Big things are happening in C3!  Capoeira is starting in less than two weeks, here at Palmer Way.  We still have space for ten sign-ups if you have not joined us.  See our new Capoeira Page for videos, information, a class roster, and more!

Our Good Citizens have been named for January!  Way to go, Hana and Jaime.  You two are Good Citizens every day of every month!  Check out the Citizens Page for more!

We have begun our Social Studies unit on California history and geography!  Check out the California links coming soon, or start here!

The big night out to support our Rock Stars downtown at the Hard Rock Hotel is coming up next month!  Stay tuned to the Rock Stars Page for event information!

Finally, we will be getting started with our study of Romeo and Juliet to prepare for Student Night at the Opera coming up in the beginning of March!  Check out new links coming to the sidebars soon, or get started here!

Mary Guthrie is the Mother of two of my Shockers (Claire and Grace).

She is also a reader of this Blog, and apparently found a form of stimulation in one of my recent posts: from whence our Inspiration, and, a co-worker.

Divine afflatus /1 certainly abounds. Mary’s own story is rather moving – and, pretty great – especially when you see how terrific her daughters are turning out.

This story is not mine, other than for the telling, as it yet, continues to unfold. But, I will participate, as are many of our fellow Shockers. And, so, as you read this, I’ll hope you will feel free to contact Mary, and add a bag.

In any event, here’s the how all of this started…

“Dear Shocker families,

Karen, my co-worker, has a daughter who is a first year fifth grade teacher at a school south of Atlanta. Karen often shares her daughter’s sweet and funny stories about her rookie year teaching experiences. Yesterday, she told me a disturbing story I will share with you.

Many of the children at Tessa’s (Karen’s daughter) school are living at or below the poverty level. A little girl in Tessa’s class told her she had hoped for, but didn’t get, a matched pair of shoes for Christmas. Tessa looked at the girl’s feet and sure enough, she was wearing mismatched shoes. One of them was held together with duct tape! Later in the day, Tessa took a moment to look around the room. While none of the other children were wearing mismatched duct-taped shoes, many were wearing clothes and shoes that were too small and very worn.

As Karen was telling this story, I thought of my daughters’ drawers and closets overflowing with an abundance of clothes and shoes. Last night, they gathered the clothes and shoes (including size 7 never-worn sneakers for the little girl with the mismatched shoes) they have outgrown or don’t wear to give to the children in Tessa’s class. (The girls didn’t grumble when I sent them to their rooms to purge their closets. They even cheerfully folded the clothes and put them in the bag nicely! Wow! Knowing where the clothes and shoes were going seemed to inspire them.)

If your children have outgrown any of their clothes or shoes, the children at Tessa’s school could really use them. Grace, Claire, and I would be happy to pick them up and bring them to Karen who will deliver them to Tessa.

Thank you, Mary Guthrie”

You can reach Mary via email at: Mary Guthrie mkguthrie@comcast.net.

NOTE: I’ll not add her cellular telephone number because we don’t wanting you to text her (especially as she might be driving). To make the best sense of that plea, read: texting and driving to death.

Meanwhile, here’s am update to round-out this tale:

“Hi Brian,

Have you been traveling around Alpharetta picking up donations instead of teaching the Chinese to golf?

My daughter Hanna has a volleyballl tournament in Chattanooga Saturday. I will be back Sunday. Let me know if you have donations for the little Jackson Elementary (Butts Co., GA) students. I can collect on Sunday.

Thanks, Mary”

FYI- The first bags of donations have already been delivered. Tessa (the teacher) is busy distributing to happy kids! LOTS of Shockers are getting bags together, too.”

Go shockers. Who wants the ball?

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

1/ A strong creative impulse, especially as a result of divine inspiration.

Meditations in Romans : 6 :  Good Witnesses?

Rom  1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.

