounds.

It is virtually impossible to put a fence around any huckster, and this latest version of the huckster proves that theory beyond doubt. And when an educated middle-aged woman working in the school system in the United States proudly informs me, “Jesus was the world’s best salesman!” as the core nugget of her theology, you know how far the huckster archetype has penetrated the American psyche. There is so much left out of that image as to be tragic and reprehensible….but never forgotten!

Monday, July 18, 2016

A measured endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president


There is a real danger that the American population will fall into one of two traps when facing the terror threat: writers are already talking about the threat of immunization, a kind of deadening effect, rendering report of more terror almost irrelevant; others, of course, are ramping up the apocalyptic view of terror, including the full morphing of the police and law enforcement into another military machine.
Immunization vs the apocalypse: hardly the only two options available. And yet both are the stuff of headlines, extremes that wrap their massive ‘arms’ around the most vulnerable: extreme racism and the proliferation of guns on the one hand, and thumbing the nose at ‘those bastards’ as if they are not worthy of any attention, in a seemingly defiant act of denial.
Several years ago, Carol Pearson studied and wrote about the narrative of several archetypes emerging from the parade of American movies and novel in books dealing with The Hero Within. One of her observations, at that time, was that two archetypes dominated American culture: the warrior and the victim, represented respectively by men and women.
There have been some changes in that analysis since those books appeared. Many women have shed the victim archetype, preferring their own version of the warrior, different from the male version, but nevertheless refusing to accede unquestioningly to male dominance. Many men too have found their magician and morphed out of the warrior archetype, provoking considerable push-back from those males mired in their own reductionistic version of the warrior.
Lest any think that Trump and Clinton represent merely the “warrior vs victim” conflict, although there is considerable evidence to support that picture, let’s poke around the immunized/apocalyptic dichotomy of the apprehension of the terror impact on world culture. Men, for starters, cannot be classed simply as warriors, given the many black victims at the hands of white police officer. White men do however poll in large numbers as Trump voters and accept the Trump declaration that he will destroy ISIS. Similarly, women cannot be reduced to victims, especially given the ‘hawk-like’ rhetoric and policy options preferred by the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton.Hillary, in order to demonstrate her bona fides as a national leader has almost gone overboard in her demonstration of her willingness to engage the military whenever and wherever needed. There are figures in both parties who still hang on to the male/warrior and the female/victim models, yet their numbers have diminished dramatically.
While the rhetoric of both Trump and Clinton has veered toward the militaristic and enhanced security apparatus in their approach to terror, differences remain in their approach to immigration, especially from Muslim countries, Trump, almost apocalyptically advocating a ban, and “vigorous vetting”. Yet, when pressed by Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes about how he would destroy ISIS, Trump evoked NATO, neighbouring countries and very few American troops on the ground, hardly a convincing proposal, nor is it one far removed from what Obama is already doing, except Trump adds a large measure of bravado, bluster and “heavy breathing” as if to punctuate his authenticity and his grasp of the situation and the need for American power much better than that offered either by the weak Obama or the weak liar, Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton, in her responses to this and all other issues is much more measured, nuanced, detailed, and expressive of a deep and comprehensive policy “wonk”, a legal and experienced intellect and sense of responsibility.
It is the scholar versus the salesman image that seems to be in competition vying for the keys to the White House, and it says here that, tragically and perhaps to their own detriment, Americans have always preferred salesmanship to deep thought in their political leaders. In Obama, they have had both in large measure for the past eight years; a similar blessing is not on the horizon for the next four.
 Trump takes a macho/muscular (apocalyptic?) approach to Latino immigration also, with his proposal of the “wall” along the Mexican border whereas Clinton prefers a comprehensive immigration reform including pathways to citizenship for all immigrants without criminal records. Again we witness the competing “images” of the prize fighter to the legal scholar, the former evading all attempts to pry into and to poke holes in any detailed proposal (refusing even to offer one), with the latter heavily laden, even perhaps burdened, by her own file cabinet/hard drive/ memory stick and Cloud storage of detailed policy proposals. Advantage, among the ordinary Americans: Trump, even though the world needs a more ‘seasoned’ and nuanced perspective and set of proposals.
And there is the over-riding question of “trust” for both candidates. This issue, too, can be illustrative of a deep divide, in the perceptions (and potential voting patterns) of American voters. Attempting to paint Clinton as a disaster as a Secretary of State, a liar and a ‘crooked’ politician, Trump lives in his own  echo chamber, demonstrating adherence to the political dictum, “repeat something often enough and some will believe it to be true”….even if the facts do not support it. Ad hominum attacks characterize all of Trump’s public utterances, and presumably his private ones as well. Opponents are painted with the same kind of personal attack used by early adolescent, pre-teens in order to embarrass, alienate and destroy all competition, all opponents. Theirs is a black-and-white world of “friends (BFF) and enemies” (those they cannot control). And the melodrama of their emotions is reminiscent of the kind of exaggeration both of danger and of self-importance and potentcy exhibited by the early adolescent demographic.
