HALLOWE'EN:

the evening of October 31. (Dictionary.com)

------------------------

In the need for transparency, let me tell you right up front that I'm not fond of the holiday Hallowe'en. I never have been. I have to be careful when I say that because it's my younger daughter's birthday. But she knows what I mean. The secular celebration of Hallowe'en is something that leaves me cold.

As a religious holiday Hallowe'en begins to make some sense. In Christian practice, it is the night before the Feast of All Saints, when Christians remember those who have died who have contributed to the fabric of Christianity in unusual ways. It isn't about bringing them out of their graves to "spook" the world, although it does give a nod to the biblical theme that on the day of a coming resurrection, the graves will open and those who have died will join with the living faithful in entering a New Jerusalem. And it certainly isn't about masks of Dick Cheney, Elvis, or Dolly Parton. Those are aberrations concocted by commercial enterprises to promote sales.

Rather, it is about Saint Francis, David Pendleton Oakerhater, Martin Luther, Joan of Arc and their colleagues. Remembering them and hearing their stories again helps to instill spiritual energy into a sometimes sleepy Christian Church.

The whole idea of trick or treat escapes me, although my wife and I buy lots of candy and distribute it to little kids who come to our door. We "get" more than a hundred each year, and I'm not about to rain on some little kid's parade. But I wish that the parents would stop feeding this materialistic greed to their children. The whole idea of passing out healthy treats isn't the answer either. Celery and carrot sticks just make stressed-out kids even crankier. I'm a realist, and it is clear that trick or treat is here to stay.

Do I sound negative and nasty? Sorry. Happy Birthday, Allison.

BASSO OSTINATO:

a bass line continually repeated. Dictionary.com

-------------------------------

You don't have to be a musicologist to have appreciation for the basso ostinato, a Latin term for a short, but strong, theme which plays continually throughout either a portion of a piece of music or the entire piece. It is found frequently in fugues. The repetition of this bass line gives substance to the piece, and becomes like a heart beat behind the musical themes. Believe it or not, I learned about basso ostinato five decades ago when a student in college. For some reason it stuck with me, one of those unusual or unexplainable pieces of academic trivia which emerges at unique moments.

I tend to identify basso ostinato more as a metaphor these days, rather than a musical phenomenon. For me, it represents the strong, consistent voice of leadership which gives strength to other voices above it. Those voices may be strong, as well, or they may be scattered, emotional, or divergent. It depends a lot upon the genre of dialogue taking place, much like music depends upon its genre. There may be harmony (see previous posting) or there may be dissonance. It doesn't matter. The basso ostinato is persistent and dependable.

Given application to current legislative activity, basso ostinato can be either a powerful, progressive force leading the process toward a successful completion, or it can be a foot-dragging, negative force which deters forward movement.

To break this metaphor down to specifics, I attribute the presence of basso ostinato to President Obama, and choose to hear his persistent voice as that of one who has a long-term vision which could be diluted by short-term objections which fail to embrace the larger picture. Obviously, others might disagree with me, depending upon their political or economic perspectives. I understand that.

Having experienced decades of dependence upon other criteria for decision-making, I am enthusiastic about the hope and vision represented by the President's continuously repeated voice of reason which speaks of sacrifice in this moment for the purpose of establishing a foundation for the future. The fugue continues above the bass line, some of which speaks with reason and hope as well. Perhaps harmony will bring about a masterpiece.

HARMONY:

a consistent, orderly, or pleasing arrangement of parts; congruity. (Dictionary.com)

----------------------------------------

I've been to concerts of Barber Shop Quartets before, many years ago. There is a combination of music and entertainment which makes the concerts work, and I always begin with an appreciation for the tight harmony practiced by the participants. But I have to say that I can only listen to barber shop quartets for a few minutes. I don't think I've ever stayed for the entire concert. After a short period of time the sound becomes irritating to me. It doesn't diminish my appreciation for the skills of the singers; it just grates on my eardrums.

Perhaps that isn't the best way to begin a posting about harmony, but I think barber shop quartets are a good example of how harmony works. Musical notes, in themselves, carry a degree of integrity. When I hear one member of the quartet practicing, I can see the significance of his or her line. In itself, it has beauty. But it is only when combined with the other three members of the quartet that it gains its intended significance.

Kahlil Gibran, author of my well-worn book, The Prophet, makes a point of this when he speaks of marriage. He cautions about the need to work in concert, but not to forget to be alone.

"Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of
you be alone, Even as the strings of a lute are alone though
they quiver with the same music."

When harmony works, whether in music or in other arenas of life, the strings "quiver with the same music" and it is wonderful.

I have been thinking a lot about this as I watch the way in which the health care debates are taking place in Washington. The only way this vital issue will be resolved is for the Members of Congress to seek harmony. It doesn't mean that there cannot be separate issues which speak to the needs of different constituencies. But if those separate issues are voiced in a desire for harmony in the final product, the nation will benefit.

It seems to me that there is an awful lot of practicing going on which involves only the single voice. It is time to bring them together to produce the harmony we all seek.

Photo credit: Mercury Visuals, Nick Iwanyshyn

WE'RE BACK !!

Earlier today we took a little trip into cyberspace. For several hours it wasn't possible to get to this site. With a little help from Darcie, my instructor at Brown, we are back. Sorry for the inconvenience.

CYNICISM:

an attitude of scornful or jaded negativity of the professed motives of others. (Dictionary.com)

--------------------------------
The growth in popularity of 24/7 radio talk shows and cable TV has brought with it a new communication sin: cynicism. For a long time we have expected sarcasm, biting humor and strong criticism from such sources. But in the past few years, it would seem, there has been a tendency for banter by talk show hosts, their guests, and call-in patrons to morph into what only can be described as cynicism. It is aimed at individuals, institutions, and governments. It is blatant, and it is being rewarded by listenership and viewership which promotes it, quotes it, and tends to forget that this is not the 11:00 news; this is nothing more than entertainment and the use of any method to gain ratings.

Criticism of those in leadership in our country and the institutions from which they function is perfectly acceptable. As a matter of fact, it is welcomed and honored. In many cases it has been known to be effective in changing hearts and minds of leaders. But cynicism is a mind-set which destroys the integrity of a person or institution and challenges people of like mind to dismiss them as being bearers of socialism, communism, naziism, jihad or other such titles (take your pick.) It worms its way into the minds of those who are confused, paranoid, or suffering from other emotional factors.

Cynicism is not an acceptable framework for public commentary. In the definition quoted above the key words are scornful and jaded. Neither are words which are respected in normal interaction between and among people, and they are certainly not respected in the realm of public media. They are tools for those who are weak already, and lead to anger and violence.

The recent surge in the purchase of weapons by the people of the United States is almost directly attributable to the belief on the parts of many that the government of this nation is in the hands of those who would destroy it and replace it with a government in which people's rights and liberties are compromised. (I find that ironic given the action of the last administration, in which people's rights and liberties were trampled in the name of "national security.") This mind-set is created and nourished by the cynicism of those appearing on talk shows, whether on radio or TV.

Cynicism must be acknowledged for what it is, and for what it accomplishes. Diatribes which cruelly attack the personal characteristics of leaders of the country, using inflammatory language and half-truths are, in themselves, weapons. Cynicism cannot (and should not) be removed by legislation. Rather, the public must be encouraged to use good listener skills in distinguishing between news, legitimate commentary, and cynicism.

(My apologies to those who commented on the first draft of this posting. In an attempt to correct a spelling error, I erased the entire posting accidentally.)

PROSELYTIZE:

to induce someone to convert to one's faith. (Dictionary.com.)

------------------------------------------

I have been watching closely the reports of the Vatican having offered "free entrance" to unhappy Anglicans/Episcopalians who want to become Roman Catholics. As I understand it, even Priests and unmarried Bishops of the Anglican/Episcopal Church can be received and function as Priests and Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church. The factor that seems prominent in this offer is that the Roman Catholic Church embraces and affirms the same two issues that have caused the Anglicans/Episcopalians to be unhappy in their own faith community: they are opposed to the ordination of openly homosexual men as Priests and Bishops, and they are opposed to the ordination of Women.

The question in my mind (and that of others who have written about it in the media) is whether this is a legitimate "pastoral" act on the part of the Vatican or whether it is an overt case of proselytizing. The inappropriate inducing (of) someone to convert to one's faith is condemned by all branches of the Christian Church, although it is clear that it takes place constantly. Usually it is more subtle that this media blast, however. When people knock on your door and ask to talk with you about their faith community, it is couched in "reaching out to the unchurched." But the fact is that it is, at the same time, a mission to bring others into the missionaries' own faith.