In this first decade of the twenty first century there has been a full frontal attack on the Christian faith by crusading atheists.  Now the interesting thing to note is that they are woefully ignorant of the truths of the Gospel as found in the New Testament and so that is not the main object of their attack.  No, their attack has been against many forms of Christianity, or expressions of Christianity, that have been observed in the church in the past or are being seen around the world today – expressions that are far from that shown in the New Testament.  In the United Kingdom at least, whenever the media portray a representative of the church they are almost always either weak individuals or quirky-belief individuals.  Never or rarely is there a portrayal of Christians as strong, helpful members of society, people who should be given a fair hearing for the reality of their faith.  Now I know that part of the enemy’s tactics is to demean and neutralise Christians, but it does seem to me that so often we have given him plenty of ammunition to play with!

Now I am sure that the church in Rome in Paul’s day wasn’t perfect but even so, they were a church that the world knew about, and about which Paul could feel good.  This letter by Paul isn’t a corrective letter like the first one to the Corinthians.  No, it seems that this is a church with a strong faith and the news of that faith has gone round the world.  Now that is a challenge isn’t it! Yes, put aside all the negatives that come from the media, but I wonder how the world around us views our local expression of ‘church’?  Paul could talk to God in prayer about this church at Rome and speak very positively about it because of what he had heard about them.  He wasn’t embarrassed about them and he didn’t need to make excuses for them.  No, he gave thanks for what he heard about them.

So what might it be (for he doesn’t tell us) that made this church known around the world?  He says it is their ‘faith’, so what does that mean?  Well the first thing to suggest is that it doesn’t just mean their set of beliefs, because that would not get them a good reputation around the world.  No it has to mean that they are living out their lives with a faith dimension to it.  That suggests that they have been taught to live lives that distinguish them from the rest of the world.  They are people who have changed so that they are marked out so that they have been seen for what they are.  So what sort of characteristics make us people who can have a good reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world?  Let’s suggest a few things.

First, we may suggest, they are people of truth, people who are honest and trustworthy, people who are known for their integrity.  Truth is valued highly by the Lord and so this would be a mark of a good church.   Second, we may suggest, they would be people of peace and harmony, free from arguing, criticising, gossiping, judging and speaking badly of others.  In fact, to the contrary, they will be people who look for the best in one another, who speak well of one another, who encourage and build up one another. They would love and accept one another and be there for one another. They would be a caring community. They would be known for looking after the needy – the widows and orphans.  They would be law abiding, good citizens, caring for their community, both Christian and non-Christian.  They would be good workers and not lazy or careless.  They would be wise stewards of whatever wealth the Lord has allowed them to have, meeting the needs of those who did not have.

It is probable that they would be known for the supernatural dimension of their lives.  They are people who claim to hear God and live their lives in accord with what He has said to them. They see things happening as they respond to what they hear from Him.  They pray and things change. They pray for the sick and they are healed.

Now where do we get all these things from? From the New Testament of course, but as we said earlier, it is probable that they are not perfect and not all these things are patently obvious in their church life yet. Perhaps that is why Paul writes in a very practical way in the latter chapters. One of the obvious things, we have to suggest, is that these people do what they do and are known for what they do, because of God.  They are not just nice people, not just good people – they are godly people and the focus is on God.  As a result of their lives God is glorified, just as Jesus said: “let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (Mt 5:16)

If they are a growing church then Solomon’s words will also be true of them: “The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.” (Prov 4:18) – and they are seen!  Where God is Lord, then we will also see the prayer of Jesus being fulfilled: “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (Jn 17:20-23).  The presence of God in these people is seen by the world and they are witnesses to the Lord.  May all these things apply to us, His church today!

It has been months since you wrote your letters to Obama.  My sister librarians and I have been waiting anxiously for a response to those wonderful letters and awesome pictures we took, and I know you have been waiting too.

Well, that time has come!! West Palm Beach Public Library’s KidSpace received the letter we’ve been so anxiously waiting for.  On June 1st, our President, Barack Obama, took the time out of his very busy day to sign a letter and photo for you.

With pleasure, President Obama thanked you “for your recent notes, and for sharing your thoughts” with him.  He also encourages us all to be good citizens and to “work together” to make our world a better place.  Today is a great day because President Obama wrote back, and a day to remember because you voted to write to your President and your vote counted.

If you want to see what your President wrote you, come out to KidSpace and take a look.