 Here is where the question of trust takes on a more serious implication: Trump’s pre-adolescent conception of the world as a nasty and unsafe and dangerous place (his own words) requiring the destruction of all opponents in order to be a winner, and to avoid being a loser begs serious scrutiny. American power, military, political and economic were so abused in their deployment under Dubya, that Obama has wisely and persistently demonstrated measured and collegial deployment, without abandoning America’s allies. Clinton offers a continuation of that approach, based on her tenure as Secretary of State under Obama. On the other hand, Trump never apologizes, and even told Leslie Stahl he would never apologize. When someone so brazenly and so arrogantly announces that he will never apologize, we all know that this is a person not to be trusted with power of any kind. Painting himself as invincible, should be become president, is a sure sign of an imbalance in his self-awareness and in his apprehension of the nation in relation to other world powers.
Whether Hillary’s “I regret having used a private server for emails, and would not do it again,” or “I did all I could do to protect our officers in Benghazi” are enough to earn the trust of American voters, is still and open question. However, here is where her tone and her approach give her an advantage over her opponent, given his total commitment to his “perfect persona’.
Does Trump fall into the “immunized camp? If not on ISIS, (he boasts he will destroy ISIS), then certainly on climate change about which not a single word has apparently crossed his lips, or we assume, his brain since he declared his candidacy. The fact that millions of American Republicans are still willing to support a candidate and a party platform that refuses to commit billions to the needed effort to combat global warming and climate change is both shocking and reprehensible. Here, Clinton clobbers her Republican candidate, especially after the hard work by Bernie Sanders and his camp to insist on major platform pledges on this file. The Democratic ticket, whomever it includes as the Vice-presidential nominee, should be able to attract those whose considered and reasonable view on this file demands national government action of considerable proportion. Neither apocalyptic, nor immunized, but straight down the responsible middle is where Clinton will lead the country should she win the keys to the White House.
On Planned Parenthood and a woman’s right to choose, there is no wiggle room for the Republican ticket, so far right are both Trump and his VP pick, Mike Pence, that should they win, it is highly likely Roe v Wade will be overturned, especially after they have completed their weighting of the Supreme Court with radical right wing justices. For those watching this election, The Republican position on women’s health is, in a word, unacceptable. Based as it is on a historic belief that all abortion is evil, supported in large part by the Vatican, this position can be considered apocalyptic and absolute. For those who have not begun to weigh the issues bearing on their decision to vote, they might consider this issue as a litmus test for their choice for president.
With respect to a minimum hourly wage, the $15 minimum on which Sanders campaigned has finally moved Clinton to his side, leaving the Republicans clinging to the lowest possible number, on the basis of the phoney argument that anything higher will cost jobs, something that has not happened in states where the minimum wage is already at $15.
And then there is the question of Muslim and black integration into the American culture’s melting pot, although these days, it looks more like a frying pan. How Muslims, Latino’s and blacks could even consider voting for Trump and the Republican party is a question most people living outside the United States simply do not, and will not ever, understand. Trump’s apocalyptic contempt for anyone who is not “white” and pure, is just another of many of his exaggerated “power” positions, in an attempt to seduce all those “fed up with being pushed around” even though there is absolutely no evidence that the United States stature among world power is anything but highly respected, following eight year of Obama, and the previous eight years of Dubya.
Ignoring the long and heavily earned civil rights for blacks first, and for all ethnicities, Trump would take the country back to the nineteenth century, in his pursuit of his “law and order” agenda. Aligning himself and his party with police and law enforcement, to the exclusion of the evidence from the black community, even a black surgeon/police officer who treated the victims after the brutal shooting of police officers in Dallas, Trump, while consistent in his racist ideology, nevertheless seems immunized and insensitive to the plight of minorities, no matter their colour, language, heritage or culture.
Hillary Clinton has a history of supporting the minority communities, especially the black community, as First Lady of Arkansas, as First Lady of the United States, as Senator and as Secretary of State although her contribution to the black community may be overshadowed by her more vocal and enthusiastic advocacy for the feminist movement. Nevertheless, her reasoned, responsible and achievable approach to reinforcing civil rights of all minorities is so diametrically opposed to the racism of Trump, as to warrant the support of the American voters of all political parties and persuasions. Trump’s position is not supportable nor sustainable, and the nation cannot afford to retreat on this issue.
Reciting phrase from the Bible, as part of the press conference by law enforcement in Louisiana will not mediate the racial divide in the country. Neither will a presidential candidate who cares not a whit about the racial divisions. There is certainly no guarantee that Hillary can bring about the healing of the racial chasm that currently energies the body politic. However, her history, her experience and her determination to work with others, something Trump is pathologically unable and unwilling to do, even with his own political party, bode well for the potential to reach a level of reconciliation everyone desires.
It is not accidental or incidental that the president called Hillary the most “qualified” person ever to seek the office of president. Nor is it a sure thing that the nation will inaugurate its first woman president on January 20, 2017. Far from deserving an electoral victory, in November, because she is the first woman candidate of a major political party, Hillary Clinton is the better choice for president by far. She, like all of us, is also far from perfect; yet given the binary choice, the weight of the evidence in favour of casting a vote for the most powerful office in the world goes to Hillary Clinton, and if the Republican primary voters cannot or will not concede that, then the general election process must.

The world is watching, and waiting and hoping and praying, while holding its breath!