I am usually one who is ready to give a person or an organization "the benefit of the doubt." But in this case, I have to say that the offer from the Vatican lacks sincerity. The fact that The Archbishop of Canterbury (the titular head of the Anglican Communion) was not notified until the last minute about the approaching announcement, and not included in conversation about the plan, is revealing. He has been an active participant in Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue for years. The snubbing of him in this case seems like a way of avoiding anything that would have scuttled the plan.

With the numbers of ordained Priests diminishing rapidly in the Roman Catholic Church, and with membership in the Church diminishing just as rapidly in Europe, the "shout out" to Anglicans/Episcopalians seems transparent. There are reasons why this move is a good one for some Anglicans/Episcopalians. It will be a welcome transition for some. But if it is an act which is a response to blatant proselytizing, there is a reason to pause and consider the meaning of the act. It signals a diminishing of the respect which the Roman Catholic Church has voiced for Anglicans over the past several decades. That is to be lamented.

Is it proselytizing (known as "sheep stealing" in the Church?) Well, if it looks like a sheep, sounds like a sheep, and smells like a sheep....

USURY:

the lending or practice of lending money at an exorbitant interest. (Dictionary.com)

---------------------------

I expect you are getting the same letters in the mail that I am. They are from credit card companies telling me that they are going to raise the interest rates on balances on the cards to such levels as 24.9% and (in some cases) even higher. That, my good readers, is usury. There are laws about usury, but it seems that they are seldom applied. From my perspective the practice is just barely short of theft.

Usury is a practice which I found identified first in the Bible (see Exodus 22:25-27 and Deuteronomy 23: 20-21.) Jews were forbidden from charging exorbitant interest on loans to other Jews. The word neshekh, for instance, means "a bite" and refers to the painfulness of excessive interest on the debtor. (Wikipedia) I point to this biblical and religious reference because it is clear to me that usury is a moral issue even more than a fiscal one. A person doesn't have to be Jewish, Christian, or a part of any faith community to understand that. It is just plain wrong to bleed people for the purpose of financial gain.

All this is not to say that interest charged on money loaned is inappropriate. To the contrary, a bank or lending institution is in the business of making a profit, just like any other economic enterprise. There is nothing wrong with charging those taking out a loan a fee for the use of the money. The key word in the moral issue is exorbitant. I don't hear folks complaining about paying interest on loans. But they are properly upset about interest rates on those loans that jeopardize their well-being.

I am told that closing out a credit card can be injurious to one's credit rating. Prior to the current flurry of financial games, I could let the credit card lie in my drawer without using it, thus avoiding those excessive rates. But now, I am told, that the lending institutions are charging a fee for inactivity. The whole mess deserves a much closer look. My understanding is that a new law governing lending practices goes into place in January, 2010, which is why the lending institutions are rushing to get "under the wire" with their current practices. Sneaky.

I think it's time to identify this lending season as being usurious and continue to push our federal government to take action against this fiscal and moral injustice. Do I sound angry? I am.

Photo credit: Wikipedia, a woodcut by A. Durer

INTERFACE:

a common boundary or intercommunication between systems, equipment, concepts, or human beings. (Dictionary.com)

-------------------------------------

I chose to follow the word interface because it is a good example of a fairly recently-created word that meant one thing when it was born, but has taken on a new meaning with continued use. There are a lot of these words in our language which we use all the time without thinking about it. Perhaps one of the best examples in common use is that of gay, an old-fashioned word which, as you already know, once meant something like happy, extremely positive, full of joy. But in the last couple of decades of the last century the word became synonymous with homosexual (particularly male homosexual.) Consequently, the word is used carefully in today's communications so as to not mislead the reader.

Similarly, interface is a word from the rapidly-emerging lexicon of the computer age which, when first applied, meant the place where two or more systems converge. It would have been proper to refer to the interface as that place. I can remember being corrected numerous times when I used the term as a verb, as in "The two scientists interfaced to discuss the research." That kind of thing drove linguists crazy.

In today's communication, the word interface is used just as commonly as a noun and a verb. The populace forced the acceptable use of the word. My suspicion is that those who are responsible for the updating of the American English lexicon finally said, "Oh, the heck with it. If they are going to use the word that way, let's just approve it." Maybe it wasn't quite that easy, but I'll bet it wasn't far off.

