Client #9

I have long followed the career of current (but perhaps not for too much longer) New York Governor Elliot Spitzer. He made his national reputation as an ambitious Attorney General for the state of New York who was very loud and prominent in rooting out corruption in a series of high-profile scandals involving health care companies, gun manufacturers, and power companies, and I'm sure a lot of other issues as well. A Progressive Democrat, he lived up to his political ideology by using the power of government to punish wayward companies who did not live up to their moral obligations with customers and the general public at large. While I admired his stands against corruption, I still feel ambivalent about what such intervention means on a large scale about the freedoms of the citizenry at large.

Spitzer's highly publicized investigations against corporate malfeasance earned him a recent election to become governor of the state of New York. It was there that Mr. Spitzer's problems began to grow, as the highly popular attorney general found himself a deeply unpopular governor. Ironically, the two scandals that have dogged his time in Albany, one of which appears to have brought him down, involve corruption and the abuse of power. The lesson to the rest of us, would be anti-corruption crusaders or not, is a sobering one.

The first major scandal that I know about at least involves his abuse of power in a spectacular way. Having problems with the lead Republican in the New York Legislature, he used his aides to try to dig up dirty news to discredit his opponent and force him to resign. This was not a success, as the revealing of the attempt led to Spitzer losing his own reputation for moral probity in power. Once it was revealed that he sought to discredit his opponents through dirty tricks, it became possible to wonder if he had done the same thing as Attorney General, itself a very serious problem. Of course, Spitzer could choose to deny that he ordered his aides to do such investigations, but such a denial rings hollow, as aides generally do not go digging up dirt on the political opponents of their bosses unless there is either a specific order to do so or it is the general behavior of their boss. Neither would reflect well on the Governor.

The other scandal, that appears to have brought down his administration completely (and that may end up destroying his marriage), involves his identity as Client #9 in an investigation of a high-class prostitution ring. Apparently he spent over $4000 just before Valentine's Day for a high-class prostitute named "Kirsten" from a prostitution ring based out of New York that is under investigation by the Feds and the IRS. His call to the agency, and the agency's response, show that he was not a first-time client. Obviously, this reflects poorly on an anti-corruption and stern moralist sort of politician, more so than it would an obviously corrupt one. It looks like Spitzer's political career is over, but there are some lessons that might be useful for future people in like positions.

It appears, in this day and age, that nothing is really private. While I lament this personally, I suppose that as a rather nosy and public person (public enough, at any rate, to discuss delicate subjects online), that I am part of the problem. At any rate, if you are a person in a public position (whether in government, in business, or in private organizations), you cannot expect any of your personal conduct to remain private whatsoever. I know that in previous times leaders got a way with a lot of things, but the desire for information and the high levels of tracking and publicity present nowadays make it almost impossible to keep a secret life for long. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I cannot say--I could argue it both ways depending on whether I was looking in the abstract or in the particular. Since the private conduct of people is no longer really all that private (sometimes because of our own stupidity and brazenness in the matter), it behooves all of the ambitious sorts among us to be a lot more honest and humble about ourselves. Being holier-than-thou nowadays is a bad call, and almost all the time it seems that the verdict on such would-be crusaders is the sobering one, "Physician, heal thyself." Ridding corruption from within and without still seems a rather difficult task, even more difficult when examining its spread within us all.

Kudos, Then Ironic Comments

Today I wish to write about a subject that appears in the Bible but that is seldom applied in modern life as it ought to be, but first I would like to give some kudos. Every day I receive an e-mail from Thisistheway.org, with a byline from Mr. Clyde Kilough, President of the United Church of God, and today's e-mail merits praise and attention. The subject of authority and service, and how leaders ought to serve the people they lead, rather than lord it over them, is a frequent (and hopefully not too tiresome), subject of my writings, both public and private. The forms of democracy alone are not sufficient, for a people that does not possess self-control is not fit to rule over a nation (for one must first govern one's self before one can govern others). Nonetheless, the example of Jesus Christ in his service to mankind (through footwashing, instruction, healing, and his offering of himself to remove the penalty of sin from mankind and heal the alienation between mankind and God) and the example of Abraham Lincoln, himself a martyr to the cause of freedom of the oppressed, servant leadership, and democracy were excellent choices to illuminate how leaders should behave.

However, I do not wish this to be the subject of this post, as I write about it frequently enough. Today I would like to write about a different matter entirely, and one that was provoked by my reading of a most excellent book by a fellow named Mr. Ron Dart, called Law And Covenant. In this book (which I would wholeheartedly recommend to any who wish to understand the true covenantal nature of law and its continuing applicability to humankind in a variety of aspects), there is an interesting comparison of the relationship between a man and his concubine and a man and his wife that is a subject of great importance for our times, and one that is often not recognized by preachers and concubines alike.

Concubinage strikes the modern ear as a discordant, and potentially exotic, reminder of past ages. I am reminded myself of references of Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines, and of the movie "Fareware, My Concubine," about early 20th century China (if I remember correctly). However, concubinage is not only a quaint historical notion of bygone eras where women dwelled with men without any contractural relationship, and without any guarantee of good behavior on the part of their lover beyond his good will. It is, in fact, a very real, and very common phenomenon. We, though, call a concubine by a different name today--a live-in girlfriend.

In societies where concubinage was recognized, concubines were universally considered of a lower status than wives. While a man might be attached to his hausfrau (as the Germans called such a woman), she had no legal rights (unlike a wife). If he died, she was entirely at the mercy of his will (if he provided for her), because she had no rights to his estate. Her children were not considered legitimate heirs, and were not in line for any inheritence a man might leave. Any states or nations that recognized common-law marriages required lengthy times of cohabitation before granting such a status, while a newly married bride carred the status of a wife as a result of the contractual relationship even on her honeymoon. One of the most grevious wrongs of slavery in the American South was the denial of marriage to slaves, who could conduct informal marriages (by jumping over the broom and so forth) but who could not protect their relationships from the threat of having a husband and wife and children sold seperately to different owners in distant places. Furthermore, a slave husband could not even assure the safety of his wife from the affections of the master, should he choose to take a concubine among his slaves.

The insecurity that results from relationships of concubinage is profound, and it seems obvious that someone who could be a wife would never want to be a concubine. Between a wife and a husband there is a mutuality of obligations, a contractual relationship that the ancients considered a "parity covenant" (a relationship among equals). Both the man and wife have legal and moral obligations to their spouses, and to the children of their union, and their joining in marriage brings honor to themselves, each other, and their families. In contrast, the joining in concubinage brings no legal obligations, and the relationship itself is only as stable as the affections of either partner, bringing no honor to either but only the fear that someone's affection might grow cold and leave a partner and a family without their main provider.

Given this rather grim contrast between the honor of being a wife and the fearful and insecure position of being a concubine, one wonders why anyone would choose to be a concubine? This is not to say that the lot of wives is always pleasant (nor that of husbands either), but the contractual protections of marriage mean something, even in these debased times. Why have women, who call themselves enlightened, traded honor and security for insecurity in the name of "freedom?" It would be like a worker trading a contractual job for a job (in a place like Florida) where there was employment at will (which means an employer could fire you for any or no reason without legal recourse), often for a lower salary. Who would make that kind of trade?

Why have live-in relationships, with all of the insecurity that result from not having a covenantal relationship or a secure status, become a status of freedom? Is freedom merely freedom from bonds and connections with other people (bonds which form anyway as a result of intimacy and friendship) or is it freedom from fear and insecurity and the gaining of a lasting and honored place in a family, community, and society? Is it better to have many lovers in a lifetime, having to move because a relationship has gone shower when dwellings were shared, or worse (as happened to a close friend of mine) having to share an apartment with an ex-girlfriend for months because a lease had yet to expire after having started a new relationship with someone else? Wouldn't one rather have someone one knew well, and had committed to spending the rest of one's life with, to dwell with through the ups and downs that life provides? Even as a man (who has no wife or concubine) I would greatly prefer, for her sake as well as my own, to have a wife secure in her position and knowledgeable of the respect I held her in rather than a live-in girlfriend insecure in my affections to her, and afraid that every female friend of mine was a potential love interest and rival for my affections. Hopefully there are some other people around who feel the same way as I do.

The current rise of concubinage (albeit under a new name) presents many grave difficulties for families and society. The decline of the honor of fatherhood has been frequently and ably commented on by others. The lack of loyalty that people show to each other in society results from a lack of understanding of covenantal relationships and the responsibilities all parties have therein. Frequently, in churches, live-in relationships are considered as fornication, and people involved in such relationships are told in more conservative congregations that they are not welcome at church as long as they "live in sin." Truth be told, though, concubinage did not result in any loss of rights to fellowship (one things of the Levite with the concubine in that tragic story in Judges). Concubinage appears to be a legitimate way, if less honorable than marriage, in showing the world of one's relationship. Fornication appears to be related to furtive and private attempts at sexual intimacy, while a live-in relationship is a public show of a relationship, and hence is no longer fornication.

What then, remains to be done about this worrisome societal trend? For one, it appears that the demonization of the practice needs to stop. While concubinage (a live-in relationship) is inferior to marriage, one does not communicate this fact through throwing people who practice it (no matter how much one may disapprove of it) out of church. It is not, for example, to be compared to the famous case in Corinthians where the man had his stepmother, itself a particular relationship forbidden by the law as being incestuous. It does appear, though, that young women and young men need to be educated about this ancient practice, as a reminder that it is not a new and enlightened practice but rather one that has put women and children at risk for many centuries. As a wise man once said, there is nothing new under the sun.

