Other

by

On Easter Sunday, I Give You the Real Jesus


Today is Easter Sunday which for Christians is the most holy day of the year.  But have you ever asked yourself what the word Easter means?  There is no apparent connection to Christian belief.  I had no clue either until a few moments ago when I looked it up in my handy dandy Webster’s.  It says: “word history:  The word Easter . . . had its origins in pagan times.  Eastre or Eostre the Old Germanic English spelling of Easter, was originally the name of a Germanic goddess who was worshiped at a festival at the spring equinox.  Her name is closely related to Latin aurora and Greek eos, both of which mean “dawn.”  Easter is also derived from the same root word as east, the direction of the sunrise.  The Easter Bunny is another story entirely and for another time.

Theologian scholars have provided us with a plethora of information of where modern Christianity formed its holy days.  Christmas is a fabulous example of this as those same scholars seem to universally agree that Jesus was born in the spring and not when we celebrate his birth.  Early Christians, the early Roman Church in particular, were wont to end what they saw as pagan practices, in this case the pagan holiday of Saturnalia.  I make mention of these two well-accepted facts as evidence the early Christian church was extremely interested in co-opting paganism, and thereby killing it off, than historical accuracy.

Conservative Christians of today have the unnerving tendency to use the Bible as their sole source for information about the ancients.  But the truth is, there exists far more than those texts.  For example, there are the Dead Sea Scrolls which refer to daily life and customs at the time of Jesus.  Even though they were discovered in 1946, a complete and accurate description and final translation of them in far from finished.  Still, they provide us with a very different view from that of the New Testament.

And this brings me to the time of Jesus.  Was Jesus the son of God, something He never actually says himself but infers heavily, an angel of God, which would be very much in keeping with ancient Hebrew beliefs, or simply a great prophet?  Maybe He was all three.  But what we know of Jesus seems to fall far short of what we would like to know.  For example, he is born, secreted to Egypt for fear of his life, disappears entirely for 12 years at which time he shows up at a Temple and declared a rabbi.  Then he disappears again entirely for another 18 years for which we know nothing.  And even those final three years of his life the “facts” given are quite thin and many beg for clarification.

As a degreed historian, I can say with authority that such books as the Gospels are to be placed in the category of folk lore.  And this is not to say that folk lore in either unreliable or untrue, but as folk lore exists, it must be, in this case, assigned to stories of faith.  The veracity of such stories must be questioned.  But as with anything of the sort, there is likely truth to them as well.

Many books have been written about the “Historical Jesus.”  I have seen a few and as books go they vary in veracity.  That is, the ability of the author to keep his personal views and his prejudices apart from his writings is not always complete.  Even so, they are attempts to find the real face of Jesus.  In this respect I will add my own perspective which I can guarantee you are entirely prejudiced by my own views and are only my own view of this great and historic man.

One final thing; we also know for certain that the Gospels of the New Testament date back, at best, to 60 years after the death of Jesus.  They are also written in Greek, not the native tongue of Jesus which was Aramaic.  This means, just on the face of it, that a translation was made from one language to the other. And regardless of whether it was translated from one written language to the other or, worse, one verbal retelling to the other,  translations from disparate languages speak to the astuteness of the translator to understand what he is translating.  Historically, societies kept people who were customs keeper, story tellers, to insure a record of their being and beliefs was passed forward.  Such existed even to the early parts of the American experience in the 17th and 18th century.  The most valuable, and recognized as likely to be correct, is the first hand eye witness account of events.  But these stories were usually, and at best, second hand.  With regard to the life of Jesus, those original stories are second hand at best.  But people of faith with tell you, rightfully so, that his was a mission of faith and thus the stories of his life must be viewed in the same light.

I find it curious in the presentation of the Gospels the claim that Jesus said he had not come to change the law, the ancient Mosaic Law is what he was referring to.  But soon after when He is questioned as to the “eye for an eye” taken of the Old Testament, he responds with “turn the other cheek.”  It seems to me that is a direct contradiction and changing of the law.  I think the New Testament is replete with inconsistencies in logic, sometime from one verse to the next.  There exist too many mixed messages and incomplete thoughts.  Did Jesus actually expand upon such thoughts at much greater length?  I think it reasonable to say that He most certainly did, and probably many times over.  But such lengthy, and probably more enlightening thoughts, are lost to the ages because they were not transcribed as they were being pronounced.

Jesus was by all accounts a radical of His day.  He struck fear into the established religious leaders of the day.  Why?  He was, contrary to what the Gospels claim, turning old Jewish law on its head and providing His followers with a completely new way of looking at things.  He advocated peace.   He was the first historical figure to suggest the separation of church and state when he said to give to Rome which is Rome’s and to God which is God’s.  He advocated for the poor suggesting in his story of the good Samaritan, that those of means give half of what they own to the poor.  He very pointedly stated that man was by his very nature a sinner and that time best spent was that in bettering himself rather than pointing out the shortcomings of another.  And to that point, Jesus never once condemn anyone to hell, as modern evangelists like to do.  For that matter, he never mentioned the place which would have been in keeping with Jewish tradition which had, and still has, no heaver nor hell.

His actions suggest that He actively sought to modify ancient traditions.  Baptism, as He underwent with John, was nothing new.  It was the symbolic cleansing of the spirit.  It also was not done with children but with adults who were ready to admit their sins and ask to be cleansed.  But if Jesus were God it is impossible that He had sinned so why do it?  Quite simply because he understood extremely well the role of the leader.  He knew that charisma, which He had in spades, was the manna which fed the souls of those who chose to follow His teachings.  I think it entirely possible that Jesus was proposing the ideal of spiritual health over religious dogma.  He did, after all, seek out the dregs of his society and only asked of them that he believe in His teachings.  Not once is he heard to say that a man must attend the temple and must contribute monies to keep His church healthy.  Why do you suppose that was?  Is it possible He believed a church was truly inside a man and not within four walls?

