I won't lower the bar

In the whirlwind of social media that pervades today’s world, I wish to speak a word of civility.  I speak on behalf of kindness, understanding, respect, and humor.  I speak on behalf of returning the humanity to humanity.

It seems that everyone has their own personal rules for social media.  I made my contribution to this construct.  That’s fine, but when everyone has their own set of rules, they can’t apply to anyone but one’s self, so we shouldn’t be too offended when someone else violates rules that can only apply to our self.

Enough generalities, let’s get down to the rat killing.  Yes, you may repost that metaphor with the rabbit ears, 8 track players, and other aspects of generations gone by.  See who “likes” and reposts because they know where this quote became famous.

I will not lower the bar when it comes to social media.

What does that mean?

Some folks say that you shouldn’t talk politics on Facebook.  Others seem to put religion off limits. These are not new ideas.  Guidelines for military officers at social events since Caesar crossed the Rubicon have always been never talk about religion, politics, or women.  What’s that leave?  Sports and work—isn’t that what we talk about all the time anyway.

People were all over the Chick-Fil-A stir.  How did this become a life or death cause?  Can we not have different opinions without having to protest or rally to someone’s support?  When did we lose our civility?

Can we not disagree without having to hate each other?  Since when did American politics have to draw battle lines?  Since when can we no longer laugh at ourselves?  Have we lost the taste for the common good?

A couple years ago, someone had posted a comment about the founding fathers and the foundation of our nation.  There were many posts, but they all had one thing in common—they were shallow, sophomoric thoughts.  Despite its potential, Facebook is currently not the place to delve into in-depth discussion.  The discussions usually follow a simplified format of “you’re right and we are all going to hell if people don’t agree,” or “you are an idiot and had better repent of this line of thinking.”

I enjoy a good discussion about the wonderful creation of our founding fathers and the challenges of maintaining liberty today.  In fact, I have written substantially on the subject, but I broke one of the cardinal rules of social networking:  I posted a link to something I wrote.  I was chastised by the thread’s originator.  I wasn’t playing by the rules of shallow and offensive phrases.  I removed my post.

One day a vulgar post appeared on my feed about how worthless some people in our community were because of something they had done or failed to do.  Many jumped on the condemnation bandwagon.  I made a post asking all to consider addressing the problem without hatefully condemning the people in question.  I was asked to take my insensitive thoughts elsewhere.  I did.  If the option is to proceed only to the exclusion of civility, I will go elsewhere.

But I won’t lower the bar.

I won’t aim for less.

I won’t let capricious rules that diminish us restrict what I will do within the confines of social networks.  

What does that mean?

If it’s funny, then it’s just funny.  We need to laugh.  Political figures can be respected and a source of comic relief at the same time.  I sometimes wonder if God doesn’t get a daily laugh at our expense saying, “So you want to give self government a try do you?”

If you believe in something, then don’t hold it back, but put forth your position without acrimony or viciousness.  If you disagree with someone, reply with honesty and civility.  A put down never elevates its author.

It seems strange to me that in a land of liberty, the best we can come up with is:  Don’t talk politics at the family reunion.  In this Grand Experiment, we are asked to stay away from religious topics when the very first amendment in our Bill of Rights guarantees religious freedom.  Do we have so much freedom that we can’t stand it and must muzzle our thoughts?  In a country that values the freedom of assembly and the press, the best we can come up with for social media is don’t talk about anything important.

Those all seem like safe approaches, but perhaps they are disingenuous.  Can’t we talk about real things?  Can’t we discuss important matters with civility?

I turn off most of the talking heads shows on television these days.  Every point must be countered not only in counter-point but in retribution, name-calling, and increased volume as well. 

I miss the days when two or more people could disagree and everyone thought they could learn something from each other in the process.  I think we asked more questions and listened more then.  At least that’s the way I want to remember it.  Perhaps that’s just the halo effect putting a little luster on my memories, but whether it was fact or not, it could be going forward.

Our social media could be the best learning venue going if we could just learn to treat each other with respect, listen, and realize that we may not have all the answers.

We won’t get any smarter by anchoring ourselves to defensive positions ready to repel all who disagree.  We won’t enjoy the fullness of life unless we can learn to laugh and be laughed at.  We won’t be people of courage if we keep to ourselves in a social venue.

What’s that mean in real actions?

For me, I will post something if it is truly funny.  All politicians are fair game because we put them where they are.  When we laugh at them, we laugh at ourselves.

I may have a position that is different than yours.  It’s my position. If I post it, feel free to disagree with me.  I might learn something.  I might respond.  We might both learn something if we proceed with integrity and mutual respect.

