Old School Views and Values

It is too bad old school views and values are looked down upon by so many in society. The modern era, which has its roots in "the enlightenment" puts heavy emphasis on "progress" (I put both of these terms in quotes because they use different definitions of these terms than I do).

What was "the enlightenment"?
It depends on who you ask. From my understanding, it was an ideological event that was divided along lines of Christian religions. Catholics valued the "old" worldview/perspective while many (if not all) of the non-Catholic denominations wanted a change. The people who wanted change arrogantly called themselves "enlightened" while labeling the Catholics as "archaic." This notion still exists to this day.
These self-labeled enlightened people wanted individuals to have more of a say in defining theology, philosophy, church hierarchy, and how to define what is acceptable, rather than having all of this stuff defined by so-called Catholic experts who were supported by The Vatican. This mentality still exists to this day.
In the end, the biggest change that took place was shifting authority from "The Church" to individuals. This resulted in a change of focus on who is serving whom. The "old archaic" Catholic church insisted on individuals serving God by serving the church (doing what the church says) calling us to obey our local church leaders. The "new enlightened" way was to serve God by doing whatever the individual thought was right. The "enlightened" person had to obey no one on earth but himself. Sound familiar?

What is "progress"?
"The enlightenment" hijacked the term progress to measure how well/fast things are getting better. It assumes that the "old way" is bad and something that we want to get away from. It evokes the idea of forward motion - from point A to point B. It also assumes that humans get better as we obtain more knowledge. So one of the outcomes of "the enlightenment" was an obsession with progress. Progress had to be made at all costs (they had to get away from those "old archaic" Catholic ways as fast as possible). People of "the enlightenment" believed that progress could not and should not be stopped. Stopping progress was akin to going back to the old way, which meant that all their hard work would be lost.

Now that hundreds of years have passed since these two groups went their separate ways, we can begin to see the pros and cons and fallout of this division. We don't hear much about this stuff in church anymore, but it now comes out in politics. It rears its head as "conservative" versus "liberal" - conservatives tend to sway the "old way" and liberals tend to swing the "enlightened way." At least the liberals aren't arrogant enough to call themselves "enlightened", although they still call the conservatives "archaic." Just listen to liberal and conservative politicians go at it - the name calling is terrible.

Unless a person is ultra-conservative, they typically agree with a number of views from "the enlightenment." This isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. But what is bad is the gradual degradation of values of those people that choose to not takes sides, and instead "go with the flow." In my opinion, people who choose this path have chosen the path that leads to amoral behavior and selfishness - a path to no where good.

It is better to take a stand. Think about what you believe and why. Challenge your belief system and talk with people who disagree with you. Ask them (don't attack them) to explain why they choose to believe what they believe. Both of you will grow. But do not go around trying to convert everyone to your way of thinking while not being open to change your mind. If you have decided what you believe and are not open to changing your mind (honestly), do not enter into these conversations. If someone asks you what you believe and why, answer them, but don't try and convert them to your view. Keep it brief and to the point. If they disagree, respect it and change the topic. There is nothing worse than two people who steadfastly disagree trying pointlessly to convert the other person. No one wins in these arguments - in fact everyone loses.

As you can guess, I would fall in the "ultra-conservative" group who thinks that many "old ways" are better. When I say "old ways" I'm talking about really old ways, thousands of years old, pre-middle ages old. I do not agree with "progress" being the measurement of what is good. In my opinion, "the enlightenment" was more of a reformation, which was desperately needed at the time because much of the Catholic clergy, especially higher-ups, were badly corrupt.

But here we are, living in a society defined by "the enlightenment" and "progress", and no matter where we go, these ideas and values are lurking below the surface, ready to condemn any nay-sayers like me.

Deep problems with America

America has some serious problems.

I hate to admit it, but America is destined for failure. But should we have expected anything else from a man made institution? Since man is inherently selfish, is it even right for us to expect him to create something everlastingly good? The answer is no. We should expect that everything that man creates will be flawed just like man himself - no matter how good a particular man is, there is always at least a small amount of selfishness in him and everything he does.

This is not to say that there aren't a lot of good people out there, because there is. But I believe that there are considerably far more "good intentioned people" than "good people". What is the difference? Good intentioned people believe they are doing good when in actually they are causing more harm than good. Good people also believe they are doing good, and they really are. This leads us to the question of who determines what is really good. I choose to base my answer on Natural Law, how and why man was created from the beginning. Basically, who is man created to be. Going one step further brings us to the question of how can we possibly know the answer to the how, why, who questions. This is where many Americans are deeply divided. I rely on faith and reason for my answers.

Ultimately, this last question will bring the country down - if we cannot agree on who man is created to be, then we will never agree on how to get there. Every answer to this question has a different goal, and thus different means to get to that goal. Liberals are aiming at a very different end goal than conservatives are. This gulf is too deep and wide to be crossed by man. There can be no reconciliation or compromise to the question of who man is created to be. We did not make ourselves, and we cannot change our own purpose. To compromise would be to reject our belief and live a lie. We would go from being good people to good intentioned people who cause more harm than good, because even though our understanding of reality may have changed, reality itself has not.

I am not overcome by this doom and gloom because I believe that God has destined us for salvation. But God is the only one who can provide this salvation - God alone can save us from ourselves. So I have hope because of what God has done and will do for me. I place my hope in Him, not in America nor its people.

Economic Mess

With everyone giving their opinion on this mess, I thought it would only be appropriate for me to chime in as well.

First, a little disclaimer: I do not know all of the facts of this mess.

Now, on to the fun part (for me)...

The government bail out plan in my opinion is wrong and should not be approved. I hope it gets stalled and dies out. I am sick of the fear tactics used to convince taxpayers that this needs to be done. If it took more than 10 years for us to get into this mess, why does the solution have to be found within 5 days? Why such a rush to fix this thing? It is too complex for a couple weeks of brainstorming to fix. We need a more slow, deliberate, and well thought out plan (more thought out that the current plan is). University professors and economic experts should have some say in the plan. WE SHOULD NOT RUSH INTO A FIX!

Second, I do not like having to pay for others peoples screw ups. The people who are squirming the most, are people who have a serious chunk of money in the financial markets. That would include 401k's, IRA's, Mutual Funds, Stocks, Bonds, etc. Most Americans these days have some kind of retirement fund and/or other money market funds. If the current "crisis" continues, these people stand to loose a significant chunk of their funds. So the common line I hear is, "I don't like that I, as a tax payer, have to bail out wall street, but I guess a couple of grand in extra taxes is better than losing $250,000 in retirement money..."