It makes me wonder what other current words will emerge with a different meaning in the years to come. I am grateful to Paul McFedries, who writes the blog Wordspy.com. His blog is dedicated to the exposure of new words being created as a result of recent activity. He talks about such words as peanut-buttering, which he says is the act of spreading something too thinly over the topic. And then there is de-Scottishify. It is a word meant to identify the activity taking place in our society to remove the reference to Scotland from any article. It comes about as a result of people being furious with Scotland for releasing the terrorist who was responsible for bombing the plane carrying Americans and others over Lockerbie, Scotland a number of years ago. These are two of Paul's more colorful, recent postings. I commend his blog to you.

Do you suppose there will be such new words as blogification, de-obamafy, or roverant? Or maybe popeanglican and palinoscopy. Who knows? But one thing is sure, if such words do come into existence, don't count on their meanings being constant; at any point they may change meanings, depending upon how we use them (or abuse them)

GERIATRIC:

having to do with the elderly

--------------------

Today my wife and I went to the local AAA to take a course about Driving for Mature Drivers. By taking it we get a reduction in our auto insurance. There we sat with a roomful of people our age or older. Some were dramatically older. It was scary, as a matter of fact, to see some of them hobble in with canes, barely able to maneuver their way to a chair. The thought of them driving on I-95 was frightening. But, at the same time, it was a sign to me that just being here signalled that I am part of the geriatric generation. I joke a lot about getting older, but truthfully, I see myself and my wife as younger geriatrics.

We live a fairly lively life, enjoying the ability to do things that people much younger than we are able to do. We are very involved in NCAA basketball and lacrosse. We go to the latest movies, and a variety of concerts. We love to travel, often driving 12 hours a day to get to a destination. We love the ocean, the Vineyard and the Adirondacks. I wear jeans and sweatshirts most days, and have to stop to remember how to tie a tie on those occasions where it is required. Many of our friends are younger, and we feel right at home with them.

But I also spend a good amount of time in doctors' offices, pharmacies, and x-ray facilities. I am happy to be a Medicare patient, and only wish that others who are much younger and less fortunate could have the same medical care that I get. I love when the 30th of the month rolls around and I can wake up knowing that my pension check was deposited at midnight. And the same goes for that day every month when my Social Security check is deposited. I worked hard for many years to get those benefits, and I am thankful that they allow us to live a decent retirement.

I also am realistic about the fact that I am part of the geriatric generation, and that for many my age and older, life is not easy. My wife is the Director of an assisted living facility for persons with memory disorders. I know about Alzheimer's Disease and other dementia disorders. I'm clear that if I live long enough, I well may contract such a condition. I hope that if get to a point where I can't live at home that I can live in a facility like hers, where the staff show compassion, care, humor, and love without restraint. There is a lot of joy there on a daily basis.

In the meantime, I'm going to go on enjoying life as a young geezer.

Enough of this! All because I went to that darn class at AAA.

Photo: Sunset

Nauseous or Nauseated?

Probably some of you have already rolled your eyes. You may even be one of the people I have e-mailed to say that you have used the wrong word in your article. Well, this is early in my career as a blogger, so let me get it out on the table early on so we can all relax.

Too many times I have read a comment like this in a blog, article, letter, e-mail, or some other form of communication:

"I couldn't believe what I saw. It made me nauseous."

What the person has just said is, "It made me become a person who made others sick to their stomach." I don't think that's what they meant to say. But that's what nauseous means.

What they meant to say was "It made me nauseated." That means that what the person saw made them sick to their own stomach. "It made me barf!" It's an easy mistake to make when you are trying to convey something using language which is common to your culture.

Julie Roads, who writes the blog Writing Roads, helped me understand the dilemma that faces writers. Do you use the incorrect term, recognizing the error, but wanting to write in the language familiar to the reader? Or do you use the grammatically correct language which sounds stilted and awkward to the reader? The object, after all, is to create a piece which the potential reader will read, and will not skip over because it's awkward. It's a real choice.

As I have said in my profile (sidebar to the right) I am pre-conditioned by my background to language usage, grammar and spelling . It is ingrained in me and I can't help it. But I can make the choice to employ the best usage possible for myself, and try not to be judgmental or obnoxious when others choose to go in a different direction. It's a more appropriate thing to do rather than becoming what some call a word Nazi.

But no matter how hard I try, my guess is that I won't succeed.