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Putting the ethical alchemy of religion into our lives

“Religion is not about accepting twenty impossible propositions before breakfast, but about doing things that change you. It is a moral aesthetic, an ethical alchemy. If you behave in a certain way, you will be transformed. The myths and laws of religion are not true because they conform to some metaphysical, scientific or historical reality but because they are life enhancing. They tell you how human nature functions, but you will not discover their truth unless you apply these myths and doctrines to your own life and put them into practice.” (Karen Armstrong: The Spiral Staircase, My climb out of Darkness)

It is so refreshing to read these words from Karen Armstrong, the former Roman Catholic nun who has for many years reflected, studied, written and taught a comparison of world religions. At one time she offered tutoring to the American government on the discernment between the radical jihadist Muslim terrorist movement and authentic Islam. And one of the insightful notions in this passage is the word "apply"....the notion that religion demands a way of living that, of necessity, breeds more application.
The objectivity at the top of the "value" totem in a scientific world so easily slides into the consciousness as a standard for all aspects of one's life. And that objectivity requires evidence that we have integrated specific formulae, propositions, theories and (in religion) dogmatic principles and rules. If one manipulates the physical, emotional, financial, familial and the professional 'chess pieces' of his/her life in a manner approved by the conventional wisdom of the surrounding culture, then one becomes a respectable, trustworthy, honourable and "proven" individual. The sheer effort that is required to accomplish this "perfect world order" (in the micro sense of one's private life) especially when buffetted by the judgments of others when and if one deviates from the "pattern" is exhausting. Others do have a penchant for determining whether or not the actions of one's life are ethical, moral, God-centred and thereby worthy of approval. How a marriage functions, for example, is never beyond the purview and the social critique of colleagues who believe they know how a marriage must function even though their own marriage, if put under a similar and parallel scrutiny by those they judge, would fail. 
In fact, so important is our openness to challenging the public opinions of those who consider it part of their duty as people of faith to judge others, and so important is our readiness to reflect on and evaluate our own attitudes, perceptions, actions and especially our judgments of others that these personal clarifications, through both formal and informal search initiatives that we argue both precede any overtly public acts of empathy, compassion and altruism. I know this story appears in this space already, but perhaps bears repeating here.
In a class that found itself veering into an exploration of race in the United States, I asked this question: "If you were attending a Saturday evening party where you were listening to racist jokes, what would you do?"
One person, in response, said, "Well I would move away from those telling such offensive jokes."
When asked why, she responded, "Well I certainly would not want those people to think that I thought I was better than they are."
"So then," I retorted, "your reputation with those people telling racist jokes is more important than the reputation of the people against whom the jokes were directed? Is that right?"
After she recovered her dropped jaw, she muttered, "I guess so, if you put it that way."
There is much public discourse during the American presidential election that focuses on race relations. In this context there is also an increasing acknowledgement that white people simply do not comprehend the full reality of what blacks endure especially from the white establishment. While that failure to understand black reality is true on a superficial, empirical and legal level, the roots of that failure of comprehension lie within the white population who refuse to put themselves in the "shoes" of their black counterparts. Just like the woman in the story above, most white people have never even considered the "other" as important, in a culture in which rugged individualism wildly trumps empathy, compassion and altruism. This attitude is expressed most clearly in an early interview with the Republican presidential candidate. "I consider the world a very dangerous place, and you have to fight in order to win in that world; otherwise you are a loser" is the tenor of that verbatim.
And when one's worldview is based on a "winners v losers" template, there is no place for empathy, compassion and altruism, except in solo, siloed and exceptional instances, designed more for inclusion in a resume, more to impress the world, to generate public approval, and clearly a debasement of the core intent and meaning of altruism. It is so facile, easy, and glib to write a cheque for a chosen cause, and then to reap the tax benefit from such generosity. It is far more demanding to serve in a "street health" clinic where the homeless and the hopeless cringe in dark corners of buildings and also of fear that they have to be approached as if they were terrorized and beaten puppies. We have done an outstanding job, collectively and then individually, of sanitizing our social and political issues, that we have effectively put them in a "problem file" often too large and too complicated for ordinary people to try to resolve. We have, thereby, effectively removed any responsibility from our lives for the remediation of those problems, even though we know that public issues demand public responses, in order for those in positions of power to respond.
If our individual attitudes and perceptions and actions comport with a view of the world that replicates the view expressed by our lady in the race joke story, then we will contribute to their continuation, to their complication and to their festering into a full-scale cancer.
Bill Maher, appearing in a special edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews, made a significant statement about race relations in the United States. He said he had interviewed a white policeman who had worked in a black community who told him, "When I worked in a black community, I hated all blacks; when I worked in a Latino community I hated all Latinos; when I worked in a white community I hated all whites." Maher continued, "Of course, police officers have to deal with the worst elements in any community so it would be natural that they would come to hate what they have to work with. However, this is a job they signed up for, so this attitude needs to be addressed."
In portraying the worst acts of any community, the media makes an overwhelming contribution to the "public attitude" of their viewers and their readers, and listeners. The recent shootings of black men by white police officers, and recently the assassination of five white police by a black man in Dallas are evoking loud and piercing cries for change. This change, from both whites and blacks will only come when the attitudes and the perceptions of equality ( a legal concept) and empathy (a moral concept) and identification ( a psychological concept) and a political requirement ( a legislative concept) merge into a force founded on those same elements of the religion to which Karen Armstrong refers in the quote above.
And those attitudes, perceptions and actions in the public arena will not emerge unless and until their corresponding attitudes, perceptions and actions are firmly ensconced in the nurseries of the nation ( very easily applied) to the kindergarten classrooms, (still relatively easily and readily applied) to the middle school and high school classrooms ( a little more hesitantly applied) and the part-time employment venues (almost never applied) and the college classrooms (rarely applied) and the full-time employment venues (only applied when required for legal purposes to comply with contractual obligations or to avoid legal sanctions).
And these attitudes, while cogent and the sine qua non of religious experience, are so far removed from the daily discourse, and the daily reflections and the water cooler conversations, except when a person know in common suffers from a mortal diagnosis, is seriously injured in an accident, is the victim of a terrorist attack, or is the object of some clearly visible victimization. 
Other than the headline-grabbing incidents, we keep our empathy, our compassion and our altruism safely locked in the vault of our hearts, so that no one will 'rob' us of our good intentions, and make us vulnerable, in the same manner that our woman in the narrative described avoiding embarrassment by calling the racist jokes, and taking a "stepping to the plate" position to push back against the racism that she failed to confront.
Such failures are not exclusive to the woman; they belong to each of us. And unless and until to walk the first few tentative steps in the moccasins of our beleaguered colleagues, we will own the implications of all of our individual and collective failures of both commission and omission.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Some implications of self-absorption and immediacy