I do not like that people feel as if they are "held hostage" in this mess. They are forced to choose between losing a little money or a lot of money. What a load of c**p that has been dumped on these people. (I keep referring to "these" or "those" people not including myself in this group because I don't have any money in the money market. I pulled it all out several months ago before the huge wall street crash, and I stand to lose nothing if this mess continues). But I have a news flash for the "average American taxpayer with money market funds", YOU CHOOSE TO PUT YOUR MONEY INTO A FUND WITH RISKS!! It is a gamble you took, well thought out or not, and you must live with the consequences of those risks. The average person could not foresee this (otherwise they would not have invested the money), but ignorance is not excuse in my opinion.

I say let the wave ride out. Let the "bad things" happen. Let the bubble continue to deflate. Too many people got rich in this big mess, and most of their money is in the money market. Let the market decline and stall, and all those people lose. Of course there may be some "innocent people" who lose as well, but that was part the risk they took by putting money in the money markets.

The system will repair itself in time. Let it ride out and fix itself - no government meddling can help, it can only hurt everyone equally. But I don't want equality, I want the wealthy to pay, not everyone equally.

More election candidate musings

A few more thoughts supplemented by the book "The Leadership Challenge", copyright 2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., published by Jossey-Bass.

The top 4 attributes looked for in leaders: (in this order)

1. Honest
2. Forward-looking
3. Inspiring
4. Competent

The order that people look for these attributes in presidential candidates (in my opinion):

1. Inspiring
2. Forward-looking
3. Competent
4. Honest

Honesty: This is by far the attribute looked for most often by people when selecting a leader to follow. "We want our leaders to be honest because their honesty is also a reflection upon our own honesty." "Honesty is tied to values and ethics. We appreciate people who know where they stand on important principles."

The reason Honesty is last in presidential candidates is because honesty is tied to values and ethics, which it seems that the candidates try hard to keep out of the campaign. Currently, it is popular opinion that values and ethics are deeply personal and should not be forced on others. The general population knows there is an ethical division in this country and neither side wants the beliefs of the other side forced upon them, so they get downplayed in the election campaigns. Additionally, honesty is not what most politicians are known for. Many of them (if not all) often promise things to get elected that they do not/cannot follow through with when in office. The general population is somewhat used to the lies and boasting of politicians and we know that not everything they promise will come to pass.

Forward-looking: "[Leaders need] to have a point of view about the future envisioned for [the country], and they need to be able to connect that point of view to the hopes and dreams of their constituents." "Expecting leaders to be forward-looking doesn't mean constituents want their leaders to set out on a solitary vision quest; people want to be engaged in the search for a meaningful future."

It is difficult for each of the candidates to connect their vision of the future for this country when the voters are sharply divided in their hopes and dreams. The best they can do is pick a set of hopes and dreams and hope that a majority of the people buy into them. But will either of the candidates engage the people in helping form this future, or are the candidates set in their vision and unwilling to change and adapt it because of their "party line" or "promises"? Who will be bi-partisan in the end? Both? Neither?

Competent: "[The consituents] must see the leader as having relevant experience and sound judgement." "Leadership competence refers to the leader's track record and the ability to get things done."

It is obvious that this is the area in which McCain is attacking Obama. In the end, they are BOTH competent, but in different ways. Neither has run a country, but both have been in office and have a track record to look at. It seems that "sound judgement" is a reletive term, so both of them and their followers claim that they have sound judgement and the other one does not. I guess it is up to the voter to decide what "sound judgement" is (hopefully we will not rely on the media to define this for us, because the media is incapable of unbiased reporting.)

That's a good chunk of stuff to chew on for a while...

Leadership and the Elections

I am currently taking a class in leadership. It is very interesting and very applicable to the upcoming election in Nov 08 and the candidates. Some thoughts:

One of the books I am reading (The Leadership Challenge, copyright 2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., published by Jossey-Bass) claims that all great leaders engage in 5 practices:

• Model the Way - "To effectively model the behavior they expect of others, leaders must first be clear about guiding principles." They express their values through actions and words (usually in story form). The book also says that "leaders must forge agreement around common principles and common ideals." Perhaps the most poignant sentence is, "Modeling the way is about earning the right and the respect to lead through direct involvement and action. People follow first the person, then the plan." Another part talks about leadership as action, not personality. I disagree and claim that leadership requires both action AND personality.

Some questions I ask myself (and you can ask yourself) about the candidates regarding "Model the Way" are: Have both Obama and McCain clearly expressed their guiding principles? Clearly enough for both supporters AND opposition to understand? (can YOU articulate the principles and ideals of each candidate?) How do they express their values and principles? Have they both forged agreement around common principles and common ideals? Who/What group of people share these principles and ideals? (does everyone?) What direct involvement and action has each candidate taken toward their common principles and ideals? Who do people want to follow (we follow the person first, then the plan)? Plans aside, based only on personality, who would you follow?

• Inspire a Shared Vision - Leaders have visions and dreams about what could be, along with total personal belief in those dreams. Besides having a vision, the leader must effectively communicate that vision to others. "To enlist people in a vision, leaders must know their constituents and speak their language. People must believe that leaders understand their needs and have their interests at heart." Leaders must have enthusiasm for their vision and pass that on to others.

Have both Obama and McCain clearly expressed their vision of the future, their hopes and dreams about this country? Who are their constituents [ALL Americans]? Do both/either of them "speak the language" of the citizens? How effective have they both been in passing on enthusiasm?

• Challenge the Process - "Leaders are pioneers ... but [they] aren't the only creators of new [ideas]. In fact, it's more likely that they're not: innovation comes more from listening than from telling." "Leaders know well that innovation and change involve experimenting and taking risks." "Leaders are learners. They learn from their failures as well as their successes, and they make it possible for others to do the same."

How has both Obama and McCain shown that they are pioneers, risk takers? How well has each candidate listened to what the people were saying and took those ideas and tried to make them reality as senators? How has each candidate shown that they are learners? Have they admitted mistakes and failures and shown how they have learned and changed from them? Do they make it possible for/help others to learn and grow from their failures?

• Enable Others to Act - "Grand dreams don't become significant realities through the actions of a single person. It requires a team effort. It requires solid trust and strong relationships. It requires a deep competence and a cool confidence. It requires group collaboration and individual accountability." "We", is the magic word of leaders, not "I." "Leaders foster collaboration and build trust. This sense of teamwork goes far beyond a few direct reports or close confidants. They engage all those who must make the project work - and in some way, all who must live with the results." "Leaders enable other to act not by hoarding power they have but by giving it away." "Authentic leadership is founded on trust, and the more people trust their leader, and each other, the more they take risks, make changes, and keep movements alive."

Who are the strong relationships of each candidate with? What are the core competencies of each candidate? Do both candidate show cool confidence? Do they express group collaboration and individual accountability? How many times in a speech do they use the word "I" vs. "We?" Has each candidate built trust with people? Which people? Who is on the "team" of each candidate? Does each candidate include EVERYONE in America (because we all have to live the results)? Has either/both Obama McCain shown that they will hoard power, or will they "give it way?"