In the time of Jesus, and for most of the centuries which have followed, women were second class citizens relegated to the rear of the temple and denied any say what-so-ever in its conduct.  Unfortunately too much of that exists today.  And so enters the most misunderstood character of the New Testament, Mary Magdalen.  The early Christian Church had absolutely no idea of how to handle her existence in the presence of their messiah but she was mentioned in the Bible so they also could not ignore her.  Certainly, they thought, Jesus looked upon this woman as they did, a woman of low moral character who only came to beg for forgiveness and her penance was to wash His feet with her hair.  The problem with such a telling is that it bears no relationship to the truth.  That truth is theologians have never found a woman of that name or conduct.  But they have found a similar woman, or possibly several women, who can account for that personage.  Likely Mary was a woman of means who had been moved by Jesus’ ministry.  Maybe she was a woman from Samaria, people seen as only slightly better than the brutal Romans and equally hated.  But for her to seek audience with a rabbi, a man of such stature and position was unthinkable at that time and for many centuries to follow.  But Jesus, being who He was, denied no one for any reason.  And I suggest, and I think it likely, she, along with several other women, became one of His Apostles.  Remember, at the end of His crucifixion it was only the women who saw to His removal from the cross, transportation, preparation, and final burial in the tomb.  No man, certainly no apostle, was anywhere to be found.  You ask, if they were truly Apostles why not mention it?  Simple, it was an “inconvenient truth.”

A rather famous atheist, Dr. Isaac Azimov, most well-known for his science fiction writings, but also a professor of bio-chemistry at Boston University, made an interesting observation about the writing of the New Testament.  He noted that the Aramaic language in the day of Jesus had around 5000 words.  Today’s English language, in contrast, has over one million.  He observes that the Aramaic word for virgin is identical for the word for young girl.  Does this suggest the early Christian Church’s aversion to the discussion of sex?  I think it extremely likely.  How would the historical figure of Mary as something other than a virgin square with the telling of the birth of Jesus?  It would have necessarily meant that Mary had engaged in sex with Joseph.  I think it likely the church desired nothing less than something which could be passed off as miraculous.  And a virgin birth suited their interest.  They also do not mention Mary’s age, which could have been as young as 12 and Joseph as a man who could have been well into his 50s.  Not unusual in those days.

But back to Jesus.  To the established high ranking Jews of the day, Jesus appeared a threat to their power.  We know for fact that Rome had absolutely no interest in the crucifixion of Jesus, to the contrary.  The ministry of Jesus had suggested radical changes to long standing beliefs of the Jews but never once challenged the power of Rome.  And the ultra-conservative Jews of the day simply could not stand for that.  I am suggesting that this ancient Jesus was in fact seen as some sort of liberal reformist who was bringing needed change to old conservatism, a conservatism which was contrary to the best interest of the Jewish masses.  But that would have meant the illuminati of the Jewish religion would have had to accept changes.  That is something to this day conservatives find difficult if not impossible.

When Jesus died his Apostles and other disciples were at a loss for what to call themselves and they saw themselves, justifiably or not, as out-casts of accepted Jewish society.  For a long time afterwards they simply referred to their religion as “the way.”  The idea of calling themselves Christians had not yet formulated.  Those early follower quickly moved away from Israel, a place they knew they would be persona non grata, first to Turkey and then to Greece and finally Rome.  But it is also likely that these early leaders of the church were illiterate.  The only formal education of the day existed strictly for the rich and those who devoted themselves to become Rabbis.  Scribes were probably the only exception that, they being drafted into such a career by the ruling class.  The Apostles could neither read nor write but such was not a part of their mission.  None had come from background of what we might see as middle class.  All are shown as being from the most humble of means.  And a few, like Peter, were shown to be fairly rough and tumble.  It is my belief that scribes were at some point enlisted to write down what had been witnessed by the Apostles, and others, as custom dictated.  But the scribed did not write the New Testament!

When eventually these people arrived in Greece, a truly enlightened and literate society, those Greeks who embraced this earliest form of Christianity, ensured the survival of the faith buy putting it into print.  But whoever they were had to immediately been confronted with the problem of the translation from Aramaic to Greek, which is where we derive our present day texts.  If in history there ever was a more meaningful time for the expression “lost in translation,” this was it!  It stands to reason that certain words either translated poorly or not at all from the original Aramaic to Greek.  I can almost hear the conversation of the person from Israel trying to explain the concept, the word, he is expressing to his Greek counterpart, and finally the two agreeing upon a word the more or less expresses the thought.  There is no way to know how much of that happened but it is a certainty that it did.  And furthermore, what if one Gospel, say that of Matthew, had very differing views of events from that of Luke or John?  How would they deal with that.  Could it be that they simple chose the one which showed Jesus in the most favorable light?  Or could it be that they allowed their own prejudices in and chose the one which most suited them.  We will never know but it can help explain how four men who supposedly witness the life of Jesus gave differing versions.  If I were a man on that day and was sitting down to lunch with Jesus, at some point I would certainly ask what he did before he started his ministry.  Such a story would be immensely fascinating.  Was such a story told but the early authors could not see the value of including such references?

But does this also explain the large gaps which exist from one Gospel to the next.  This birth of Jesus is related at length in only one, so why not the others?  Were they simply edited out?  Did one story contradict the other leaving the Greek and Aramaic writers left to choose one telling of the other?  The same thing happens at the death of Jesus.  Also, were there records of Jesus’ ministry that were viewed as uncomplimentary which were left out for that reason?  Remember, Jesus did have a fit of violence when he threw the money men from the temple. Which bring about the question as to why that is the only story from his birth to age 30? Also, did Jesus’ retreat to the desert for reflection really last for 40 days or was that a number of convenience because it squared with other 40 days incidents of the Old Testament, Noah in particular.  And remember, the time from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday is also 40 days.  Forty was a magical number in those days as was the number 13, the 13 generations of the house of David being one.