A Kenyan Catastrophe

While I have yet to visit the verdant but highly troubled nation of Kenya, which appears, fitfully, to be trying to drag itself from the precipice of a lengthy and horrific civil war, my mother and stepfather have visited the country and commented on the friendliness of the people and the beauty of the land. No doubt many of the people they met in that land have been dealing with the threat of violence after a notoriously rigged election between one incumbent kleptocrat and a would be kleptocrat (for those who don't know, a kleptocrat is one who uses democratic office to rob the wealth of the people and stash it away, usually in Swiss bank accounts).

It would be easy to pass judgment on the collapse of Kenya, all the more easy because Kenya is far away and in a continent known for its abominable standards of governance (Africa, a continent almost without any hope or success whatsoever). Nonetheless, Kenya (along with Ghana and perhaps a couple of other countries) was considered a rare "success" story (at least in relative terms), with high amounts of tourism and a fragile but existing democracy, despite long-held concerns about extreme government corruption and nepotism/ethnic favoritism.

However, while it may be tempting to label the problems of Kenya as being irrelevant, I think they provide a particular relevance that we in more "mature" democracies may be unaware of. There are several elements of the Kenyan problem that are of importance in comparison with other countries (like the United States for example, though other countries would certainly apply too). This list is not exhaustive, especially since it is currently early in the morning and I am only writing this because I am an insomniac and because a longtime and close friend of mine (who has been both a church friend and fellow musician as well as fellow classmate of mine in high school and beyond) asked that I write about it.

The most applicable comparison between the Kenyan election debacle and the situation in the United States (and perhaps other areas as well) is the poor choice between major candidates. After all, both of the major politicians seeking the Kenyan presidency were quite wealthy and had gained that wealth through corruption despite the fact that most Kenyans, by any standard of well-being, struggle to make ends meet (on less than $2 a day, for the most part). Like candidates for the office of presidency in other nations, it can be assumed that neither of them have the interests of the entire nation at heart, but both of them have ulterior motives for wishing office and will reward their supporters with a disproportionate share of the spoils of office.

In nations such as Kenya political parties are often based on regions (Red States vs. Blue States, Quebec vs. Ontario vs. Western Canada, Asante area vs. the rest of Ghana, Walloon vs. Flemish, and so on ad nauseum) or ethno-linguistic groups. This sort of division lends itself towards balkanization and the breakdown of unified cultures. It is not a bad thing to have stark choices about the future of a nation before the populace, but it is a bad thing when no communication based on mutual respect can cross hardened partisan boundaries. Politics can only deal with subjects that can be solved through compromise and partial victories that are based on shared fundamental beliefs and "values." This assumes a common identity that transcends politics and allows for the existence of a loyal opposition that opposes the policies of the dominant group without being labeled or treated as treacherous to the nation or organization as a whole. Where this unity and mutual respect is lacking, politics is only war by ballots rather than bullets, and the bullets are not often long in coming when ballots have failed to prevail.

A fundamental quality of genuine democracy, as Abraham Lincoln stated, is that the government is government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." This has three components. The first is "of the people," which means that the government is composed of those who represent those they govern. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 gives a list of qualities for would-be kings of Israel, and among those is the requirement that they come from among the people and not view themselves as being above those they govern. They must, in other words, never lose sight of the common equality of mankind before God and before others, as we are all children of God created in His image, no matter what we look like, how wealthy, intelligent, strong, healthy, or popular we are. The second quality is that the government is by the people, meaning it has the majoritarian support of the people. Those governments that rule by force or fraud, either through a manipulation of ballots or through the threat or use of violence are not legitimate. Those leaders who rule without the informed consent of the people can claim no divine sanction for their rule, nor claim popular mandate for their decisions in office. Their rule is illegitimate. Finally, government must be for the people in order to be legitimate and democratic. This means that government must have the best interests of the people, the entire populace, at heart, whether that populace voted for or against the leadership or even voted (or was able to vote) at all. Edmund Burke stated wisely and correctly that leaders have a contract with the past, the present, and the future. We must honor and respect our history, those that came before us, and the laws that have been set down from ancient times (especially the laws of God). We must also serve the interests of those who now live and are currently being governed, and we must govern so that we protect the best interests of those who have yet to live, to make the world a better place than it was when we found it.

This is obviously easier said than done. Being human beings, we are all fallible (and I am certainly at least as fallible as anyone else is). As Lord Acton wisely said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Where political power leads directly to great wealth (as it does in Kenya and many other countries), political power will be fought over and bloody coups and revolutions (whether done through fraud, violence, or the normal deception that goes in running for office) will occur. If leaders see power as a way to gain wealth and respect and fulfill long-held ambitions to lord it over others, rather than as an opportunity to serve the best interests of the general public, those leaders will be corrupted by their office, will corrupt those that gain access to a part of the power and influence they shower on others, and they will oppress the people they rule.

In the end, good government is an exceedingly rare thing, and it only occurs when people are governed by the laws of God and their behavior is circumscribed through the discipline that comes from obedience to God and a love and respect for others that seeks to use power to serve rather than to command and lord it over others. The proper use of power to serve is rare, whether that power is held in political office, in the corporate boardroom, in non-profit organizations and churches and schools and families. We may rightly long for the return of Jesus Christ to rule over this world with justice and mercy and wisdom, but we must never forget that if we are to rule, we must practice the proper use of power now, whatever our domain for doing so, even if it is just in ruling over ourselves. If we fail to practice wisely, we will watch the same ugly battles in Kenya take place among our churches, our schools, our homes, and our nations, perhaps with less violence, but with no less rancor and division. We will reap what we sow, and we will stand at the judgment seat of God either having set a good example of service to others, or we will be condemned as hirelings and wolves, fit for utter blackness. The choice is ours, and let us choose wisely. What good is the wealth and power gained and used corruptly if we lose our eternal lives?

Finally, A Presidential Candidate Almost Just Like Me...

As an occasional pundit more than a little interested in a politics and the use of power (a frequenet subject of this blog in one fashion or another), the goings on the 2008 Primary Season have been of great interest to me. While I hope I do not make the frequent mistake of many in believing that political leaders can fulfill escatological hopes for the bringing of heaven on earth (unlike some people), I nonetheless am a firm believer that the quality of our leadership is of great importance and that in a democratic republic where the ultimate accountability for leaders rests in the people, if one does not participate in the political process, one has no right to complain about the results. This does not mean I always agree with what leaders to choose from, or that I agree with all of their behavior in various elected offices, but I believe we have to do the best job we can as wise stewards of our freedom from tyranny and (whenever possible) oligarchy. That is the subject of another rant, though.

Occasionally, though, I find a candidate who, unusually, reflects my own rather quirky views and personality. Such is the case this year. However, first, I must begin with a story. In 2000 I was a freshman at the University of Southern California when it came time to vote in the primary. As the primary approached, I was an undecided voter, not knowing much about Sen. McCain and not being an enthusiastic supporter of George W. Bush (despite voting for him in the general election of both 2000 (in California) and 2004 (in Florida), I never have been an enthusiastic supporter of him). However, I had the chance to witness Sen. McCain speak in person at Bouvard Auditorium just before the election, and I found him to be an immensely sincere and passionate speaker, worthy of my support (he got my vote, despite losing the primary and the campaign).

Once 2008 came around, I thus already was interested in Sen. McCain's campaign, though matters looked rather grim in the last half of 2006 as anti-war fever swept the nation and the Republican party started resembling the nativist (anti-immigrant) Know-Nothings of the 1850's, another tumultuous and highly polarized time in our nation's history. Though I disagreed with Sen. McCain on some aspects of his proposed solution to illegal immigration (namely, those parts which suggested amnesty), as a long-time resident of areas with high amounts of immigrants, I see the need for a comprehensive immigration solution that encourages legal immigration and harshly punishes those companies that employ illegal immigrants and make it easier for them to engage in normal business practices (see Wal-Mart, Bank of America, etc.). As a graduate student in engineering, I also see the need for reforming the H1-B (work visa) program, which is in shambles as the high supply of qualified foreign graduate students (who could greatly benefit this nation) is mostly prevented from finding legal gainful employment. As someone, therefore, who was familiar with the immigration situation, I was more than a little sympathetic to McCain's position as trying to negotiate a comprehensive (and necessarily compromise) solution.

So when McCain won New Hampshire, and then South Carolina, through the support of moderate Republicans (I would personally consider myself, like McCain, moderately conservative--and there is substantial, though not total, overlap between our positions), I was interested in helping out the McCain campaign in Florida, which I did. I happened to volunteer three evenings at the McCain office when I didn't have class during the week, and helped pass out stickers and signs at a McCain town hall meeting in The Villages (where I even got to escort a New York Times reporter to her seat through the relatively, but thankfully not violently, hostile audience), and attended a McCain rally in Tampa on Primary Election Eve. When McCain won a larger-than-expected five-point win the next day, I was quite pleased.

But I was less than pleased with the response of many conservative pundits to McCain's growing momentum. The same conservatives who had supported Thompson (of an 86% lifetime conservative voting record) considered McCain (of an 82% lifetime conservative voting record) an apostate to the Republican party, almost as if one was voting for Hillary Clinton. Various conservatives said that if McCain won the primary that they would not vote Republican in the final election (thus perhaps giving the election to Hilary). It puzzled me that many conservative Republicans would be so hostile to someone who was mostly (though by no means entirely) in favor of their positions.