Image credit: Megan Simpson

Let's Get Political (5) ...the last of the series

-----------------------------------------


BI-PARTISAN: the fantasy that Congress can create legislation with support from both of the major parties. (Again, my own definition)


Idealism is required of those who aspire to public service. Without idealism the function of those sitting in various houses of legislature is simply to embrace the status quo, vote on the bills presented, and go home. Idealism gives those in public service a reason for putting themselves through the unbelievably difficult and humiliating process of running for office and serving. As a student of politics, I have to say that I know no one who has been a colleague in that enterprise who has not aspired to change the world...or at least that tiny portion of it represented by a district. There is always a twinge of reality which laces itself through the idealistic plans, but when a politician (I use that word in a positive way) espouses idealistic programs or plans, it is with some sense of self-preservation. Why else would you run?

In the current administration there was, from the beginning, a dream of working in a non-partisan manner. That is to say, it was the dream of overcoming existing practices of nasty name-calling, dirty tricks, media sabotage, and other schemes designed to undermine "the enemy." In a spirit of neo-democracy, Republicans and Democrats would work hand-in-hand to produce legislation which would change the nation forever. I was one of those who believed it to be possible, and who voted in a way that would bring it about. If ever there was someone stepping into the presidency who could accomplish non-partisanship, it was Barack Obama.

I haven't lost my idealism totally, but the reality thing has burst forth with unbelievable energy. I would never have expected it to be this fierce. The vitriolic pronouncements are ear-singeing. Underhanded tricks to destroy the "other side of the aisle" have been cruel, emerging from both sides of the ideological divide. I am one of those who believes that the disrespect for our President and a calculated plan to destroy his programs has been tinged with racism. At the same time, it is clear that Republicans have been dismissed from serious participation in building good legislation. Even good children at play can turn vicious, and that includes adult children.

President Obama is so intent on creating a new kind of political interaction between the two major parties that I can't believe he won't make headway in this idealistic plan for bi-partisan legislation. But I don't see it happening right away. Too bad. There are serious issues needing our attention at this time which would benefit immensely from support from both major parties.

This word, bi-partisan, is something to which we should aspire, and which should be within our grasp.

I like being an idealist. I choose not to give up on it.

Let's Get Political (4)

INDEPENDENTS: those in the political realm who choose to function apart from established political parties (my own definition)
-------------------------------

The title of this posting could well be WHY INDEPENDENTS ARE INEFFECTIVE. But if I chose that title, I would be doing an injustice to some hardy, focused individuals who have succeeded in being elected and functioning effectively without party labels. They are few in number. It's a tough road, and an expensive one. It is also an admirable road taken, based upon ideological beliefs that many espouse but seldom practice.

• To win an election in today's national political scene is a humongously (my own word) expensive proposition. A House member can expect to spend millions of dollars on an election or re-election campaign...EVERY TWO YEARS! It means that a Member of Congress is in the midst of fund-raising at all times. Numerous Members have told me that they see themselves beginning their re-election fund-raising before they are sworn in for the upcoming term. Without the financial and organizational support of a political party, it is next to impossible to raise the seemingly-necessary funds to compete.
• To be successful in pushing legislation through the process requires alliances. It is not so simple as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington led us to believe. There are no effective individuals in Congress without the relationship that comes from being a part of a political party's caucus where details of a bill are hammered out, processes are defined to gain support for the bill, and research is done to give the bill appropriate wording and fiscal data that can be supported by others. Bills are not successful or do not fail on the floor of Congress. They gain strength (or lose it) in caucuses and in committee. Floor votes for the most part are symbolic.

Consequently, an Independent must seek out membership in a caucus of one political party and find acceptance there. Senator Lieberman, who lost the support of his Democratic Party in Connecticut, was elected as an Independent but chose to caucus with the Democrats, for instance. In reality, he is "independent" only in the sense that he was not elected on a Democratic party line. (His dalliance with Republicans in the 2008 election proved to be a source of stress in that caucus, limiting his effectiveness.)

While independence may be a desirable trait in the mind of the populace, freeing an individual from the perceived blights of political parties, it is a difficult place in which to find one's self as important issues face a nation. Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, a Republican with progressive instincts, has found herself in a powerful position recently as the current administration sought the label of "bi-partisan" for its Health Care Reform initiative. Her strong constituency support and the respect in which she is held have allowed her to act in an independent manner, joining Democrats in her support for the Senate Finance Committee's bill. But her membership in the Republican caucus is a significant asset, and allows her the collegial relationship necessary to forge the waves of legislation.