Modern day Christian fundamentalists have co-opted Jesus to their own selfish beliefs.  They love literal translations and have little problems chastising anyone who suggests anything different.  Today’s compelling argument for them is their anti-gay theme comes from Jesus saying that a man should not sleep with another man.  They have not considered the fact that it was common practice in those days for men who led caravans to take along with them young boys with whom they would have sex and feel they have not violated their marriage vows.  Could this have been what Jesus was speaking of and that He, being God and being fully aware of the gay people of his day, had been referring to pedophilia and not homosexuality?  I think that to be much more likely.

I absolutely believe that Jesus would have a lot of problems with those who use their religious beliefs in the conduct of their political desires, ergo his give unto Rome that which is Rome’s admonition.  I suspect the writers of our Constitution felt the same.  I also believe that Jesus would have serious problems with the top 1% of wealthy today.  He might refer such people to his saying what profit a man who gains a kingdom and loses his soul.  He might ask them if they believe that what they practice is what He taught.  And while I am certain he understood that wealth had its place, he repeatedly spoke of being generous with such wealth.  He spoke of casting the first stone, turning the other cheek, treating others as you would want to be treated, judging as you would want to be judged, and absolute kindness and understanding.

If I were a part of the conservative right in this country, I would fear His saying to me, “you have already received your reward and now you will be judge harshly just as you did the least of my brethren.”

by

Making Amends to the Universe


It is a funny thing about words you do not use in most conversations: you think you know the definition and then upon looking the word up in the dictionary you find something quite different.  I used to think that the act of making amends with someone meant apologizing.  Of course I was wrong.  Just this morning I looked the word up in my handy dandy Webster’s and this is what I found: “Amends – Reparation for insult, injury or loss.”  Did not see the phrase “to apologize” anywhere there although one can imply it from the word “reparation.”  I of course immediately looked up the word “reparation” and found this:  “Reparation – 1. The act or process of repairing or the state of being repaired.  2. The act or process of making amends: EXPIATION. 3. Something done or paid as amends: COMPENSATION.”  Since “expiation” is not in my vocabulary I had to look that one up too.  At this point I was hopeful I would not see yet another word which needed clarification.  “Expiation – 2. Means of atonement.”  I did not include definition “1” because it said “the act of expiating.”  Is that not obvious?  Regardless, the dictionary made no direct mention of the act of apologizing.  Quite to the contrary, it seems like that definition was actively avoided.

I was made aware of this process by a group of friends almost 20 years ago.  Of course my first impression was that I needed to apologize for my bad acts and be done with it.  Upon reflection, however, it seems people deserving of an apology may have difficulty in believing the maker of such, me, because recent history makes them believe that I will repeat my bad act yet again.  And I now know, they were probably correct.

But what does all this have to do with the universe?  It is actually rather simple but speaks to my religious upbringing, Roman Catholicism.  The Catholic Church that I grew up in had me constantly looking over my shoulder.  It seemed to me, via their teaching, that each day I would commit a multitude of sins that I needed to apologize for and hope that God would be forgiving.  Catholic priests in those days, much like their conservative Protestant brethren preach a whole lot of fire and brimstone.  They contended if I were not on the right side of God, which was more likely than not, I would one day be condemned to hell.  And so Catholics, at least, love to apologize for everything even though they have somewhere been little and no comprehension of their transgression and what makes it such.  For example, the nuns assured us it was a sin not to go to church on Sunday and holy days and that we needed to confess that sin to the priest.  I always wanted to say, “you mean God is pissed off at me just because I missed mass one Sunday?”  I feel certain had I gotten up the courage to ask such a question, the answer would have been a very hearty “yes.”  It just did not make any sense to me, still doesn’t.

I bring that up because as I entered adulthood and for many years afterward, I was crippled with Catholic guilt and no understanding of how to assuage it.  The nuns would have said, “just don’t do it anymore.”  No explanation, just don’t do it.  Such insufficiencies dogged me for half of my adult life.

One of the first things I learned in dealing with my transgressions and the art of making amends, yes, it is an art, was coming to an understanding of the exact process leading up to that transgression.  This was something I had never before considered, mostly because it never occurred to me but also because it had never before been suggested.  And so here is where the universe, and I mean that literally, comes into play.

Long before life came to exist on the face of the earth, at the moment of the “Big Bang” actually, the laws of the universe were set into motion.  Each and every one of those laws are absolutes, not to be broken, not to be denied, and certainly not to be contested, least of all by we humans.  The universe was set into that motion at that moment and had be moving, inexorably, in a particular direction ever since.  Scientists today are at odds with, and discuss at considerably length, what direction that motion is moving, but they agree that there is a single set of laws controlling that direction.  We humans do not understand that law yet, if ever.

Since humans have roamed the earth they have tried, many times in vain, to understand what was happening to them and why.  The ancients, in their desperate attempt, created gods who reigned over just about everything, the rising of the sun, the motion of the moon, the oceans, the rain, everything.  But in that process, they also started making excuses for negative things which happened to them by laying it off to one of their gods or to other people.  The idea of taking responsibility for your own actions seemed at odds with the teaching of the day.  Unfortunately, such teaching, though modified, have mostly passed down through the ages and exist today.  People today try to figure out why something has gone horribly wrong in their life and look outward for the answer, other people, bad luck, anything that does not require them to look inside themselves.  There are also those situations which creep into everyone’s life where the literal forces of the universe negatively impact their life.  It gets really bad when a person starts thinking it is only raining on them when common sense should win out telling them that the universe is not plotting against them, it is actually raining on everyone around them as well.