Then again, I often puzzle why, in my own circles, those who are conservative consider me to be such a radical revolutionary when in reality I am far from it. Certainly, I am a pugnacious maverick who enjoys tweaking the establishment now and again, and certainly I have some longstanding issues with authority (which I will be the first to admit). Intriguingly enough, I found many of the same parallels in McCain's own life. For one, he received many demerits in the Naval Academy because he would not stand for the arbitrary and capricious use of power by upperclassman over underclassman. Here was something I wholeheartedly agreed with. His noble stand in Vietnam not to take advantage of his father's position as admiral in getting out of the Hanoi Hilton out of order and in thus submitting himself to an additional five years of torture and imprisonment was a noble stand for his comrades in prison, worthy of my highest respect. Here was someone who did not dodge or avoid the draft or use political influence to gain a cushy spot in the National Guard, but someone who suffered for the sake of fairness and justice as a prisoner-of-war.

It appeared to me that the reason why McCain is so universally loathed by conservatives (see Rush, a man whose right to speak I defended in my first editorial as an pre-teen in a western Pennsylvania newspaper, and others) was not because of his positions on such matters as the environment, immigration, and finance reform, but because he was not beholden to them. McCain's independent streak, especially shown in his combative and pugnacious personality, not his positions, is accountable for his unpopularity. His appeal with moderate voters lies in the fact that he is willing to work across the aisle (a rare quality these days, probably testament to the fact that he's not a baby boomer) and considers the good of the United States and all of its people above the slavish adherence to the establishment. This, inspite of the fact that he usually (over 80% of the time) agrees with that conservative establishment.

In fact, as a student of history, the situation between McCain and the Republican establishment mostly resembles the curious fate of Stephen Douglas, Illinois' Senator and frequent opponent of my favorite president of all time (Abraham Lincoln). Throughout the 1800's, the base of the Democratic party was in the South, and until the Civil War this base held most of the positions of great authority in the Supreme Court and in party leadership despite being a minority among the population of the US as a whole for almost all of that time. In 1860, Stephen Douglas ran for president, and sought the nomination of the whole Democratic Party. Despite usually supporting the south, they considered him ideologically impure thanks to his opposition of the fraudulent Lecompton Constitution for Kansas, which would have made Kansas a slave state due to the votes of a bunch of illegal Missouri border ruffians and the boycott of the election by anti-slavery Kansas (who organized their own government based in Topeka). Due to this supposed "heresy" to the southern Democrats, and his unwillingness to countenance a national slave code to protect the right of slaveholders to carry their "property" safely all over the United States, the Southern Democrats refused to support his candidacy, even though he was the only Democrat capable of beating the Republicans in a momentous election (does this sound familiar yet?). After a heated and ugly campaign, the Democratic party split, Abraham Lincoln won the general election, and the rest is history.

Let us hope that the Republicans do not repeat this folly in '08. But in order to do so, they will, in all probability (it looks at this point like McCain is going to win a heavy majority of the delegates on Super Tuesday, with a heavy advantage going away for the nomination) have to deal with the fact that McCain will be their man in 2008. Will conservative pundits "hold their noses" and see behond the pugnacious spirit of McCain to see someone who represents the best chance to bring Americans beyond the polarizing politics of Baby Boomers engaged in the long culture wars, with a concern for the fate of our planet as well as the security and well-being of our nation? Will the threats of party activists to avoid voting be empty threats, or will they be acted upon? Much remains to be seen, but either way, I cannot help but feel for Sen. McCain, for despite his human flaws and imperfections (such as we all have), he is a man whom I deeply respect, and in whom I see a great resemblence in temperament and political opinions to myself. To see the depth of hostility shown by people who agree with him at least as much as with his two rivals (Romney and Huckabee) is to see the irrational hatred and hostility that I have long struggled against in my own battles against my own establishment (despite my substantial agreement with it). I suppose everything can be forgiven, except keeping an independent mind.

(Don't) Send In The Clowns

Today I read a particularly amusing article that stated something that made me feel a little less unusual. The article states that children uniformly dislike clowns, and that even older children are sometimes afraid of them and cannot explain them. When I was a child I was seriously afraid of clowns, and even now I don't like them. What is it about clowns that are so universally disliked by children, and what is it about clowns that make adults think children like them? I don't know the answers, but I can give at least a little bit of perspective.

Why Children Don't Like Clowns?

It is possible that a large part of what makes children not like clowns, at all, is the fact that clowns are fake. Children, in all the experience I have ever had (either being a child or being around them) are pretty genuine. The only children that tend to be private or practice pretense usually have something seriously wrong going on in their lives, and have learned that hypocrisy usually from parents. Otherwise, children are very open and honest about what they want and what they don't like, even when they say they are being sneaky (I find this particularly amusing). However, clowns are not genuine. They have paint covering their faces, masking their identities (not likely to lead children to trust them). Furthermore, they have smiles painted on their faces, and children are pretty good at telling a fake from a genuine article. Somehow most of us lose the ability to do that as we get older, probably because it's so distressing to be in a world surrounded by fakes (especially when most people fake to be accepted by the other fakes), that to search for the genuine article is a fruitless and thankless task. Children, not being burdened by this, tend to see (rightfully) the clowns as fakers, and as untrustworthy fakers at that.

Why Do Adults Think Clowns Are Okay For Kids?

This is perhaps the more inexplicable question. Clowns, like a lot of other entertainment, were originally for adults. The clothing for clowns resembles that of the "fool" in royal courts. Ironically enough, the fool was dressed foolishly, but was given the (rare) privilege to tell kids the truth. Nowadays clowns dress foolishly and tell a bunch of pablum to an often unwilling audience of young folk. It is probably the flamboyance of clowns that makes adults think they would be suitable for kids. After all, clowns typically dress in bright colors and act silly. So do children--but children do it honestly, out of a (usually) innocent heart. Clowns are pretenders. Perhaps adults are insufficiently aware of the need to teach genuineness to their children, and so conspire to foist all of these lies upon children that make them bitter and cynical towards adults (see "The Tooth Fairy," "Santa Claus" and any number of other such lies). Perhaps parents would better serve their children by simply letting children be children, play innocent games (while keeping an eye on them to make sure they stay safe), and tell them the truth, and provide for them entertainments that are similarly honest (this may be a difficult task). That would be a better choice than to foist a bunch of creepy adults in makeup and bad clothing on children. Don't send in the clowns. Seriously, don't.

Reflections on the Music of 2007

As I am wont to do on occasion, I would like to take this opportunity to write down some of my thoughts on the popular music I liked the best for the year of 2007. Music is rather important to me, as I tend to strongly associate certain situations and experiences and powerful emotions with specific songs that, in effect, say what happened or what I am thinking or feeling. Overall, I was not particularly pleased with the music on the radio, as much of it struck me as rather repetitive. In fact, the music I really liked this year was unusually odd and obscure (I usually like relatively mainstream music). Without any further ado, I will reveal my favorite songs of the year, and explain why they struck me as particularly noteworthy.

Mattafix - Living Darfur

Perhaps the most obscure of my favorite songs of the year, I first heard this song while watching MTV Europe on the Israel extension tour after the Feast of Tabernacles. This uplifting and yet deeply emotional song about the benighted area of Darfur, with its plaintive chorus ("You shall rise...you may never know if you lay low lay low") and other touching lyrics ("See tears that flow like rivers from the skies"..."There's disaster in your past, boundaries in your path...sooner or later we must try living," and so on) gave this song a deep personal meaning for my own life, as well as the struggle of the millions in Darfur who, to this day, face the ferocity of the Sudanese government-supported janjaweed.

Sara Bareillis - Love Song

Perhaps the most upbeat song among my favorites of a rather tense and stressful and not particularly enjoyable year, this song is still rather bittersweet, probably the reason it was a favorite of mine. In a driving piano beat (I am most fond of piano ballads), Miss Bareillis sings a song to a lover about not being able to write love songs on cue based on requests or threats. Love songs must flow from within, from genuine emotion, and are not trophies or commodities. With lyrics that are much more biting and bitter than the peppy beat would indicate, the song reflects fears about love and creative talent being exploited by those who do not really feel the same, a frequent concern of mine.

Robyn & Kleerup - With Every Heartbeat

Another obscure song among my favorites, this song (like "Living Darfur") was not released as a single in the United States, and I also first heard it while in Israel. This song is a sad techno song about bravely facing heartbreak and the pain that takes place with every heartbeat. The song is, obviously, not a happy one as a relationship faces its definitive ending with the knowledge of the suffering that is occurring. "So I don't look back...it hurts with every heartbeat..." Sometimes a song like this expresses one's feelings, and this one did.

Aly & AJ - Potential Breakup Song

Another song whose upbeat music masked rather dark lyrics, this particular number follows the trend of the last two songs in reflecting upon a troubled relationship nearing its terminus. With lyrics as sarcastic as "you're not winning until you're winning me" and "let me repeat that, I want my stuff back," this song lets the deadbeat partner know that his time of taking his girlfriend for granted is nearing a close. Obviously, this was a year of endings more than beginnings.

Hilary Duff - Stranger

Like many of the songs I watched on Rotana while in Jordan (the Arabic music television channel), this song has an Middle Eastern dance beat, and is also about the ending of a relationship. In this particular case, the song is about a dysfunctional relationship falling apart where one of the people pretends to be friendly and affectionate in public while being dark and hostile in private. Indeed, the difference between public and private appearance is probably what makes this one of my favorite songs of the year, especially given the autobiographical importance of the material (given the falling apart of her relationship with Joel Madden, lead singer of Good Charlotte).