• Encourage the Heart - "Leaders encourage the heart of their constituents to carry on" when times get tough. "Genuine acts of caring uplift the spirits and draw people forward." "It's part of the leaders job to show appreciation for people's contributions and to create a culture of celebrating values and victories."

Which candidate do you want to follow when times get tough? Will you blame economic or other problems on the winner, or will you let the winner encourage you? How has either/both Obama and McCain shown acts of caring and uplifting of spirits? How has each of them shown appreciation for others? How do they celebrate values and victories?

The book sums up saying that "Leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow." Both Obama and McCain aspire to lead, and they both have followers. But in the end, only one of them can become president. If the winner is not your choice, what will you do? Will you choose to follow, remain neutral, or create dissension?

I do not envy either candidate, because no matter what they say or do, this is a deeply divided country. I believe that we are a country in the midst of a silent civil war, a war being carried out by the votes and money of the citizens. This silent civil war is between conservative and liberal citizens, each of whom want the country to go in VERY different directions. Regardless of who wins, there will be one very upset/angry group who I believe will NOT follow the president no matter what he does. This is disheartening, but reality. We are a split nation with a double personality. In the end, we must all decide what is most important to us, and make our vote.

My most important issue is the respect for life, from conception to natural death. I wish both candidates were fighting for my view, but then some of the population would have no one to represent their beliefs. Sad but true.

Personal and Public Bias

I am biased. You are biased. We all are biased. This is because EVERYONE has beliefs, convictions and opinions.

What does it mean to be biased? IS it the same thing as "having an opinion," or "believing in something?"
From Wikipedia: "Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective. [1] The term biased is used to describe an action, judgment, or other outcome influenced by bias, and it is also used to refer to a person or body of people whose actions or judgments exhibit bias."
From Dictionary.com: 2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

When does bias come into play? It comes into play when someone is supposed to give an objective / unprejudiced opinion/fact about something but doesn't. aka. Bringing personal beliefs, perspectives, or ideologies into the telling of the story. Bias usually comes in the form of speculation about the details and motives behind events or other facts. Any way it comes, it shows favoritism.

Can you tell which people are biased? What is the difference between a talk show host who rips on the democratic party and a television news station that says essentially the same thing? The answer is that the talk show is all about opinions and beliefs and is thus not "biased" because the host is never intending to tell the story from an objective perspective, where as the tv new station is supposed to be objective and unbiased, so they are guilty of delivering biased news and in my opinion they should be stripped of their credibility. But then we would have no (or almost no) tv news stations anymore because the majority of them are biased.

Since it seems to be a fact of life that new is biased, what are we to do about it? Well, we can't close them all down, we can't (or shouldn't) cut news out of our life altogether, we can't get them to change (at least not unless you have a lot of money and power). So it looks like our only option is to live with it. We can figure out what stations and reporters are biased and how. But in the end what good is that? Do we only listen / watch the stations and reporters that share our own personal beliefs and convictions? If so, how do we conpensate for the fact that we will be hearing one side of the story? Do we listen to two different stations that report from different biases in order to get the whole picture?

I speculate that most people listen and watch only the stations and programs that fit their own personal beliefs and convictions. I have observed that most people get angry, spiteful, and defensive when watching news delivered from a bias other than their own. Instead of attacking the source of the bias, they usually attack the subject of the news and anyone who shares that same belief and conviction.

There are a lot of angry, spiteful and defensive people out there. The only way to appease them it to surround them with people of their own opinions (and sometimes that is not even enough - hence angry protestors - they must let EVERYONE know of their opinions, beliefs, and convictions as if they are the only right ones to have - they are right, everyone else is simply wrong and stupid if they do not change their mind).

I suggest listening / watching BBC news sometime. It is refreshing to see unbiased news (they are not perfect either, but they are much better than the American news media).

Out of Control Media

I do not know what is worse: the fact that the media is power hungry and trying (successfully) to run this country, or that people actually buy into the crap that spews forth from the foul media mouth.

a) The media currently has unprecedented power. No previous time in our American history has the media exerted as much control as they now have. If you take an honest look at things, the media is basically choosing the next president. How, you may ask? Well, answer a few short questions and you will come to the answer that lies in plain sight.

How do citizens decide who to vote on? Most people would like to vote a president into office that share their own convictions and beliefs. That seems normal and reasonable.
But how do you know what a candidate believes? Most people ask other people they trust as well as getting information from THE MEDIA.
How does the trusted friend get information about the candidates? THE MEDIA (unless the trusted friend personally knows the candidate or the candidates friends - but then that friend would be biased).
Where does the media get their information? Most of them do research, but some of them rely on the research of OTHER reporters in THE MEDIA.
How does the media decide what information to give the public? Ahhhhh, here is the crux of the problem...

Indeed the media does not give all of the information they find during their research. They give the information that is necessary to make the point they are trying to make. They leave out all (or most) other "non relevant" information. But who decides what information is relevant or not? Yes, THE MEDIA. (aka. the reports themselves, their editors, their executives). The media is so good at spinning, that they can make anyone look good or bad, favorable or unfavorable. If the media doesn't like someone, they can smear the person to try to discredit him/her. If they like someone, they can make the person look like a superhero. (Although too much over the top might cost the media its credibility, so they better say "critical" things occasionally in order to appear unbiased.)

b) People believe most of the stuff that comes out of the media WITHOUT questioning it. It seems that nobody wants to do any research into the media's sources. There are very few people willing to put in the time and work required to "look behind the veil" of the media and see all the information and data to make sure that the media is not being biased.

It is much easier to simply trust that the media has the common good in mind and would not abuse their power and influence people in a biased fashion. who wants to do all that research themselves? Who has the time to do it? Easier to let someone else look into things. There are groups out there that do that, aren't there? Surely they would blow the horn on biased news agencies, right? Yes and No - I wish things were only that simple. In the end, it is easier to just believe the media.

OK, people know that the media is biased. So what? I'll just listen to the stations that share my perspective on things. Then I don't have to listen to people who disagree with me. But then won't I hear only ONE SIDE of the story? Well, let's not talk about that... I don't like those other people and I certainly don't want to hear their opinions (note that my choice stations report "news" and the other stations report "opinions"). So how will you know the whole story? Multiple stations are reporting the same thing, so it must be true and unbiased.

But what if multiple stations (aka the media) is exerting a unified power over the people? Whatever, that can't possibly happen. (can it?)

Financial Market Woes

I cannot describe how sick I am of reading the business section of the paper. It seems that every day, some "financial expert" gives his or her interpretation of the market, and various reasons for explaining how and why it is as bad as it currently is.