The reason for mentioning all these things in the context of amends is that humans seem ill prepared to put things in proper perspective.  We humans have this tendency to be in a reactive mode rather than a much more productive proactive mode.  I like to use the example of a 25 year old who dies from cancer.  People love to say “how unfair” it is.  The problem with the word “unfair” is that it implies some sort of reasoning behind it.  It is as if the cancer looked at that 25 year old and decided to pick on him or her.  Of course that is foolishness.  They do not think the same way when a life-long smoker gets lung cancer or emphysema, so why do so just because the cause is not evident?  They would be far better served by lay off blame, if blame really must be assigned, to the universe and its inexplicable and difficult to avoid actions.

One of the most common places to see otherwise good people behaving badly is our nation’s roads and highways.  There is so much aggressive driving, so much inconsiderate driving, so much feeling of being “an exception to the rule” that driving for me personally is painful.  Just because I get up on the wrong side of the bed, or I am running late, or I do not like the type of car you are driving, it is not alright for me to take out my aggressions, my impatience, my distaste for your taste on you.  But when I do, I immediately need to take notice and make amends.  Now I am not going to then stop you just so I can apologize for my bad actions if for no other reason that it is unreasonable.  But more to the point, is it not what making amends to you means.  I this case what it means is I must find patience, I must not be aggressive.  In changing my ways I am making amends.  And in truth, that is the only way amends can be made.

Here is another example of how I used to be.  If at a checkout of a store the store employee gives me the wrong change and it is in my favor I would not notify them of the fact, even if or particularly if, it were a very small amount.  In doing so I was teaching myself to be dishonest which of course translated to much larger things.  They say the devil is in the details and this particular detail speaks to my honesty or lack of it.  That meant for acts of this sort the amend to be made was to make honesty an absolute.  I changed my way of going through life.

I really and truly dislike cold weather of any sort and this particular winter has been quite rough and doubled by an overabundance of snow.  Many was the morning that I felt myself becoming cranky because of one or both such things coming into play.  In the more distant past, my tact was to take out my crankiness on anyone who had the temerity to cross my path.  They did not deserve it but I did it anyway.  The amend here was simply to acknowledge that I am feeling cranky by I simply needed to work to keep that to myself and visit that crankiness on no one.

Today I look upon amends the same way I look at chocolate.  Well, pretty much anyway.  I invite amends because I have come to realize that it allows me to grow and be at peace with the universe.  Life is constantly throwing me curves but I have become rather good at hitting them out of the park.  But on those occasion that I cannot hit that curve out of the park for a home run, I can do nothing and be absolutely all right.  Amending me has brought so much peace to my life it is something I implore everyone to do.

by

NFL, Goodell Botch Deflated Football Investigation


I went on the record here right after this whole mess started by stating I thought the Patriots were “obviously” at fault.  A day later I was not nearly so sure.  And now I am convinced the Patriots are simply the victims of Roger Goodell’s incompetence.  The only thing that has kept this story alive is the NFL’s lack of transparency.  In truth, it is, as the Bard penned, “much ado about nothing.”  The naysayers will have you believe that this is really about the integrity of “them game” and the NFL.  Well, that went right out the window when Goodell decided, for God knows what reason, to be 100% secretive about what they knew.  To make matters worse, there have been leaks from “well-placed sources.”  Goodell’s absolute failure to address any of those leaks shows exactly how incompetent he really is.  And worst of all, this has generated more adverse controversy than the Ray Rice scandal ever did.  And this is all over how much a bunch of footballs were inflated in a game where both teams have stated they could have been playing with a bar of soap and the outcome would have been the same?

First of all there is a rat on the loose.  By that I mean, for this to have gained any momentum at all someone at some team, I am betting on Baltimore, complained to the league offices that he suspected the Patriots of using underinflated balls.  What this coward did not do is bring it up immediately but waited until just before the AFC Championship game.  It is also my bet that this person was not the owner, head coach or other official of the Ravens at that level but someone at a slightly lower level who spoke out of turn, without permission of his boss, but that the statement made, like Pandora’s box, raised the specter of impropriety forcing the NFL to take action.

Roger Goodell is informed and realizes he must do something to maintain the integrity of the game.  Had this been his predecessor, Paul Tagliabue, he would have quickly, and quietly, informed the 32 owners of the suspicion which had been raised and that checks on the condition of the balls would be made.  Had Goodell done that, the actions of a good leader, the only thing we would have talked about over the past 8 or 9 days, would have been the Super Bowl match-ups.  But of course Goodell lacked common sense and allowed the opening of Pandora’s box.

Goodell is a lawyer and should be well versed in the concept of total transparency during an investigation.  In most investigations the public’s demand for information is answered in a reasonable way.  The public is generally given enough information from the investigators, and/or, the originators, so they have a fair understanding of what is transpiring.  In this case, however, Goodell has allowed speculation, hyperbole, unsubstantiated leaks, and all sorts of foolishness to grow and fester in the public’s mind.  Journalists, broadcast and print, have fallen into the trap and become proponents of even the flimsiest of statements.  The latest being that the NFL has video of a ballboy doing something.  That of course came from Fox news who, like journalist tend to do, refuse to name their sources.  And that has been the downfall of every journalist to date.  They have allowed all these unsubstantiated reports to take on a life of their own and added to it by introducing their own theories.  It is exactly like the Salem witch trials: a harmless interaction between two girls and their nanny is mixed with fear and sensationalism, and suddenly what should have been attributed to youthful foolishness turns into something ugly and entirely unwarranted.

Goodell blew it a second time when he had the opportunity, Wednesday January 21 at the latest, to tell us what the league knew for fact, not speculation. He could have said something like, “the head linesman checked all 12 Patriots balls and found 11 of them did not meet the minimum requirement.  They were between 1/2 and 1 p.s.I. out of range.  At this moment we do know the reason for this but we have no reason to believe they have been tampered with.  We will, however, continue to investigate this and will report our finding when completed.”  A statement like that which would have been 100% true would likely have made this backburner news for everyone.  It would not have let the Patriots off the hook but simply by saying that they know of no tampering would have put this entire issue in proper light.