Ross Perot chose to run for the presidency as an Independent and achieved admirable success in making a case for his populist beliefs. But without his private wealth, national and international economic power, and the support of populists throughout the country, he would never have made it past Texas. Instead, using his wealth to purchase advertising and to establish a strong national organization, his bid for the highest office had legs. But even in the end he could not overcome the power of the two established parties.

Unless (or until) a third major party emerges in the US, independent candidates will struggle to find their way into national government. Those few who make their way there will discover the need to seek alliances which respect and support them, potentially weakening their ability to be truly independent.

Further, until a reformed Election Financing program is enacted, the costs of running an independent campaign will be prohibitive. For many reasons, such legislation is imperative.

NEXT (AND LAST) POSTING IN THIS SERIES: BI-PARTISANSHIP

Let's Get Political (3)

MODERATE: implies merely the absence of excesses and extremes. (Webster's New World Dictionary)
--------------------------

It will be helpful if you imagine a 12 inch ruler when reading this posting. I am going to undertake the task of trying to describe the elusive position of moderate in today's political realm.

If, according to some, moderates are simply those who can't make up their minds as to whether they are conservative or liberal, then moderate is the 6" point on the ruler. It is a fragile point at which a slip can land the person in one or the other of the neighboring camps.

If, however, you envision the ruler as being divided into three portions, 1-4 being liberal and 9-12 being conservative, it allows you to see the moderate position as being a range between 5 and 8. That depiction lends itself to granting the same variations among moderates as I have already described among liberals and conservatives. I think it is a legitimate depiction of this rapidly-growing phenomenon in US politics known as the "moderate branch."

In theology scholars grapple with a similar concept called "via media." It is a Latin term meaning "the middle way." Some choose to see it as a fragile point at which one is incapable of making up his or her mind about a theological issue. I join others who see "the via media" as a boulevard as opposed to a path. It encompasses a wide swath of thinking, drawing at times from those on either side, and, at times, creating unique positions.

In politics a moderate may be one who is drawn to the social benefits of legislation while, at the same time, wanting to approach the social needs with careful preparation and respect for traditional stances and constitutional requirements. A moderate may well embrace legislation of either side, but only with a sense of integrity for some stipulations from the other.

In the current Health Care Reform debates, moderates have played a huge role in shaping the proposed legislation. Their embrace of details on both sides, as well as unique suggestions from their own hearts and minds has been significant. Some say this signals the birth of a movement to create a third political party in US politics. Perhaps. But the moderates may well play a more significant part by being the temperate members of existing parties.

NEXT POST: INDEPENDENTS

Let's Get Political (2)

LIBERAL: implies tolerance of others' values as well as open-mindedness to ideas that challenge tradition, established institutions, etc.(Webster's New World Dictionary) ------------------------------
Liberals tend to argue among themselves, often to the curiosity and ridicule of persons of a different stripe. It makes sense, however, when one follows the definition stated above. The embrace of dialogue with opponents, often to the point of passionate conflict, is seen as a positive...a way of working out the matter before them. When the late Senator Ted Kennedy died recently, it was amazing to many to hear of his affection for, and friendship with, members of the more conservative ranks of Congress. Sometimes those persons were within his own party. However, it was an icon moment. Senator Kennedy knew that the process of arguing out an issue with someone who differed in perspective was the best way to refine the issue and allow a healthy decision to emerge. It was a good lesson for those of us watching.

Being open to the needs of the powerless in society grows from the respect liberals have for challenging the traditions and institutions within it. Fighting racism, poverty, sexism, ageism, and all the other "isms" is natural to the bent of liberals. When those ills are exposed and seen as detrimental to a portion of society, the passion of liberals has been known to trump the need to respect "the way we've always done it." Moving ahead with speed to correct the ill flies in the face of those who require more time, a slower pace, and a more moderated method in dealing with problems. To a liberal, passion may over-ride caution.

Many times that leads to criticism that liberals are weak in their defense of the U.S. Constitution. Liberals respond that the intent of the framers of the Constitution is more important than haggling over the specific words. That affection for interpretation of intent is not popular among more conservative types.