Miley Cyrus & Billy Ray Cyrus - Ready, Set, Don't Go

I never thought that a song by Billy Ray Cyrus (most famous for "Achy Breaky Heart") would be on any list of my favorite songs, ever, but this particular song about children growing up and leaving home touched a particular nerve for me. It is a foolish parent that tries to hold on to children after they are ready to go. Wise parents train their children well and give them legacies and equip them to succeed on their own. Foolish parents heap burdens upon their children and try to sabotage their independence. Obviously this is a point that needs to be learned better in some families.

Bucky Covington - A Different World

One of the less polished members of the 2004 (I believe) American Idol finalists, Bucky Covington did an excellent job with this viewpoint of a young GenXer (which I happen to be) musing on the different world now than it was for us growing up without as much technology or as much protection from the dangers of the real world. It is interesting, nonetheless, to reflect upon the results of a different childhood and upbringing. Reflecting on the generational difference between the GenXers and the Millennials of a useful thing. It also helps that most of this song applies to my own childhood.

Maroon 5 - Wake Up Call

This song is a rather biting reflection on a hot-tempered discovery of cheating. The video to this song is not very morally appropriate, but the material of the song itself if something I find grimly humorous given my own fierce (if seldom expressed) temper. With a chorus like "Wakeup call, caught you in the morning with another one in my bed, don't you care about me anymore, don't you care about me, I don't think so..." what is not to like/appreciate?

Overall, my favorite songs of the year are a combination of country songs, dance pop songs, rock songs, worldbeat songs, and adult contemporary songs, a pretty fair cross section of the music that was actually good this year. There were a couple of humorous rap novelty songs, and some pretty good R & B songs ("No One" by Alicia Keys deserves special mention, which avoids being on this list only because "no one" was present all year as that special someone, and that song is crying out for a devoted lover). No album was as excellent from start to finish this year as Keane's "Under The Iron Sea" was in 2006, but we shall see if next year has more consistent musical material.

On Parenting, Spears Style

With the recent announcement that her sixteen year old daughter, Jamie Lynn Spears, is pregnant, mama Spears had the publishing of a book on parenting delayed indefinitely. One reason, perhaps, is that Mrs. Spears is not, in fact, a very good parent. After all, her oldest daughter has been married twice (once annulled, once divorced), has two children by a backup dancer with a yen for knocking up young women (who is still, shockingly, a more fit parent than she is) and hangs out with a decidedly bad crowd (Paris Hilton et al.). Now the younger Spears daughter, the star of some Nikelodeon show I've never seen called Zoey 101, is pregnant by her 18 year old boyfriend, and her mother didn't even know what was going on because she always did what she was told (!) and never missed curfiew.

While it is not surprising that the series of unfortunate events that has befallen the Spears family has delayed the publishing of what was likely to be a highly fictitious, if somewhat humorous, book about parenting perhaps for good (or at least until the furor dies down about the behavior of the Spears girls), there are nonetheless some serious questions about parenting that Mrs. Spears could answer that remain, as of yet, unanswered. These questions make the claim that Jamie Lynn Spears wants to raise her children in Louisiana for a "normal lifestyle" (more normal than Hollywood perhaps, which is, I must admit, a rather surreal sort of place) a very dubious proposition nonetheless.

For example, the rise of Britney Spears is full of some odd questions. The Spears family was quite poor while Britney and Jamie Lynn were growing up, and Mr. Spears (curiously absent in most accounts of the Spears family) was unable to provide for his family. That made the young and perky Britney a very early breadwinner for her family through her talent in winning beauty pageants (a southern tradition I admittedly know little about). Her appearance on Star Search also provided her family with some much needed cash (as did her work on Disney's Mickey Mouse Club, no doubt), but also raised some serious questions about her parents. For example, Britney's debut as a 10 year old on Star Search was a very sulty performance that belied her youth, and very early on there was a harsh dichotomy between what appeared to be innocence and precocious sexuality. Obviously there are some serious questions about how that came to be (witness, for example, the naughty schoolgirl nature of "...Hit Me Baby One More Time," her first hit with the simultaneous proclamations of her virginity and desire to remain pure until marriage).

In the case of both Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears there appeared to be a public facade of propriety that obviously hid something far darker within. Where exactly did these young ladies learn to practice pretense so well? How exactly were these young women brought up? From all appearances, the two were thrust into fame and placed, as it were, in harm's way without being prepared for the harshness of the real world. Did Mrs. Spears desire to be famous herself, vicariously through her talented daughters, or was it the desperation of being unable to find financial stability through the male breadwinner of the house that led her to use her daughters in order to achieve financial success and public honor?

These questions, and other serious ones, remain unanswered. The riddle of Mr. Spears and the malign impact his failures as a father and provider on his daughters is also an important one. After all, by all appearances, the Spears girls show a proclivity towards decidedly shady male companions. Britney, for example, dated Justin Timberlake (famous himself for his desire to bring "sexy back" and for his exposing of Janet Jackson during that imfamous Super Bowl halftime show) before having a Vegas wedding with a friend (quickly annulled) and then marrying a backup dancer who skipped out on his previous girlfriend who was pregnant with his second child. Nothing says white trash like that Jerry Springer-ish saga. Jamie Lynn herself appears not to have been seriously committed to her baby daddy either, or else she was being especially coy about her private life in a way that appears to have spectacularly backfired on her. The proclivity of the Spears girls for deadbeat guys may have been learned through the example of their decidedly deadbeat father.

But, lest I seem to be too cruel, the travails of the Spears family are not (at least not by me) to be mined for a sense of proud superiority. Rather, they are emblematic of deeper troubles about the state of parenting. Lest we dismiss the struggles of the Spears girls as merely the signs of the corruption of Hollywood, we must examine our own family lives to see how the failures of parents reverberate in the struggles of their children repeating failed patterns from their own past. Rather, there is for me instead a chilling sense that the struggles of the Spears daughters are merely the struggles of many young men and women in our society writ large and in the gossip magazines. How can a young person without the experience of good parenting and with few examples of good parenting around them succeed in becoming a successful adult themselves? What is necessary to reverse the poor lessons of one's childhood unless one commits to very serious study and the diligent observation of such good examples as one can find? And even then, how is one to succeed when one has to create anew instead of merely repeating a good pattern from one's past, when it is difficult enough merely to follow what one has been brought up in from youth? These questions I ask not only for others, but for myself as well...

Two Votes, Two Ways

It is a surprising day when Hugo Chavez, populist leader of Venezuela and fierce enemy of the United States, turns out to be an effective example of how a leader handles electoral defeat. On the other hand, the example of Russia's "managed" elections is a more common example of how autocratic governments can subvert the forms of democracy to obtain their desired vote. In examining these two cases, we can look at what it takes to run a successful democracy, and what sort of checks leaders need in order to avoid the corruption of a democratic society.

The Odd Case of Venezuela

Throughout the history of Latin America, there has been a cycle (a very depressing cycle) of fragile democracies that fracture between the interests of rich and poor, whites, mestizos, and "Indians," replaced by the rule of dictators (or caudillos) that promise economic growth or fairness to the people, at the cost of civil liberties and freedom, and end up resulting in a privileged class stealing the rich natural wealth of these nations and seeking control over all aspects of life. This cycle is not limited to Latin America (witness, for example, the African Continent, much of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia), though it is very entrenched here and has been for the last two centuries or so.

This grim history of the failure of democracy in the region (despite the nearby example of one of the world's most successful republican regimes) now has, it appears, a rather surprising chapter in a particularly unlikely place. Hugo Chavez, the blustering and arrogant leader of Venezuela, had been riding high with large victories, and even overcoming a failed coup attempt. However, his attempt to revise the Venezuelan constitution to allow himself a lifetime term of office and the freedom to control all the press as well as the political and economic life of Venezuela, was too much for the nation to accept and was defeated in a narrow vote. Better yet--the spearhead of the opposition was not the fractured older leaders of the opposition, but rather intelligent and fredom loving university students who mobilized in the tens of thousands against the proposal. Even better still, it appears that Chavez will respect the vote, a much better outcome than could have been predicted before this weekend.

A question that merits being asked is how these particular events can serve as an example for others. It is noteworthy in this case that the revolt was led not by the corrupt leaders of the "old regime" but by the young. If there is to be genuine change, there needs to be a changing of the guard in leadership to remove the corrupt holders of power. Such removal needs to be by just and democratic means (as was the case in Venezuela) lest new corrupt powers take hold and entrench themselves just like the old ones did (witness the depressing aftermath of most revolutions around the world). It is easier to reject the leaders of the past for their problems than to build a more just society in the aftermath of that rejection, but having rejected a dictatorship for Chavez, hopefully the young of Venezuela can overcome the mistakes of their fathers and build a more just and more open society in place of the fiercely divided one at present. Hope springs eternal.

Russia's Managed "Democracy"

A more typical example of pseudo-democracies around the world is the case of Russia's election. Vladimir Putin sought to expand the powers of his government for his successor to continue along his lines of controlling the country and limiting dissent, giving power and wealth to his corrupt friends and assassinating critics and rivals. He managed this task through pressuring voters to vote in their places of work where they could be under the supervision of their bosses (and through economic pressure that jobs and financial survival would be dependent on making the "right" vote, which was of course whatever Putin wanted).