For my entire adult working life I worked in jobs which required research.  I have been published in a scientific journal, ( http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2003-379), and submitted scholarly papers at Harvard University.  In all instances it was both expected and required that I name my sources and reference primary sources.  A primary source is an actual witness to an event or scientific proof of an assertion.  Without that my assertions have no merit and can be dismissed as untrue.  It is that principle I call the journalists who have reported on this mess to hold themselves to.  I believe that if they have graduated from any reputable school of journalism, they were taught that this principle reigns supreme.  Otherwise good journalists have allowed themselves to be caught up in this foolishness.  It is foolishness because to date not a single shred of evidence of even this slightest amount of wrongdoing has been demonstrated.  Goodell could have done on Wednesday what Bellichik did on Saturday and that would have been the end of it.  He could have said on Wednesday that he has instructed all 32 teams to be more vigilant with regard to ball pressure during the course of a game.  But when you lack the common sense principles of good leadership, you fail to do these things.

For Roger Goodell this football season has been an unmitigated disaster and he has only himself to blame.  If he has an ounce of integrity, immediately following this inquiry’s finding he will resign for the good of the league.  His consistent bad judgment cannot be tolerated.

by

Patriots Football Controversy


It would appear the New England Patriots are guilty of a rule infraction relative to football pressure.  Shame on them!  But shame on the NFL as well.  Non Patriots fans, Patriots haters, have more fodder to throw in the Patriots’ direction.  But this particular problem has been blown so far out of proportion as to defy common sense.  People are calling for the Patriots to forfeit a draft pick for this infraction as well as heavy fines.  But the NFL, and Roger Goodell in particular, are equally as guilty.

This infraction, at its egregious best, is worthy of little more than a slap on the wrist.  Why?  Because such practices came to light well before the Patriots Colts game.  Aaron Rogers is on the record for having said he purposely over-inflates the balls he uses because he can get a better grip on the ball.  Worse, he chided the NFL to catch him which shows his knowledge of his own wrongdoing and daring the NFL to take action.  His statement was not made in the last week but over a month ago.

The Minnesota Vikings were warned prior to a particularly cold game this season that they cannot use sideline heaters to warm up the ball, an infraction noted in the same paragraph as ball inflation.  The NFL has in its possession film which shows the Vikings blatantly disregarded the warn and were in fact warming up the balls during the game.  The NFL took no action.

This leaves the NFL with a serious problem of what to do in the Patriots’ case.  To do nothing other than say “don’t do it again” will enflame many.  But whatever action they take against the Patriots requires they take action against the Packers and Vikings as well.

This is absolutely an infraction for- which New England must be held accountable.  However, it is not very serious, at all, regardless of what Patriot detractors want to say.  The solution is a simple one:  The NFL itself will supply all game balls and will be responsible for their possession and introduction into all games.  That possession will include balls being held on the sideline so when a new ball is introduced into the game, it will come from NFL possession and not team possession.

This issues needs to be over this week and end the distraction from the Super Bowl.

by

Getting a Clue


Sometimes when I explain my actions when I was young I will say, “I was young and dumb, with an emphasis on dumb.”   As I have gotten older, I have come to see just how little I knew when I was young, and how good it would have been if I had had a few more clues than I did.  I am going to try, in no particular order, the present what a few of those clues should have been.

Clue One:  Everything will be all right.  When I was just 10 years old my father had his first heart attack. Until that time everything had been all right.  But his heart attack brought into sharp focus how unpredictable life can be.  My mother, a registered nurse, took really good care of him.  But we were told that he might not live.  Fortunately he did, and for another 11 years at that.  But it was at that point I really needed to hear my first “everything will be all right.”  This was not a short-coming of my mother but a societal short-coming.   Parenting was a strictly on-the-job training experience.   And in this case, no one was there to tell my mother that everything will be all right.  My point is:  we really have very little control over what happens in our present and our future.  In reality we can only control our own actions, reactions and thoughts.  After that, we really have only a little control over our kids, our pets, and pretty much everything else.  Kids, pets and everyone else are going to do what they want regardless of how we feel.  But if we take care of ourselves and do our best along with doing the next right thing, for the most part, things will be all right.  Still, we need to hear that reassurance from those closest to us.  And in that respect, we need to choose our friends wisely.

Clue two:  Learn to study.  I went through 12 years of public school and 7 years of college without ever running into a course on how to study.  For that reason, at the end of my junior year in high school I had to transfer to a prep school, repeat my junior year, and continue on with my education.  Part of my problem was, as my mother use to put it, I was just too smart for my own good.  That is, from grades one through five I existed entirely on my own intelligence and ability to grasp what was put in front of me.  That meant I did not need to study to get an A.  The change started in the fifth grade.  My grades went from all As to Bs, Bs and Cs and in high school Cs and Ds.  As things got more difficult, I had no process for overcoming the challenges before me.  The only thing prep school did was it took away television and mobility from me.  By restricting some of my actions I was, in effect, forced to work harder on my school work.  My grades improved and in my senior year I was doing well enough to get into a very good college.  Once in college, however, I was entirely overwhelmed and it took only a semester for me to drop out.  Over the next decade and a half I struggled to get through college, but finally did.

There is nothing natural about studying.  I think some people, a very few, are self-motivated enough to be single minded about education which carries them through their education.  But for most of us, someone needs to tell us how to successfully study.  It turns out that study is not difficult, but it does require a degree of structure and commitment.  Without that, most of us flail around until we either “get it” or fail.  One of the most effective study techniques is really just asking the teacher/professor questions relative to those things we do not understand.  But this requires our belief system to understand that, regardless of how our questions sound or the other person’s reaction to them, they are necessary and we will be all right.