I will talk politics on a social network.  I wouldn’t be a very good citizen of the republic if I shied away from the most ubiquitous sounding board in all of history. 

I will talk religion on a social network, not to proselytize, but to inspire and challenge and hopefully to engage in meaningful discussion about matters of importance.

John Milton once wrote, “Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

Can we not have good, open, vibrant discussion without having to hate each other?

I for one am not ready to lower the bar and just stop talking about some things. The social media available is a wonderful way to engage the greater community, but the value of this engagement is directly proportional to the integrity, civility, and mutual respect that we invest in it.

Rest in peace

Duty followed by rest,

Steady in uncertain times.

Unselfish in a self-centered world,

Steadfast amidst turbulent times.

Departed but not forgotten,

At least by those who understand the words:

The last full measure of devotion!

Well done, good and faithful servants!

National Cemetery

Beaufort, South Carolina

A glimpse at PoMo Poverty

Here's a glimpse of the first part of PoMo Poverty:  Finding Abundance in the 21st Century.

PoMo Poverty

Finding Abundance in the 21^st Century

Tom Spence

Copyright

©2011 by Tom Spence.

All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the author.

The contents of this book are unrestricted and may be put to use immediately and repeatedly!

PoMo Poverty

Poverty or Paradox	……5
Money	…..13
Language	..…27
Time	…..31
Stuff	…..39
Character	…..45
Commitment	…..57
Fear	…..61
Purpose	…..65
24/7	…..75
Efficacy	…..83
What can we do?	….101
Towards Abundance	….110
And Back to Paradox	...113
The Abundance of Inclusion	….123
Epilogue	….143

God told them, I've never quit loving you and never will.
Expect love, love, and more love!

Jeremiah 31:3 (The Message)

Poverty or Paradox

In early 1981, I was hiking into the Philippine jungle with my platoon behind me. I was the third platoon back on the company march along a very narrow trail in which it was difficult for two Marines to walk abreast of each other. We were in the boonies for sure.

After a couple hours of walking, the trail opened up.

To our left was a fair sized house made out of C-Ration cardboard. What ingenuity! What genius. What poverty. A family was living in a house made out of discarded cardboard.

Don’t get me wrong, C-Rat cardboard is the best in the world for waterproofing. It has a fair insulation value. It is sturdy.

How do I know this?

In many a cold and wet moment, a piece of C-Rat cardboard was just the insulation from the cold or wet ground that I needed to get a couple hours of sleep.

These people had built an entire house out of the stuff, to include what seemed to be a garage, at least there was a garage door sized opening that faced the trail which brought us past this unique site. But there was no car in the garage, not even a Jeepney or a bicycle.

Instead, there was a beautiful pool table around which were gathered some young men who seemed to be enjoying themselves and nearly oblivious to our passing.

What a contrast. What a dichotomy. What a paradox. We were witness to luxury within poverty.

Or was this poverty?

The shelter was adequate.

The people were happy.

The jungle was full of food.

It obviously took some sort of income to purchase the table and transport it to this site.

Was this poverty?

What is poverty?

This is 2011, so instead of thumbing through my Webster’s, I found a most comprehensive definition at Dictionary.com. It follows.

pov·er·ty  [pov-er-tee]

noun

1. the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor. Synonyms: privation, neediness, destitution, indigence, pauperism, penury. Antonyms: riches, wealth, plenty.

2. deficiency of necessary or desirable ingredients, qualities, etc.: poverty of the soil. Synonyms: thinness, poorness, insufficiency.

3. scantiness; insufficiency: Their efforts to stamp out disease were hampered by a poverty of medical supplies. Synonyms: meagerness, inadequacy, sparseness, shortage, paucity, dearth. Antonyms: abundance, surfeit, sufficiency, bounty, glut.

The United States Census Bureau, using a plethora of information and formulae, has defined 48 thresholds of poverty. The income range for poverty in America is roughly between eleven thousand dollars for an individual to forty-two thousand dollars for a very large family.

Wikipedia contributed the following to the definition.

Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money. Absolute poverty or destitution refers to being unable to afford basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter. About 1.7 billion people are estimated to live in absolute poverty today. Relative poverty refers to lacking a usual or socially acceptable level of resources or income as compared with others within a society or country.

And even in 2011, we cannot exclude Mr. Webster entirely in defining poverty.

1 a: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions b: renunciation as a member of a religious order of the right as an individual to own property

2: scarcity, dearth

3 a: debility due to malnutrition b: lack of fertility

A somewhat synthesized definition proved by the search engine Google is:

pov•er•ty

noun /ˈpävərtē/ 

1. The state of being extremely poor

- thousands of families are living in abject poverty

2. The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount

- the poverty of her imagination

3. The renunciation of the right to individual ownership of property as part of a religious vow

So did this Philippine family live in poverty?