Until we meet again,

Remember, your vote counts!

 Good Men and Good Citizens:

Inclusive and Exclusive Signifiers in Plato’s “Apology” And Aristotle’s Politics

In “Apology,” Plato’s Socrates argues that one cannot simultaneously be a good person and a good citizen if the good citizen is expected to follow the will of the state; “the true champion of justice . . . must necessarily confine himself to private life and leave politics alone,” (Tarrant and Tredennick 2003: 32a). When Aristotle is tasked with answering the same question in Politics, through necessity he includes a third object of relevance, the state in which the citizen participates, and concludes that simultaneously being a good person and a good citizen is possible, but by no means effortlessly achieved; in order for one to be capable of both, one must possess citizenship in a good state and have a great deal of virtue and common wisdom. While both philosophers’ positions can be summarized as above, to do so ignores the subtle differences in their conceptualization of the abstract concepts of goodness, citizenship, statehood, and being human. A thorough analysis of these signs reveals that, while Plato’s “Apology” and Aristotle’s Politics may employ the same signifiers, they are not discussing precisely the same signified objects. The most consistent disparity of meaning is the degree to which Plato’s Socrates attempts to be inclusive in his conceptualization of the signs, while Aristotle invariably employs rigid and exclusive definitions that contain meaning into manageable and scientifically employable objects. This difference in their conceptual approaches explains their inconsistency of opinion, for Plato’s Socrates positions himself at the feet of abstractions larger than that of Aristotle’s state, creating his need to be good through the pursuit of justice without regard for his position as a citizen.

Aristotle defines his objects of interest in a very calculated manner by what he considers to be each object’s fully developed state. Humanity is a zoon politikon—a political animal—due to what Aristotle perceives as the inevitable (and therefore natural) creation of a “community . . . that makes a household and a city-state,” and any individual who is without such a community, “not by luck but by nature, is either a poor specimen or else superhuman,” (Reeve 1998: 1253a2-4). A citizen is one “who is eligible to participate in deliberative and judicial office” within the institutional structure of the state in question, and a state’s definitive feature, required for it to possess the title of state, is the inclusion of “a multitude of such people, adequate for life’s self-sufficiency,” (Reeve 1998: 1275b18-20).

Aristotle’s definitions, politically speaking, are rather inclusive, as each are not state-specific and can thus be applied to any regime. Outside of state-centric discussions, however, these classifications are rather exclusive; only those individuals who desire community are human, only those humans who are given the right by their state to participate in the institutional structure possess citizenship, and only those institutions that possess enough members (a relative few of extremely high caliber or proportionately more of lower caliber) to be capable of self-sufficiency are states. While Aristotle acknowledges the inevitable attainment of these statuses by objects with potential, or conversely the inevitable loss of these statuses by objects waning in the capability to meet their end, these objects “are not UNQUALIFIED [sic],”; if ’state’ is to be used in relation to an institutional body that does not yet have the citizenry to be self-sufficient, or if ‘citizen’ is to be used to describe “old people who have been excused from their civic duties, they must be said to be [the signifier in question] of a sort,” (Reeve 1998: 1275a14-15).

While Aristotle sets down clear, exclusionary definitions that, through distinctly ordering what each abstract concept is, implicitly creates their broad antithesis, (i.e. non-citizens,) Plato’s Socrates makes no effort to explicitly define any of the objects in question. Such an observation is in line with his claim that he is only wise because he acknowledges, unlike everyone else, that “[he is] quite conscious of [his] ignorance,” and “that real wisdom is the property of the god” (Tarrant and Tredennick 2003: 21d, 23b). From the start, therefore, the signifiers in question are more inclusive by virtue of the absence of any attempt at description, allowing each individual to interpret the ambiguous concept however they choose. Despite this absence of any deliberate attempt at definition, one can still extrapolate a general meaning from the context in which each term is used.