The latest chapter is a letter written from a bunch of Chief Risk Officers of some huge financial firms to the Feds. It basically blames this whole nasty situation on unreasonable optimism at the beginning, bad foresight and predicting on how fast things would deteriorate in the middle, and now investor panic at the end. The letter admits that perhaps firms like Bear Sterns, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, are a LITTLE to blame, but then quickly moves on to explain that it is the entire financial market that is to blame for getting us into this, and the investors and general public to blame for panicking when things got rough.

I personally believe that while there IS a little truth in the letter, it is mainly a bunch of finger pointing.

Let me tell you what I think happened (in short form):
A bunch of people got greedy, saw that they could make millions by scamming the everyday guy (and also by scamming other businesses), and so their lust for money and ambition for power blinded them to the fact that in the CLOSED financial system, someone ALWAYS gets hosed when someone else makes a killing. Simply put, each of these people wanted to see a redistribution of money in America - with themselves holding more.

The problem is not lack of foresight or prediction or panic, the problem is that the financial markets are full of greedy bastards who don't care who they step on in their climb to power and riches. There are too many people who are in that market because they heard that they could get rich quick. So without morals or ethics they set forth on their goal, not looking back at the trail of bodies left behind.

It doesn't take a genius to see why we are in this economic mess. Greedy people + no control = bad situation (economy). Did they think the government would just simple print more money and give it to them for free? If not, then when they were getting rich, did they ever think about who was getting poor? Did they not realize how fragile this whole economic system is? You cannot just "get rich" without any consequence! When they went after the average everyday American with a mortgage, they went too far. They didn't care how or where they got their money, even if it was the everyday consumer. And now we all pay. And guess what, the government DID print more money and give it to them for free. What a f-ed up system of bailing out of the financial markets.

When the government did that, they sent a message to everyone: take other peoples money and we'll just make more (thus diluting the value of the dollar and increasing inflation and making everything more expensive so that EVERYONE has to bear the burden of these greedy bastards).

You want to point the finger and blame someone Mr. Chief Risk Officer? Point the finger at yourself and most of your greedy cohorts.

You want to fix our economic problems? Make everyone who got rich off this give the money back! Take away their millions and use it to correct the financial markets. Make the people who got rich off this just as poor as the people who lost their homes due to their greed. I'm sure many of these greedy people have even found ways to avoid paying full taxes on their millions, further aggravating the whole economic situation! That's the solution - punish the greedy people! Make it not worth it to anyone who wants to get rich by crippling our economy.

Nothing in life is for free - especially not riches. It's a matter of who loses and how big do they lose. It is time to turn some of these "winners" into losers.

Pondering parenting and such things

I cannot help as a newly married man to occasionally ponder about parenting. While I am not yet expecting, I do not think it is ever to early to think about such eventualities.

Last night I was having a conversation with my wife about this topic because it dawned on me that having and raising children will show me all of my flaws and weaknesses. In more than one way - I will have to confront my selfishness and laziness, but more so, my children will do whatever I do. I will be teaching them what is acceptable or not by how I act - all the time. How I treat my wife, how I treat guests, how I treat anyone. They will be watching and storing all in their little heads. Then when it comes time for them to act, they will be mini-me's doing all the things that I do - good or bad. I will see my flaws and weaknesses come to life - but taken to the extreme - as children are so great at doing. My behavior will be under the microscope of my children.

So what will they learn? What will I teach them? Will I make an effort to act (or not to act) certain ways, or will I just simply "be myself" and let happen whatever happens? Will I make an effort to change for the sake of the kingdom of God, or have I grown to tolerate my own behavior? The scary thing to me, is that I am sure that I am blind to many of my faults and bad behaviors. I do not doubt that my children will shock me as they imitate their father. I'm sure I will find myself asking my wife, "Do I really do that? Do I really say those things? Am I really like that?", followed by, "Heaven help me! Give me the grace to see my faults and the courage to change my ways!"

Ooooh, I can't wait to have kids... (note the dripping sarcasm). Really, I'm sure there is a grace for raising children and for changing my ways. I'm sure the joy of having children will outweigh the pains of dying to my old selfish ways. (I hope).

This bring me to my other point. What is my vision for raising children? I get closer to that answer every day, but I believe that it have something to do with creating a "domestic church." That is, a place where the Trinity is mirrored in all its glory. A place where like the Pope, I am the head of the family and I am responsible for the spiritual (and physical) well-being of everyone under my care. Like the Pope has the cardinals and bishops, I have help carrying out my duties of caring for my flock. I must make sure that my flock receives the Good News about the kingdom. I must make sure that my flock has the opportunity to encounter Christ. I must be Christ to my family - I must, with my wife (since we are really one), be the image of God to my children - showing them God's love and mercy. But I must also, in the appropriate time, respect their free will. I must teach them the boundaries given to us by God and then let them freely choose to love God of their own volition. As God let me stray for a time so that I could be stronger, I must be able to let go of my parenting instincts of protection and pray that I will see my children in heaven.

I have a lot to work on until that day. So let the games begin! My I run the race as if to win!

Marriage and other things

I recently got married and must say first off that it is a huge blessing! It is also a lot of work!

I was commenting to several people that as a single man I thought I was doing fairly well in my walk with God. I have been blessed to have had intense adult formation over the last 12 years and have finally realized what it means to truly be a "Man of God." I thought that I had 'my house' in fairly good order and that I knew what my strengths and weaknesses were. My formal formation had come to an end a few years ago and I thought I had died to my flesh in a great many ways and was well on my way to holiness. Then I married - and I now realize that my young adult formation was a mere stepping stone, a foundation, for my "real" formation which comes through married life. I have realized that I only had a shadow of what it means to truly love someone. I now know that I know very little and have such a long way to go in learning how to love someone as the Lord loves them. I am a mere infant when it comes to love.

My recent reflections as I have begun my permanent vocation have been along these lines: What is married life for? What is the purpose of marriage? Why have I decided to do this? Am I really embracing these ideas and trying to live them out?

Marriage as a vocation is a path to sanctity. It is meant to bring us closer to God by living out a life that mirrors the triune God. Marriage is where we learn to give over our own desires and pursuits in service of the other for the greater glory of God. It is where we learn to love others and God loves us. It is where we have the opportunity to empty ourselves fully so that we may be filled with Christ and where we learn to be true instruments of the Lord. It is where we become what God has made us to become - images of Himself.

I have chosen this vocation? Yes and No. Yes: In freedom I made a conscious act of the will to enter into this covenant. I said "Yes" to my wife and to God. No: God chose this vocation for me before the world began by making me as He did. I was answering the Lord's call. I was made for this vocation, in order to become the man God wants me to become. The vocation chose me, and I likewise chose it as well.