David Brooks, on PBS last night, said that as he travels around the country he finds pockets of deep and effective caring, compassion and sensibility everywhere with people helping others in the face of various emergencies. These stories provide a counter to the daily, hourly and now almost minute-by-minute tragedies: fires, drought, military conflict, terror attack, environmental spills, economic burps and blips, unemployment hiccups, and then there is the river of absurdities that gush from the mouths of people aspiring to or currently holding public office, especially The Donald.
Our media has abandoned its core purpose, in the pursuit of ratings and profits. Heavily twisted by the “man bites dog” kind of mantra, our media, so focuses on the human evil that surrounds all of us, that our public and private broadcasters are complicit in generating a culture of ‘the inevitability of fear and chaos’. And our own predictable and insatiable voyeurism plays right into their business model. The marriage of our search and appetite for “excitement through entertainment” to the corporate media’s insatiable appetite for profits is helping to generate a paralysis in so many segments of our public life that an individual cannot be faulted for falling into the quagmire of hopelessness and anxiety. And that, dear reader, is precisely what the terror element we face dreams of, as the highest result of their murderous terrifying massacres.
While the media concentrates its energies on the number of dead and the motives of the perpetrators of the many acts of terror, and on the numbers of votes and the implications of the Brexit vote, or the number of First Nations’ communities living with “boiled water” advisories, simply doing what they consider their “job”, people are nevertheless left with a gestalt that evokes the wringing of hands. And of course, there will always be those voices ready to accept the invitation to express their horror at a natural disaster like a hurricane or the detritus of a runaway truck on a sidewalk in Nice.
And, in the corporate board room of the media owners and decision makers, men and women dedicated to the pursuit of the highest level of profit and investment, consistently veer toward resources that concentrate on the plethora of immediate ‘breaking news facts’ knowing that both their immediacy and their gore will continue to magnetize readers, viewers and digital media ‘crowds’. Programs that take a step back, that analyse the structural and the thematic and the historic dimensions of any public issue (of the kind that Melissa Harris Perry so rigorously and so provocatively offered weekly for the last few years on MSNBC) are cancelled in a blatant bowing to the superficial, to the immediate and to the ratings that come from such decisions.
At the same time, universities are abandoning many of the integral components of their arts and humanities programs, as they morph into technical job-training institutes, and champion their collection of billions in donations from the corporations who want their names on buildings for “public reputation” purposes. In such an ethos, it is not surprising that Carleton University has removed a biology professor from one of the “faculty positions” on the university Senate, for refusing to agree to silence his opinions if and when they disagree with those of the majority of the Senate. The principle of ‘cabinet solidarity’ having infected the university housed in the nation’s capital, where the obeisance of all civil servants and politicians in the government is an expectation of the power holders, and a duty of all of the “peons”, the pursuit of truth and the clash of opposing views, originally one of the core principles of a university, is sacrificed. One has to assume that prospective corporate donors would not be as inclined to contribute to a university that did not have “one view” without opposition, in its administrative modus operandi. And so the “public relations” mandate of the corporate and government models, (intimately and obsessively integrated into the culture of both the military and the mainline churches, and the school boards and hospital boards) is tilting the public discourse and the public culture into a kind of conformity that resists public debate for the protection of the flow of cash.
And, of course, there is a profound paradox to this dynamic. It is profoundly and inexorably self-sabotaging, not only of the very organizations that accept and practice it as dogma, shutting out diversity of views and the fertilization of self-reflective analysis. It is also sabotaging in the long run, in the kind of organic messiness on which the life of an individual, family and organization depends. Homogenizing our milk to prevent illness and disease is one thing. Homogenizing the way by which our major public/private institutions operate, and thereby embedding into the culture a kind of repressive obedience and a kind of intellectual atrophy at the organizational level (not necessarily at the level of the individual researcher in his or her laboratory, on in the preparation of his/her doctoral thesis) also sends off social clues to those young people aspiring to complete their formal and more importantly their informal education, that militate against activism, public engagement and disruption of the public square.
And of course, the public square where these fortifications of public “trust” have dominated for centuries, is now filled with scepticism and even contempt for the kind of self-serving attitudes and policies that narrow the focus and the ethical principles on which they operate.
The media’s dependence on the acts of evil and the march of massive ego’s, and  the presentation of these dramas as news, linked to the demise of free thought in both the political life and the curricula of our major universities, and the public’s glazing over its potential to inject some different and levening views, together, could well be having an impact on the rise of right wing political parties, in the rise in the level of violence, and in the rise of such demonic figures as the Republican candidate in the United States.
‘Sunny ways’ in the “mantra” of the Canadian Prime Minister is merely a kind of ‘sell line’ in his advertising campaign for public adulation. The phrase is not a surrogate for compassion, although it may hint of a government, especially in comparison with its predecessor, is capable of thinking and feeling simultaneously.
David Brooks knows that the corporate moguls for whom he works at the New York Times will continue their coverage of man-bites-dog news. Nevertheless, his off-hand comment about the caring and the compassion of his fellow citizens, often relegated to a feel-good “on the road” segment at the close of a newscast (as at CBS) could provide some guidance for the long term life and potential of those same media and intellectual masters in whose hands rest the legacies and the futures of those newspapers, television networks, universities and even the corporations and the churches.