This is a typical example because the forms of democracy itself can be corrupted by authoritarian tendencies which may, for political reasons, which to have the illusion of popular consent even when that reality is not present. Popular support, even if it is received by illegitimate means, often confers the appearance of legitimacy that even bullies and tyrants like to maintain. Even the appearance of consent helps to reduce the threat of rebellion and uprising in the most unjust socieities. Most leaders are savvy enough to realize the need for these shows of consent (Soviet Elections, as well as the throngs of cheering masses desired by every dictator), as it gives them the (often undeserved) satisfaction of having done the will of the people.

It is possible, though, that Putin may have overstepped his bounds. Of course, he does not wish for the approval of the West in his election practices, but he does wish the respect of the West as well as economic help for his nation, and this is jeapordized by corruption that becomes too obvious or behavior that becomes too heavy-handed. Having the suspected assassin of one of Russia's heroes of democracy elected to the Russian Congress would appear to be a mean-spirited move designed to demonstrate Putin's control over Russia. Such insults often tend to backfire--managed democracy, like revenge, is a dish best served cold. There are, no doubt, many people who would wish to emulate Putin's example, as Putin emulated the behavior of countless dictators before him.

Life In The Uncanny Valley

According to students of robotic design and video game graphics, the uncanny valley is the zone between realistic and cartoony, where the robot or graphical image neither looks realistic enough to suspend disbelief or cartoony enough to be "cute" (think, for example, of anime, or superhero cartoons). Much recent animation and marketing falls into this uncanny valley, where an image is realistic enough to be threatening and not realistic enough to be anything other than creepy and strange.

I am somewhat baffled by many marketing decisions that move into this uncanny valley. Who are they trying to sell products to, anyway? The Heineken Draughtkeg (pronounced "draftkeg") commercials show a creepy looking robot-woman pouring beer out of her stomach, which is a giant keg. Perhaps the people marketing this product found that attractive--a sort of robotic electric Barbarella dispensing beer. Maybe it sells better in Europe, but I don't find that commercial attractive at all, in fact, I find it rather disturbing. Another example of this is in the recent Charles Schwab commercials, which have a slightly animated but still highly realistic rendering of various customers talking about the usefulness and attractiveness of Charles Schwab banking in sort of pseudo-interviews while they are going about their normal life. The problem is that the cartoons are neither obviously animated nor are they completely realistic. They are, instead, supsended at the bottom of that uncanny valley, uncomfortably real but not real enough to be human.

As I read an article today about a bank run at a British bank (the Northern Post), where customers withdrew 2 billion pounds (!) from their savings accounts over concerns about sub-prime mortgages and the problems of adjustible-rate mortgages that are developing in England and that have already read to some troubles here in the United States. Reflecting on that scene gave me some pause, as it reminded me of what I read about the beginnings of the Great Depression in the United States. When people lose faith in their institutions, in banks and governments, in stock markets, in their churches, in their families, in their schools, the consequences are serious. Much of how we live depends on trust, and the actions of those who do not trust, by disengaging from what is around us, cause the day of reckoning to come when the flaws of our systems become glaringly obvious and too powerful to ignore. We are watching history take place, and it is real, and yet it feels unreal at the same time.

Life often gives the sense of being in the uncanny valley as well. Some aspects of our existence appear to be almost dreamlike--such that we recognize them as real but also sense them as unreal at the same time. We disconnect from the full reality of it, either because it is positive and we are content to live in the fantasy, or because it is too horrible to deal with and so we must find some way of not letting the fullness of its reality sink in. There is a sense of deja vu, a vague sense of being troubled by contradictory pulls. Perhaps the marketers are on to something in their portrayals of this place. Without realizing the depth of their actions, they are responding to a contradictory feeling of reality and dream (or, for the more pessimistic, nightmare) and seek to profit off of this conundrum, not realizing that it is not an attractive situation, but rather a repulsize one.

Perhaps as well this problem affects us in our relationships with others. At times it appears that we are unable to relate to people if their problems and experiences are too alien to us. It is as if we are caught in that uncanny valley as well--recognizing that we are dealing with humans, fellow children of God, who are like us and have natures like our own, and yet we are unable to understand and relate to how they think and feel and behave, because we are cut off by unbridgeable barriers of experience. And so we are repulsed by others, because they are real and unreal at the same time, as if they were both human and inhuman at the same time. The same sort of paradox existed in the times of slavery (most of human history, in some form) where people were considered human beings (responsible for their actions) and yet property (unfree, without freedom or will, bound to people or to the land) at the same time. Masters (and slaves) were caught in this uncanny valley of combined recognition of reality and repulsion at the other being alien and foreign, and beyond worthiness of human kindness or dignity.

The uncanny valley is an example of what is known as cognitive dissonance, a paradox between two opposite thoughts/feelings/opinions that cannot both be true but both appear to be true. In the case of viewing robotic beer dispensers, this cognitive dissonance leads us to reject the commercial as ugly and repulsize, and to lower our opinion of Heineken. However, if we are dealing with human beings the problem is more severe. We are faced with the need of recognizing both human dignity and human depravity (both our own and others). We are therefore forced to recognize, if we wish to be truthful, that we and others are both created in the image of God and yet fallen beings as well in need of forgiveness, healing, and redemption. Unfortunately, this is not an easy thing to do.

Welcome To Wherever You Are

Sometimes in life, people would rather have a do-over because the results of an action are less than exemplary. Being a fan of music and sports, I have seen a fair amount of these recently. As I am a busy fellow, I will only look at these somewhat briefly. With that in mind, though, here goes.

"Gimme More?" No Thanks

Yesterday night, Britney Spears sought to initiate her "comeback" with a live "performance" of a new single entitled "Gimme More" where she apparently lipsynched rather poorly and demonstrated very lame dancing moves as well as less than trim physical condition. Her performance has been widely panned and some suspect that her career is over, comparing her unfavorably with her ex Kevin Federline. Furthermore, MTV was panned rather heavily for the desperation inherent in their decision to let Britney open the award show with her, um, performance as well as their decision to have most of the action take place in private VIP parties rather than in the televised show--which was shortened to increase the number of commercials and decrease the number and length of performances shown. Bad call.

Historic Upset

Life has been good the past couple of weeks if you are a fan of two-time defending I-AA champions Appalachian State. A trip to then #5 ranked Michigan ended up in the small school from Boone, North Carolina recording a 34-32 win that ranks as the first time in college football history that a team from Division I-AA has defeated a ranked Division I-A team. The loss led to a chance in the rules of the AP Poll, allowing Division I-AA teams to be ranked, and led to Michigan plummeting out of the rankings. A loss to Oregon this week brings the 0-2 Wolverines face to face with another struggling team, the 0-2 Notre Dame "Fighting" Irish, who have failed to score an offensive touchdown in two games against Georgia Tech and Penn State.

News At 11

There have been a lot of odd and quirky news stories that I lack the time to write about in depth, but have been intrigued by. One such story involves the explosion of a truck in Mexico carrying some kind of explosives that has killed over 30 people and injured another 150. Included among the victims were 3 local reporters who were presumably on the scene to cover the accident and instead became part of the story. Obviously, stories like this will make people a little jumpier over trucks being allowed to come in from Mexico to the US, given such a lax safety record. Other news stories, such as the discovery of "Kryptonite" in Serbia, are not new but are still rather entertaining to me. As usual, I will be on the lookout for more odd and quirky stories as the mood strikes me in case I feel like a blogging mood.

On Friendship

What does it mean to be a friend? I have lived a scattered life, long of the opinion that I was rather little liked and regarded, and I have spent too little time in reflecting and acting on what it means to be a friend, seeing as I thought I had very few people who were concerned at all about me. Perhaps it was rather self-centered, and mistaken, of me to think and feel this way, but so it is. We are all interconnected with each other, and our happiness and sadness, our triumphs and our trials all have an effect on those around us. We are, after all, to rejoice with those who laugh and cry with those who mourn. As I have reflected on the fact that I have a surprising amount of friends and acquaintances, I have also reflected on their lives and on the many connections between all of us, even after many of us have scattered far and wide from where we originally met and have not seen each other for years.

One of my classmates from high school recently got engaged. This is not terribly surprising, as it is the time of life where people tend to get married, but what struck me is that this person's wedding wishes were so frequent (I sent him wedding wishes myself) that he is not able to invite all of his friends to the reception. Certainly I can sympathize with his problem, and the way in which he is handling the large amount of well-wishers is quite admirable. Happy indeed is the man (or woman) who knows how well they are thought of by others. This particular young man graduated from the same high school as I did in the same year, but I did not know him closely then. We were both in Orchestra during high school--I as a violist towards the back of the section and he as the concertmaster--first chair first violin. It seemed that everything came so easily for him--he was charming, friendly, good looking, came from a wealthy and loving family, was stellar in school, in tennis, in playing the violin, and seemingly in everything he did. He was (and remains) active in various religious groups as well as his social activities. And yet he was and remains well-liked by just about everyone. About the only bad thing I ever heard about him was that his violin playing was skilled but not passionate, and considering the bad things I have heard about others (and myself) this is rather light indeed. And yet, despite the apparent ease of his life and of his frequent successes in so many years, no one (including myself) begrudges him any of his happiness. Instead we share in his joy over his happy life, and hope it will continue as such. As he is a just and fair and friendly fellow, his happiness and success does not come with resentment from anyone who knows him.