I am trying to live this great calling. It is overwhelming, especially at first, but I am giving it my full attention and effort. I fully understand that this is a journey and not a destination, and I am as prepared as I can be to keep moving forward, even in the face of difficulty and adversity. I do not know how this will all unfold, but I do know that a great price awaits me in the end.

Awareness and Resolve

I believe that I can do anything I put my mind to. It is all a matter of will. Of course I'm not talking about physically impossible things or other impossible things, I'm talking about anything within the realm of reasonability.

I am a strong believer in "mind over matter". If I really want to do it, then there is a good chance that I can do it. However, my resolve must last from the beginning to the end of the thing I wish to accomplish. That is often where I fail -- I have great inspirations or ideas, and I act on them, but then all too soon find that I really am not interested in following through.

We must all have our reasons for doing what we do, and we should take time to reflect on our reasons/motivations. As Descarte once said, "I think therefore I am," and it must be admitted that we are primarily aware of ourselves first and foremost. It is this awareness that we often fall back on for our motivations.

It is good and noble and true to strive to get beyond our self-awareness to be aware of other people. And the ultimate step is to let the self be forgotten and be totally aware of others. This is what heaven will be - total awareness of God and others with minimal awareness of ourselves.

If we want to experience heaven on earth, all we need to do is be completely aware of others and not of ourselves. Easy to say, not so easy to do, because we must be resolved from beginning to end.

My Will

If I fail to make a will before my death, everything is to go to my wife. :)

JPII TOB and Christopher West

There is no doubt that JPII was a genius in philosophy and theology. The Theology of the Body is a testament to his genius. However, his reasoning tends to be above what most people can handle, mainly because of his advanced education. I, however, contend that JPII wrote in a fairly approachable manner. I don't think that his ideas are so vague or lofty that the ordinary person cannot read them directly.

It is interesting to note that English was not the language used by JPII when he presented the TOB - he used Italian. But what is language? It is a tool to express ideas. JPII did not write the English translation directly, nor that of nearly all the other various translations. So who wrote the English translation? I'm not sure, but does it really matter? As long as the ideas are properly expressed, everything is ok. I contend that the English translation is generally good, but not great. Whoever translated the TOB into English must have had an incredibly large vocabulary that most Americans do not possess. Additionally, they must have possessed an extensive background in theological writing. All of these factors result in a fairly unapproachable English version of TOB - more unapproachable than the original JPII TOB.

Christopher West has become a popular authority on TOB. However, I'm not a fan because of one main point. He interprets the English translation of the TOB. Also, he uses popular U.S. media examples to frame various parts of the English translation of the TOB. First of all, while it can be fun, entertaining, and memorable to use modern media for examples, I believe they fail to convey the full picture. Secondly, he is using the English translation as his source, which I think also leads to problems. I think it is better to teach the language and framework of JPII and let people read TOB for themselves, rather than providing an interpretation. The original will always be better, and the original in the original language is even better yet. I think what we really need is a new English translation from the original language that TOB is written in - perhaps a translation that uses more approachable language. But a translation, not an interpretation.

But in contrast to my personal preferences, it is commendable that someone is making an effort to make TOB understandable, especially for young people who lack the ability to grasp the concepts in raw form. However, it is too easy for adults to take the easy way out and latch onto West’s TOB interpretation. I think that adults should not be so lazy as to be spoon fed by someone else’s interpretation. We have the same problem with scripture, do we not? People often do not read the Bible; instead they read commentaries on the bible, or mediations and reflections on the bible. Are these bad things? In and of themselves, no. But when they are substituted for the Bible, then yes, they are not a good thing. Nothing should replace reading the Bible itself. Of course children cannot grasp the concepts in the Bible, so we make children’s Bibles.

Why should we treat TOB any different? It is not a good thing to completely substitute reading the TOB itself with commentaries on TOB, like West’s. However, until we get a new English translation what can most people do? I think it is acceptable to use tools like West’s to help grasp the concepts, but then I expect adults to go the rest of the way and make an attempt at reading the actual text. Don’t sell yourself short.

Recession, here we come...

It amazes me that "economists" keep trying to say that a recession won't happen. Recently they have been changing their mind and gave the odds of a recession a 1 out of 3 chance of happening. Are these people idiots or something? While I usually am a fan of optimism, I am not in favor of it in the face of realism, or better yet, the facts. Why can't they just own up and call it what it is?

Sub-Prime loans
I am not an economics expert, I have no job training or experience making economic evaluations, but I am not a stupid person and can put 2 and 2 together to see what is going on. It all started with a bunch of greedy lenders thinking they can make a quick easy million dollars by taking advantage of poor people. Unfortunately, some of them made several million dollars -In my opinion, we start an economic correction by taking that money back from these immoral thieves. Unfortunately for us, they were somewhat successful for a few years, and that resulted in other more risk adverse people joining in the game. Didn't anyone ask themselves (or their companies), "How are people going to pay when the interest rates skyrocket?" If they would have asked themselves that question and been honest about the answer, they would have reasoned out that people WON'T be able to pay. Did they just think that people will somehow magically come up with the money? Or that perhaps they'll work an extra job to pay for the doubled or tripled mortgage payment? Did it not occur to them that people were going to default on their loans in MASS numbers? Were these people blind to all this?

Beginning: Give people loans that have low interest rates now, but are higher in 3-5 years. ("You mean I can get a loan for that much money?")
Result 1: Houses sell for MORE money (sometimes WAY MORE money) than they are worth. Sellers are VERY happy and move into bigger and better homes. ("I can make a killing if I sell my house right now!")

Result 1.5: Immediate housing market boom - can't built enough homes fast enough. Everyone moves "up" a housing bracket. ("Wow, I can finally afford my dream home!")

Result 2: These new homes must be furnished - retail market boom. ("With all the money I have, now I can also afford that new HD LCD TV! And the new dining room set, and bedroom set... perhaps even a new car!")
Result 3: Unemployment goes down - Retailers and Construction Companies can't hire enough people to meet demand. Students and lower class people have more job opportunities - some people take second jobs. ("Now I can really afford that new cell phone - and maybe even a car!")
Result 4: Stock and Bond markets soar - it appears as if there is A LOT of money to be had. They are banking off future mortgage rate adjustments and a booming economy.
End result: A booming economy! (we had it for a few years)