Immediacy, and dramatic and tragic events of the evil genre, will always be important in the development of a public consciousness. And so too, could a much longer perspective that seeks not only its own immediate “success” but also the survival and the hope and the dreams of those who come after. We are not only “our brother’s keeper” today; we are, and are capable of being and becoming “our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers” of those generations yet unborn. And our fetish with the moment does not have to give way to our abandoning our perception of its relative importance. It is our self-serving narcissism that threatens our legacy and the future of our grandkids.

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Without limits, power becomes its own saboteur


Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power. (Abraham Lincoln)

Unfortunately, the people who voted in the Republican primaries over the last several months had neither read nor contemplated this insight. They have propelled into a position of considerable power, and even more power should he  be elected president, a man whose character, while pummelled daily by his opponents, has exposed a serious fault line in the American culture.

Manipulation of the public, through blatant and unabashed manipulation of the media, may demonstrate a degree of superficial, technical and opportunistic know-how, similar to the “know-how” of a young pre-teen who, knowing how to wrap her father around her little finger, and convince him that she promises to take her share of responsibility with a new puppy whose purchase she is strongly advocating. It is neither credible, nor is it lasting. And, in most cases, the compliant father, preferring to be supportive and to be encouraging of such articulate defense of her argument, that the dog in question will not interfere with her allergies, (she even recommends a call to her allergist to confirm her perspective!) and that both she and her sister will dutifully, daily and without reminders, rewards or sanctions, walk the dog, clean up after the dog, and help to train the dog, welcoming it into the family, accedes to her petition, knowing full well that he is not supported by their mother.

However, extending the power of a “yes” vote to a pre-teen, on a promise of adulthood, as a trial run toward the larger purpose of letting experience demonstrate how ‘things work’ (or don’t) to a young adolescent whose life has been and continues to be somewhat in your hands, and whose future shines like a mystical rainbow in the crevices of your imagination is a far different act that pulling a lever for a charlatan, a huckster, and one whose life, including even those exploits he considers “successful” betray a very deep black hole in a culture. And the black hole that is uncovered, and left pouring toxic puss all over the countryside, and through all the many digital platforms available to all, can be diagnosed as “the narcissistic bully” who probably believes that he has proven his mettle, that he has demonstrated who all others could model their lives as platinum and exemplary examples for their children.

Not only is his life a crashing empty bottle of salesmanship, befitting the hawker at the midway and the circus, and befitting the ponzi-perpetrators who have bilked billions from the unsuspecting, (including the illustrious and recently deceased Elie Wiesel, by Bernie Madoff), the very notion that all the major media outlets, owned of course, by the mega-corporations whose very survival depends, not on the degree of objectivity and responsibility they demonstrate when faced with piles of cash and mountains of positive Neilson ratings, have been seduced into his “infor-ponzi” scam demonstrates the black hole into which the media culture and potentially  the political system itself could easily tumble.

Wonder, just wonder, what a Walter Cronkite would think of what is going on? Wonder too, if Huntley and Brinkley would stand by and let their voices be show-horned into the pettiness of critical evaluation of the latest tweet from the huckster. And the latest tweet is not only flying across the twitter-verse, it comes like a pre-adolescent ad hominum against anyone who challenges the sender on any matter. One of the latest, and most lame, is “Sleepy Eyes Todd,” referring to Chuck Todd of MSNBC, host of Meet the Press, and of The Daily MTP, on MSNBC. For those of us who consider Todd one of the more interesting and informed talking heads, on the American political scene, given both his capacity to interview with dispassion and with energy, and his squirreling of polling data into his head, and then through the camera lens and into our television sets,  we might consider this latest “skewering” to be advantageous to his career. If he can be, and is, a target of the “paint-ball” gun of the presumptive presidential candidate (presumptuous still seems more fitting), then the gun is literally pointed everywhere all at once.

Such immaturity, such gall and such mindlessness....we used to say about such utterances, “ I guess it beats thinking”.....when thinking, deep thinking is so needed at all levels for all of the many complex and growing issues we all face.