Clue Three:  Always be honest.  Most people will say they are honest.  And to some degree that will true.  The problem is simple, our perception of what being honest is like.  If you were to ask those same people if it is all right to tell a lie to save someone’s feelings, most would say that it is.  But what that statement really says is that they are willing to compromise with the truth.  If you asked that same group of people if they have ever exaggerated things they have accomplished they would probably say they had.  Again, honesty is compromised.

I believe there are two main reasons people lie, shame and fear.  We do something that we feel ashamed of and when confronted with what we’ve done, the tendency is to deny and effectively lie.  The other thing, when we do not want to say something which may hurt someone’s feelings, is to tell them what we think they want to hear.  But the dishonesty there is that we deny the person the right to deal with their own feelings speculating that our judgment is superior to their ability to handle bad news.  We tell ourselves that we are doing the right thing when in fact we are not.  But since we tend to repeat such actions over and over, in time we convince ourselves that it is the right thing to do.  We have become dishonest with ourselves, a truly fatal flaw.

Clue Four: Take care of yourself.  That phrase, take care of yourself, is rather commonly used when two people are parting ways, another way of saying good-bye.  But my meaning is the literal, take care of yourself.  That means in mind, body and spirit.  Of those three, the spirit is by far the most important.  I look as spirit as that part of ourselves that when things get tough, we find the inner strength to push through, and in the end, expect that everything will be all right.  That can be really tough, particularly when we are facing life altering or even possible life ending things.  But in the mundane, everyday things, our spirit is what tells us that we need to get out and exercise, go to the doctor when we feel sick, and tell someone of our problems, particularly when we are feeling overwhelmed.

Self-care becomes particularly difficult when the thing we are up against is somehow shameful in our mind.  It is at that exact time that we need to confide in someone and unless we have trained ourselves to do that, we will opt for pushing down inside ourselves, totally contrary to the ideal of self-care.

It took me a long time to figure out something which should have been obvious.  If I take care of all the little things in my life, the big things will work out and everything will be all right.  Feeling good about myself and my future is all about taking care of myself today.

Clue Five:  Give a damn!  I think one of the reasons I embraced liberal politics was this inner belief that when reasonable, we need to help other people.  There are times in our lives when we need to be selfless and give of ourselves to another person.  Simply put, it means that when someone needs our help, within reason, we help them.  A friend of mine once told me of an experience he had with his mother.  They were out one day when they came across a homeless man.  His mother gave him twenty dollars and told him to give it to the man.  He objected saying why not ten or five, thinking twenty was too much.  She told him that was God lying there.

But helping is usually much easier than that.  Most of the time it simply means we listen to someone who is troubled, trying to understand them, and help them, where possible, through their trouble.  Because if we do take the time to listen to someone else is means, for us, everything will be all right.

by

Could My Childhood Survive in Today’s World?


When I was pretty young, I was rummaging around in our barn and found a pair of old wooden skiis.  I goaded my parents into buying me a pair of ski boots and ski polls and headed for the nearest hill.  It was a hill upon which I also used to go sledding.  In the summer it was a pasture for grazing cows.  Sadly, they are gone today.  Anyway, I pretty much taught myself to ski on that small slope and graduated to a larger hill in a different part of town that had a rope lift on it.  My skiing career was launched.

Behind our house there were several large pine trees which I used to climb and eventually built a tree house and towards the top of the tree another ledge.  I used to climb it all the time and look off into the distance at a nearby city and marveled at how far I could see.  The summer also found me riding my bicycle, going to the swimming pond and fishing at the local lake.  Also, every summer my father had a portion of our field plowed and made it into a vegetable garden.  I loved helping him with it.

One day, right after a winter storm, a boy who lived next door told me we could earn a quarter if we went and shoveled a neighbor lady’s  driveway.  I was astonish because such tasks were always done without compensation at my house.  Such non-compensated duties extended to lawn mowing and leaf raking, both of which I did, and actually enjoyed.  To this day I enjoy such activity.  But as with the snow shoveling, I learned that I could grow a bit of a business around the neighborhood by mowing lawns and raking leaves.

Some years later, I expanded my money making to delivering the local newspaper, a six day a week operation that cost each customer the enormous sum of 42 cents a week.  Most people would give me 50 cents and tell me to keep the change.  It was great!  I never ran out of candy bars or Dairy Queen milk shakes.  There was a Dairy Queen along my route.

Once I entered high school, things changed, though not greatly.  Most Friday and Saturdays nights there was a dance held either at a local community center or the high school.  Of course, this was before CDs so the music came via records.  Everyone went to the high school football games in the fall, basketball games in the winter, and a smaller subset to the baseball games in the spring.

Television was not a big part  of our lives because daytime tv was mostly soap operas and games shows.  We did watch evening tv.  The exception to afternoon tv were the Mickey Mouse Club and American Bandstand.

We boys seemed to know everything about cars including how to fix them.  Many of us got jobs working in service stations when all gas was pumped by the service station attendant.

When I was a kid the big  threat by my parents was being sent to my room. I think today’s threat is being sent outside.

by

Rails to Trails Conservancy


On October 2, 1968, the US Congress passed the “National Trails Act.”  Then on January 1, 1976, the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act under which the “Rails to Trails” program was inaugurated.  From there the Rails to Trails Conservancy, a not for profit organization, was founded and has actively worked to transform over 9000 miles of abandoned railroad right-of-way to trails which the public can use for both commuter transportation and recreation.  Today, there are more than 1,600 preserved pathways that form the backbone of a growing trail system that spans communities, regions, states and, indeed, the entire country. (http://www.railstotrails.org/aboutUs/index.html)

In my own state, Massachusetts, I regularly use the Minuteman Bikeway, an 11 mile route which extends from Cambridge to Bedford via Arlington and Lexington.  There is also a 2nd spur, not part of the Minuteman, which extends from Cambridge to Somerville, approximately 2 miles.  Both these paths are heavily used.  During the winter months Cambridge, Arlington, Lexington and Bedford plow the path following snowstorms.  The Cambridge to Arlington portion is particularly heavily used by commuters who take the subway to its end in Cambridge and then walk the route to their homes in Arlington.  This trail is over 20 years old and its heavy use to testament to the vision the Rails to Trails Conservancy has.