Problem: As I stated earlier, the premise of this whole chain of events is faulty.
Result 1: When mortgage rates adjust, people have to stop spending in order to make house payments. Retail market suffers. ("No more eating out for me!")
Result 2: People start defaulting on their loans because they cannot pay. This is usually because they bought a home that was in reality out of their price range. ("Now where can I live?")
Result 3: People cannot sell their other home (The one they moved out of when they thought the market was good and they would get a high price for it.) In fact they can't sell EITHER home! So now they are stuck with 2 mortgages! ("How can I keep from defaulting and ruining my credit?")
Result 4: Housing market slows down (collapses in my opinion). Construction Companies lay-off 75% of work force. These people were hired at a really good wage rate, now they are jobless. Also, Retail sector slows down and they a let a large number of employees go. Unemployment skyrockets. ("I need a second job to pay for this mortgage, but there aren't any jobs to be had!")
Result 5: Banks foreclose on a lot of homes and try to recover their loan amounts. Unfortunately for them, the houses were overpriced when sold, so now they are sitting on overpriced homes in a flooded housing market. In order to recover their money, they artificially keep the cost of houses high. ("I just want to move beck into my old home, but it is too overpriced for me!")
Result 6: The Stock and Bond markets realize that the risk was too high and that they won't make money off this whole sub-prime thing anymore. They flee like rats off a burning ship. Stock market dips (mildly crashes). ("Oh great, now my retirement money is getting hosed too!")
Result 7: Most people reduce their spending in all areas. ("If I can just ride this one out, I'll be OK.")
Result 8: Businesses in most sectors downsize and try to increase efficiency (do more with less - or at least the same with less). They call their debts in and try to stabilize cash flow.
End Result: Economic Recession.

This is not anywhere close to a complete list of all the results of this whole mess-up. This is just the obvious stuff that comes to mind. We only need to open our eyes and look around to see that this is already happening and moving towards getting worse.

I think that the bigger problem is that our economy was/is still in a bubble. We are too inflated and this is a natural economic sequence of events. Our government has tried to "correct" the economic deflation, but have instead made things worse by drawing them out. A quick death leads to a sooner recovery. I think they should let this ride out to its natural end and THEN start rebuilding the economy. (And tax the hell out of the people who made millions in the process of ruining our economy).

I think that overall we as a country need to take a time out from being the Global Police and stop spending money like it is an endless source. We need to deal with some internal problems (like road infrastructure for instance) and get "our ducks in a row" before we can be fighting global wars. Just possibly, if we withdrew our troops from the dozens of countries we now are fighting in, people of other nations would be a little happier for it. I'm all for human justice and defense of the defenseless, but not when it is at the expense of our own well being as a nation. When the body gets sick, it needs rest and recuperation. Our nation has a sick body and needs some R&R right now.

Iraqies - Who cares about them?

I know a family whose son was sent over to Iraq. I know someone else whose brother was shipped off to that land of sand. I know of a wife who lost her husband and father of their child to that hellish place. All of these people want their loved ones back. They all ask the question, "Why are OUR people dying over there?" They are tired of the rote response, "Freedom." "Whose freedom?" they ask.

I have learned that a lot of people dislike our involvement in Iraq. Many (perhaps most) Americans do not want our soldiers dying anymore. They disagree with the war and want our soldiers to come home. But when I ask, "What about the Iraqi people?" the response is usually, "Let them take care of themselves. They'll sort things out eventually. This isn't our war - it's theirs. Why should we stick our hands into someone Else's civil war?"
In the end, it seems that a lot of people think we (our country) should spend our time and money working on our own internal problems and less time and money on fixing other peoples problems. I think there is a good argument in that. However, I also think that it lacks something.

Selfishness - America has mostly become a place where we define freedom as the right to do whatever we want, whenever we want. We have become a country where many people (but not all) put their own personal needs above the needs of others. We have the mentality that we must look out for ourselves because no one else will. We have lost the spirit of charity as a nation. It stems from the belief that we can control our own destiny/lives - a major theme of democracy. But in reality we do not control our lives - and when people come in contact with this reality, much complaining and other unfavorable responses are usually involved. I've seen a lot of people freak out and lose it when they cannot control their lives (and other peoples lives as well sometimes). While we cannot control everything that happens to us, we CAN control how we respond to these circumstances.

Is looking out for our own good higher than looking out for the good of others? I think many Americans would answer, "Yes!" I say, "No!" The Catholic Church says no. We should be mainly concerned with the well being of others, and rely on God to take care of me- not the other way around. Christianity is built on self-sacrifice and charity. "You will know my people by their love for one another." We are instructed to give water, food, and clothing to our enemies. We are to conquer evil with good acts - acts of charity. "What you have done to them, you have done to me," says Jesus. Are we taking care of the poor, the helpless, the oppressed, the hungry? How we treat them is how we treat God. Gods asks for effort, not results. Are we willing to do something to help the less fortunate?
I recently read a Church document about the need for charity - not only within one's family, not only within one's community, not only within one's country, but in this day and age, within the global community. "To those who have been given much, much is expected." America has been given much in the global picture, so we as a country SHOULD be doing what we can to help out other countries who are less fortunate. This does not mean we should be doing what we are doing in Iraq, but in the big picture, we should be doing something to help people like them (the poor oppressed people of Iraq - not necessarily the wealthy or power citizens). I believe that we are obligated to do something for them, and what we are doing is doing something - regardless of how effective it is or isn't. The fact of the matter is that we are putting an effort toward helping them - and God asks for effort, not results. The church defines a martyr as someone who gives up his life for the sake of the Gospel - in others words, dies for someone else because of a deep love for God. I can only hope that the soldiers who have died were Christians who believed that they were preaching the gospel of love and self sacrifice for the sake of the love of God for his people.

I cannot control the fact we have soldiers over in Iraq fighting, dying, and trying to help - but I can control my response to the situation. I hope that the sacrifices made by these soldiers are out of love for the well being of other people - acts of selfless charity. I am proud that we as a country don't choose to sit back and let the world "take care of itself." I am proud that as a nation who has much, we are taking our global responsibility seriously and doing what we can to make this a better world. Sure we have our own problems, but the problems of many other countries are far worse than our problems. We should not by any means ignore our own problems, but we should not ignore other people's problems either. As much as I may disagree with Bush and his administration, I like that they have taken an intentionally active role in the global picture. They seem to take our national obligation to help other countries seriously - whether or not that leads to any specific results. We are called to have effort, not results.

For all of my personal disagreements with Bush and his administration, based on my Catholic perspective, I would have to say that this administration has done okay. They have defended life (in their pro-life voting and elections) and they have made an effort to make this world a better place for the less fortunate. Perhaps it came at the expense of some serious internal failures, but in the big picture, self-sacrifice is sometimes necessary - even as a nation. We are going to for sure have a very different administration after the elections next year, and I can only hope that we don't loose the few good things that have been accomplished by the current administration.

Kings and Queens

Take something good, and twist it into something bad. This is the technique used by evil to corrupt and lead astray. The scary thing is that us humans have been tricked into doing this to each other (although some demented people to this intentionally.)

I recently read an interesting article (http://health.msn.com/dietfitness/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100164969) about the food we eat. While it was not breaking news to me that the food I eat isn't all its cracked up to be, I was taken aback by how dire the situation really is. I was further angered by the fact that I have given into this mentality and system without much thought.