Another way of diagnosing the black hole is to observe that, without answers from anyone that truly solves, fixes or even ameliorates a given issue, or public file, we are left resorting to making fun of it all, including ourselves, in a most trivial, party-like, animal-house manner. And yet, occupying the White House is not analogous to joining a frat party, or at least it has not been for the last 249 years. Of course, there have been a variety of personalities, intellects, mannerisms and even dialects in the men who have served in the Oval Office. And in America, the notion of individualism, and free speech runs rampant.

Nevertheless, it is not an accident that, in this piece, his behaviour is compared to that of an adolescent; his name calling, his body and bawdy talk about small hands and (while left unsaid) “endowment”....these are the kinds of verbal assaults that belong in the hallways or the schoolyards or the locker rooms of a middle school. If people were to waken to the insults he is throwing daily even hourly at the American ethos, by using the very language and the very attitude that accompanies middle school students, especially when they are under attack. And having served as a vice-principal in a middle school responsible for the discipline, the comportment and the school ethos, I am quite familiar with the kind of immaturity that cloaks their world view, their interactions and certainly their vocabulary.

Of a graduate of Mellon University, one expects a great deal more: more sensitivity, more subtlety, more sophistication, more curiosity, more serious questions and more penetrating analysis of all of the issues. And yet, if the model and the modus operandi, that he is using are analogous to the simplicity of a building’s location, size, design, and building and maintenance costs, and above all, potential profits,  then how can we expect more, especially the last, potential profits.

And, for Trump, profits are measured in two terms: dollars and status. Emblazoning your last name on every edifice, leaves one open to the scene behind Hillary Clinton yesterday, a faded shadow of a name following a collapse of the casino that used to “live” on the Atlantic shore. Flying your own jet, again emblazoned with your own name in uber-point font, generating an instant “stage-backdrop” for all the television cameras is just another of the many slick tricks that other serious candidates would find embarrassing. And the people, if they were honest with themselves, would easily and quickly concur that these are the tactics of one whose image is so identified with the ego that there is no separation, what Jung called enantiadromia, the fusion of mask and ego, rendering one incapable of individuation.

The pre-teen co-ed of the earlier puppy story, ironically, was already more advanced in her development, her individuation, than the current presidential candidate for the presidency. And that really frightens any observer, including this one. She knew that she had a slope to climb to make her case. She also knew that there was no guarantee that her wish would be realized. There were definite defined and honoured, as well as honourable, limits to her request and to her expectations. With the current Republican candidate, no such limits ever cross his lips: he simply “wills” everything he wants, as one who considers himself and his “designs” on the future of the country, and the world, he knows and accepts no limits.

This is not a man living and operating in reality: the reality of the Constitution, the reality of the many treaties to which the American Presidents’ signatures have already been affixed; the reality of the Congressional visions of the future of the country, and the country’s place in the world, not to mention the American peoples’ many levening views of how the “bread” of the political process can and will ‘rise’. Calling Putin a man worthy of respect, without also acknowledging the dangers of his potential and already realized incursions into adjacent nations, praising Saddam Hussein for his ‘killing of terrorists’, painting a picture of a high wall to keep Mexicans out of American, paid for the by the Mexicans, demanding that China stop manipulating its currency, barring Muslims from countries where war is being waged from entry into the U.S......these are all pictures of an exaggerated dystopia, of a world that only an egomaniac could both envision and then have the gall to promise, to make America great again!

A man who does not comprehend irony, especially the irony of his limited degree and number of options, even (or more significantly, especially) if he were to become president, a man who lives in the islands of his own ego/mask (without seeking to or wanting to separate them) and a man who has all the answers... is not a man to be vested with the power of not only the  nuclear codes, but also of the presidential executive order, of the presidential appointments to hundreds if not thousands of civil service appointments throughout the government.

In fact, I would be more willing to entrust that pre-teen adolescent with the White House than this man. And the American people have still time to waken to what it is they are being seduced into doing, falling into the trap of a huckster who has been playing in his own sandbox, without regard to the ordinary norms, rules and expectations of reasonable and responsible limits.

Friday, July 1, 2016

Reflections on forgiveness of others and of self


Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it. (Mark Twain)

In a culture driven by competition, aggressive and blind and ruthless aggression, in the pursuit of personal acquisitions, little talk and less thought focuses on forgiveness. In a given day, one can often experience a car cutting you off in heavy traffic, a shrug of indifference when you expect commiseration and compassion, an insult to one’s masculinity when a minimal hug would comfort, and a complaint when the complainant has omitted to fill in his/her responsibility behind the complaint. It is a minimalist effort to say “I am sorry” for having treated you badly for twenty years, although appreciated. It is very difficult to respond to that small gesture with a heartfelt, “I forgive you!” And it is relatively facile and perhaps even glib to write the words, “I forgive you” for leaving the marriage, when your real and deepest feelings are more accurately contained in words, “You may have had to leave, but you did it all wrong!”

The memory, especially the memory that retains the details of a deep emotional wound, is often a minefield that can erupt in explosive anger, or equally, a reflective and authentic “I forgive you!” And without participating in the act of forgiveness, one has left unexplored one of the great mysteries and great gifts on the pilgrimage of life.