The liberal embrace of programs to lift the poor from their poverty, and similar issues, is costly, so liberals are accused of being quick to spend money, often by taxing the populace. More government may be required to oversee such programs, so liberals are accused of being too willing to build a large government. It is important to see that these issues grow from a basic, inherent passion among liberals for the nation to be a place where each person, regardless of race, creed, gender, orientation or other characteristics is allowed a chance to flourish.

As with conservatism there is an extreme to being liberal, often referred to as being radical. Most liberals are uncomfortable with this position, as it tends to remove the possibility for dialogue with opponents.

NEXT POST: MODERATE

Let's Get Political

Over the next five days I'd like to take a look at words which are being tossed around in the current political realm to see if their true meanings are being employed. My position is that they are not!
--------------------------

CONSERVATIVE: tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these. (Webster's NW Dictionary)

In today's political scuffles the term conservative is maligned frequently to mean anyone who opposes change. A more accurate position would be that conservatives embrace change slowly, and are resistant to quick decisions embracing dramatic change. In an age in which the current administration was elected on the promise of change the legislative process can be a mine field for conservatives. I find myself thinking about Future Shock, a book by Alvin Toeffler which was popular in the 1960's. He postulated that change has been with us always, and always will be present in the future. However, he says, change in the future (the now to us) will come with greater rapidity, causing us to have to adopt new methods of dealing with change. He cites rapidly-emerging technology as the primary reason for this rapidity of change. His 1960's vision is profound, given the current rate of change in technology and in our society.

Ultra-conservatism has emerged as a popular stance for conservatives who reject change and espouse political positions which denigrate those who embrace change. Their "no" is emotional and, at times, destructive to the process of creating legislation. However, it is inappropriate to classify all conservatives as being ultra-conservative. True conservatives seek decisions which are thought out and researched over time, and which reflect values embraced by our society and our Constitution. Even then, the interpretation of constitutional intent may vary.

Conservatives are not restricted to one party, nor are they restricted to one style of legislative action.Twice in my adult life I have lived in communities that, by registration, were primarily Democratic. It didn't take long, however, to discover that their practices were far more conservative than the Republicans. In the same way, I grew up in the midst of a community that was, by definition, "Rockefeller Republican." They were more progressive than the Democrats. Is it any wonder, then, that the terms being thrown around in the halls of legislation are confusing to many in the "real" world?

TOMORROW: LIBERAL.

Sabbath thought

Sabbath is a word that could be of great importance to many people today. Granted, it comes out of the religious community, and that is an immediate turn-off for some. But they should look deeper.

In this multi-tasking world where inactivity is frowned upon and doing nothing seems like a sign of failure, sabbath could be a welcome concept. It springs from the biblical myth of creation, in which God created the world in six days and then rested on the seventh. "We, also," the story seems to say, "ought to design our lives so that we take time to relax, look upon what we have accomplished, and celebrate our successes."

In the religious community which emerged under the Hebrew people, the concept was adopted as a day of rest at the end of a productive week. The Sabbath became a day given over to worship of God and restraint from the things that occupy us the rest of the week. Depending upon how "orthodox" one is in the practice of Judaism, restrictions upon work, travel, and frivolous activities apply.

In the agricultural community, sabbath became a practice which was prescribed for setting aside portions of the land being farmed to allow the land to rest for a year. The land would reconstitute itself and be more productive as a result of this rest.

In the academic community, sabbath morphed into sabbatical, becoming a period of time in which a professor stands away from the classroom to allow the mind to regenerate and refresh.

I suspect you are getting the point I'm making. In our hectic, information-overloaded society, the mind and body are deluged with activity. It would be good to have a time (on a regular basis) devoted to doing nothing. Sound impossible? I don't think so.

Several years ago I was at our favorite cottage on an Adirondack Lake. My dog and I went out on the deck above the boathouse to read. No, she didn't read. She slept. I sat down and gazed out at the lake, awed by the beauty of it. The next thing I knew it was an hour or more later, and I was still gazing. I didn't sleep. I didn't think. I didn't plan. I did nothing, something I had never experienced before. It was awesome. I couldn't believe the freshness of my thought, the spring in my step, the sense of well-being in my heart. I had experienced sabbath.

A Non-word with a purpose

I'm not a prude. I enjoy an off-color joke now and then; I'm known to utter a four-letter word; I don't blush when others go beyond my level.