By income standards to which I have grown accustomed, yes. They were outright poor.

By possessing the means to meet their needs, no. These people had an abundance.

This was a paradox of poverty. There was abundance without wealth as we define wealth these days. There appeared to be happiness and contentment in this snapshot view.

There was no further explanation or exploration of this circumstance. When you are a Marine on the move, you make your observations quickly. Assessments may come over time.

We don’t see homeless people in the part of the United States where I live. Somehow, some way, they find shelter.

We don’t see C-Rat houses here either.

Perhaps homelessness is big in the big cities, but most of the population of this nation does not live in the big cities. They live near cities so as to have access to what metropolitan areas have to offer, but for the most part, they live semi-rural areas. Even many who once lived in the suburbs have sought something a little more rural.

Homelessness is not an issue in most of America, but surely poverty is.

We live in what many consider a post modern world. So what does post modern poverty look like?

That will be the first part of this essay.

The second will be to answer the question, “What can we do about it?”

Want more?  Follow this link to PoMo Poverty:  Finding Abundance in the 21st Century in hard copy or buy it in the Kindle Store.  Amazon Prime members may read this book for free.

A Christian's Prayer for America

My prayer is for a strong America.

One that is both safe and free.

My prayer is for a land where God

Is truly first in all we see.

My prayer is that the bitter acrimony

And the vitriolic overtones

Depart from every heart among us

And let the fruit of the Spirit be known.

But hate and divisiveness are the order of the day

And they have left no stone unturned

And hope of a revived nation

May not come before Christ’s return.

Oh how I would love to see the judgment

Of all the nations, but most of all

To hear the words “Well done” and “faithful”

When these United States of America are called.

Though I long to see our nation

Strong, and healthy, and on top once again.

It seems that we are headed elsewhere,

Thriving on hate and loving sin.

But God did not promise to preserve this nation,

Though that request I make anew each day.

He has commanded that we love and serve him

And follow Jesus along his way.

Sadly those two paths may be parting

The one of country and the one of God.

‘Tis a sad choice we leave our children

When God and country separately trod.

But to the Christians of this nation

Our call is clarion, crystal, clear.

To be God’s light amidst the darkness

In a land that once we held so dear.

But truly we are far from lucid

To think to be American is to be godly and just

When our words and actions question the motto

That we claim for our own:  “In God we trust.”

But as for me and for my household

We take light over darkness, and choose it again this very day.

And do pray in earnest that our nation will witness

The call to life that says Jesus the only way.

We knew this was coming yet tried to ignore it

For this very land some have shed their own blood.

But when faced with a choice so distinct and so real,

We are loyal to our homeland, to the Kingdom of God.

 When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people,  if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

 2 Chronicles 7:13-14

On teacher professionalism

I take exception to Janet Barresi’s latest remarks, that parent and community involvement produces better performing educators.  Community and parental involvement is truly needed.

What is not needed is action based upon faulty assumptions—that the professionalism of the educator is dependent upon the parents or the community.  Professionals are professionals because that is who they are.  Having been married to a professional educator for over a quarter of a century, I can attest that her professionalism, dedication, and desire to equip every student for success come from within and not from the external circumstances.  She has taught in public and private schools in many states.  Sometimes parental and community support was beyond expectations.  Other times it was pitiful.  Neither condition changed her professionalism.

One thing every leader must learn—and the sooner the better—is that if the premise is false, everything put forth thereafter may be proven true—even the most absurd concepts.  It is time to verify some assumptions.  The first of which is that the professionalism of our teachers is based upon any external set of circumstances:  Not true.

Our superintendent is walking the path of the ancient Pharisees.  They placed burdens on the backs of people when they were supposed to be shepherding them.  It is time for self assessment at the top before capriciously implementing any widespread changes.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.     

Matthew Henry

The 99 and the 1

Sometimes I don’t catch on right away.

Take this 1 and 99  stuff.

Or is it 1% and 99%?

In any case there was a lot of hoopla about it.  Maybe there still is.  I am sometimes left out of the hoopla loop.

 I think it was about rich people having bunches and bunches of money.  I think that’s why they call them rich people.  In the present circumstance, they seem to have so much that they are called super rich.  I guess if I had bunches and bunches of money that would be super so I’m OK with the term super rich or super rich.

I suppose some of this is about senior corporate officers getting paid more than they are worth and getting away with some unscrupulous practices.  It seems we only get upset about that when we are not getting our cut (let’s be civil and call it a dividend) of these money for nothing returns.  My apologies to Dire Straits for the metaphoric association. 