At other times, one must share sorrow and not joy when it comes to friends. One of my friends, for example, is having a rough time with stomach cancer, and I have not seen him (largely because I am sick right now and would not wish to pass on any germs to someone whose health is already in such a state as his), but I have sought to send my regards through other friends who are able to see him. The same is true for other friends I have--one of whom has been struggling with colon cancer for about two years now, and the father of another friend of mine whose pancreatic cancer has spread to other organs also. At other times, one must support friends whose struggles are not life-threatening illnesses, but such mundane troubles as car problems, or such serious life-issues as the breakup of a marriage or serious family difficulties. There is no shortage of friends in need indeed. When my friends suffer, I suffer with them. I suppose the same is true of others. We cannot be so consumed with our own lives that we are ignorant of what is going on with others--even if there is little we can do besides lend a sympathetic ear to them, or to spend our precious time reminding them that they are not alone and that they are in our thoughts and prayers. It is a terrible thing to feel and believe one is alone--and I would not wish that on anyone, much less those I care about.

At other times being a friend means helping in the labors of what friends seek to accomplish. I have many friends who, like myself, study and write about subjects of faith as well as of amusement. Even if I lack the time to do as much as I would like to help in the various labors of my friends, I will often help them edit and refine what they have written, which is what I would also expect of them. Sometimes this research is an areas I am knowledgeable in, and sometimes it is not. When I know something of the topic, I usually try to discuss this with the friend. If I do not know about the subject at hand in depth (and this does happen on occasion), then I will often take that as the opportunity to research areas I have not studied at length before. Having intelligent and intellectually curious friends is a good way to ensure that one is constantly learning and growing as well, and keeps the mind fresh. It is tragic to cease learning because one thinks one knows everything already. The greater my knowledge, the more profound my sense of ignorance, if only because I realize there is so much more that I do not understand.

I often wish I was a better friend. Often I feel that I am too concerned about my own thoughts and affairs to be the sort of friend I ought to be. Perhaps my friends may feel differently about this, and if so they are welcome to tell me, but I wonder often if I have shared enough in the joy and sorrows of those friends I have. A true friend is present in good times and bad, even if all one can do is provide moral support by one's mere presence and cannot actually do anything about a given situation. Sometimes that is enough. I know I am thankful for those friends I have, and I would hope they are thankful as well.

On The Randomness of Facebook

This past week, I have become a frequent visitor to Facebook, one of those popular networking websites that appeals mostly to teens and young adults through college age, with the occasional older person as well. The experience has been a useful one for me, because it has given me a much better perspective about a few matters I have long pondered. Since this is a blog given to much pondering, I will continue. Some of these lessons were ones I should have known, but lacked the perspective to put into a full focus.

On Moderate Popularity

I have never considered myself a particularly well-liked or popular person, despite being well traveled and generally talkitive and outgoing. Perhaps I am a bit biased by an early life in which it appeared as though I was a social leper, but I have never considered how dramatically my social life has improved in the last few years until I took a look at the amount of people on facebook who were willing to say they were my friends. Now, many of my closest friends do not even have facebook, even among young adults and teenagers, but over a hundred people so far have been willing to say they were my friends. This is a remarkable thing. To put it into some context, one of my roommates was much more popular around campus it seemed, and he certainly went to more parties and had more dates than I did. However, looking at his profile indicated that he had 78 friends, but nearly all of them in Southern California. Of his 78 friends, 59 of them lived in the Los Angeles area. Of my 118 friends in comparison, only 11 of them lived in my most popular region, Tampa Bay.

My Friendships Are Scattered

This leads to the next conclusion, one that had prevented me from taking a full account of my rise in popularity from leper to a moderately well-liked one. My friendships are scattered all over the US, and indeed, all over the world. I do not have any particularly large groups of friends in any one place. I have sizeable groups of friends in Florida, Texas, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, Washington, and a few other places, but they are not concentrated at all, and include a couple of friends in England and one in South Africa. Part of the reason for this scattering of friends is being in the Church of God, which tends to bring one into contact with a wide variety of people. But comparisons with other young people in the church of God on my buddy list (and there are many such people to compare with) demonstrates that while I share a great deal of common friends among people in the Church of God, most of them show a greater concentration in the area where they live. Even among my many friends who are not in the church, many of them, like me, have scattered far and wide in the course of interesting and complicated travels, and so my friends seem to be a bit more nomadic than most. My own moving around, my ties in a variety of different areas, and my lack of a strong social base among peers in my home territory (where I have lived the vast majority of life) have given me a false, and somewhat darker, picture of my social network than was in fact the truth. The truth is, I could travel in many areas and have friends and acquaintances there, at least a couple of people I knew and enjoyed spending time with. However, I don't have any one particular area whose pull of connections is so strong as to make that a place where I truly belong. In the end, though, my dispersed friendships can be a great source of strength provided I can summon the energy to keep up with them, which is the purpose of a site like Facebook in the first place.

On Memories

Joining Facebook has also been the opportunity to revisit a lot of memories of people I knew when I was younger. People who were not particularly nice to me in high school, for example, now inhabit a fair deal of space on my Facebook page, and I remember many stories about those whom I have added. However, the past is put into a different perspective when one reflects on where I stand and where they stand now. Many of us are graduate students, who have moved at least once from where we spent those years together. We are older, and hopefully wiser, and in my case at least, nowhere near as squirrelly and immature as we were back then. Remembering the past, even an unpleasant past, need not be depressing, so long as one knows how far one has come. On the other hand, some people have changed dramatically for the worse in their own moral lives, having fallen victim in college to serious immorality, even as others have become very mature and serious young adults. There are certainly cautionary tales that could be told as well as stories of coming to terms with what has been done but burying the hatchet, so to speak. Perhaps that is another purpose of Facebook I was not aware of. The act of putting one's life on a webpage in pictures and songs and stories puts one's life in a different perspective, viewing how we are interconnected, and how we have grown into the people we are today. If people are honest about themselves, it can lead to deeper connections with people as we find out some of what makes them tick and what is most important to them. I know it has been an eye opening experience for me personally.

For The Love Of The Game

In 1999, when I was a freshman at the University of Southern California, a movie came out called For The Love Of The Game, based on the novel by Michael Shaara (more famous for his excellent historical novel The Killer Angels, which was later turned into the film Gettysburg). I watched this movie while returning home from the Feast in Hawaii that year, and then bought the soundtrack, whose title track was an excellent song by Semisonic, a band best known for its hit "Closing Time," which uses the last call for a bar as a metaphor for birth. Anyway, I spent early Sunday afternoon with some friends of mine from Houston watching a particularly exciting baseball game, which led me to reflect upon many things.

The movie, directed by Sam Raimi ("Spiderman") details a perfect game that is pitched by Billy Chapel (played with restraint in an excellent performance by Kevin Costner), a washed up pitcher playing in Yankee Stadium for a bad team (only recently good--the Detriot Tigers). As he plays the game he reflects upon his life, as his love (played not-very-convincingly by Kelly Preston) prepares to move to Paris for a job. One of the more convincing aspects, for me, of the movie is the way in which Billy takes a fatherly role to Heather, the daughter of his sweetheart, played very well by Jena Malone. One of the flashbacks involves Heather going to college, and she ends up at USC, which I thought was an amusing and touching detail.

Lyrics to "For The Love Of The Game" - Semisonic

In the morning of the first night of my life
I was feeling like I'd lost my inspiration
Then in the afternoon she walked into the light
To relieve me of my doubt and desperation.

She's not coming here to make herself a name
She only wants to play with me to see if she can win
And we both want it to happen.

None down in the bottom of the ninth with three men on
And she saw me like nobody's ever done before
Now in the glory of victorious dominion
She's receding in the sunshine down the corridor.

She's not in it for the money or the fame
She only came to play with me to see what place I'm in
And we both know who's gonna give in.

For the love of the game
Sometimes you've gotta cry a little.
For the love of the game
Maybe even gotta die a little.
For the love of the game
I made a sacrifice I never thought I'd have to make.

For the love of the game
Sometimes you've gotta cry a little.
For the love of the game
Maybe even gotta die a little.
For the love of the game
I made a sacrifice I never thought I'd have to make. (I made a sacrifice...)

Sometimes you've gotta cry a little.
For the love of the game
Maybe even gotta die a little.
For the love of the game
I made a sacrifice I never thought I'd have to make...

[End song lyrics.]

Anyway, baseball is a pastime I associate closely with my family. As I was watching the game, I wore my Pittsburgh Pirates shirt (even though the Pirates were not playing that day--the Astros and Padres were). When I would visit my father as a child/teenager up in Pennsylvania during the summer, we would often go to Pirates games on Sunday afternoons, not an uncommon way for fathers to try to bond with their children. Indeed, on this particular afternoon the game was originally planned to have a father and one of his friends in the church taking his daughter (my friend Kristin) and some of her friends to watch the Astros. Even the seats we had were with this goal in mind, as we sat in the right field, a few rows up in the closest area to the field, right next to the Astros bullpen. Luke Scott, a rookie for the Astros, plays right field, and one of Kristin's friends is particular fond of him. She and her brother (Jimmy, who went to Burlington Coat Factory on Friday with Kristin and I and with him many funny "hat" pictures on their myspace profiles were posted) were not able to make it to the game, though, because they were in Texarkana at the funeral of their grandfather, who had died of cancer on Thursday. So, they were not able to go.

Before I got to my seat, the Astros were already down 3-0. Richard (the father) and I had gone to get peanuts and beer (no beer for either Kristin and I), and due to the limit of 2 beers per person, my id was useful. Luke Scott had made a bad play on a ball and it ended up as a ground rule double, ending up in the row in front of where I was to sit. Too bad I was not there to catch it. By the time the first half inning of the game ended, Houston was already down 11-0 and their starter had been taken out of the game. I figured at this point the game would be a blowout, but it ended up being a compelling offensive game.