The building of such a trail requires a local and state commitment to construct such a path on an abandoned railroad right-of-way.  Although there is a funding requirement from the state, the federal government provides the majority of the funding under the Rail Revitalization Act.  To be certain, this is a very simplified version of what must be done however I point to it as being eminently doable with a reasonable level of backing from state and local authorities.

To my dismay, Massachusetts has not done very much with its hundreds of miles of available rail lines while other states, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, to name a few, are very actively extending their system of paths.  The value of these paths is obvious to even the casual observer.  I write the recommending that any who read this actively support the building of new trails in their own states.  The following link will take you to the Rail to Trails Conservancy.

http://www.railstotrails.org/aboutUs/index.html

by

Crisis in the Urkraine — Part 2


Depending upon who you ask, the Crimea is either still a part of the Ukraine or a part of Russia.  Fortunately the events which brought about this situation all happened in the past 6 months meaning they should all be fresh in everyone’s mind.  It started with the Ukrainian people toppling their pro-Russian President and replacing him with a popular official.  This unrest within the Ukraine gave President Putin all the ammunition he needed to stir up a little trouble in Crimea, and that he did.  And just to put a sharp point on his intensions, he sent thousands of Russian troops to the area.  He was obviously provoking the government of the Ukraine into doing something aggressive.  But he was also offering solace to the large population of Russians who live in Crimea.  The message being, “Feel safe.  We are here for  you.”  It did not matter to him that any incursi0n on the sovereign soil of the Ukraine was an act of war, regardless of the vote the Crimean parliament took.  Crimea was, and is, the lawful territory of the Ukrainian people.  Putin has snubbed his nose at a country’s right to sovereignty by placing his troops on the Ukrainian military compounds while running out the Ukrainian troops.  He is daring the Ukrainian government, and anyone else, to do something about it.

The U.S. response to all this was to first put sanctions of many Russian businessmen who do business in the U.S.  Then they made a number of Russian diplomats persona non grata who were ordered to leave the U.S.  And finally, we are sending troops to Lithuania and the Ukraine.  It would not surprise me that troops will be placed in Poland as well.  The Ukraine is not a part of NATO however it borders countries which are to include Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Turkey, all of whom have a vested interest in maintaining peace in their sphere of influence.  And all, except Turkey, have no desire to once again fall under the rule of Moscow after they worked so hard to escape it.

One fear I have heard is that this could be the beginning of a whole new “cold war.”  I hope not but having armed camps along the Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean borders certainly makes things look that way.  Is this Russia testing the waters to possibly re-occupying a country like Belarus?  Estonia? Latvia?  Putin has absolutely no good excuse for sending his troops into a foreign country regardless of what the residents of that area voted.  No only is it an act of aggression, but an unmistakable act of war.

But we in the U.S. have declared ourselves to be the ally of the Ukrainian people.  And to that end we must give them all the support, within reason, that they need.  This is a case, however, where war materials, along with adequate training are about as far as we should go.  This is not our war but the Ukrainians are our friends, and we must respect all their requests.

The only acceptable result is a total Russian withdrawal from Crimea.

by

Freedom of Speech Is Not Absolute


For some months now the American public has been tasked with what to think about the Eric Snowden case and the NSA.  This boils down to what citizens have a right to say, what the government knows and how they know it.

There is a good reason that the first amendment to the Constitution is the freedom of speech; it is because those who wrote that document had firmly in their minds the restrictions of what they said and wrote under British rule.  They believed that dissent was healthy and that any truly free society needed to allow for dissent, sometimes to the extreme.  Imbedded in the first amendment is the freedom of the press.  Pre-revolutionary dissenters usually wrote under a pen-name so their words could not be held against them in a court of law.  The press was viewed as a way to publicly discuss possible government transgressions against the people in an open and free forum.  And in almost every attempt to limit these freedoms, the US Supreme Court has seldom narrowed its scope.  A well-known exception is the law against yelling “fire” in a movie theater.  Threats of violence are also a prohibited speech.

Even before our country was founded, governments understood the need for secrecy in certain of its dealings.  Throughout recorded history, governments have collect information about other countries, some of it needed to be held in secret.  Always in such cases the sake of national security was seen at stake.  As with anything, some, if not all, governments have taken such things to an extreme, far beyond reasonableness.  Other time, governments have thwarted or restricted its people’s desire to openly dissent.  Such instances still occur regularly in many parts of the world.  Closed societies such as China and North Korea are a few of the more prominent who do not allow much freedom of speech.

The United States is unquestionably one of the most open societies in the world.  We pride ourselves on that very fact and like to hold it up to the world.  The problem with that is the general public’s lack of understanding of classified material, and the government’s overreach with over-classifying and its methods of gathering information.

Eric Snowden is absolutely guilty of something, which is for a court to decide.  He is absolutely a coward who knew he had caused great harm and who absolutely knew the consequences of his actions.  He is absolutely guilty of being a coward.  While it is certainly difficult to whistle-blow on government agencies, particularly those dealing with intelligence gathering, it is far from impossible.