For starters, one can say that Plato’s Socrates would disagree with Aristotle and argue that humanity is not inherently a political animal, for if it were it would not be capable of “confin[ing itself] to private life and leav[ing] politics alone,” as he claims any “true champion of justice” should do (Tarrant and Tredennick 2003: 32a). Secondly, while he attaches citizenship to a state, the association is looser and could easily include anyone who is capable of free interaction within the city, and not strictly those who are permitted to participate in the state apparatus; citizenship, within this context, could not include slaves, but it could certainly include resident aliens or traveling merchants who, by virtue of their ability to speak and interact with relative freedom, could “settle here, there and everywhere, rousing, persuading, [and] reproving” (Tarrant and Tredennick 2003: 30e-31a). Lastly, Plato’s Socrates at no point suggests that the state is a natural creation or the apex of institutional development, as Aristotle does. Socrates acknowledges that the state exists in relation to other abstractions (namely the gods and the pursuit of truth and justice through philosophy) that he considers to be far more important than both the state and his own life (Tarrant and Tredennick 2003: 29d). Thus far both Aristotle and Plato’s Socrates have set down (to varying degrees) what the concepts of humanity, citizenship, and statehood are, but both philosophers’ explanations have remained descriptive in nature. Central to our discussion is a prescriptive question that remains unaddressed: according to Aristotle and Plato’s Socrates, what makes a person, citizen, or state, good?

Aristotle presents his answer to this question in a definitive and clear manner: “it is impossible for those who do not do noble deeds to act nobly; and no action, whether a man’s or a city-state’s, is noble when separate from virtue and practical wisdom,” (Reeve 1998: 1323b30-33). While all require virtue and practical wisdom, “ruler and ruled should learn different things and not the same ones, and . . . a citizen should know and share in both, (Reeve 1998: 1277a29-31). In other words, a good person, due to her or his need to participate in a community and be a political animal, must have the virtue and common wisdom to be ruled. A good ruler—individuals who rule as well as the state constitution—must also possess virtue and wisdom, albeit different from that of the good person, that assists them in the act of ruling. A good citizen, due to her or his dual nature as subject and participant of the state, must possess both virtues and wisdoms. While Aristotle further refines these positions (adding courage and temperance to the list of necessary attributes, and exploring the ways in which different constitutions can provide predictable stability to the institution and are, therefore, even better than the already good state that knows how to rule) the center of his argument remains fixed. An object is ‘good’ by fulfilling its designed end within the state, or, if the object is the state itself, by fulfilling its designed end within the society: directing action towards a happy communal existence.

Plato’s Socrates, however, continually argues that goodness cannot be formalized into rigid and exclusionary terms and institutions. The state excels at directing public action, but the directing of collective action often happens at the cost of pursuing truth; he observes the authority of the state, both under democratic rule and the Thirty Commissioners, employed to “implicate as many people as possible in [the ruling body's] crimes,” rather than attempting to approach truth and justice (Tarrant and Tredennick 2003: 32b-32d). A person achieves goodness by not participating in institutions that seek to standardize knowledge and rightness, and a citizen achieves goodness by perpetually questioning the presumptions and decisions of the state, even when that means acting against the state’s mandate. And lastly, although the goodness of states is not initially a question that Plato’s Socrates contends with, a state is best (but not necessarily ‘good’) when it understands its limitations of knowing truth, and therefore permits active citizens to rouse, persuade, and reprove currently accepted conditions in order to promote reform that better approaches truth and justice.

The positions propounded in Aristotle’s Politics and Plato’s “Apology” regarding the difference between good people and good citizens have been fully explored through each author’s conceptualization of the semiological signs employed. Aristotle’s definitions, both descriptively and prescriptively, have been extremely exclusionary; they scientifically label and identify who is a person and citizen, but through doing so cut at the edges of the conceptualization and exclude individuals who, even if they aren’t the pinnacle of citizen-ness, are certainly citizen-like. Aristotle’s emphasis upon the state as the primary institution within society makes sense when paired with this observation, as the state is an institutional structure that exists within society but lacks total inclusion of participation and knowledge of justice. Plato’s Socrates, on the other hand, conceptualizes these objects so generally that they lack definitive qualities that one can employ for the purposes of identification and analysis, and through doing so makes the state useless as a mediating force within society. To Plato’s Socrates, wisdom is the property of the gods, and therefore one is only wise when one does not attempt to formalize one’s perception of it and instead should approach understanding through discussion.