GOOD: We are made in the image of God and so we want to be like him. We want to be treated like Kings and Queens (or perhaps princes and princesses since God is the King) and there is nothing wrong with that. We DO deserve dignity and respect, honor and praise (if we follow The King that is)

TWIST: Since we all (or most of us anyway) have a desire to treated like royalty, we can be convinced that we should be served instead of having to serve. In this day and age we aren't bold enough to think that people should serve us (slavery prevents most of that), but we still want the benefits of servitude - service. It has been often masked as "convenience." (note: there is nothing inherently evil about service or convenience, but thay can be used for bad ends)

We are a society that seems to crave good service and high convenience. This is the link to the article I mentioned above (food in America these days). Like the kings of old, we don't want to have to grow, gather, and prepare our own food. We have more important things to do, like ruling a kingdom or watching American Idol (or whatever the latest TV fad is). We don't want to be bothered with manual labor - some of us have to do that at work which is bad enough, we don't want to have to do it at home as well. Some of us have white collar jobs and God forbid if we ever have to do very much manual labor during our lives. There is a general sentiment in America that we are such an advanced society, that there is no reason we should have to do manual labor.

It has been long known that people crave service and convenience. Marketers and advertisers have been exploiting this attribute ever since they existed. The key in America was to make the royal lifestyle accessible to the average person. With the laws as they are, the only way to make it achievable was to make it cheap enough for the average person to afford. Most people cannot afford to hire a housekeeper, a butler, and a cook. So instead we refined the mass production of goods so that nearly anyone could afford them - like bread, milk, butter, meat processing, and all the other things discussed in the article.

So why do we voluntarily put this bad food into our systems? Because it is easier than doing it the "old-fashioned" way. Who wants to roll out their own dough every day and pick peas from the pod (from the garden out back), spending the entire day cooking and cleaning, when they can run to the store and grab a loaf of bread and can of peas in ten minutes? It's a dangerous combination of time saving and labor saving. We would rather be doing what we want (whether that be lounging around or doing other work) than "stuck" in the kitchen preparing meals. Deep down we want to know that we are more than a cook, a housekeeper, a butler - we want to know that we are in charge of our own time and our own lives; we want to feel as if we are capable of much more than those things. (Part of the problem is that we never have respected and valued those manual labor jobs enough - they are looked down upon - and who wants to be looked down upon?)

So we save time and respect by buying our processed bread (pre-sliced for our convenience) and our canned foods, and we prepare dinner in less than 30 minutes so we can sit back and enjoy an episode of Lost. Ah, life in America is good. Too bad we're slowly killing ourselves with the food we eat. I think living a healthy balanced life is worth turning off the tube and spending a few hours preparing a meal and enjoying it with people who can appreciate the hard work and effort. It's either that or I'll have to find a job that makes enough money to afford a family cook.

More of the pieces of the puzzle

Well, it has been 6 weeks since I have posted anything on my blog, so it's time to blog once again.

In my never ending quest to see the whole tapestry of the mindset of modern day Americans and the problems we face, I had a tiny epiphany today. It all started when I was about to eat lunch. I decided that I would like to eat outside because it is so dang nice out today. Then I was thinking that it would be a great day for a walk, because God knows I needs more exercise. I was thinking about the delicate balance of work or exercise (labor/expending of energy) and food consumption. I had a fleeting thought of how much I ate and the quality of food I ate (or lack thereof) when I was a kid and the cell division process of growth that was burning up energy like it was going out of style. I could eat almost anything and everything just to keep my normal processes going. Now that I am older and cell division has slowed to an adult level, I find that I need to make an attempt at finding a new balance of energy I'm putting in vs. energy I'm expending. After that fleeting moment I thought of how much exercise people got "back in the day" (aka. before 1600 - or in this country, before 1900).

Life was pretty much agricultural and men spent most of their day out in the fields working the land (by the way, I LOVE working with the soil - must be a leftover from creation). Men ate a lot of food, plenty of meat, potatoes and vegetables - 3 meals a day (sometimes 4). But because they were expending so much energy, the needed a lot of food. But what about the old Roman senators? Or the ancient Greeks and their philosophers? Or Kings and nobility of the days of old? Thinking doesn't expend nearly as much energy as labor! How did they maintain their energy balance? Well, some of them didn't - and simply became obese. (For a time obesity meant that a person was well to do and thus worth having as a spouse!) But what about the "average weight" people of the thinking occupations of old? Well, walking was a common form of transportation, as was horse riding which expends more energy than driving a car. Many of them had hobbies like hunting or fishing. Many of them played active games and such. I don't claim to know exactly what these people all did, but since they were normal humans, they must have done SOMETHING to keep their energy in balance. So I went for a walk today.

Anyway, that whole thought process took about 45 seconds and led to my new epiphany. Back in the "the day," due to lack of technology, communication was much slower and much less frequent. The average person (land worker class) didn't have access to world news, or often not even regional news, sometimes not even local news. Obviously people talked at community gatherings and in the local markets, so news did have a way of traveling. But what was rumor and what was real? Or did it really even matter to them? I'll bet they often just simply didn't care unless the news directly affected them (like an army is on the move and the are coming through town and will probably take all the local food for free or minimal compensation type news). But overall there was no Internet for breaking news or nightly news programs summing all the local, regional, and world news of interest. They took what they got and went about their lives. In a certain way, I admire their simplicity and ignorance. They didn't bother themselves with things that didn't have to do with them or things that were out of their control. They trusted that the nobility would take care of the big things that needed taking care of. They might not have always liked or agreed with the course of action of the local magistrate, but they focused on the task at hand - plowing the field. Life was simple and allowed for a certain amount of freedom that we no longer enjoy as individuals.

Look at us now. Knowledge is power and Information is Knowledge. Most Americans have access to major media sources (mass amounts of information), and so we think that we should have power. We stay up on current events so that we can... what? We stay tuned to the OJ car chase because... why? We get mad when Russia threatens to aim missiles at Europe because America is trying to help protect them because... why? To what end? Are we trying to gain information to make better and more informed decisions? Decisions about what? Do we really have any power or authority to do anything about these things that we watch so intently? Really? Do we trust the people we elected to make these decisions? Can we do anything about it before this particular event has passed? If we can't really do anything about it, why not just make a mental note (or actual note) about what it is that we really disagree with and move on without letting ourselves get caught up in the fury of the moment?