The Federal Government was certainly remiss in its due diligence when it hired Snowden in the first place.  But before being allowed access to classified materials, Snowden was fully briefed and signed documents that he acknowledge a full understanding of what was expected in his guarding against release of any classified material.  That he saw and revealed government misconduct is an entirely different discussion.  A reasonable person who had discovered such things, and feared reprisal from his agency for whistle-blowing, knows there are two groups of people who lives are dedicated to ferreting out government misconduct, the Inspector General of each agency, and the Department of Justice.

The NSA’s practices were brought into sharp focus, as they should have been.  But the manner in which it got there is indefensible.  Snowden released thousands and thousands of documents which had absolutely nothing to do with the NSA’s purported spying on American citizens.  Not only did that achieve nothing, it comprised our standing in the world.  That compromise may take many years to fix.

Intelligence gathering agencies are paranoid by both necessity and legacy.  Governments spy on other governments, friends as well as foes, but none want such facts aired in public.  It is unlikely the German chancellor was particularly surprised by anything revealed, but to show otherwise would reveal their own complicity.  Such events are almost always revealed in privacy and repaired that same way.

There are formal groups in the U.S., the ACLU not being the least, who make it their job to protect freedoms and play watchdog of the government.  Snowden  could easily have appealed to the ACLU and caused the NSA and Federal Government deserved shame without compromising national security.  At some point Russia will certainly see him as a liability and he will be returned to the U.S.  Other countries are unlikely to allow him a place to hide.

The U.S. press, for its part, has failed to report evenhandedly, portraying Snowden as something he is not, a martyr.  They need to report the true of his actions and, while not absolving the NSA, reporting that Snowden too has a price to pay.

by

The Tree


The meadow is beautiful, tall grass, wild blueberries
And beyond the wood calls to me as it has so many times before.
The trees, cedar and pine, stand tall and strong
Only giving slightly to the late day’s wind.

I slowly walk through the meadow, enjoying the warmth
Of the sun upon my face and the scent of the grasses
Plying my nostrils and playing with my child’s memory, they
Brush gently beneath me giving soft cushion to my feet.

My path through the wood is in front of me and my endless
Curiosity takes me towards it, then on it
Leading me into the sweetness of the piney balsams
And the strength of the ashes and oaks.

A blue jay screeches overhead calling to his mate
As the dove coos gently so to sooth the very wood itself.
A lady slipper creeps into view on my right and then
On my left a rhododendron, soft white flower adorned.

I have taken this route many times into these woods
And even knowing the great pines towering above me
Block more and more of the sun’s light till one marvels
The light can make its way to the wood’s floor through cover so deep.

The dampness of the wood touches my skin reminding me
Of a recent rain and its reluctance to give up its quenched thirst.
Still I walk forward feeling drawn inward to a point yet unknown
And even so knowing I must continue until it is found.

As I look up of a sudden a giant oak more dead than alive
Jumps into my path blocking my way and forcing my stop.
The path should go to its left or to its right but I cannot see
Any sign of such though surely there it must be.

I look up at the tree and it down at me, its once limbs
Now knotted reminders upon its bark, its dead branches
Memories of younger days, sunnier days, when oak did
Reign supreme and all around gave way to its might.

Now bitter for those days the oak defied my passing daring
Me to go around to one side and then to the other but
Somehow, each time, blocking my way, pushing me back
Forcing me to stay and causing to fret for what I must do.

It is but a tree, and more dead than alive, I can surely go
Around it at will and laugh at it as I do for I am its better
And I am stronger and it will not have its way with me, no
It will not gain league over my will.

I see the roots just above the ground readying to trip me as
I try to pass but I am smarter and will but step over them
And gain freedom from the will of the tree and show it now
And forever that I am the control, you can see in my brow.

No, this is not the way to do it, I know this now and must
Reconsider my move lest the tree reach out and grab me and
Take me its prisoner. No, I will wish the tree to dust
And I will prevail for I have been told I have strength, it must be.

So I pull deep inside me the forest air and prepare to do battle
With my foe for I will defeat him and in glory I will pass it
And give it a look that will wilt it and shake it and keep it at bay
For I have the knowledge to always have my way.

Yes I will move against the tree now but wait what has happened?
The carpet beneath has entrapped me and holds me still, I cannot
Move, it has taken my will. How dare it do this to me, how can
It do this to me, I am not wrong, am I not?

The tree bends it branches towards me to grab me and take me
Its knotty grin staring at me and chiding me to retreat but I will
Not be bested, I don’t have to go back, I can just stand there.
No tree can defeat for it has not the power, no, not anywhere.

The tree has gained allegiance from its fellow tall pines that
Stand to its sides, guardians of the way, protectors of the tree.
I look to their top but that I can’t see and now what of me,
Me and this tree?

I cannot allow this to happen, the tree’s anchor will not let it
Have dominance over my person for I am not threat
To its well-being tho now it has grown wider and darker.
It laughs at me where I stand, taunting, I hear it louder.

I can go back, I need not care about this tree, it will not follow, It will never have me. Perfection is my plan and I grin at the thought
That I can turn my back on it, this tree, right now as I ought.
I turn, no, it won’t let me, it holds me, it casts a spell.

I feel my chest and what is it which makes my heart so thump now.
My breathing is deep and I can feel the heavy furrow of brow.
The spell is so evil so strong and consuming, how did it gain entry
Into me so quickly and take my person away from mine of sentry.

It has replaced my joy with fear and cast its ugly pall
So I may not be happy, no, not happy at all.
I no longer remember for what brought me here
Yet now I am trapped, oh Lord, how the fear!

I beg the tree its mercy and a grant of its clemency so I might
Continue my journey to where, now think as I fight
I know I must be going, yes, sure I know where and now I will travel
And leave behind my fear before I unravel.

Oh no! Its branches have caught me and now I am its prisoner
For it will have its way with me, yes, no, I don’t know any more.
Start up in the bed, straight and tall I do sit feeling my mind race in a fit The pain in my chest now tells me it was real but the tree, what became of it?