Following Aristotle’s exclusionary reasoning, one may think that discussion is what democracy brings to the table, but like all constitutions, democracy is a system that directs action regardless of the actions proximity to what is wise or best. It is the discussion before action within a democracy that attempts to inform the action with truth, and that discourse is therefore the far more important part of the process. Because truth is not the goal of democracy, however, and because democracy is instead a system that implicates the collective in all action (be that action right or wrong), the emphasis within democratic discourse is characterized by the speaker’s skill at persuasion rather than their oration of truth as it exists outside of state power. While Aristotle’s conceptual framework is more convenient, it reveals itself to be incomplete and limited in its employability toward what is ‘good’ when compared to the ambiguous and inclusive opinions of Plato’s Socrates. The liberating inclusiveness of Plato’s “Apology” also remains exceedingly problematic for scientific application, for it is ostensibly a proto post-structuralist position that is incapable of not only positivist attainment of knowledge, but post-positivist approaches to knowledge as well. One has no choice but to rely upon the context of the concept in question, for what is good for the state abstraction may not be good for the abstract community or the individual which simultaneously exists within both. Rather than seeking to find common ground between these two disparate views, perhaps one can best approach understanding of the semiological sign by attempting to conceptualize both signified objects—the exclusive and inclusive—whenever one encounters the signified.

“Hypothetical: “ Suppose you are a taxi driver. One morning you go to work and have coffee with a co-worker. She tells you how she made over $200.00 helping a person she was sure was a drug dealer by driving him around town in her taxi to do what she believed were drug deals.

This co-worker considers herself a responsible, good citizen who is doing nothing wrong in this particular case. She considers this a gray area. She is turning a blind eye toward what this passenger might be doing because she profits by being his driver.

Do you have situations in your life with gray areas and where do you draw the line?

We are animal rights people.  Not those goofy people that go running around spraying people wearing fur with paint, but rather, we believe that if you own an animal it should be integrated into your life.  If you own a dog, it should live in the house so that it can be with its pack – the family.    As a result, we take our dogs everywhere.  In the summer, this can cause a bit of a quandary.  We don’t want to leave them at home, but many places won’t let them in.   So we spend a lot of time in the summer wandering around greenhouses – dogs on leash are always welcome. 

I had to travel by myself the other day to take one of my doggies to the vet.  By necessity, I had to run into Tim Hortons for a few minutes, so I left my poochie in the car with the AIR CONDITIONING ON.  Imagine my surprise when I came back to my vehicle and overhead the discussion from the car sitting next to me.  Fellow dog lovers, they had spotted my pooch and assumed he was trapped in the car with no windows down.  In 90 degree heat with a ton of humidity.  So they were discussing how much time to give me before they smashed my window in. 

Firstly, this is a conversation my husband and I have had on more than one occasion when spotting a dog apparently left out in the heat.  However, for all those activists out there, I would suggest that you CHECK to see if the engine is running before you decide to put out someone’s window.   We have a very quiet running vehicle.  Unless you place your hand on it, you might not hear the engine running.  Otherwise, you will be left with an enraged citizen, a lovely repair bill, and likely, a court date.

On a more personal note, please don’t hesitate to act – responsibly- if you think or even suspect that a dog is in danger!  I once saved a dog from certain death in a parking lot because I bothered to go inside the associated professional offices and announce loudly that there was a dog, in a certain vehicle, with the windows rolled completely up, which looked like XX, in the parking lot and I was going back out to put a rock through the window if the situation wasn’t resolved immediately.  There are studies that show that on an 80-degree day the interior of a vehicle heats up to 102 degrees in 10 minutes. It will reach 120 degrees in 30 minutes.  

One of the staff members leaped up and ran out to the vehicle.  Turned out the business owner had, completely by accident, forgotten the dog in the car when they came into work that morning.  I’ve known this person for 20 years and they are the biggest animal lover I can think of.  They were in tears when they realized what could have happened.  So, get involved.  Ask questions.  Maybe you will save a life one of these days.