In the second inning, San Diego added to their lead, pushing it to 12-0, but in the bottom of the third the Astros hit a solo homer to spoil a hitherto perfect game from the Padres starter to make it 12-1. Then in the bottom of the fourth inning Berkman and Scott homered and Houston finally showed some offense, narrowing the deficit to 12-8, at which point the Padres starter, who was handed an 11 run lead before he even took the field, was pulled.

In the 5th inning San Diego scored a run on an interesting play where a player (with the last name of Bard) hit a fielder's choice grounder to the pitcher, and the pitcher threw too far to the left of home, letting a San Diego runner score. Then the catcher threw to second base, trying to get a runner out there, but failed. It was a strange play that left the stadium booing loudly. At the middle of the fifth inning, Houston was down 15-8. In the bottom of the 5th, Houston scored some runs themselves. With two outs, Biggio (whose name and number my friend Kristin had on her pink (!) Astros shirt) came in as a pinch hitter, but he did not reach base, and left two on to stop the rally. Before his out, though, the entire stadium was chanting his name. Biggio, you see, is past his prime himself, and is retiring at the end of the season, the last of Houston's famed "Killer B's". Houston ended the inning down only 15-11.

And so the game remained until the 9th inning, though there were some dramatic moments. In the bottom of the 7th inning, for example, after an entertaining seventh inning stretch where three songs were performed ("God Bless America," the Astros version of "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" and "Deep In The Heart of Texas" were played), the Astros loaded the bases with two outs, but were unable to drive in any runs with the tying run at the plate. At the top of the 9th inning, though, the Houston closer, Lidge, ran out of gas and allowed three runs, the last two coming from a blast to deep left field. Houston was unable to score any more runs, so in an exciting game with three errors (two by Houston and one by San Diego), seven home runs (four by Houston and three by San Diego), and fourteen pitchers (eight by Houston and six by San Diego), the game was over. By then most of the fans had streamed out of their seats, no doubt disappointed. After the final out, "Come Monday," played on the stadium PA. There is always tomorrow, or next season, for those who do not win today.

Im In Ur Yardz Huntin Ur Dukz

It almost pains me to write "I'm in your yards, hunting your ducks" that way, but such is the grammar and spelling of a humorous phenomenon known as lolcats. As I find the news around me (even sports news) to be rather grim much of the time, it is important to have something humorous in order to give one a bit of a chuckle, even a silly one, once in a while. First I will look at the structure of lolcat photos, some explanations for their appeal, and how they have spread into other areas besides cats (since I am not a particularly fan of cats).

An lolcat photo (or any other lol*insert noun here* photo) is made up of two elements. One is a photo, and the other is a rather goofy caption. The captions are generally silly, and say such things as "I Loves U" or "I Pronounce Every Day Iz Caturday" or "I Are Serious Cat. This Is Serious Thread" or "You're Adopted" or "Im In Ur Fridge Eatin Ur Foodz" or "I Made U A Cookie...But I Eated It" or "I Can Haz Cheezburger?". In other words, most of the pictures deal with cats in their normal (?) activities and focus on food, excitability, and affection (or the lack thereof).

What makes lolcats funny, besides the fact that people (including myself) are easily amused? For one, cats are pretty funny to watch. They often behave in humorous ways by lounging about, lunging at inanimate objects, steathily hunting like their wild ancestors, and so on. Some cats are cuddly and affectionate, and others are rather standoffish and unfriendly. Cats, for all their snobbery, have recognizable and occasionally charming personalities. What lolcats do is take these photos (some edited, some not) from the lives of cats and adds to them a sort of childish language that one could imagine cats thinking, putting an entirely new context onto the action of the cat and those around it.

It is surprising that no one thought of this idea before, but the creators of lolcats and memecats and so on deserve credit for an inventive way to have an honest and simple laugh. What is not surprising is that the idea behind lolcats has spread far beyond its original confines. A friend of mine from Wisconson sent me some rather humorous pictures he was submitting for an lolopera thread. These photos showed an opera singer (Jessye) with silly captions such as "Oh Noes, Drove Wif Da Top Down," "I C U," "Invisible Giant Cheezburger," "Mah Speeker Iz Too Loud," and so on. If opera fans are adapting something as silly as lolcats, one knows the phenonemon has spread far and wide.

I for one, do not see a problem in this. Perhaps some may find lolcats to be a bit silly, but I know I take this life way too seriously often, and generally need something simple and a bit quirky to laugh with/at sometimes. Lolcats generally lack irony or sarcasm or the other ways in which humor presents itself the most often. So, if you have a quirky and somewhat child-like sense of humor, may you go and seek out some lolcats for a laugh this most serious of Thursdays. It is, after all, a lot more entertaining (I promise) than reading a rant from me.

Bad Call

Though I am not a particularly big fan of professional basketball (I am more a fan of college basketball), I am a casual fan of just about every sport around (that I have heard of at least), and so I try to keep up on the news about basketball as I would most other sports. There has been a recent scandal in the NBA that might even be the largest the sport has ever faced involving mafia ties and gambling by a referee who apparently gambled on games he officiated. While the whole story has yet to come out, what has come out looks very damaging for the credibility of referees in basketball, the particular referee in question, and the NBA's image as a whole, even among a rather corrupt sports climate generally right now.

As the story goes, a referee by the name of Tom Donaghy, whose father was a college basketball referee (so being a referee is in the blood, so to speak) apparently had some gambling debts as he lived an opulent lifestyle in eastern Pennsylvania. He was apparently contacted by a low-level mafia figure over the debts and offered a deal that he couldn't refuse--the debts would be forgiven if he used his whistle to influence the point spreads of games he officiated and make his new associates happy. He apparently took the offer and refereered well enough to be given prestigious assignments, including playoff games. His whistle may have been twisted, but it was apparently not twisted enough to make him anything less than a well-regarded referee (which says something about the state of refereeing in the NBA). Now that his name has come out, information has come out that says that Mr. Donaghy may have been warned about his gambling problem by the NBA before the current FBI case was publicized. If this is the case, then the NBA stands as well to be culpable as they enabled him to affect the course of important games after this warning.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can now look back on some of the most important games that Donaghy has officiated and look at how his calls may have been tainted by other concerns. Once someone is found to be corrupt, their decisions fall under much harsher scrutiny. The arrogant dismissals from David Stern, the head of the NBA, about the lack of moral rectitude among referees appears to have come back to bite him. If a ref can be tainted and be considered a pretty good ref, who is to say that there are not more corrupt referees around? The following is a list of the games that, so far, reek of the most corruption:

Game 3, Western Conference Semifinals, 2007: San Antonio 108-Phoenix 101. This game is marred by bad calls, in particular a phantom (and delayed) foul that gave San Antonio three free throws in the 3rd quarter, and other foul calls that kept Phoenix Suns star Amare Stoudemire on the bench except for 21 minutes. The Spurs were favored by 4 points and ended up winning by 7, meaning the calls Donaghy made appeared to have accounted for the point spread in the game. Already a questionable game before the calls, the news of Donaghy's corruption makes this game, and the series as a whole, a tainted one, and diminishes the achievement of the Spurs in winning the NBA title this past year.

November 2004, "The Brawl at the Palace," Indiana versus Detriot. This game, the infamous brawl that ended up with numerous players given lengthy supsensions for lengthy brawling on the court as well as fighting in the stands (between players and patrons) was officiated by Donaghy and others. Apparently this was not the first time Donaghy had problems with Rasheed Wallace, the combative Detriot player (who had threatened the ref a year before and had earned a seven game suspension for it). Donaghy and others were widely condemned for letting the fighting go on for too long, but now there are questions there may have been ulterior motives for the lax officiating with regards to the fighting.

Donaghy does not appear to have been a popular fellow among his peers, certainly not a proof of any guilt, but also a sign that he does not have any support already, much less after these allegations and the mounting evidence have come out. With Donaghy under police protection and a widening FBI probe exposing a lot of very unfriendly evidence, the picture for the NBA looks grim indeed. Where it will lead is a story that may yet be told in the days and weeks and months to come.

A History Lesson

Though I have thought long and hard about what sort of post to write next--I have been dissatisfied with the tenor of most of the news I have read, little of interest has been going on in my life, reflecting on Father's Day and the 4th of July left me with rather melancholy material, and I have been quite busy with graduate school. Though these particular reflections are melancholy enough, I figured it was a suitable subject to discuss on a blogger post, as many people who read this are, no doubt, well aware of my profound interest in both history. Fewer people are likely to be aware of my interest in the generational cycles of history, but recent newspaper articles and serious reflection, as well as my own particularly deep-rooted sense of pessimism have led to this particular post, which seeks to compare our times with the age of the 1920's, our last guilded age. Additional comparisons will be made with the 1880's, another time similar to our own with similarly serious consequences. Make of these comparisons what you will.

A New Guilded Age

I have read much in the past few years about the rising wealth of corporate magnates whose own tax obligations have lowered even as the economic health of the general population at large has been hindered through stagnant wages, a crushing burden of debt, and an increasingly regressive tax burden as societal interest in defending the common people, much less the disadvantaged of society, begins to crumble under the combined weight of moral decay and corporate plutocracy. Let us see how this is so now, and how it has happened throughout critical and dangerous periods of American history that our time, in many ways, closely resembles.