There is something we can learn from the people of old - don't get caught up in things that don't lead anywhere useful/helpful. Back in the day, people didn't elect their noble person. But they did learn to live without getting angry at every decision that wasn't agreeable. In fact, they didn't see their role as an evaluating and judging role at all. It was their role to live as best they could on what they were given. Something that is much lacking in today's culture. We often put ourselves in judgement of every decision made by our elected officials (or for everything it sometimes seems), and we declare our personal verdict and sentence people to condemnation (socially) and carry out our sentence - judge, jury, and executioner all in one. Who are we in America that gives us the right or authority to live like this? We are like 1 billion individual judges constantly scrutinizing every local, regional, and global decision, as if we know all the facts and are better at judging the whole of the situations? We act like a country of Kings and Queens all competing for control of the throne. Many people are OK with letting someone else sit on the throne (the seat takes all the blame), so long as we get to dictate what is promulgated from the throne. As long as we get our way, everything is OK. We are a country of arrogant people, all the while thinking we are victims of the government and of life around us. (By the way, not everyone is like this, but I exaggerate to make a point...)

This revelation caused me to rethink how I think. I need to evaluate the world around me less and deal with my own problems more. I am going to watch less media and purposely get out of touch with things out of my control. I'm sure I'll hear news the old fashioned way - hanging out with others, hearing a radio or TV as I take a walk, overhearing conversations at the local market, etc. But if I focus on the things I am responsible for, I won't have a lot of time to focus on things that I have elected other people to be responsible for. When elections come around, I'll pay attention and do research on the candidates and see if I agree with their track record. But until then, I'll trust them to do their job and I'll stick to mine, just like the people of old.

Cho and the death toll

Cho has something in common with me...

I, like most other people in America and abroad, have been following the Virginia Tech story that has been all over the news lately.

First of all, my prayers go out to all of the families who suffered the loss of a child. May the Lord draw you closer to Himself through this tragedy.

Secondly, I am disgusted with the media. They are shameless and seem to not care very much for individual people, they seem to only care about the "all-mighty story." The media loves scandal and has the tendency to seek out and latch onto anything that might show how "bad" society is (or individual people in our society).

That said, Cho himself sent the media packet to NBC and I am personally glad that they have aired it. I think that the American public (and the world) have a right to see and hear the truth that has been revealed by Cho. There are a lot of complaints to NBC for airing the stuff they did, and several people cancelled interviews with NBC because they didn't approve of the airing of the Cho material. While they have the right to feel the way they do, and they reserve the right to cancel their interviews, I think it is selfish for them to "send a statement" to NBC because of their personal disapproval - that is a very selfish and childish thing to do. Do they have a right to deprive the whole nation of this information because it makes them feel bad? I think not. If they don't want to see this stuff, then they can simply turn off their TV or change the channel. No one is "forcing" anybody else to view this stuff - we all have the power to choose not to view it.

I think that NBC has an obligation to presenting the material, YET they are responsible for presenting it in a way that is moral, ethical, and retains the dignity of all involved.

So, what does Cho have in common with me?
We both share the idea that this world is seriously messed up. We both share a personal conviction that we need to take action to do something about it. While I do not agree with Cho's method of presenting his view nor the actions he choose to rectify the situation, we nonetheless both know that something MUST change.

I think that if we all stop the noise and distractions coming into our heads and take a good hard look at our lives and the world around us we will realize that things are messed up. Yet many people go on living as if "that's just the way things are" and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Many people fill their lives with busyness and entertainment so that they don't have to deal with the fact that we are all sinners and change starts with myself. It is easier to give into the wide stream of society than it is to try and step out of it.

Cho saw the problem, but was misled in how he should respond to it. He failed to embrace hope. He failed to see that while we are all sinners, we are created as good beings who are capable of doing good things (if we cooperate with the One that is the source of all Goodness). Just because some people choose to serve themselves over the others does not mean that there is no hope in the bigger picture. Cho was caught in a world that was closing in on himself. He was more trapped every day and saw no other way to break free. Cho's story is a sad story, and all the more so because of the death he dealt senselessly to others. He said that he was doing this for others, that he didn't want it to come to this. As the investigators have confirmed, this was not a spontaneous action. Cho was going down this path for many many years of his life.

Where were the Christians? The *true* Christians who love through actions and not words, who bring the Good News of Hope, who say "yes, this world is messed up, but there is something better waiting for us!"

I say that we have all failed Cho - I failed Cho - and not the other way around. This tragic event should serve as a reminder that we all need to stop pursuing the serving of our own needs and instead turn outwards and care for those around us. I will give credit to the few people in Cho's life who tried to reach out and help him. But the path had already been set and there was little they could do. Cho needed to hear this message much earlier in his life, before he ever set foot on Virginia Tech's campus.

There was a time in my life what I was not Catholic, and I can say from personal experience that if someone actually takes the time to shut out all the noise of this culture, that insistent droning of the capitalistic marketing engine, one begins to see life in America for what it really is - all the good stuff and all the bad stuff - and without Faith, Hope, and Love, there is little to live for. Life in America without hope in Christ is oppressive and burdensome and can easily lead to a Cho.

Yes Cho, there is something wrong in general, you HAVE been slighted and not treated with the dignity you deserve. But let us have hope that it will not always be this way. There is Someone who has a plan for us, a plan for our welfare and not our woe, a plan for a future full of hope.

Prodigal Son

Today I was reflecting on the parable of the prodigal son. I recently read a homily by the papal household preacher (Fr. Cantalemessa) and he had some interesting insights into the parable that I had never thought of before.
Of course, if you have ever read or heard this parable you know that this is a story about the mercy of the Father. While I can see myself as the prodigal son in different areas of my life, I can also see myself as the older brother. The only character that I cannot identify with is the father (probably because I'm single and not responsible for anyone). One of the problems I have always had with the story is the answer given to the older son. In the past I always took the older sons side and cried out "Not Fair!" How could the Father have this attitude about the older son? Sure, all that belongs to the Father is also his, but why reward all those bad behaviors of the younger son by throwing him a party? I often get indignant at the fathers response and think that the older son does indeed get the short stick.
Fr. Cantalemessa says "The older son's mistake is to have thought that staying always at home and sharing everything with the father was not an incredible privilege but a merit; he acts more like a mercenary than a son. (This should put all of us older brothers on guard!) " Fr. Cantalemessa goes on to talk about how we can apply this parable to Jesus himself - Jesus being the first born son of God and the rest of us being the younger brothers of Christ. Jesus was not the bitter and angry older brother who refuses to come into the house, but instead is the loving and caring older brother who throws down his plow and goes out into the world in pursuit of his younger brother and to try bring his younger brother back! When He finds His younger brother, He is able to bring him back to the Father and rejoice with the Father over the lost brother! Jesus is not passive, but He actively pursues us on behalf of the Father because He loves us as much as the Father does.
I took Fr. Cantalamessa's message to heart and have been pondering the question, "In what ways do I 'stay and plow the fields' instead of pursuing my lost brother and bringing him home to the father where we can all rejoice over the returned son?" After only a day of asking this I have found many answers, but most importantly I no longer take sides with the older son in the parable.

Look out, I might bite!