The Northerngardener

(Copyright 2008 by the Northerngardener.  Go ahead and link to me, just don’t copy me. )

The economy in ruins, you believed this man was
your salvation.

Why did you not read his book?  There were many clues
to his personality and intent.

Why did you not question his mesmerizing speeches, often
aimed at the youth?

Why did you not question his organization
and indoctrination of the youth? You know their minds
are the most malleable.

You sought information or an article but could not
find it because it was removed.

This candidate surrounded himself with those blaming
the jews, spewing anti semitic remarks.

Anyone that questioned this man suffered personal
attacks and some received death threats.

If you had bothered to check you would have known about the
violent connections.

You wanted change, to finally be proud of your country.

Why did you ignore the warning signs? Why were you 
mesmerized by speeches with promises wihout substance?

Christians, Jews, believers in God, responsible citizens,
Why did you suppport this man? Why did you not read his book?
Why did you not ask questions? Why did you allow anti semitic
speeches?

Why did you think I was referring to Barack Obama and his
associates?

.

.

.

.

.

I just described Nazi Germany.

Twenty years ago I would have been laughed out of the room for suggesting that organisations needed their staff to be ‘good citizens’.  But now this kind of language is commonplace for describing the kind of behaviour expected from employees. In fact, many competency frameworks (the touchstone for most recruitment and development professionals) include ‘citizenship’ as a discrete competency with a detailed set of underlying behavioural indicators. And in reality you only have to look at the dedication of the BA staff who worked over the weekend at Heathrow Terminal 5, some of them voluntarily, to see how citizenship can add value (see post from 31st March).

So what is so important about citizenship? One of the key developments that is influencing organisational life and culture at the moment is the rise of positive psychology.  This movement emphasises the benefits associated with taking a positive psychological approach to work and to life in general. For example, the principles can be applied to how failure is interpreted in order to ensure that it is ultimately a positive experience as opposed to a debilitating one. Good organisational citizens are positive, energetic, engaged, committed and resilient – these are some of the qualities that result from adopting a positive psychological approach.

The importance of citizenship at work has also been influenced by wider societal developments as well. The ‘respect’ agenda which tries to encourage respectful attitudes and good behaviour in the young has now made its way into mainstream language. Businesses, in this sense, are microcosms of society and therefore, the better the citizens the better and more productive the community.

Of course, it’s usually easier to manage behaviour in organisations than it is in society at large. A business is a more discrete entity and there is always more of a shared vision among the workforce based on the purpose of the enterprise. Having said that, just like governments, much depends on the ability of the top team to impart a credible and attractive vision to the members of a business community.

High quality leadership and honest communication are critical for encouraging good citizenship and a leader’s first responsibility is to create the conditions in which the right behaviours can flourish. Their second is to model these behaviours every day – if leaders are seen demonstrating contradictory behaviours – like a politician being caught committing fraud – the whole system is undermined.

So, do you think your business is filled with good citizens? If so what does this look and feel like? If not, what’s preventing this kind of behaviour? And what’s the result? I’d love to hear your experiences.

Folks, there’s a really ez way to reduce traffic congestion in the region. Get an EZ Pass. Having one accomplishes so much with so little, such as –

• Easing traffic congestion
• Reducing pollution (in the form of auto emissions from idled cars)
• Reducing the tax burden by reducing “man hours”

Let me show you just how simple it is –

1. Apply.
2. Select a dollar amount to start your account.
3. Fill out the forms for an automatic funds replenishment (dollar amount of your choice) when your account funds fall below a specific amount.
4. Attach the EZ Pass gizmo to your windshield, as directed, when it arrives.

See, it really is EZ.

And you get brownie points for being a good citizen.

Plus, it’s fun to zip through the fast-moving EZ Pass lane when hundreds (sometimes thousands) of other drivers are stuck in snails-pace traffic, waiting to pay a buck or two for their toll fee.

It’s a no-brainer. Really.

Apply today and do your part, ever so small … and ever so significant. It’s an easy (oh, I mean, ez) way to take responsibility for making a difference in our regional traffic congestion.