Most of the articles one reads about the comparisons between the historical periods in question (the 1880's and 1920's) and our own revolve around questions of class and distribution of wealth, questions that are of interest to me (but mainly for their implications on the moral justice present in a society). In all these three times wealth was concentrated in the hands of an ever-shrinking number of fabulously wealthy people who lived in obscene wealth and privilege while the general population suffered stagnation of wages (among the middle class) or a deterioration of economic position (among the lower classes). One important measure of a society's health is how equitably its economic resources are distributed. There will always be some degree of inequality in a society through the accidents of birth, differences in diligence, ability, and education, but such factors themselves do not make for extreme differences in wealth, largely because our own native abilities and inclinations do not vary over a huge range. Societies that demonstrate a lack of concern for social justice and for the concerns of those who are not well off (witness most of Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and so on) are precisely those countries which have the most unequal distributions of wealth. To the extent that the United States persists in its increasingly unequal distribution of economic resources, the fabric of society will become increasingly frail. After all, if those who possess an ever-growing percentage of wealth and power do not share in the insecurities of ordinary people, then the concerns of the majority of the population will not be reflected in the policies a nation conducts, unless there is social unrest sufficient to remind the wealthy and the powerful of their obligations to the rest of society.

There is some evidence that this is already taking place in parts of the world. Unscrupulous populists with mandates to forcibly redistribute wealth have taken power or consolidated their hold in several countries in Latin America (namely Venezuela and Bolivia), and nearly took power in Mexico. Meanwhile, social unrest over various issues have erupted in the US (over immigration), in France (over immigration and policies designed to harm young adult workers), in China (over government corruption and population controls), and in other places as well. These are not unconnected. As wealth becomes more unequal the institutions of society (whether tax systems, justice systems, or political systems) become more unjust as they reflect the interests of an ever-smaller segment of society. This in turn leads to growing apathy about the fairness and benevolence of government, unless an authoritarian populist leader can motivate these disaffected masses to rise up against the powerful and corrupt. Paradoxically, this furthers the corruption of the state because such leaders do not tolerate limits on their power from free presses and from independent sources of power, and so personal corruption based on cronyism replaces the corruption borne out of wealth. Furthermore, the institutions of democracy (such as an independent judiciary and the market economy) come under threat because of how they had become corrupted to serve the interests of the few instead of all.

It should be noteworthy at this point that in the present age as well as the 1880's and 1920's, immigrants became a common scapegoat for the frustrated longings of the masses (this was also true in the 1850's). In the 1880's, for example, immigrants from China were often the scapegoats for the stagnant wages of unskilled laborers. In the 1920's, immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe were the scapegoats. Now it is immigrants from Latin America as well as the Middle East. In all of these cases immigrants of distinctive appearance, religion, and social customs, whose streaming from areas under extreme stress led to increasing competition among native unskilled workers and created intense social unrest on both sides.

Though my opinions on illegal immigration are rather complicated and nuanced, the immigrants themselves are the symptoms and not the problem. Illigal immigrants (then and now) find work because of official corrpution that refuses to enforce laws, as well as corruption in businesses that seek to avoid paying market wages for labor or provide adequate working conditions. In the end, a few wealthy benefit and the majority of people suffer, though the suffering of the immigrants is often less intense because the situation where they came from is even worse. Intensifying the trouble is the fact that while unskilled labor conditions become increasingly unstable and threatening, there are increasing barriers to entering professional fields due to increased requirements for education and competence. When society ceases to be one and divisions between economic classes becomes hardened, the results are increasing social unrest.

It should be noted that these times are precisely those where the burden of taxation placed on the middle and lower classes is the most severe. During the Guilded Age, for example, income tax laws were declared unconstitutional because corporations were judged as falling under the persons whose rights were protected under the 14th amdendment. This was true even though those same courts denied those rights to the people actually defined under the 14th amendment--freed slaves and their descendents. When corporations have rights and people do not, something is terribly amiss in a society. In the 1920's, incomes were taxed while capital gains were not, and so the wealthy profited handsomely through stocks and property speculation (no comment) while the tax burden fell increasingly on the middle classes (whose benefits were typically in salary and not stock). In our times, we see property taxes and income taxes and estate taxes (which tend to affect the middle and upper classes the strongest) lowered while lotteries and sales taxes (which tend to most strongly affect the lower classes) increased. This skews the tax burden to the poor, who are precisely those who can least afford it and benefit the least from the expenditures gained from those taxes. Socities that rely upon the ignorance of the people to provide for their own unust gain play a very dangerous game.

It should also be noted at least briefly that these times are also precisely those where the national and personal debt levels in society reach the highest levels. Nations, banks, and individuals borrow and lend money at increasingly bad terms in order to keep up appearances, ever putting off the day when they must pay the piper and thus ensuring that the reprocussions of those decisions are the most serious possible and extend over the entire globe. Even if people realize the situation they are in, it is as if they lack the ability to do anything constructive about it, further increasing the strains on an increasingly tense situation.

Social/Religious Stresses

It is of no surprise that during these same times the social and moral fabrics of society also becomes frayed. It is foolish to speculate upon which is the cause and which is the effect between the various factors, but it is important to note that they are all interconnected, which would seem to indicate that there is a connection between them, possibly mutually reinforcing.

It is surely not coincidental that evolution has been a major issue in the last four periods of serious societal stress. In 1859, Darwin published his book "On The Origin of Species." In the 1880's, the doctrine of social darwinism, where the wealthy (the fittest) were claimed to owe no obligations to the "lesser" and "unfit" elements of society was defended and elaborated upon. The 1920's featured the Scopes Monkey Trial and the move to teach macroevolution in the schools. Today, of course, evolution is hotly debated, as the benefits of avoiding obligations to God and fellow man outweigh a concern for the objective evidence in the eyes of many powerful people (if not the population at large). A major reason for this is that Darwinian evolution, in its materialistic universe (without room for a just God who rules sovereignly over His Creation) and its appeal to the survival of the fittest (which would lower one's sense of obligation to the poor, the old, the sick, and the unfortunate) serve against the divine requirements of social justice emphasized repeatedly and strongly throughout the entire scriptures.

Meanwhile, these times are noted also for dramatic societal trouble about drug and alcohol abuse, abortion, euthenasia, immorality in dress, objectification of women, rampant problems with sexuality, violence, and so on (see the Great Gatsby for a comment on the situation of the 1920's, or any of the works of Nathaniel West). In all of these times there is a profound dissention between the standards of the youth and the declining hold of "traditional" morality upon the behavior of the population. Furthermore, these times show a consistent trend towards rampant materialism (see above note about evolution) as well as the importance of appearance over a rigorous attention to reality. Each of these issues alone is worthy of several ranting posts, but time and energy do not permit me to spend my 26th birthday this way.

It should also be noted that these times featured the growth of superchurches (the 1920's in particular) at the expensive of denomonational loyalty. Indeed, any kind of loyalty is particularly difficult to find in these eras of history. Such superchurches are also noticed today where pastors write Horatio-Algeresque tales (see the 1880's) invoking the gospel of plentitude (see the Prayer of Jabez for a notable example of this) and where wealth and success are often taken as signs of righteousness. This has the often neglected but rather pointed corrolary that failure and poverty are the signs of unrighteousness, which serves to bring the nastiness of the outside world into the confines of congregations. Rather than preach about the gospel of social justice that is found in the Bible (notice the first speech of Jesus Christ, or the consistent and fierce condemnation of those who abuse wealth and power in the Bible, especially--but not only--in the prophets such as Hosea, Amos, Jeremiah, Isaiah), the emphasis is on numbers (money, membership) to the detriment of deep and serious examination and application of the scriptures. As a result, even though religion is popular, the Bible does not exert influence over the lives of professed believers.

What Follows

This is predictably depressing, but worst of all is the reflection of what follows after these times and is the direct result of the processes of decay and segmentation found in eras like today. When one looks at what followed the last three eras that most closely resemble our own, the results are quite striking. In the first era, the period of trouble in the late 1850's was followed by the Civil War, the most catastrophic war in American history thus far, when a group of states led by privileged and unjust slaveowners sought to create an independent nation founded on freedom from government interference with slavery but the most draconian regulations on slavery and the criticism of it. The Guilded Age of the 1880's led to the prolonged depression of 1890-1896, which led to the birth of the American Federation of Labor and the Progressive reforms of the early 1900's (including antitrust laws and the first laws regulating the quality of food, among others). The "Roaring Twenties" was followed by the Great Depression and the rise of facism and militarism around the world, leading directly into the Second World War, the most destructive war in recorded history. Obviously, this is not good. What can be done about it at this advanced state is difficult to say, but when I look at the state of the world today, and the inability of people to deal with the full extent of the moral roots of this present state (including those people who see apocalyptic signs in these times) is not a pleasant one.

What will follow these present times, I do not know, but such times have never ended well. Perhaps one of the conflicts in our present society will lead to some bitter rift and ugly civil turmoil. Perhaps there will be a depression like that of the 1890's or 1930's, with delayed federal action to respond and laws that swing the pendulum too far to the other side in response to the current imbalance. Perhaps some unscrupulous leader will take advantage of the righteous indignation of people and promise unrealistic solutions in exchange for the further weakening of our freedoms and our democratic system. Perhaps there will be riots and unrest in the streets. I am no prophet, I do not know. What I do know from all the history I have been able to find on such times like these is that the situation will not be tackled until there is no other choice, and the solution will be more expensive and more troublesome than it has to be if the problem is dealt with sooner. We lack the leaders with the moral vision to understand the depth of the problems we face and the moral courage to deal with the problems and how they interrelate. What can be done about that, I do not know. History lesson concluded.