On second thought, no apology is needed.

It is really hard for me to comprehend why people would camp out on Wall Street or in the business district of any city over how much money someone or some company is making.

Really?

Are we so blind as not to see that in comparison to most of the world,  we are all super rich?  Those people on welfare and food stamps are even rich compared to most of the world.

I don’t live for money, but if I don’t have enough for what I need, then I cut expenses or make more.  I just can’t see myself camping out in front of someone’s office because they make more than I do.

I could be wrong.

Not about our skewed perspectives on wealth and selfishness and absurd protests—I could be wrong about the hubbub over the 99 and the 1.

This must be about the less than 1% of the adult population that chooses to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States.

Yes, that must be it.

Not even 1 out of 100 serves our country in this way.  The 99 are free to pursue happiness and wealth, fame and fortune, love and longevity in the safety of the U.S. of America.

The problem is that this 1% doesn’t occupy Wall Street or Main Street or Bourbon Street.  Many occupy a fighting hole in some gawd-awful places or live afloat in spaces which would grant an inmate early release from prison for reasons of overcrowding.

Why?

Because when they volunteered to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, they set aside some personal rights and comforts.  Why are they where they are?

That’s where they were sent.

They followed orders.

They did not complain.

Yes, that must be what all the hoopla and hubbub are about in this 1 and 99 business. 

It would surely be discouraging to a young Marine scraping the sand off of his cold MRE to think that back home people were sitting on their lazy butts complaining about how much money somebody else made and how that wasn’t fair and how somebody should do something about it and how bad they have it in the greatest nation the world has ever known.

But sometimes, I am just out of the loop.

Perhaps if I would spend less time enjoying the blessings of liberty and more time nitpicking what’s going on with everyone else, then I would be in the know.

Good luck with that.

I think that all those who are camped out and complaining are majoring in the minors and missing the big picture altogether.

That big picture says that you are blessed beyond a measure that most of the world has ever experienced.

Count your blessings.

Quit pouting.

Get to work.

Or, better yet, get down to an Armed Forces Recruiting Center, and say, “Sign me up.  I want to be the 1 and not the 99.”

Walgreens to snub Vets in 2012

The national pharmacy and general merchandise chain Walgreens is giving veterans and their families the middle finger instead of a salute come 2012.

If you are on Tricare you will have to pay the full amount for your prescription and then complete paperwork to be reimbursed by your insurance if you get your prescription filled at Walgreens.

Really?

Yes.

Why snub the Vets?

It’s all about money.

This is one of the hidden costs of going to war and pretending we are not at war.  We don’t ration.  We don’t retool industry to win wars.  We try to make them invisible to the general public.

Those who have loved ones in combat zones feel the impact of the war.

Those who lose loved ones feel the impact of the war.

Businesses, well it is business as usual.  That means it is all about the bottom line.

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t think we need a law to compel Walgreens to respect those who provided them safe haven to pursue profit.

I don’t like laws that make us do things we should do out of honor or respect.

No laws, please.

But I won’t be shopping at Walgreens.

I will speak their language—the language of currency.

I once sent all my photo work to Walgreens.  That’s over.

They occasionally have some vitamins on sale.  You know, the buy one get one free or buy one get one half-off.  They still make plenty of profit even during the sales.

No more vitamins from Walgreens.

I usually drop a couple hundred bucks a year on cold and flu medicines, ankle wraps, Band-Aids, and other similar items.  Walmart also carries these.  Come to think of it, so do many small town, mom and pop pharmacies that are struggling to get by.  Perhaps this will work out well for them.

Will my lost revenue mean anything to Walgreen’s bottom line?

Probably not much.

If all the men and women in the armed forces, retirees, and their families decided not to patronize this establishment that would make some difference, but surely Walgreens has already factored this in and will make up the difference by sales to other customers.

If Americans as a whole decided that this was not acceptable, that would wake up the money changers at Walgreen’s headquarters.

The problem is that when the general public does not feel the impact of the nation at war, there is no appreciation for those in uniform.  We clap at the airports when a serviceman gets off an airplane, but will we forgo the convenience of just dropping in for a couple items and continue filling the coffers of Walgreens executives?

We tell the young woman returning from overseas that we appreciate her service, but do we appreciated it enough to send Walgreens a message?

Sadly, most don’t.

That’s the cost of being at war and pretending you are not at war.  You get to keep your comfort zone and don’t have to consider the consequences.

Walgreens can do what they want.  They will just do it without my money.

That which we obtain too easily, we esteem too lightly.   

Thomas Paine