Entering into the mystery of forgiving an enemy, one who has especially hurt us, we are more intimately in touch with our better angels, with our higher potential, and with our capacity to enter situations in which deep and profound wounds have been perpetrated on other unsuspecting and innocent victims. First, however, we have to believe that we are blessed with such angels, and such grace. Those of us whose perspective does not embrace a gentle and dependable trust of the universe, but embraces the inescapable and inevitable truth that another “shoe is about to drop,” having experienced a drama of crisis following crisis in our early lives, have to come to the place where we start to breath the more rarefied atmosphere of gentleness, compassion, support and warranted praise. Such atmosphere can only replace the turgid stench of criticism, insult, put-downs, and physical and emotional abuse slowly, beginning with a glimmer of tenderness from an unlikely source, and one that has no “agenda” in the gentleness. Ostentatious shows of affection and praise, on the other hand, especially to one whose normal experience is cloudy and sad, frighten one into believing that such “shows” are hollow, inauthentic and perhaps overcompensating. Anyone who thinks or believes that demonstrating, expressing, reinforcing and practicing supportive gestures of acceptance and respect and honour are nothing more than “political correctness” is living in a land of ghosts. Even the most hardened person, perhaps especially the most hardened criminal, suffers from a complete lack of acceptance, a dearth of kindness, and a blindness to his own worth. That is why sliding into a merely transactional world in which the guiding principle is “what have you done for me lately?” is so reductive and so destructive, not only of the perpetrators but also of the recipients of such an approach.

On the other hand, children who are showered with excessive allowances, an unwarranted smorgasbord of praise and “pedestalling” can and often grow up with a contempt for those whose lives are scarred with poverty, abuse and indifference. A school system that depends exclusively on rewards, without sanctions, will inevitably generate generations of “entitled” young people whose social conscience has atrophied from lack of use. Those responsible for education policy might like to consider this notion.

Human sensitivity and even human spirituality potentially touches, embraces and helps to shape public policy given the significance of experience in one’s early years. Forget the “nanny state” so abhorrent to so many rugged individualists; our attitudes of inclusion, acceptance, tolerance and embrace as expressed in civil rights and human rights legislation have the seeds of their flowering in our hearts, not just in our minds. And there is not a single person who, at some time or other, has not been “down” and “out” however such a picture was painted for that person. And at that time, we have each needed a hug, an invitation to come out to play, a letter or a text of engagement and it is on these small gestures that our capacity to extend a similar hug to another is based, and that includes our capacity to forgive.

And while forgiveness of another who “crushed our flower,” can be compared to the scent that flower emits under the crushing heel, that process is relatively easy and uncomplicated compared with the more penetrating act of forgiving oneself.

As we know, forgiveness of oneself is the hardest of all the forgivenesses. (Joan Baez) Herein lies an even more complex, tortuous and frequently avoided mountain climb, Even if we have engaged in acts of forgiveness of others, and even if others have expressed their forgiveness to us for our having betrayed or sabotaged or undermined them, there is still waiting for many of us, another and deeper dive into our unconscious, especially into whatever courage and self-confidence we have mined for future reference. We know intimately the ‘script’ of the life ‘tapes’ that are on a repeat-roll in our minds. And for many, those tapes keep reminding us of how insensitive, how arrogant, how abusive and how indifferent our actions, words, thoughts and attitudes have been. Each of us has made a barn-full of mistakes, hurting others, often without intent at least in our minds, and none of us is released from the tightness that constricts our breathing, our thinking, our loving and our creativity unless and until we are able to, somehow, under the influence of a faith proposition, or a therapeutic guide, or a mentor, or a transformative trauma, forgive ourselves for our fundamental inhumanity to other human beings. Often we were frightened into hurting others as a pretense to self-defence; sometimes we have been running away from what we considered intolerable conditions from which we did not know, or seek to know, how to negotiate changes; other times, we “flipped” off someone important, because they were insulting us or undermining us, or even betraying us, and rather than confront the betrayal, (an act needing the patience of Job and the strength and courage of Hercules) we sought revenge; other times, anticipating a harmful gossip, one that could easily blow up our reputation, we painted the person whom we believed we about to slam us with a nasty and even vicious rumour, much like the kind that currently proliferate on Facebook, ChatRoom, and Twitter. And because our behaviour seemed so normal, even conventionally conforming to the culture in which we were living, we did not pay much attention to how damaging our actions/words really were.

And now, we are left with the “blackened pot” of our worst emotions, shame, fear, embarrassment, and a damaged perspective on who we really are (our warrior is not amused, and could even be ashamed, because we rationalized our “attack” as needed in order to strengthen the muscles of that warrior, when we know that only through the honourable deployment of our warrior would that archetype mature) and no convenient, or even available remedy to clean the carbon of our shame from the bottom of our consciousness, and even our unconsciousness, so deeply has this penetrated.

It is not merely an act of will like scrubbing the pot that begins to remove the burden. It is a much slower and much longer and more reflective, prayerful and solitary process (although walking with a loved one, and walking with a God is clearly helpful) than getting out the cleaners. Those cleaners are analogous to the Christian “penitential” or “confessional” through which under church theology, one accepts the already granted grace of forgiveness that emanated from the Crucifixion. And for some they, and the Cross, actually penetrate the psyche and the spirit alleviating the weight of the self-doubt and the self-loathing. In a Christian culture, in which for centuries the originating premise has been that humans “fell” in the Garden of Eden, through sin, and have spent the rest of their lives “in pursuit” of the forgiveness of the Crucifixion (available by grace to believers), however they conceived it to be granted. If that premise is lifted, from the beginning, and one is open to the notion that we are created in the image of God, and that the light of the Spirit of God is and remains in each of us, the picture changes significantly.