However, I have to say that I'm taken aback by the use of profanity in settings where it is, in my mind, inappropriate. There is no list of those places. They become identifiable when you are in the midst of them. You know it's inappropriate, and so do others in the group. The energy in the room changes. The volume of speaking voices changes. Eye contact with the "speaker" diminishes, sometimes out of embarrassment for the speaker.

I tried using profanity as a literary tool when I was writing a novel. My intent was to be as realistic about the language of the era and practice of expression among people of that age and culture as I could. It failed miserably. When I go back and read the book (seldom) I'm embarrassed and properly self-chastised. It feels plastic and unprofessional. I guess I'll never be a writer of graphic novels.

When I was in undergraduate school my basketball coach was a great guy. He was a gentleman and people respected him for that. Frank was kind of "old fashioned" in his coaching and teaching methods, which included respect for his players. I never saw him "chew out" a player in front of the team or in front of a crowd. And I never heard him utter a word of profanity.

That was pretty unusual in the world of athletics. He would cringe when a player swore, but he never chastised them. He taught by example.

However, Frank had a phrase he would utter when he was frustrated: "Soufra mutah zee." We all tried to find out what language he was speaking, but it turned out that it was a nonsense phrase; to the best of our knowledge, it wasn't a real word. At first we laughed whenever he said it, but soon we began mimicking him, and it became part of our own vocabulary.

To this day it is a word/phrase that comes from my mouth fairly easily, without thought. Each time I use it I think of Frank Pollard, who died a number of years ago. His memory is alive in me at times of frustration, turning them into tolerable moments, allowing me to move on. He's still coaching.

Why Australia?

Someone who read my first attempt at a blog yesterday asked me why I chose a photo (which I had taken) of a beach in Australia as a graphic for the blog. That's a good question, and becomes a segue into my second blog about the word penultimate.

When my wife and I stood on the edge of the Great Ocean Road leading from Melbourne to Adelaide in 1990, we were awed by the scene before us. My wife, a beach lover, saw a beautiful beach leading around to a well-photographed landform. It was a beautiful site, one which I have treasured in this photo and in an oil painting I created shortly after returning to the USA.

But my eyes were drawn to the horizon and the realization that the next landform to be found to the south of this place was Antartica, the southern pole of the planet Earth. Here we stood on the penultimate landform before the last. It has become an icon for me whenever I find myself thinking in a penultimate state of mind.

The massiveness of the Earth and its perfection in creation are beyond human comprehension. We can see pictures of the planet taken from the Moon and from outer space, and it gives us some idea of the size and quality of this creation. And some have been able to traverse the oceans and landforms to circumvent the Earth. But the place where the nature of the Earth is beyond comprehension is in the human mind.

The complexities of rotation and circumnavigation, creating seasons, days and every aspect of time are incredible. They are so dependable, allowing the creatures of the Earth (humans as well as others) to plan and execute those tasks necessary for survival. Growth patterns for the fauna of the world are determined by these phenomena. The list of unbelievable themes is endless.

So...why a photo of Australia's Great Ocean Road to Adelaide? Perhaps you can experience just a flavor of the way in which it impacts my thinking and my spirituality. I have no desire to set foot on Antartica. This penultimate experience provides me with enough awe to last a lifetime.

Jed

Why "Penultimate"?

When choosing the name for this blog it was clear to me that I didn't want to come across as the final answer on anything. I have always prided myself on being someone open to suggestion, capable of being wrong, and welcoming of criticism. Even though I bristle when criticized, I am calm enough to realize that criticism is a form of compliment. If a reader takes the time to read my material, think about it seriously, and write back to me with a suggestion or criticism, I have accomplished something big.



Consequently, my offerings are not ultimate in the sense of being the final word. Rather, they are penultimate. I'd like to think that the things I write are within the realm of being accurate and acceptable. But I've never been fond of pieces in which the author claims the answer. Maybe that's why I'm a liberal in politics, religion, and taste.



In any case, I cling to the idea that what I offer will be penultimate. If an appropriate revision, explanation, or substitution comes along, I'll let you know about it in a succeeding blog.



There will be no specific theme to my blogs other than being a piece inspired by the word of the day. I'm interested in politics, literature, sports, religion, sociology, psychology and just about anything else that tweaks the nerves in the brain.



Thanks for pulling up this first blog. I hope you'll come back for subsequent blogs. If you have a comment, please offer it. And, from time to time I will be asking people to submit guest blogs. Who knows? Maybe you.



Jed