Forgiveness of self begins with an opening of the door of self-acceptance, and is not born of rationalization, nor of quick and facile explanations for wrongs committed both by commission and by omission, nor of a compilation of words of compliments, public applause. It is not an act of bargaining with God, “if I forgive myself, then will You make a place for me in heaven”....It is through a persistent, consistent and resistant conviction that good, the light, and only the good, the light, can and does shine a different lens on the “problem of evil” and thereby on the process of self-forgiveness.

Many of the judgements of evil that have been imposed on individuals, by those charged with searching out, finding and exposing what they consider evil are just that, the judgements of those people, supported by their “organizations”. And permitting the “external locus of control” that is control by others, through charges of guilt, is an integral component of the burden that forgiveness of self attempts to redress. Forgiveness of self, whether through grace for Christians, or through monumental and persistent reflections that bring each person’s past, present and future into the light of love, the light of hope and the light of promise that an enriched life can emerge from such spiritual practice, in a supportive community. Like a stream flowing over boulders and rocks and stones, the company of others in silence, regular, uninterrupted except for occasional brief portraits of experiences of light and joy, in a moment in nature, for example, or a moment of memory, or a moment of song, messages one’s heart, opens one’s mind, and relaxes one’s muscles (physical, mental and spiritual) from the tightness of ordinary living, working, planning, interacting, negotiating, bill-paying, conflict-resolving and all of the other ‘doings’ that comprise daily life.

It is in such periods of quiet meditative reflection that one almost involuntarily lapses into a state in which forgiveness, (one of, if not the most significant of,) the core experiences of spiritual rejuvenation, renewal and hope gradually emerges. Such a quiet and peaceful repose, free of judgements, in an ethos of openness, hope and expectancy, like a garden of human flowers starting to open, finally finding a place to open, and sharing the surprise of a completely new and almost shocking lightness of the shoulders dropping, the lungs filling, the arms, hands and fingers resting and relaxing in repose, and on the horizon, the expectancy of letting go of all of those burdens of  trauma imposed from without, and more significantly, judgements of sin and evil, the disease of darkness, not in a generic way, but rather specifically and individually released, as learnings, as new perspectives on old encounters, and as a splash-pad of running through streams of water for the spirit, in a kind of youthful burst of energy.

It is the kind of experience that cannot be ‘engineered’ or manipulated, or planned, or even expected. It is not even the result of the will; rather it is in the state of being, of being present to one’s self in a circle where others are also being present, where the energy and the compassion, and the doors of the heart and mind and spirit are open to light, to hope, to a new way of being, seeing, conceiving and creating. There is no rational explanation and no measuring instrument that either can predict or evaluate the experience and yet, there is no doubt that it happens, to each person differently. And having been steeped in the human identity of sin, of man’s falling short of the glory of God, of having been inculcated in the sins of the flesh, and the sins of narcissism, and the sins of abuse and inhumanity, one’s spirit has been weighted and freighted with such heaviness, that even a brief moment of the new relief, not that another says ‘those things don’t matter’ but rather that those things are real, they happened and they were how you behaved then, not as defining your person, your identity and your potential.

It is a kind of  practice of theology, belief in God, that sees the potential of this moment for the light to shine both from without and from within, and that brings a kind of expectancy of love, and expectancy of hope and an expectancy of joy in the midst of all of the other truths, realities and memories. And the paradox is that the darkness is in greater relief, nudging each to give voice of confrontation, of protest and of activism in the face of evil.

Forgiveness is like a process of healing a wound, a deep and painful and seemingly never-ending unease morphing into a spiritual disease. And forgiveness, including the grace of God, is available to those whose spirits are ready to let it in, and then to share its blessing in future encounters. However, as the surgeon who commented, while inserting the stitches following the abdominal operation, “Remember, you can put the stitches into the wound, but you cannot heal the patient!” Similarly, we can prepare the mind, the heart and the spirit for the healing of forgiveness; we can do the spiritual work of opening up to the possibility and the potential for being forgiven; and if our preparation is complete and authentic and unreserved, then the process of forgiveness can begin.

And the mystery of both the healing of the surgical wound, and the healing that comes from the forgiveness of self and of course of the other, is like the precipitate in E.J. Pratt’s poem the Truant, the defining element of being human:

                                                            'Sire,
The stuff is not amenable to fire.
Nothing but their own kind can overturn, them.
The chemists have sent back the same old story —
"With our extreme gelatinous apology,
We beg to inform your Imperial Majesty,
Unto whom be dominion and power and glory,
There still remains that strange precipitate
Which has the quality to resist
Our oldest and most trusted catalyst.
It is a substance we cannot cremate
By temperatures known to our Laboratory".
'
Written in the 1940’s, Pratt’s work focused on the quality of the human will that defied all the processes of analysis know to the chemists and the scientists of that time. Today, as a metaphor, we are using the analogy of the will’s defiance to chemical processes, to compare it will the intellectual comprehension of the mystery of the dynamic of forgiveness, a notion that can be known when it is experienced both as subject and object, without being amenable to anatomizing, parsing, and decoding. And like pregnancy, it either is occurring or has occurred, or it has not. And there is no confusion about that.
And like the scent that emerges from the flower crushed under foot, it is a life-giving breath!